Mr. Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson
Telegraph and The Guardian
September 2014

Despite being a European politician, Boris Johnson was born in New York City in 1964. It is noted that he was a rather timid child, a trait probably attributed to his severe deafness for which he later received treatment.  He and his family returned to Britain so that his mother could finish her education at Oxford university. While there, Johnson attended the varying levels of schooling at the European School in Brussels and succeeded academically. From there, he attended Oxford University and received a 2:1 UK degree, meaning that he passed with the second highest academic merit. Following his educational career as a student, Johnson pursued journalism for a brief period of his history before moving towards politics. In 2001, he was elected as a Member of the Parliament: since then, Johnson has become a prominent member of European politics as he is currently the mayor of London.

When talking about the most raw, literal form of "specialty," it is clear that Boris Johnson is "specialized" in the Classics, given that he has a degree in it. Being that he is very involved in modern, European politics, one can assume that Johnson has some knowledge when it comes to management.

Over the course of September 2014, Boris Johnson covered several topics, mainly addressing large concerns such as the James Foley incident, the Scottish referendum, and his "guilty until proven innocent" policy as well as a smaller argument concerning the creation of a new airport.

Johnson, being a conservative, is center-right on the political spectrum that spans the width from anarchy to harsh socialism. He states it quite explicitly and with a sense of pride, referring to the party as the "great conservative family." Furthermore, a large percentage of conservatives are hostile to the European Union or are known as "euroskeptics," which he categorizes himself under during his post concerning the Scottish independence.

Boris Johnson is clearly qualified for what he does. As the mayor of London, he has quite the reputation among the British people. He came from a rather aristocratic background and received a fitting education for what he has pursued and is doing currently. Involved heavily in politics, Johnson deserves the popularity that is given to him. His opinion is definitely valuable as it may pertain to the future of London and possibly impact the entirety of Europe.

British Decapitation accompanying Scotland's Independence (1:4)

Scottish independence: Decapitate Britain, and we kill off the greatest political union ever
The Scots are on the verge of an act of self-mutilation that will trash our global identity

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11080893/Scottish-independence-Decapitate-Britain-and-we-kill-off-the-greatest-political-union-ever.html

The Telegraph, 08 September 2014
_________________________________________________________________________________

With global attention pinpointed on the UK's Scotland, it was only a matter of time before the British Boris Johnson asserted forth his position on the subject. To introduce the piece, Johnson emphasizes its severity with a most definitely extreme and far-fetched idea: "In just 10 days' time we could all be walking around like zombies."Then, he transitions into the consequences, those primarily directed towards British financial and moral ties to Scotland, emphasizing the topic's asperity by relating it to the American revolution--Scotland is not a colony of Britain but a piece of it. Johnson takes this idea one step further through its personification. Imagine the UK as a person, he says. Take Scotland from it and you would have decapitated the nations, scalped them perhaps. After implanting such a horrific image into his audience's head, Johnson elaborates upon the effectiveness, punctuality, and beauty of British culture. He argues that losing Scotland would take away part of their prevalent fame, as many of their global popularity can be attributed to magnificent Scottish scientists and inventors who capitalized upon British utilities. Johnson finalizes his stance with brief conclusion statements that idealize the current state of the modern UK.\

Johnson's central contention in this piece is not obscured or in any way subtle: Scottish independence would ultimately lead to detriment. Much of his support is derived from his excessive use of emotional appeal and historical events. Johnson makes several references to the companionship developed between Britain and Scotland through Act of Union of 1707 and the strength of their relationship by relating it to the American colonies in 1776. His historical dependence for arguments is reassuring and illustrates the extent to which he understands the ties between the two. He appeals to logic through one statistic and one geographical analysis, but it is so insignificant in comparison to his appeal to pathos that it is a bit overwhelmed. With a deliberate focus upon emotions, Johnson exercises the use of metaphors, a "call-to-arms" type of optimism ("Britain, British, Britishness: these are precious terms, and they stand for something wonderful across the world"), and their shared lifestyles.

Reconsidering Poland and Membership in the EU (1:3)

The barabaric events the pushed Poland into the arms of the EU: As Britain reconsiders its role in Europe, it's important to remember our allies' suffering

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11009429/The-barbaric-events-that-pushed-Poland-into-the-arms-of-the-EU.html

The Telegraph, 03 August 2014
_________________________________________________________________________________

As a prominent member of European politics, Boris Johnson has many thoughts concerning Poland's membership within the EU. To begin his argument, Johnson pushes upon his audience a brief history of European conflict, dating back as far as World War II. It starts with the horrific visuals of a mechanical manslaughter during the Warsaw Uprising. Following his restatement of European history, Johnson immerses himself and his audience into the thoughts of the contemporary politicians. It was only appropriate to welcome Poland into the EU: their membership seemingly promised a border-less, more whole Europe. However, 70 years later, the modern day Union has begun experiencing economic repercussions and therefore reconsidered Poland's position within the EU. With this in mind, Johnson, a "euroskeptic," questions the future of the EU and contemplates Poland's willingness to stay within it. He makes slight indications that the British are exiting the Union, slowly but surely nonetheless.

