Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

102 Comments »

My article was about a man in Detroit who apparently a relatively high ranking official is giving a controversial statement in his speech, “Change… or get left behind”. The writer of this article is not someone that I find important I personally think that the actual man described in the article is more of an interesting writer who actually uses technique and approaches in his arguments. The reporter just writes down what we take to be facts. He may be telling the truth or he may not with news papers and such you never really can tell. Based on what the writer has put into his story I believe that it is safe to say that this author believes that this quote is controversial at best. His writing almost has a hidden voice that just pukes disgust into his writing. His technique is a pretty common one among journalists in the sense that they all write to make it look like everything that they write is fact. It’s not always fact because anyone can make a mistake and think people said different things or they may alter quotes to make papers sell better, immoral but functional, and that way they look good. However this writer has a hidden style that hides just beneath what the words are actually telling people. The author’s sentences and such are all written in just a way so that his personal opinions are visible to those who pay attention to the writing. From reading this article it is very clear that this journalist thinks that this official is a crack pot.

I forgot to cite my source for my article. http://www.freep.com/article/20090923/BUSINESS06/909230370/1318/Bing-to-Detroit—Change-…-or-get-left-behind-&template=fullarticle

Butch
09/25/09
3rd hour

Article 1:
Unknown Author. (2009). “Our view on cigarettes and public health: Bans on outdoor smoking crosses line in sand”. USATODAY

Article 2:
Cynthia Hallett. (2009). “Opposing view: Take protections outside”. USATODAY

The two attached articles are a debate about a New York City prohibition on smoking in all public-access places. The controversy arises where the law includes beaches, outdoor restaurants, and public parks. The author of Article 1 insists that smoking cannot be banned in public places because second-hand smoke is not an issue outdoors. On the other hand, Hallett states that those with cardiovascular disease may be put at risk by even brief periods of exposure to smoke. She also proves that smoke is a serious problem environmentally and shows cigarette butts as a leading source of pollutants. Though they take different sides, both articles make excellent appeals with well-defended claims.

It is clear that both arguments appeal to logos. They both take into consideration three issues: the transformation of American views on smoking over time, the motive and rationale of New York City regarding this ban, and the impact of cigarettes on the environment. Article 1 makes an argument using human rights and asks why the rights of smokers are being eroded. Even though most of the article is spent conceding to the beneficial facets to prohibiting smoking, the main purpose of the article is shown in the second-last paragraph. By using this delayed thesis, the author builds up a counter-argument and then puts emphasis on his short and precise refutation. Conversely, Article 2 builds up an argument on the detriments of smoking, but it is different from Article 1 because it leads to a strong defense of the points made earlier. While Article 2 has a weaker defense, it makes a stronger appeal to logic by implying the moral consequences of smoking as a plausible defense for the passage of the extension to the law. However, Article 1 is stronger because it makes rational explanation as to why the law is a violation on human violations.

In arguing both sides of a relatively-underplayed issue, USATODAY is introducing the law to its readers. The morale and rationale is present on both sides of the issue, making for an excellent logical argument. Even though the reader may not have any prior knowledge of this law, it is certain that the point is controversial. In order to remain neutral on the issue, the blog takes both sides in order to let the readers settle their own respective opinions. However, it is important to note that the writer of Article 1 is aware of the liberalism that is sweeping through his audience, and therefore decides to keep his identity anonymous when expressing his conservative views. However, he does an excellent job in defending his claims, and for that he wins the heartily-fought debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22foust.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion
Joshua Foust. (2009). “Maladies of Interpreters”. New York Times.

In the war plagued lands of Afghanistan and Iraq, English speaking soldiers tend to be a little misunderstood. To make up for this gap interpreters are hired, and that is what this article is about. Joshua Foust, a former foreign attaché, writes on how interpreters are themselves misinterpreted by their superiors, who mistake their knowledge of customs and obscure dialects as a sign of not being on our side. They are disrespected and mistreated by some military commanders, while others treat them as what they are; invaluable assets. Foust tells the story of an interpreter thwarting a suicide-bombing, because he was able to pick out odd behavior only a local could notice. He also tells the stories of many interpreters being denied visas to the U.S. to escape the threats given them and their families by the enemies of those they help. Simply put, interpreters often end up getting the short end of the stick.

Mr. Foust makes a very good case for his point. He speaks in a way that shows both deep thought and respect for those he writes about. He uses the very voice of credibility when he writes, establishing trust by explaining why he thinks something and then gives examples. His word choice is polite but heartfelt, and as good as it is it won’t be winning a Pulitzer Prize too soon. His use of authority to invoke emotions to convince you of his logic works, and I am inclined to agree with Foust about the unsung heroes of the modern battlefield.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-parents-flu25-2009sep25,0,579663.story

Melissa Healy. (2009). “Most Parents Won’t Have Kids Get H1N1 Flu Shots, Study Finds.” Los Angeles Times.

In order to stop the H1N1 flu virus from spreading, there’s a campaign to get schoolchildren vaccinated. Polls show that parents don’t want to get their kids vaccinated though. Parents either think it’s unlikely their children will get the virus or don’t believe the virus is more serious than the seasonal flu. Others are afraid of possible side effects of the vaccine. Poll director Matthew Davis thinks public health officials need to better inform parents about the virus because the H1N1 virus is likely to affect young people. If parents are more informed, they’ll get their kids vaccinated. The author defends this claim by using polls that show that parents are not well-informed.

Healy uses many poll results and statistics in her article. However, there are some problems with some of the polls. She says that only 40% of parents would give their kids the H1N1 shot, compared to 54% of parents who would give their kids the regular flu shot. Her argument is weak here. This poll shows that only a little over half of parents give their kids regular flu shots anyways, so the low percentage of parents wanting the H1N1 vaccine for their kids may not be due to being misinformed. It could just be a low number because not too many people give their children vaccines in the first place. There’s also a problem with her poll that shows different vaccine results with different ethnic groups. She says that the data collected for that poll was from August 13th to the 31st. That’s about a month ago, and people may have changed their minds by now, so the poll results do not show the opinions of people now.

Though her polls aren’t as effective, Healy’s organization is. She begins the article by telling people that kids should be getting vaccinated to stop the spread of the H1N1 virus. Then she uses polls to show that many parents don’t want to get their kids vaccinated. Finally, she quotes an expert that says something needs to be done to educate parents about the virus. This is an effective way of organizing the argument because the article educates the reader about how serious the virus is before stating a claim. After being given the evidence, the reader will agree that public health officials need to make parents more aware about the H1N1 virus.

Readers will agree with Healy’s claim because she seems to have done some research and gotten many poll results. People will think she knows what she’s talking about and will respect her opinion. By citing her sources, she gains credibility. She says that the University of Michigan C.S. Mott’s Hospital conducted a poll that she used. She also says the poll director she quoted from is from the University of Michigan. She gains credibility because most people think of the University of Michigan as a good medical school.

Healy’s style of writing is informative in order to make a more effective argument to her audience, mainly parents. Parents like to be informed so that they can make the best decisions for their children. Because of this, Healy’s style makes her argument more effective.

I realised that I forgot to cite my websites (as usual). They follow below:

Article 1: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/09/debate-on-cigarettes-and-public-health-our-view-bans-on-outdoor-smoking-cross-a-line-in-the-sand.html

Article 2:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/09/opposing-view-take-protections-outside.html

Enjoy!

Jeremy Peters. (2009). “‘I Did Not Sign Up for This,’” The New York Times.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/i-didnt-sign-up-for-this-paterson-says/?hp

The author claims that David Paterson, the Governor of New York, has been asked to end his governing by some people in the Obama Administration. He claims that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is the main culprit. Paterson was hoping to become a Senator when he was the Lieutenant Governor, but was instead promoted to Governor when Elliot Spitzer left. According to the author, the primary reason Paterson was asked to end his governing was to prevent further damage to the Democratic Party. Paterson refuses to believe that he is damaging the party, and hopes to continue his career as a governor for another term.

The author seems to have only a basic understanding of the subject. This is evident by the way he backs up his claims without offering any real analyzing. It is hard to see what side the author is on, but it would be safe to say he wants Paterson out of office. There are a few biased comments in the article, and in those comments the author expresses his opposition to the Governor. The author is trying to appeal to the reader’s intellect and uses logos to form logical assumptions about the Governor’s situation. He implies the Governor should not run for another term because certain people in Congress do not like him. He presents vague information to propose that his arguments are logical and do not need any backup information. His logic can easily be mistaken for his opinion, but in reality, it is the truth. The author knows that the audience he is writing to is one that follows political events frequently and is very intelligent on the issue. As a result, he uses key quotes from key people and tries to appeal to the reader’s logic. The author did not convince me of his side, but he made me think twice before defending the Governor. Writing more facts about the situation would have probably convinced me that the author has a legitimate argument. I think the author needs to do a better job of gathering the important facts and then analyzing them. If he does this, I can establish him as having a great understanding of the topic and classify him as someone who knows what he is talking about. He completely ignores the other side of the argument and makes it look like the Governor did a terrible job in office. The author must acknowledge the opposing view point to convince more readers of his beliefs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/weekinreview/27mcneil.html?ref=health
Donald G. McNeil Jr. (2009) “If AIDS Went the Way of Smallpox.” New York Times.

Scientists and researchers are trying to find out whether a vaccine to prevent HIV and AIDS is practical, or just a reverie. So many positive outcomes could come from a vaccine that could do such thing as protect ourselves from AIDS. As this article points out, we could be saving millions, possibly even billions of dollars and ending this horrific age of suffering. But the question is, can there really be such a thing? Scientist in Thailand thought they came up with a vaccine that would end the spreading of AIDS. Come to find out, their new invention was a bust. The success rate of this vaccine only helped 23 patients out of 16,395. Not only did it take 6 years and over 100 million dollars to find out that this vaccine is inefficient, there are people still suffering from the AIDS epidemic.

Mr. McNeil gave us a good outlook on the sort of research that these facilities are doing. He seems to have done research, and knows the rate of success and failed attempts of this vaccine. Looking at his type of writing, I felt like he had negative emotions towards the scientist and researchers who had alleged that this vaccine would be a successful endeavor. He seemed to be criticizing the efforts that these people have been making, and offered little help as to how they can research and test in a more efficient way. I had the feeling that he was irritated with the false hope that was given to AIDS sufferers and to others that were threatened by this disease. Only time will tell as to when and if there will ever be a cure or a protection against AIDS.

Libby Quaid. (2009). “More school: Obama would curtail summer vacation.” Associated Press

This article starts off by stating that Obama believes that American schoolchildren do not spend enough time in school. This puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage. Obama’s education secretary even said that the current system of giving students “summer vacation” was created back when the US was a nation of farmers. However, the US is not a nation of farmers anymore and America needs to seriously consider changing its education system accordingly. Though, there is also the concern that children these days are overworked and need a break, and that needs to be taken into consideration as well. In other developed nations, according to President Obama, students spend 25-30% more time in school than students in America do. One researcher discovered a correlation between longer school days and better mathematical skills. Charter schools typically have longer school days and years. Poorer children lose more knowledge during the summer than children of wealthier parents. That is a summarization of Quaid’s AP article.

Overall, I have a somewhat positive opinion regarding the article. Libby Quaid seems to take a pro-reform stance on the issue of education. The way the author points out certain facts about education in America versus in other developed nations has a logical appeal. For example, America spends less time educating its students. Foreign students tend to outperform American students. There is a logical correlation between the two, and that appeals to logos. Quaid has good style of writing in that she uses a mix of quotes from the Obama Administration and facts from key experts on the educational issue. The fact that experts’ opinions are given has a direct appeal regarding credibility (ethos) since experts tend to be credible. The AP writer also appeals to parents by pointing out how Obama has sympathy since he has kids and how many parents are too busy to take care of their children in the afternoon. Parents in general tend to find the educational reform issue appealing and that crowd is usually interested in reading articles like these. The tone of the article is professional and most readers will come out with a good opinion of the credibility of Libby Quaid (though I doubt they will remember her name). Lastly, those who are poor take an interest in this article and educational reform in general because it gives them hope (pathos appeal). The poor are the ones who are the most left behind by the broken American educational system. At the end of reading this article, I lean more in favor of educational reform.

OOPS forgot the link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_re_us/us_more_school

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/25/health/main5338720.shtml

Culture staff of CBS. (2009) “School Drinking Water Unsafe” CBS news

The Article I choose to write about is titled, “School Drinking Water Unsafe”. This article brings attention to the scary fact that there are many schools in our country that have unsafe water supplies. This means that our kids are drinking water that may have pesticides and other harmful chemicals. It has been recently found and brought to the public’s attention that in all 50 states there are schools, especially ones with private supplies of water, which contain high levels of toxins.
The author of this article uses pathos to appeal to the audience’s emotion of sadness and shock. The author interviews Mark Edwards who says, “If a landlord doesn’t tell a tenant about lead paint in an apartment, he can go to jail. But we have no system to make people follow the rules to keep school children safe?” This really gets the audience thinking of how bad the system of water quality has gotten in American. The author saddens and angers his audience in outrage when he mentions, “28 children at a Worthington, Minn., elementary school experienced severe stomach aches and nausea after drinking water tainted with lead and copper, the result of a poorly installed treatment system.” He also goes on to show other examples when school children have gotten sick in the last few years from poor school water quality. Some children are so scared of getting sick from the school water that they stuff their backpacks with water bottles. The author uses different sets of data to appeal to the readers as well. He points out that “Roughly one of every five schools with its own water supply violated the Safe Drinking Water Act in the past decade, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency analyzed by the AP.”

On the other hand, there are the people that represent the water companies that try to explain why there is such a huge out break. The water companies that the author interview use logos to explain what’s going on. They try and explain where things have gone wrong, and why things aren’t as bad as they seem by using logic and facts. They claim that the water regulation is spread out too much across different authority. They say because of this, there are flaws throughout the system leading to these outbreaks. They also claim that it is just too big of a project for them to run financially in the tough economy. Then the companies explain the sudden rise in out breaks with the new regulations put in effect by Congress.
These are some of the facts represented to the audience from the water companies. I believe the authors appeals of pathos, out weigh the water companies appeals of logos. This is why most of the public side with the author and feel ashamed and angry that we are having these problems in our schools, with the water for our children.

Anonymous. (2009). “Boot Camp helps inmates, taxpayers,” The Detroit Free Press

In this article, the author claims that the government must keep the Special Alternative Incarceration program in Chelsea, Michigan (boot camp) open if Michigan taxpayers don’t want to spend an extra $30 to $40 million a year in taxes for two new prisons. The author states that “the Legislature cannot afford to eliminate a cost-saving program that’s working— and then hand the Department of Corrections an added $40 million to reopen prisons.” He/she states this would not be good, especially considering Michigan’s economy. Along with this program saving Michigan money, it’s also a successful program making prisoner’s get back on track with their life, while not getting off the hook for the crime he or she may have committed.

The author does an excellent job of using logos to influence his/her readers. He/she gives us many facts on how this program is benefitting Michigan’s economy, like how much money taxpayers save each year because of the camp’s existence. He/she also gives good examples of how it is positive for Michigan’s people, stating that about 90% of the people who go to the boot camp actually complete the program successfully. And those who don’t get sent back to prison to finish out their sentence; they don’t just get off the hook. The author gives readers only positive things and makes readers believe that this boot camp is benefitting Michigan all around. He/she also makes us believe that the state senate shouldn’t close it down or else they would be making a huge mistake. Because of all this, the author does a great job at persuading his/her readers that the Senate should think about what they’re really going to be missing if they completely shut it down. Ultimately, the author won me over to his or her side with great ease because of the excellent word choice and smart use of facts.

Julia Baird. (2009). “Stealing Neverland.” Newsweek, 30.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215300

In this article Baird discusses the danger of broadcasting too much personal information for the world to see. There are so many outlets and networks for people to put anything out in the open, so it is easy for people to cross the line in what and how much they share. Baird focuses especially on the issue of parents profiting from their children’s stories. She mentions authors like A.A. Milne (author of ‘Winnie the Pooh’) and Julie Myerson who based their work on their children’s personal lives, which benefited them but left their children feeling betrayed and emotionally scarred. Overall, Baird’s message is that parents need to put their duty to their children first.

Baird is a writer and a mother, so she has had ample opportunity to publicize her child’s mistakes and embarrassing moments. However, she also knows what it is like to have been an awkward teenager who has done things she would rather not have others know about. Basing her appeal on all of these experiences, her article is an ethos argument against putting personal gain over parental duty. Despite being a writer Baird is aware that as a parent her top priority is protecting her child, and so does not approve of exploiting a child’s experiences for profit or renown, regardless of the child’s age. To her it is selfish. Baird makes that opinion clear when she points out that the subtitle of Myerson’s book about her son’s troubled teenaged years and adulthood is ‘A Mother’s Story’. Myerson makes herself the victim, claiming in the book that her son had a drug addiction and that she “was forced to kick him out of the family home… after he lied, stole, got a girl pregnant… and hit his mother…” Sure, her son probably did do all of those horrible things and sure, Myerson must have suffered a great deal. Julia Baird’s point is that Myerson took it upon herself to share his story with the world, knowing that it would hurt her son. Of all people, one should be able to turn to his mother for comfort and support, but Jake Myerson didn’t even have that.

What sticks with me most is how Julia Baird connects this issue to the lives of everyday people. She knows that we, as people of the era of networking, want others to know about us. It has become part of our nature. However, what happens is that a lot of times people put everything out there and don’t really think (or perhaps don’t really care) about how the people closest to them will be affected by it. She concedes that parents may have their reasons for displaying tender information about their children, whether it be for self-healing or as an advisory to others, “… what if the person putting out images of a teenager smoking a bong is not a stoner friend but a disappointed parent?” . However, as Baird asserts throughout this article, they have a higher obligation to their children as parents and thus must be more careful and considerate about the information that they display. Julia Baird makes a convincing and thought-provoking argument, and for that I completely agree with her opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html?scp=1&sq=A%20grand%20Bargain%20Over%20Evolution&st=cse
Robert Wright. (2009) “A Grand Bargain Over Evolution”. The New York Times

In this article, Robert Wright makes the argument that neither creationists nor atheist evolutionists have the right idea. He addresses that both have problems of their own and how they can be dealt with. For creationists, he proposes that they not only accept that evolution was the way God created the Earth, but that moral sense was an evolutionary change. Most creationists use the arguments of C.S. Lewis that because moral did exist, that God must have existed as well. He alludes to studies done by evolutionary psychologists who saw that many of the moral sentiments we have come from the fact that animals in general tend to work in cooperation with each other. Based on the observations of opinions of scientists, he believes that creationists should concede their former positions. On the other side, he believes that atheists are not getting the complete picture by not trying to find a higher sense of purpose. He even attacks one of the first points made by Richard Dawkins in the Blind Watchman. Dawkins attacks Paley’s assumption that a watch found in a field is a product of design; he instead contends that because of the scientific discoveries made in the last century, we do not have to have a designer. However, Wright sees that due to the complexity of the watch, there needs to be a special explanation as to why it is there. He concludes that that the symbiosis of religion and science will create social cohesion and create a global community that acts morally and scientifically.

Robert Wright takes a very interesting and controversial position on an issue that has been argued for almost two centuries. He establishes his ethos primarily from his ability to recite various authors and scientist’s works. Due to the fact that his intended audience is both hardcore creationists and atheists, he actually pokes fun of both sides. He is critical to both sides on specific issues but he empathizes with both sides. At one point he seems derisive towards both sides by suggesting that their philosophies create “a heartfelt indifference to the question”. He makes concessions with evolutionary theory and creationist beliefs but also makes sure to refute points that would hinder their combination. He increases his credibility by refuting the claims of other scientists and thus reduces their own credibility. However, he loses his credibility by not giving proof for his own idea and simply refuting the claims made by both sides of the creation vs. evolution issue. The essay doesn’t use non-artistic evidence per se but he argues against points made by both theists and atheists in order to come to the conclusion that both creationists and evolutionists have gotten their ideas wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30milhollin.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Gary Milhollin & Valerie Lincy. (2009). “Lifting Iran’s Nuclear Veil.” The New York Times.