Johnson's column is a blunt indication of his position as a Euroskeptic through the medium that is Poland's membership. His central contention revolves around this idea as he constantly exploits the flaws within the EU. Johnson uses history as support, standard for most politicians and those involved with law. From it, he derives the many reasons for Poland's introduction to the EU and its growing financial problems. The most outstanding of Johnson's rhetorical strategies lies within his emotional appeal, backed up by a solid cause and effect style structure. Take, for example, the introduction paragraph to his article: it addresses the systematic slaughter of thousands of Polish, using staggering numbers to reinforce its effect. To further his argument, Johnson arouses suspicion of the EU's future. He first gives reason for Poland's inauguration to the group and then details its heavy weight through statistics (it is granted 12 billion Euros a year), following up with the criticism of the unreformed Union. Johnson's primary tools used in his column revolve around a cause and effect structure and an appeal to pathos backed by statistics.

Boris Johnson's perspective on a third runway at Heathrow (1:2)

Only with a new hub airport will Britain truly take off: It's madness to reopen the debate about a third runway at Heathrow. A new site is the answer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11066917/Only-with-a-new-hub-airport-will-Britain-truly-take-off.html

The Telegraph, 01 September 2014
_________________________________________________________________________________

With the quality of his citizen's lives at stake, Boris Johnson can not help but publicize his stance on the creation of a new runway at the Heathrow airport. He introduces the topic with its detriments summarized in three, brief stabs of a phrase: the debate is "an act so self-defeating, so short-termist, and so barbarically contemptuous of the rights of the population." Johnson argues that those living under the flight paths will suffer greater consequences with this new runway. Noise pollution is inevitable with this plan and it might even take form as medical problems such as stress or heart diseases. To further his claim, he asserts that a third runway would not appease such a need for development and might even encourage the construction of another. Thus, with a firm grasp on its flaws, Johnson proposes that the construction of an entire new airport is only apt for the situation. A relocation would have many benefits: noise pollution would punish less people and a more convenient spot could offer less travel.

Boris Johnson, in this column, addresses the discrepancy concerning the creation of a new runway in the Heathrow airport, making sure to add in his own perspective on the matter. His proposed solution disregards the new runway and indicates the need for a new airport. Johnson support is intertwined with his rhetorical strategies. He has statistics in nearly every paragraph, ranging from noise pollution measurements (55 decibels) to job opportunities (336,000) to, of course, monetary values (92.1 billion Euros per year). Such staggering numbers serve to catch the reader's eye and persuade them to think in his favor.  A crucial piece of Johnson's article is its concession-and-refutation style structure. He introduces the piece as an argument and exploits its flaw, following up with his own, seemingly perfect solution to the problem: he begins with the scheduled dispute and analyzes the potential detriments of the new runway. Shortly after, Johnson suggests an alternate resolution, the creation of an entire new hub. This strategy is even exercised upon re-evaluating his own solution: "there are some technical difficulties, sure: but TfL and our consultants are certain that neither fog nor birds nor the SS Montgomery present anything remotely approaching a deal-breaker to a country that used to have a reputation as the greatest engineering nation on earth." Johnson, with such strong stance on the topic, has demonstrated a great deal of self-criticism and meticulous judgment.

Boris Johnson's "guilty until proven innocent" policy (1:1)

Do nothing, and we invite the tide of terror to our front door: As the problem of Isil worsens by the day, it is surely time to bring back control orders

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11054093/Do-nothing-and-we-invite-the-tide-of-terror-to-our-front-door.html
The Telegraph, 24 August 2014

Boris Johnson calls for 'guilty until proven innocent' for suspected terrorists: Mayor of London says 'minor' law chance should reverse presumption of innocence for those who travel to Iraq and Syria

The Guardian, Guardian News, 24 August 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/boris-johnson-britons-visiting-iraq-syria-presumed-terrorists
_________________________________________________________________________________

Boris Johnson, following the execution of American journalist James Foley, put a spin on the Bill of Right's presumption of innocence through a rearrangement of its wording: the Britons who travel to Syria and Iraq, without a notification sent to the government, should be considered "guilty until proven innocent." Johnson, to further his assertion, emphasizes the need to capture or kill the jihadist responsible for the journalist's death. In his elaboration of the concept of "guilty until proven innocent," Johnson said that "anyone visiting those countries would be automatically presumed to be terrorists unless they had notified the authorities in advance." He has supported the idea of stripping British citizenship in the case of the violation of this travel restriction. In doing so, Johnson targets the Islamic State and the jihadists reponsible for Foley's death. He is a great opponent of terrorism and has indicated his intention to mitigate their advancement.

Boris Johnson's contention is not as much of a disagreement of an idea as it is an assertion concerning his own new policy and perspective on terrorism. It focuses primarily upon Johnson's "guilty until proven innocent" policy on emigrating Britons and the desperate need to exterminate jihadists like the one responsible for James Foley's death. He supports his central theme by using statistics (such as their population of 6 million and their military strength) and constant reminders of their terrorism (hostile terminology). Johnson uses many strategies to develop his argument, such as rhetorical questions ("Does Washington have the will? Do we?") and the use of antagonistic terminology when referring to terrorism.Johnson also uses the first person plural, part of its rhetorical framework, to create the idea that the British are a unified force (emotional appeal) fighting against a shared hostility.