In this article, the authors talk about the Qum power plant in Iran, and what its true purpose is. They talk about the fact that, because Iran was trying to hide the plant, there must be something else they are trying to hide. The authors claim that this nuclear facility is not a source of power, but rather as a bomb factory. They then go on to say that if this plant is truly for weapon production, then there might be other plants that we don’t know about. Then to support this claim, they provide numerous facts regarding the requirements to produce bombs efficiently, one being the number of centrifuges needed to produce a bomb. They then state that the amount of centrifuges, used to fuel a bomb, produced by the Qum power plant is not enough to produce bombs efficiently, showing that if its intended use is truly bombs, then there must be other nuclear facilities. They then end it with the fact that in order to produce a bomb, there are other components such as firing sets and high explosive lenses needed to create it, and in order for Iran to get these materials, they would have to make it, further pushing their point that we need to investigate.

The authors of this article address this issue in a way that suggests they have knowledge regarding this subject. They talk to their audience, those concerned with the foreign affairs in Iran and those nuclear-conscious, in an informative yet casual style. Through the use of words such as “centrifuge” and “high explosive lenses,” they create an image in the reader’s mind that they know what they are talking about. On top of that, it is mentioned that both authors have some background with nuclear power, or Iran, in some way. By mentioning these, the article gains credibility, and the reader can as a result trust what the authors have to say. After they make it clear what their thoughts are regarding the possible existence of other nuclear facilities, they then push their goal that there must be something done about it, whether it be some sort of action or investigation. One thing in my opinion that would make this article more effective on the reader would be to address whether or not the plant is truly a weapons factory. When I read this article, I felt unclear whether the plant was truly a weapons factory. Aside from this, I find this article very successful in educating the reader about nuclear issue in Iran.

So overall, I think this article was very successful in educating and getting the point across that there needs to be something done. Through use of facts and supporting information, the authors were able to gain the trust and support of the reader. As a result, they are able to get the point across, and it is easily understood due to their simple language. So in conclusion, I think the authors did a good job in portraying their argument across.

In this article, the author is making a claim that the political mud-slinging in American politics is becoming very dangerous. His main argument is an allusion to the prime minister of Israel in 1995, who was assassinated for his political beliefs. In the prime ministers case, there was one side who thought he was horrible and went to extremes to undermine his time in office. Through the creation of concern and allusions, the author successfully supports his claim that political conflicts are getting widespread in America, and need to be controlled.
The author uses an appeals to logic and emotion effectively in this piece. By mentioning his personal experiences with Israel’s Prime Minister, he evokes concern towards our current leader in America. If a prime minister can be assassinated by one side of political factions that really hate him, why can’t the President of America face the same fate?. To further strengthen his argument, he goes into detail about Facebook polls among other things that discuss wanting to kill the President. It is plain and simple logic that a threat may eventually lead to harm done to people. There are many threats out there that want the current president gone. There are some that show disgust towards him too. In the article, there was a mention of a representative who screamed “you lie” in the middle of a nationally televised Presidential Speech. His lack of decency strengthens the author’s argument that politics is getting to aggressive. The fighting amongst political groups is clearly represented through the examples written in this piece, and this man’s writing has proven to me that mud slinging needs to be stopped.

Personally, it disgusts me to see so much hatred in politics. Just because a person doesn’t like an idea doesn’t mean they have to go after the man who presents them. I would hate to live during a time when a president is assassinated. I completely agree with the author’s assessment of current politics. If change doesn’t happen soon, unnecessary problems in the U.S. may develop due to fighting amongst different groups.

Therefore, this article was able to describe the current political situation in an effective manner. It used appeals to emotions and logic to get his point across. The life of any man is important, and protecting it is a moral obligation. Plus it’s just logical that threats can become real at any moment in time. It is better to be safe then sorry. If America is to be a more stable nation, I do agree that mud-slinging and political hatred needs to be reduced.

-Aditya Rengaswamy

Citations I forgot it-
Friedman Thomas, . “Where Did ‘We’ Go? .” (2008): n. pag. Web. 30 Sep 2009. .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/business/energy-environment/30water.html?em

Todd Woody (2009) “Alternative Energy Projects Stumble on a Need for Water” The New York Times.

This article is talks about an energy dilemma in Nevada. An area in Nevada stumbled upon an opportunity for alternative energy. As an effort to support alternative energy two solar farms were supposed to be built, which would also create jobs for the area. The only problem was that the solar farms would need twenty percent of the town’s water in order to support the farms. Although the farms would create jobs and help stop a reliance on fossil fuels some community members are worried about their wells and water.

The author of this article is not any kind of scientist or engineer or has any experience with alternative energy; therefore he really doesn’t have an ethos, which makes the author use logos as his appeal. The author makes himself seem more credible by backing up what he is saying with facts and statistics. The author who seems to approve of using the water to support the energy backs up his opinion by making his side seem like a better idea rather than striking down the opposing side. By doing this he supports his opinion without seeming ignorant or

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/business/02auto.html

Nick Bunkley (2009) “Auto Sales Fall Back as Clunker Program Ends” The New York Times.

In this article Bunkley writes about the recently ended Cash for Clunkers program and how it effected the car industry. The Clunker program ended up sales at almost 700,000! A huge needed boost for the struggling car industry in the last year. Bunkley write that since September of last year General Motors dropped 23 percent in sales and Ford Motor Copany, 6 percent. In result of the huge roar in sales the car industry could hire back thousands of workers they had to lay off in the recent months.

I enjoyed Bunkleys writing in this article. I am not sure if he is in the auto industry but you can tell by the amount of factual evidence Bunkley provides that he knows the subject very thoroughly. Most of this article is Bunkley stating facts about the Auto industry and the cash-for-clunkers program. But he does a great job of tying in the facts and using logos to help the reader understand everything that is happening in the auto industry. I know for me with all that has happened with the industry I have trouble keeping up with the new news. Bunkley does an excellant job at getting to the point and not having fluff in his writing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/us/27ammunition.html [Unknown Editoralist}. (2009). “Fears of gun rules spur shortages in bullet supply.” New York Times, A16.

This article is about how gun patrol in America is causing a struggle between the people and the government. The big question of debate here is, “What is going to happen if anti-gun legislation is passed?” We already have a feel for what is going to happen based on events that have occurred in America since Obama took office. Gun enthusiasts have quickly stocked up on guns, as gun and bullet manufacturers are rapidly seeing shortages. As Obama has not yet done anything with anti-gun legislation, his position on this matter still stands in that he believes the common good of America is at stake unless the government puts restrictions on this. The author claims that this is something that always occurs when Democrats take office but with Obama being even stronger on gun control, gun enthusiasts are becoming even more frantic.

The main appeal used by the author is to logos. His assertion is backed up by the usage of specific evidence to support this claim including statistics to prove that it is credible. The author makes it clear that there are two sides to consider thoroughly, but the most important thing to understand is the nature of this issue and its importance on the future of America. Therefore, the article makes a deliberative argument, carefully depicting how decisions today will impact the future. America is at a certain point right now in the gun control issue and it can either get better or get worse based on actions taken by both the people and government together. Thus, the author answers the question of “What actions should be taken?” Not only must the government make an important decision on this matter, but the people must recognize the nature of their decision to respond accordingly to this. The appeal to logos in the article is impossible to deny as it constructs the fundamental values behind the author’s claim and serves as the means to properly illustrate the expected future of America.

The style of writing here can be described as strictly informative. It is designed to inform the readers of what is going on in America in case they are unaware and help shape their own beliefs by using evidence and examples that would support both sides. It is then up to the reader to draw their own conclusion based on the information handed to them. The usage of logos shows that the authors claim is based on his understanding of the audience. Reading this would leave them questioning both sides as well as which one is most valid and deserves their support. Therefore, the author’s use of informative writing which illustrates the true nature of the issue at hand affects the effectiveness of his argument as this allows him to change the way this subject is perceived by others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/opinion/01thu3.html?_r=1 Unknown. (2009). “Seven Years After The Sniper.” New York Times.

Seven years after a sniper randomly killed 10 people and terrorized Washington for three weeks, the two murderers are found. The author of this article is disgusted with the little power the government has over weapons. He/She starts off with giving an example of an incident in time when Washington was affected by the use of guns. He then explains that this is because Congress is too shy and weak to step up and put more regulations the author accents how bad the shooting was and uses that as the major argument. Then, continues to write about his/her frustration with congress and mentions how long it would take to fix this issue.
However, the author does not present hard evidence against congress; he/she just claims congress is doing a terrible job. The new legislation in congress was also mentioned, but again did not focus on the facts. The author showed his/her frustration on the issue of congress and weapons, but failed to provide real evidence and relied on the fact that most people would rather not be shot at.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/technology/30clear.html?_r=1&ref=technology
“‘Clear’ Security Service May Return at Airports”
By: Brad Stone
Published: September 29. 2009
Verified Identity Pass, also known as the V.I.P, was a company that was formed to allow its travelers at airports to be able to go straight to front of the line. Costumers would pay $199 a year and have to undergo an iris scan and submit their fingerprints in order to qualify as a member. After going through hard times last June, the company was forced to shut down and leave behind 200,000 customers not receiving fast access to airports or money back. This devastated all members and workers of the V.I.P. However, after undergoing a new company structure, the company is going to reopen and allow its customers to get the money’s worth of what they lost. Kurtis Fechtmeyer, an investment banker, has signed a letter of intent to buy the company’s assets and reopen it for the customers. This company will not only help the customers but it helps the government by having travelers whose identities are verified by the company. This company was first thought out after the 9-11 attack. This would give better security and help identify people faster, keeping the waiting lines at airports shorter. After dealing with lawsuits and other threats over the summer, V.I.P has begun to meet with people from Transportation Security Agency to make arrangements. Now, it seems even their older customers will come back for the better service of the company.
In this article, Brad Stone gives facts and reliable resources to clarify the reopening of Clear. Like the government, I also agree having this company will help verify a person’s identity and provide a quicker, more efficient way around an airport. Getting access to this information will help airport workers and flight passengers feel more secure and comfortable flying with the people that are a part of the organization. However, I would not recommend this to a person who doesn’t do much traveling. This would just be an unnecessary bill to add on to the rest of your life. It may also be quite risky to be a member of because of the information they once lost, causing a panic among the company and its members. Nevertheless, I feel this company is trying to give back to those customers who were very affected by past situations.This time, I am sure they will try to keep a better eye on the customer information so as to keep the country calm and to keep their service active.

[Unknown editorialist]. (2009). “It’s dum 2 txt while u drive.” USA TODAY.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/09/our-opinion-its-dum-2-txt-while-u-drive.html#more

The editorialist is saying that we must not text while we drive, but also that there is a long way to go for that to actually happen. The article starts off by saying ways that technology has dramatically changed the way that people communicate. We are then told that texting can be dangerous at times, especially while driving. We are told that there have been tests that show texting causes accidents. Also, the article says that only a few states have changed the laws so that texting is illegal, but that this won’t really help unless peoples’ attitudes change because police cannot monitor everyone to see if they are texting and driving. We are told that we need to take a stand against texting in the way that Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) took a stand against drunk driving. This is so that social pressure will get people to stop texting and driving. The editorialist then ends off his argument by saying there is still a long, long way to go.

The editorialist makes a good argument and I agree with it. However, his article isn’t what caused me to believe texting while driving is bad; I already believed that. But there is good information in his article which gives the author authority. By stating facts, people are more likely to believe the author. The editorialist has obviously researched this topic so that he or she could write a good article on the subject. This would lead to more people agreeing with the author because the he or she has obviously done research.

The author uses facts and statistics to support the claim. So, logically people will agree with the author because logical evidence is presented. The editorialist also tells the reader who conducted the study of the statistics. However, I do see a couple potential weak spots in the argument. The author tells us statistics of how many deaths and injuries were caused by distractions while driving. The author then says that texting is the clear culprit, but the reader isn’t given proof of this. Also, the author says that according to a 2007 study, 46% of teenagers say they text while driving. That’s fine, but 2007 was two years ago, so I see that as being a gap in the argument. The problems are not addressed.

The editorialist’s style is informational, and yet at times it is more like the reader is being spoken to. For example, in the article it says, “We Facebook, we Tweet, we Skype — and, yes, we text”, and although this might not apply to everyone, it will apply to people who actually use Facebook, Twitter, and Skype. They will feel more like they are being spoken to, rather than spoken at. Even so, the editorialist tells us many statistics, and also attempts to convince the reader that we need to not only refrain from texting while driving, but get others to do the same. The audience that the author intends to reach is people who use technology, mainly texting, and people who have an interest in the topic of texting while driving. By saying what the author says in the quote above, we know that this is the intended audience. The writing style makes it less boring, and the title of the article is also more interesting than it could be, because it is spelled wrong like people often do when using technology, such as texting. This makes the writing more effective, and more people will agree with the argument.

People are freaking out that if we get the flu shot were going to have an increase of deaths, heart attacks, stokes, miscarriages among women and seizures. This commonly happens to people even if they don’t get the flu shots. I believe that people freak out way to much when the flu season and shots start coming around. Most parents who blame medication and vaccines for their children’s disabilities know that it’s not completely true. Usually it comes from genes and during pregnancy when the mother is taking medication, smoking, and drinking. It doesn’t help the scientist or doctors who study who give these vaccinations when the media is behind their back for every single detail and they report false claims. If there are people who do claim that the shot did actually kill someone they knew, the public should know that the vaccine is really the virus trying to let their bodies grow immune to it. So technically their just injecting a little bit of the virus into your body system so that if you actually do get the flu your body will be able to fight against it. So people need to stop blaming the flu vaccine if they get sick or if they end up getting the regular rate of health problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/health/policy/28vaccine.html?ref=todayspaper

McNEIL,DONALD G., . “Don’t Blame Flu Shots for All Ills.” (2009): n. pag. Web. 29 Sept 2009. .

http://news.aol.com/article/nearly-6000-deaths-in-us-from-driver/684433

Ken Thomas (2009) “Driver Distractions Kill Nearly 6,000” AOL News

Driving while on a cell phone or handheld device is not just putting oneself at risk for an accident, but it is endangering others too. I am a teenager and I am guilty for using my cell phone while driving. I understand that it is hard not to use a handheld device or cell phone while driving and that sometimes people have to make urgent calls, but we must realize how crucial it is while driving to be aware of your surroundings in order to insure your own personal safety. I believe that banding the use of handheld devices while driving would be a good idea. According to the article Democrats are working on legislation to require states to ban texting and e-mailing while driving or the states will loose 25 percent of their federal highway funding. Life is a right to all citizens, 16 percent of fatal crashes last year were due to driver distraction. If those drivers were not distracted innocent people who unwillingly lost their lives may not have died. Driving while on the phone can put a driver at a higher risk for crashing than a person driving drunk. It is important that road safety is enforced and young teens are educated about the dangers of driving and the consequence that follow reckless driving.

Rick Klein. (2009). “McCain Angrily Demands McChrystal Testify on Afghanistan”. ABC News.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/mccain-angrily-demands-mcchrystal-testify-on-afghansitan.html

This is technically two articles, one within the other, but the assertion is the same. Why hasn’t commander McChrystal given his strategy formally to the senate? It is not enough that Obama is pretty much telling him “just go kill terrorists”. We have the right to know exactly what will happen over seas, but if it isn’t actually presented in front of congress in a play by play manner then we are just being left in the dark. The lack of strategy is endangering our troops, and McCain understands this and that’s why he is giving this speech.

The author is just summing up McCain’s speech so I’m going to focus on that. McCain knows that his audience, the U.S. Senate, is under a lot of pressure when it comes to Afghanistan. Utilizing this, McCain exaggerates the urgency of this plan which is a very effective strategy to win there votes. He uses the fact that McChrystal has spoken to 60 minuets about Afghanistan as evidence that he has some kind of plan. He also uses a technique, which I don’t know the name of, where he bangs on the podium to excite the audience. This technique was also used by Hitler to fire up the Nazis, not that I’m comparing.

I agree with McCain that he should formally state his plan before the senate, but I do not agree with them forcing him to do it. This should be done when he is ready and willing to present a plan not that he has to make something up at the last second. We do need something that much is sure, and we need it soon. We can’t be left oblivious till the last second where we either win or loose. That would be awful.

The author’s argument is that the Fair Trade coffee movement, while it sounds like a great idea on paper, simply isn’t working the way it is designed to do. Fair Trade is an innovative approach for small-coffee growers to develop sustainable practices, receive fair prices for their goods, and get a chance to compete with larger commercial farms. When this is done properly, this should lead to higher living standards and more eco-friendly farming practices. However, the problem lies with Fair Trade cooperative fees, government taxes, farming costs, and the backbreaking conditions. Coffee farming is excruciating work for little money, even with Fair Trade. The author creates a sense of sympathy towards the grower’s, stating, “Conditions are miserable… Try lugging 100 lb. of fertilizer up a mountain”. In an interview with a Free Trade farmer, the grower says, “What we earn isn’t enough to buy food for our children.” For an editorial mainly based on the appeal of pathos, the author seems to have done some research on the subject, incorporating statistics about prices and reasonable thinking. For example, Fieser states, “Fair Trade pays $1.55 per lb. for organic coffee, almost 10% more than the market price. But [a farmer] is left with only 50¢ per lb. after paying fees, taxes, and farming expenses. By year’s end. . . He’ll pocket about $1,000 — around half the meager minimum wage in Guatemala — or $2.75 a day, not enough for Starbucks’ cheapest latte”. Fieser has a well-thought out argument and calls attention to an issue that people should recognize legitimately.

Zach Cowan
Mikhail Gorbachev. (2009). “Two First Steps on Nuclear Weapons.” The New York Times
This article covers the issue of the UNSC’s cancellation of the nuclear missile defense site in Central Europe from a different perspective: that of former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev wrote this piece to give his opinion on how the United States and Russia should cooperate to defeat nuclear threats. He begins by defending President Obama, an action that would not be expected by the former ruler of Soviet Russia “Many of President Obama’s critics in the United States insist that he ‘caved in’ to Russian pressure, virtually leaving America’s NATO allies to fend for themselves. There is nothing behind this argument other than the old stereotype of ‘bad Russia,’ a Russia that is always wrong” (Gorbachev 1). Gorbachev then continues to describe Obama’s approval in Russia, and then provides a suggestion as to how U.S.-Russian missile defense talks can occur.
As a former Soviet leader, Gorbachev knows what’s at stake when it comes to talking about nuclear weapons -He and the first president Bush signed the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in 1991 to ease tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States- so his input on the matter should be taken as valid. He has been watching the United Nations Security Council talks closely, as well as assessing The United States’ and Russia’s separate plans, and thinks that the only way that the threat of nuclear terror can be stopped effectively is if the two countries combine their efforts and work together. Not only will the result be far more effective than one country working alone, Gorbachev argues, but it would help us “reach a new level of cooperation in ridding the world of nuclear danger” (Gorbachev 2). Logically, the cooperation between the former rivals will generate a new friendship between countries. With that friendship could come a plethora of benefits for the world, from a global security network unlike anything ever seen, to medical aid that could be quickly deployed from anywhere around the world. Gorbachev illustrates his point by providing examples of talks that experts from both countries could have. He explains that these talks could prevent the unnecessary installment of new defense sites by having a “frank discussion that would reveal which threats are real and must be dealt with, and which are imaginary” (Gorbachev 2). Gorbachev acknowledges that this won’t happen overnight, and that both presidents must monitor the project personally so that nothing gets misunderstood or forgotten. That way, they can make sure that the agendas are met and the requirements of this massive project are filled. Gorbachev is calling for a joint effort between the United States and Russia on what may be the most important global issue: that of worldwide protection from nuclear terrorism. The fact that a former Soviet leader is promoting good relations between the Cold War rivals shows that the world is changing, and that perhaps this proposed initiative can be the beginning of a new era of peace.

Zach Cowan
Mikhail Gorbachev. (2009). “Two First Steps on Nuclear Weapons.” The New York Times

This article covers the issue of the UNSC’s cancellation of the nuclear missile defense site in Central Europe from a different perspective: that of former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev wrote this piece to give his opinion on how the United States and Russia should cooperate to defeat nuclear threats. He begins by defending President Obama, an action that would not be expected by the former ruler of Soviet Russia “Many of President Obama’s critics in the United States insist that he ‘caved in’ to Russian pressure, virtually leaving America’s NATO allies to fend for themselves. There is nothing behind this argument other than the old stereotype of ‘bad Russia,’ a Russia that is always wrong” (Gorbachev 1). Gorbachev then continues to describe Obama’s approval in Russia, and then provides a suggestion as to how U.S.-Russian missile defense talks can occur.

As a former Soviet leader, Gorbachev knows what’s at stake when it comes to talking about nuclear weapons -He and the first president Bush signed the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in 1991 to ease tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States- so his input on the matter should be taken as valid. He has been watching the United Nations Security Council talks closely, as well as assessing The United States’ and Russia’s separate plans, and thinks that the only way that the threat of nuclear terror can be stopped effectively is if the two countries combine their efforts and work together. Not only will the result be far more effective than one country working alone, Gorbachev argues, but it would help us “reach a new level of cooperation in ridding the world of nuclear danger” (Gorbachev 2). Logically, the cooperation between the former rivals will generate a new friendship between countries. With that friendship could come a plethora of benefits for the world, from a global security network unlike anything ever seen, to medical aid that could be quickly deployed from anywhere around the world. Gorbachev illustrates his point by providing examples of talks that experts from both countries could have. He explains that these talks could prevent the unnecessary installment of new defense sites by having a “frank discussion that would reveal which threats are real and must be dealt with, and which are imaginary” (Gorbachev 2). Gorbachev acknowledges that this won’t happen overnight, and that both presidents must monitor the project personally so that nothing gets misunderstood or forgotten. That way, they can make sure that the agendas are met and the requirements of this massive project are filled. Gorbachev is calling for a joint effort between the United States and Russia on what may be the most important global issue: that of worldwide protection from nuclear terrorism. The fact that a former Soviet leader is promoting good relations between the Cold War rivals shows that the world is changing, and that perhaps this proposed initiative can be the beginning of a new era of peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/us/27ammunition.html?_r=1

Author Unknown (2009) “Fears of Gun Rules Spur Shortages in Bullet Supply” New York Times

Every since Obama got elected talking about gun control, bullet makers have been having a tough time. People are buying bullets like crazy to stock up. Some bullet makers have even added shifts and make bullets around the clock. The main reason for this is people are afraid that Congress will pass antigun laws which many people clearly aren’t happy about. When he was first elected gun sales shot up but without the bullets guns aren’t good for much. You can club people with them but beyond that not much at all.
The author clearly uses mainly logos in this article. It’s clear for a couple of reasons. First he’s not using ethos since the reader doesn’t even know who wrote it and second, he/she uses a couple of facts and statistics to back up the claim. For example bullet sales have jumped from around 7 billion a year to 9 billion. That’s a lot of bullets. The Author Unknown also uses reliable sources for the statistics such as Al Russo, spokesperson for the Remington Arms Company. This adds ethos to his arsenal. Russo tells the readers that the company had to add shifts and make bullets 24/7. Unknown uses logos and ethos to support his claim that people’s fear of gun control laws causes them to buy more bullets, resulting in the shortage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/08/health/healthy_living/main5071974.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionsArea;cbsnewsSectionsArea.2

Jennifer Ashton (2009) “Many Kids Not Getting Their Zzzzs” cbsnews

The main argument in this article is that children don’t get enough sleep. About one in four kids don’t get enough sleep, but many times it goes unnoticed. A study was conducted and it showed that only four percent of 150,000 children form the ages of 18 and under were diagnosed with a disorder. This is because the parent or child doesn’t catch the warning signs. Some warning signs include snoring loudly, waking up repeatedly, having mood or school performance changes, or falling asleep during the day. Also, obesity has an influence on sleeping disorders. the recommendations to avoid getting a sleeping disorder are to avoid caffeine, having a bedtime routine, and keeping televisions and computers out of the bedoom.

The author of this article is trying to persuade the reader to not ignore the signs of a sleep disorder. The author gains credibility when he/she uses statistics about how much people ignore the early signs of sleeping problems. This makes the reader suddenly believe what the author has to say and takes the article more seriously. Also, the author helps the reader by giving them recommendations to avoid getting a sleeping disorder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/technology/02distracted.html?_r=1&hp

Matt Richtel (2009) “Texting While Driving Banned for Federal Workers” New York Times

This article is about Obama ruling it illegal for federal employees, including bus drivers, truckers, etc., to text while driving. Because of the research by the transportation institute at Virginia Tech and many other known issues, Obama decided it was crucial to pass an executive order for all federal employees to follow. Because this bill will restrict cell phone use of a great deal of people throughout the country, it will take awhile for it to go into action. The consequence of going again this bill would be losing all federal funding for your state’s highways. Although they touched on the idea of banning talking on cell phones, the bill did not say that talking is illegal. They decided to take it one step at a time, starting with something they know they can stop. Despite the fact that truck drivers say that they will be less efficient because of the technology that is necessary for them to do their jobs, careful driving is very important and should be displayed by everyone, especially government officials who are the ones passing laws in order to keep the roads safe. Texting while driving does not display vigilant driving. I believe not texting while driving should be a given. There is no reason to be using a handheld device while driving, no matter if you’re at a stop light or going 25 mph. Although it is a good idea to establish penalties for distracted driving, no government official should be texting at any time behind the wheel.

Unknown Author.(2009). “High Cost of Death Row”. The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28mon3.html

The author’s thesis in “High Cost of Death Row” is that the death penalty should be abolished because it’s expensive. The death penalty wastes millions, and with the recession that we’re in, it would save a lot of money to get rid of it. The author proves his point through various examples as to why this penalty should be removed.

States spend tons of money on trying to win death penalty verdicts which requires an expensive trial that involves witnesses and long jury selections. In Florida, it costs taxpayers $51 million more than holding inmates for life without parole than keeping them on death row. North Carolina has put 43 people to death since 1976 and it costs $2.16 million per execution. In California, they have executed 13 people since 1976, where it’s $250 million per execution, and in Maryland its $186 million for five executions. Carolyn McGinn, a republican state senator, said that in her state, they haven’t executed anybody in more than 40 years. So, McGinn introduced a bill to replace the death sentence to life without parole. The bill was turned down in states such as New Hampshire and Maryland. Colorado considered a bill like McGinn’s so that they could spend money on saving cold cases, but only New Mexico was the state to approve of this bill. However, some say that eliminating the death penalty wouldn’t help the US with their economic problem because most of the costs are in pretrial and trial.

I agree with what the author is saying. The death penalty should be abolished, not just because it’s expensive, but because it’s immoral. Instead of killing off inmates, the punishment should be life without parole and rehabilitation so that the inmates realize that what they did was wrong. Killing off inmates is just as bad as the crime that the inmates are guilty of.

The author did a good job at educating the reader about why the death penalty is wrong, and showed a variety of reasons as to why the death penalty should be removed. However, I felt that the author should have talked more about people who are for the death penalty. In conclusion, the author’s thesis in “High Cost of Death Row” is that the death penalty should be removed because it’s too expensive. The author proves his claim with examples as to how much the death penalty costs in various states. I agree with the author; however, I believe he should’ve had talked more about the other side of his argument.

http://dailytribune.com/articles/2009/10/01/news/doc4ac4b52ce7ee8070518144.txt

This article discusses the push to ban cell phones while driving. Over the years, drivers have become much more distracted due to the use of cell phones. According to the article, the Obama administration is planning a campaign to discourage the use of phones behind the wheel, just as they did to discourage drunk driving and encourage seat belt usage. The article also states that a large amount of car crashes occurring last year, were connected to the use of cell phones and mobile devices while driving. There have already been 18 states that have passed laws to make text messaging while driving illegal, and seven states have banned talking on a cell phone.
Readers who agree with this article feel that text messaging and phone usage while driving is unnecessary, and should be banned. With so many new drivers on the road, there is no need for the use of cell phones, because teen drivers are already distracted enough. When using a cell phone while driving, it takes away focus that is much needed while driving and is basically an accident waiting to happen. By banning the use of cell phones while driving, it will most likely decrease the amount of motor vehicle accidents, something that many people are in favor of.
If a reader disagrees with this article, they would most likely feel that text messaging and cell phone use while driving should not be banned. They would argue that if cell phones were not allowed to be used during driving, if there was an emergency, they wouldn’t be able to get in contact with their family, or their family wouldn’t be able to get in contact with them. The writer of the article added this piece of information to show that the people disagreeing with this article make valid points, and before banning total use of cell phones while driving, they should think twice because banning them could have some unintended consequences.

This article talks about how the government should get involved between the patients and doctors in deciding medical procedures. This is mainly about abortion. Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats say that Americans should be prohibited from buying a plan that covers abortion. The Medicaid program is crucial for poor women because once they finally scrap the money together for abortion it’s too late. Therefore it’s more expensive and riskier. There could be two proposals passed. One would be a plan that includes abortion and one that doesn’t.
I agree with what the article was talking about. I find it fair for women who were forced or who are in danger from the pregnacy to have a choice in whether they want an abortion or not. Although, i don’t quite agree with all the taxes going to the plan because there would be some women who would take advantage.

Abortion support falls sharply, new research finds
By Richard Allen Greene
CNN

In this article there are many uses of statistics and percentages. The author uses logos to explain americas feelings towards abortions. After presenting his argument uses percentages he goes on to explain that more people are voting against abortion that they did last year. Towards the middle of his article he adds a quote from a woman speaking of when she needed an abortion. The author gets into pathos through this quote, as you get a feel of what some woman have to go through, the emotional pain and all. The decision of abortion has made it’s way into the debate over health care. As the author states, a womanmay only get an abortion if she conceves a baby while raped. towards the end of the authors article he turns back to logos and uses more numbers and percentages to express the importance of this issue.

forgot the website!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/01/abortion.poll/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/world/asia/28timor.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Mariah Foley (2009) “As Oil Enriches Australia, Spill Is Seen as Warning” New York Times

Meraiah Foley, the author of the article, has a clear and brief argument about the negative effects of drilling. An oil leak from a well in the Timor Sea continues to pollute the marine-filled waters surrounding Australia. A desperate attempt to clean up the mess has been in effect, and remains hard at work containing the oil from spreading. Officials say it could take another three weeks to finish the project.
The first thought that comes to mind is why oil continues to spill each year from new wells being drilled, and more money coming from a business of booming trade in petroleum, and other mineral resources. Yet, the money from all this goes towards everything else but wildlife preservation. The most interesting thing about this particular spill is that it came from the PTT Exploration and Production energy company, or Thailand’s national petroleum company. They set up over 50 operations in Australia’s tropical waters to supposedly fuel Asia’s hunger for oil. John Carey, manager of the Kimberley Conservation Program with the Pew Environment Group, understands that the area described has little protection at the moment. “It’s a classic conflict between development and the ecological values of the region,” states Carey. Conservationists also say that marine life could take the hardest hit out of it all. Gilly Llewellyn, the manager of conservation programs with WWF-Australia, agrees with the conservationists by adding the fact that even though the spill has not reached beaches, it can still cause harm.
Foley’s argument is not only leaning towards preservation, she is standing on it. There is nothing constructive that will come in the future if it has not already destroyed nature first. No wonder animals become extinct. No laws or regulations are place upon companies to control their emissions and waste. Conservationists are ignored, and walked on by those who work in business, only caring about the amount of money they will receive by the next paycheck. Foley uses plenty of support against drilling that explains the plea for help from wildlife. She also puts the opposing argument in towards the end, only giving a small amount of room for argument.

The article “Teacher Killed at Texas High School;Teen Held”, by the Associated Press, uses a direct and informative tone to discuss the events of Todd Henry’s murder. By quoting Jan Henry, the widow of Todd Henry, the author reaches the audience on a pathos level. This causes the reader to feel the emotional pain of what Todd’s family is going through. This is not a premeditated murder, there was nothing in the room to insight the event. The author relates to the pathos aspect of the community, they were shocked and confused at what made this student act out towards his teacher. The Associated Press provides the reader with a caring aspect of what happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/pop/articles/01swiss.html

My article is about the Healthcare system in Switzerland, and how it is superior to the healthcare coverage in the United States. The author of the article asserts that he would like the system they have in Switzerland to be adopted here, instead of the single payer healthcare plan Obama is pushing for.

The author backs his logic behind supporting the Switzerland by providing evidence in the form of facts and statistics. He claims that Switzerland’s healthcare would be more widely accepted by the opponents of Obama’s model of healthcare because there is no rationing of care; one of the main criticisms of Obama’s healthcare plan is that healthcare will be rationed, and if a person goes over a certain amount of money in medical costs they get screwed over. Also, the author talks about how People in Switzerland are generally happier with the health insurance they have as opposed to American’s who typically speak lowly of their healthcare coverage. The author also states that the Swiss model would save the United States money because they don’t have cash-sucking programs like Medicare and Medicaide; in the United States, we spend $500 Billion dollars a year on these programs, whereas in Switzerland they don’t have special breaks for the elderly which saves them a lot of money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/opinion/01thu2.html

Broken in U.S.A.

The New York Times presents an article about immigration policies under the newfound leadership of Barrack Obama. Obama is taking a different approach to immigration than George Bush did and it is much more civil. Instead of physically catching the immigrants with guns and dogs, the government looked at the company’s payroll. American Apparel, one of the companies that had its payroll audited, was forced to let go over 1800 employees.

The author effectively shows how the government is improving its ways only to shoot it down and call it immoral. The author appeals to emotions because a logically based argument won’t work. The author creates sympathy for the U.S. government by writing about how it is using its power civilly to enforce immigration laws. After conceding this point on behalf of the government, the author turns around and throws emotions into the argument. The author knows his/her audience; he/she knows that the economy is bad. The author also knows that there are many Americans that can sympathize with the loss of jobs. By stating that the government has effectively terminated the jobs of 1800 tax-paying workers, it seems as if the government did something wrong. It is impractical, if not impossible, to appeal through a logically based argument. The logic behind the initial statement is that Illegal immigrants are, simply, illegal. They are not citizens of the U.S. and therefore do not receive the same privileges. The government can’t stand by while people break the law.

The article “From Birth, Engage Your Child With Talk” by Jane Brody, targets new parents. Brody uses the article as a way to persuade new parents to engage in conversation with their children. Brody describes that in today’s busy society parents often get caught up in their new technology, such as ipods and blackberries, and they often lose sight of the importance in communication with their child. She stresses the benefits that this communication can have on a young child.

Brody draws the reader in with a catchy story. She describes how she recently saw a new parent engaging in conversation with their child. Brody described how refreshing it was to see this because it is a rare sight in Brooklyn where she lives. The way she was able to connect her general assertion, that parents should communicate with their child more, to her personal life allows the reader to draw connections in their own lives.

Brody then goes on to cite the American Speech-Hearing-Language Association. She states that they urge parents to communicate with their babies by imitating speech vocalizations. This reinforces Brody’s opinion and also provides the reader with an accredited source on the topic. This is because the American Speech-Hearing-Language Association has ethos.

In the end Brody achieves her goal of convincing the reader to engage in communication with their child.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/29brod.html?ref=education
This is link to the article i just critiqued.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/23/us/AP-US-Texas-Teacher-Stabbed.html?scp=2&sq=stabbed%20guy&st=cse

Link to my article

In this article, Jason Weisberg discusses whether or not the government should make paternal decisions, such as smoking bands and taxing soda or sugary drinks. The government is trying to make a healthier America and is doing so by making decisions that a parent would make. The question is whether or not these people should be able to choose how Americans live for them. Weisberg starts off by discussing different laws that politicians have passed and what people’s reactions to them were. He goes on to explain the things that the government wants to do in the future to create a better lifestyle for people in this country. However the problem is many people believe that the government and these politicians are being too paternal and acting like they know what’s best, just like a parent would do.

Weisberg’s tone in this article is informative. He doesn’t really try to persuade as much as he does inform his audience. He gives readers all the information and then puts in his thoughts. However he doesn’t drill his beliefs into the minds of the audience. Weisberg lets them decide what they think by just giving them what they need to know in order to make an informed decision.

Anonymous. (2009). “Indonesian Quake Toll at 1,100; More Missing”. MSNBC.

This article is about the recent earthquake that happened in Indonesia this past Tuesday. 1,100 were missing and several people were injured or dead. Many people were stuck and toppled by fallen buildings and other things of that matter. One man survived 25 hours crying for help. People spent twelve hours trying to get him out and he ended up only having a broken leg. A lot of people were in shock and would find their husbands, wives, children and others lying dead on the ground after several hours of search. Obama also helps out and donates money to help for all the damage.
Therefore, we should try to get donations just like we have for hurricane Katrina, and the Tsunami. If we all work together we can help put back together their homes and make it safe and happy for them again.

oops forgot the name of the article:
Buckle Up-Or Else by Jason Weisberg

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-lifestyle-taboo
Bradford Plumer. (2009). “The ‘Lifestyle’ Taboo.” The New Republic.
Bradford Plumer wrote an interesting article called, “The ‘Lifestyle’ Taboo”, which is an article that debates whether or not American’s should switch their lifestyle to European ways in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. According to the article, Europeans emit about half as many emissions as Americans. The reason is because most Europeans use clothes lines to dry clothes, they own small fridges, they own small cars, and they use their air conditioner sparingly. This gets readers to wonder whether or not our country should promote European lifestyles to its citizens. Plumer thinks the idea is asking for too much, because Americans will think the changes are too inconvenient. Instead, he thinks Americans should just stick to little changes, not the big lifestyle changes.
Plumer does a good job supporting his claim, despite the fact that many Americans would feel uncomfortable admitting his point does describe our country quite well. Even though it’s nice to believe in the fantasy that all Americans are going to switch to a completely foreign lifestyle just for the environment, instead, Plumer sticks to reality in his article. As an American, it’s hard to deny his point because the impatient, convenience-hunting behaviors of Americans are very familiar to me. There is no way to get our whole society to drop all of the conveniences they worked hard for to take on a whole new lifestyle for the environment. But what’s nice is that this article has a happy medium for both sides. His logical reasoning about reality appeals to the realistic-thinking people, while the hope Plumer has in the little changes he believes could be accomplished by Americans appeals to the environment-lovers. He does a good job supporting his claim by not just reciting facts and statistics, but also mentioning the time he spent in Rome observing lifestyles. Now readers feel the sense that Plumer knows what he is talking about. Overall, this article was enriched with support and chooses the right information to mention in order to persuade its readers.

Author Unknown. (2009). “High Cost of Death Row.” New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28mon3.html

In this article, the author argues that the death penalty should be abolished, not just for moral reasons, but because it is costly for the government. He claims that the high costs of paying lawyers to win trials and to keep up maintenance and security of death rows is draining for state governments. The author uses plenty of facts and data to present his case, which is obviously an appeal to logos. His goal is to prove that it makes sense and is only logical to get rid of the death penalty because of its effect on the economy.

The author does a good job of convincing the reader to trust him. He established ethos by proving that he has done research and is knowledgeable. He uses various statistics and provides the source of his information: the Death Penalty Information Center. By doing this, he proves to readers that they can trust him.

The argument is deliberative because the author wants the states to make a change for the future. Overall, he is successful because of his informed way of attacking the issue. He does not try to win people over by screaming at them that the death penalty is wrong or immoral. He says that the death penalty hurts the economy of states, which cannot be disputed. This allows the author to convince the reader that his view is the right view.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-Facebook30-2009sep30,0,3586130.story

Anonymous. (2009). “Facebook’s online poll crosses a line”. Los Angeles Times.

This article was about someone who recently posted a poll on Facebook that asked whether or not Obama should be assassinated. Since Facebook users can report something posted on Facebook to be inappropriate, the company that runs Facebook was notified and quickly shut down the poll before the Secret Service had to get involved. Many social networks allow users freedom to post and say whatever they want. The controversy is that even though citizens of the United States are ensured freedom of speech and freedom of press, death threats, insinuated or not, are very serious matters. Another problem is that there are over 340 million users of just Facebook alone, and it is very hard to keep track of everything the users are posting to determine if a post is something that should be looked into. Therefore, Facebook gives the option for users to police themselves to help reduce the amount of these incidents.
The author of this article does an excellent job of arguing his claim that social networks should become stricter. He/she defends the claim by using pathos with the seriousness of this issue by using the example on Facebook. He/she appeals to peoples emotions by shocking the audience. The audience is people who are users of social networks. These people are shocked by this article because they realize that something someone posted on this website got national attention and this person got in real big trouble. This author is trying to make the point that people don’t realize that once they post something on social networks such as Facebook, everyone can see them unless the user uses the optional privacy settings. This includes employers, parents, and even government officials. Also, people can get to a certain person’s information from “similar information” on their friends’ profile. A lot of people don’t realize this or don’t take it seriously, but the reality is, according to this article, everything that comes to the extent of the assassination of Obama has to be taken seriously. The editorialist advises that Facebook and other social networks should teach users how to secure information they don’t want on the internet and also make the users realize that some issues should not be joked around with.

http://news.aol.com/article/supreme-court-to-look-at-local-gun-laws/694243

(2009) Mark Sherman “Supreme Court to Look at Local Gun Laws”

The author of this article is without a doubt a pro-gun supporter. He consistently provides evidence referring to the support of less gun restrictions. In many cases, he brings up points of how the Supreme Court and other courts struck down appeals by cities and regions to invoke stricter gun regulations. However, he rarely references times when courts passed legislation restricting the rights of gun owners. The author is clearly appealing to pro-gun supporters, and is looking to gain the support of these people.
I agree with everything that Mark Sherman brings up in this article. I am pro-gun. I believe that every citizen in the United States has the right to legally own a gun and has the right to defend themselves and their property with it if they feel threatened. The Bill of Rights already states that we as citizens have the right to bear arms. Our founding fathers did a rather good job of building this country from the ground up, and if they wanted citizens to own guns, that should not change. However, I believe that a gun should be properly registered, and that anyone who owns a gun should be trained in depth on how to use it. Although the United States has one of the highest gun murder rates in the world, I believe that we do not need to change much about our current gun control system. We have lasted nearly 250 years as a nation with our current laws, and that should not change anytime soon.

Matthew knight wrote an article on the plastic bag. This periodical talks about how we are trashing our urban and rural areas. It talks about how bad the plastic bag is for the world. The author starts by using imagery in his article to set up a mental image of what he is thinking. The author throws at us numbers of how long the plastic bag has been around and how long it takes for one plastic bag to degrade. Knight uses Ethos, we believe in his Ethos because he shows us he researched the information and has a correct reading. I for one am a believer in Global Warming. It is here and growing. This is why I agree with Matthew knights when he says we need to clean up and put an end to the production and distribution of plastic bags.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/14/fsummit.climate.plasticbags/index.html?iref=newssearch

By Matthew Knight for CNN

http://www.freep.com/article/20091001/BLOG2504/90930083/1068/opinion/Banned-Books-Week-is-a-good-time-to-read-one-

Ron Dzwonkowski (2009) “Banned Books Week is a good time to read one) The Detroit Free Press

Ron Dzwonkowski is presenting an argument against the banned books list. He brings up this topic during banned books week, which gives celebrates reader’s freedom to read banned books. He believes a banned books list should not exist; therefore such a week shouldn’t be necessary. He agrees to disagree with the author and his beliefs, but doesn’t believe it should lead to public criticism and banning of their book. It is a protection of the freedom of speech, which helps ensure democracy in the United States. He believes the rights of books should be protected instead of banned. Therefore, Dzwonkowsksi appreciates the opportunity that banned books week gives its readers to explore intellectual freedom, which should be enjoyed all year long.

Dzwonkowski establishes his opinion by first presenting an allusion to draw attention to his topic. He believes banning books is an obstruction to the first amendment of our Constitution. He agrees with banned books week’s idea of promoting intellectual freedom, but disagrees we only celebrate our rights for a week, contradicting our country’s freedoms. To provide evidence to his argument, Dzwonkowski also alludes specifically to the first amendment and our right of intellectual freedom. Using past historical, reputable documents gives him a sense of authority of being a promoter of the people’s rights. Dzwonkowski references to his own personal experience with banned books as boy, he connects with the reader’s emotions. By keeping the active attention of the reader and adding a bit of humor about “Catcher and the Rye”, Dzwonski can persuade his readers that the banned books list brings more harm from in exposure than protection of censorship to children.

China has rapidly transformed itself in just a few years into a power that the west can no longer ignore. Most people know this, but what they may not admit or care to think about is the fact that China has many good ideas the west can learn from, the author argues. He goes on to list eight of them as proof.
This article is based upon logos and ethos. The ethos of this article comes from the author, who is a Chinese professor at Geneva who worked with and for Deng Xiaoping and other Chinese leaders. This establishes his ethos in the argument, because he is well-educated, and he has been in China enough to know how things really are there. He holds his opinion because of or in spite of what he has seen, and this gives hi the right to be listened to. Logos is used to prove professor Wei-Wei’s opinion as well; it is what the words on the paper consist of, the type of appeal they make. The ideas he presents fall into three major categories: that China has based its policy-making on finding the truth and using the facts to determine their political course; that China believes in Government as a good thing, and something that should follow the best course of action; and that they have succeeded faster than the west in elevating human rights. Professor Wei-Wei argues that one of China’s biggest ideals is discovering the truth, and this has led them to think critically about how they do things. They think that neither the U.S.’s democratic ideals nor Russia’s Communist way of doing things is right, and so have been forging their own path. This has resulted in necessary reforms throughout its recent history, including hard ones as well as easiy ones; this wouldn’t happen in the U.S., which makes China superior to the U.S. in doing things that are necessary. In support of his second point, he says that in the past, China has always been its greatest under a strong state government. The strong government now is able to keep the economy in hand. The third point Professor Wei-Wei makes he backs up by reminding us that China succeeded in lifting some 400 million people out of deep poverty in a single decade. 76% of people in a recent poll said they felt safe economically, as compared to hardly anyone in the U.S. he points out. These are the major reasons why China should be looked to as a supplier of good policy.
This is a good argument, and I agree with the professor that China certainly has improved recently, and has many good ideas. However, there are a few facts I wonder about. For instance, how do we know that the people who took the poll he mentions did not lie? And when he claims officials are competent, that is hard to believe because there are so many stories about how they are not. Overall though, Professor Wei-Wei’s argument is very convincing.

Author Unknown(2009)”Hoopster born without a left hand gets his chance” Associated Press

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/10152804/Hoopster-born-without-a-left-hand-gets-his-chance?GT1=39002

This article is about how a freshmen basketball player, who got his ultimate dream answered. A scholarship to play basket ball, for a Division 1 school, Manhattan College. The reason this is so unique is, he only has one hand. His name is Kevin Laue , and is from Pleasanton, California . The moment I found this article, I knew I had to read it is truly a feel good story to hear. Kevin has shown me that if you apply yourself and strive for the best, one can achieve anything they have their mind on. Kevin never gave up on his dreams, even when he was told he couldn’t play at the next level and was rejected multiply times but never thought of giving up without a fight. It’s this kind of motivation that makes me want to strive for the best and never say I can’t do a task or fulfill a dream.

Oops. forgot the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/opinion/01iht-edzhang.html?ref=global

Recently, in Indonesia, the people were hit with a tremendous earthquake that reportedly managed to claim over 1000 victims. Peaking at 7.6 on the Richter scale, the earthquake originated in nearby waters and rode into the city of Sumatra. Other cities flattened by this disaster include Padang, Djamil, and Maryani. Throughout this article, the writer posts quotes in order to give the reader a sight into what is actually going on.

In this article, the writer is trying to get the reader into the minds of the people and to experiance hell with them. His strongest method of doing so is creating a visual that the reader can easily picture. In order to create a visual, Irwin describes the scene and tells smaller stories that have happened throughout the disaster. In order to create the visual, Irwin describes the scene and tells smaller stories that have happened throughout the disaster. From people trapped under rubble to mothers looking for the shoes of their dead daughters, this article accurately depicts what is happening at this very moment.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gCeFe6qrUA2J6TpqBUjMoyp8nthAD9B2KBJ80

and yes, i did use google

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/secret-lives-of-the-presidents/?ref=opinion
Timothy Egan. (2009). “Secret Lives of the Presidents.” New York Times.

Egan writes an editorial stating his thoughts about the true nature of presidents and what would happen had their true nature been released and known to the public. Examples he gives are Bush actually not being completely against gay marriage as some thought, and also Clinton’s weak-at-heart nature.

He utilizes pathos in his argument, appealing to one’s feeling of disappointment and curiosity. Egan uses the feeling of disappointment in a loose way; it is supposed to be used in making the reader feel disappointed that Presidents are constantly hidden behind their own party’s political agenda and also perhaps the true nature of these Presidents. The feeling of curiosity is utilized a lot more in this editorial. The passage is supposed to comment on the “what if’s” and “if only’s” of these presidencies and presidents. Therefore, it is supposed to ignite one’s curiosity as to “what if he showed his true colors”? The author goes farther with this appeal to curiosity. He shows that if one president had truly acted his true nature in public, we might not have welcomed Obama today.

The editorial is a forensic argument. It speaks about cause and effects throughout it and gives many examples. These cause and effect examples are supposed to further appeal to a sense of curiosity. It does this by showing the cause and effect, and then explaining what may have happened had it been different. However, this could also lead to disappointment, as one may prefer the President’s true nature. The secret lives of presidents is shown to be a curious thing.

IRWAN FIRDAUS (2009) “Indonesian quake toll at 1,100, thousands missing.” The Associated Press

MMQB Mailbag: Hope abounds for Stafford, Lions; early byes useless
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/09/29/mail/index.html

My article is about the Detroit Lions finally breaking their 19-game losing streak. The Lions haven’t won a game in over 21 months which was not just depressing for the team, but for the Detroit city as a whole. Jim Schwartz, the new coach, was very pleased with his new first round draft pick, Mathew Stafford. Coach Schwartz said, “Don’t you ever go conservative on me”, after the game. Stafford found the courage to march down the field and make daring throws, one after the other. The Lions organization can finally start looking in a new direction after a nail bitting defeat over the Washington Redskins. The writers of this sports article uses logos to make his appeal. He explains why Stafford was the first overall draft pick by using statistics. The writers style is to show the reader how the Detroit Lions are moving in a positive direction.

Matt Richtel (2009) “Texting While Driving Banned for Federal Staff” New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/technology/02distracted.html?_r=1&hp

This article is about how Obama wants to ban text messaging for federal employees. He wants to have bus drivers and truckers who travel across state lines to stop texting, and talking on the phone while driving. President Obama wants America to stop texting and talking on the phone when driving. He wants America to have less distraction when someone is driving. Ray H. LaHood also agrees that may people who have been killed in accidents were hit by people who were talking on the phone, or even texting. America has been using phones while driving for a long time now, and it needs to end. America has to slowly get away from using phones while behind the wheel.
The author uses an informative tone when trying to get his point across. He uses logos to help him in stating that driving has become more dangerous due to cellular devices. Cell phones create too much of a distraction when driving. Especially to teenagers who just started to drive. Richtel does a good job on trying to inform his audience about what actions are trying to be taking about texting and talking while driving. Also he informs the readers about how these actions are going to be taken one step at a time, not a once.

[my whole article was just lost due to an internet error. this is what i remember of what i just wrote.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/opinion/29tue2.html

Victory for Angela Merkel

This article states what Germany’s current situation is and also lists some prime political moves might for Angela Merkel to make. The author mentions that Angela Merkel can finally make some serious progress after having to appease left leaning and right leaning German parties. It also states that Germany is needed to cooperate with Iran and to add troops to Afghanistan.

The author makes several suggestions as to how Angela Merkel should run the country and backs each up with a brief reason. Not many techniques are used. The fact that this article is from the New York Times is a big ethos factor but the author basically lists what Germany should do in order of importance. The article serves as a brief update of Germany’s current international standing. More facts to support this articles logical appeal would be nice but the author basically just states his opinion as fact- which might be true- but the article is a bit speculative at the least.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30wed4.html?_r=1&bl

Unknow Author. (2009). “The Polanski Case”. The New York Times.

In this article, the author is asserting that the arrest of director Roman Polanski was the correct action for the Swiss to take. He takes this side because of the irrefutable evidence that supports the fact that Polanski is guilty. The talented filmmaker had confessed to commintting the crime over 30 years ago, but fled the United States before he was tried. Switzerland and other countries have allowed Polanski to move about Europe for all these years, and the sudden arrest of this suspected felon has caused an uproar throughout those countries. The author supports his beliefs by using the logical explanation that Polanski’s confession proves he’s guilty. This article is styled to argue that the arrest of Polanski should not be criticized. The filmmaker confessed to the crime, and was arrested because of this. Therefore, no matter how much time has passed between the accusation and the arrest, his seizure was justified.

Donald G. McNeil. (2009). “Swine Flu Spreading Widely; Worry Over Pregnant Women”. New York Times.

This article is about the rise of the Swine Flu. As of right now we have a total of 936 American deaths. Many pregnant women are being affected by this and scientists are advising women to get the flu shot as soon as possible. There is a new vaccine called Tamiflu that is supposed to help in keeping people immune to the Swine Flu. Scientists don’t know why this disease is spreading so rapidly and that it was hitting when it wasn’t even flu season. Hopefully the new vaccine will help.

Mr. McNeil uses scientific evidence and facts to support his statements in this article. He also writes very factually and sounds as if he knows a little but about what he is talking. He sounds as if he is not just rambling off numbers and that he is knowledgable in what he is saying. That automatically grabs my attention. I don’t want to read an article written by someone that is merely stating what he was told to state. Mr. McNeil appeals to what people want to hear; they don’t want to necessarily just hear about how the Swine Flu is spreading, they want to know what’s happening to help stop it. He also sticks to the facts. He doesn’t go drawing conclusion, he simply states what is true. He addresses some very interesting, factual, and interesting things about he Swine Flue that in this article and that is what kept my attention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/health/02flu.html?_r=1&ref=us

Gretchen Reynolds. (2009). “Phys Ed: How Do Marathons Affect Your Heart” New York Times.

This article addresses the subject of whether or not running marathons is beneficial for your heart. The author, Reynolds, argues that running marathons does indeed help your heart. Using logos, the author first starts out by mentioning the opposing side to her argument. Reynolds, then however, proves this evidence not valid by using more logos. To support that the evidence is incorrect the author uses sources that the reader can trust. This helps Reynolds establish her ethos. Using quotes from people like Paul D. Thompson, the chief of cardiology at Hartford Hospital, the audience knows that they can trust her.

By organizing the article in a way where the opposing side is given first, it allows Reynolds to leave the audience with the strongest points. The author ends the article with her claim in order to reinforce what she has just proved. The audience in this case would be anyone who is involved with running or exercising. The author knows who her audience is and therefore, keeps the focus of the article on physical fitness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/opinion/29brooks.html David Brooks. 2009. “The Next Culture War.” New York Times.

The assertion of this article is stating that although many countries have declined because of materialism, affluence, and luxury, The United States will not follow the same path because of its core economic values. The writer starts his argument by explaining the theories of why countries have failed in the past. This builds his credibility and the logos of the argument because it shows that he knows what he’s talking about right away. Also, the strategy in using the theories, is to show the typical course of the decline of a country. He demonstrates irony when he makes it seem like every country follows this “formula for declination” yet his thesis states the opposite; America doesn’t follow this path even though it is very materialistic and prosperous. He talks about previous events in history to support his thesis. Because it is a logos based argument, it is harder to disprove because he uses specific evidence from historical events. For example, during Theodore Roosevelt’s time, it was considered the Guilded Age where America tried to cut down on materialism. This contributes to his thesis because he talks about America’s core economic values. He also uses other data to build his argument such as the federal budget, cultural politics, and debt in America. All of these provide concrete evidence and solid numbers to support his assertion. The only lacking portion of this argument is its appeal to pathos. The argument is presented in such a way that readers have no emotional reaction to it expect maybe a slight response to the data. The assertion is cold and not inviting to read unless the reader is truly interested in the subject of the article. The argument itself is structurally sound because there is hard evidence to support it and it is presented in a clear, concise manner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/opinion/01thu3.html?scp=1&sq=seven%20years&st=Search
Anonymous. (2009) “Seven Years After the Sniper” New York Times

This article is about how action is not being taken towards preventing future sniper attacks. Mr. Borgelt, a dealer of guns, supposedly had some of his weapons stolen or lost. One of those is used in the sniper attack in 2002. Congress has taken action against Borgelt, but they have not tried to fix the overall problem.

The author does a great job of using his style to make the argument convincing. The argument is deliberative because the author wants congress to crackdown on gun dealers. The author uses an example of how gun stores can be bad at the beginning of the article. This makes the reader interested in the article by grabbing the attention of the reader. This helps make the reader read the whole article instead of just scanning over it. The author uses short sentences to get the point across to the reader. He also uses sarcasm throughout the article. He does this to show how what congress is doing right now is a joke. The author uses pathos in the article to convince the reader of his argument. He makes the reader feel that congress is afraid to face all the gun stores to correct the problem of gun threats. Lastly, the author shows how the congresses only attempt to stop weapon sales leading to attacks does not even work. The business Mr. Borgelt owns is sold to his friend who now runs it. Now weapons can still be bought for attacks from the same store that provided the weapon for the 2002 attack. The author explains how action needs to be taken to prevent weapon attacks in the future.

Jim Rhoades (2009) “Let motorcyclists go helmetless?” Detroit Free Press

The Article “Let Motorcyclists go Helmetless?” written on Thursday October 1st by Jim Rhoades in the Detroit Free Press, discussed the possibility that Michigan should modernize the present helmet law and bring it in line with all of the other Great Lakes states. Rhoades discussed that changing the current law would attract more motorcycle tourist and would bring in an estimated $1.2 billion to the state’s economy in tourism, increased tax revenue, and new motorcycle-related business. He goes on to state that “Fatality rates are actually lower in states that have modified their helmet laws. According to NHTSA data, fatality rates over the last 25 years have been virtually the same for freedom-of-choice states versus mandatory helmet law states”. Also, no state in the nation has increased its insurance when it modifies its helmet law for adult choice.
The type of persuasive argument that Rhoades uses in his article is a question of policy. Rhoades included both his values and facts into his article. Rhoades incorporated facts when he quotes the percentage of how much motorcycle fatality rates have declined nationally, and the amount of money that would be brought in. Rhoades used his values when he discussed in his last paragraph about education of riding motorcycles.
Two types of persuasive appeals were included in Rhoades’ article. By discussing the facts of the amount of money, and the percentage, Rhoades uses logos. Also, collecting his information form a reliable source, and quoting that source, he uses ethos.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/01/us.afghanistan/index.html

Kristi Keck (2009)
‘Humility’ needed in Afghanistan, commander says

In this article, Keck writes how General Stanley McChrystal stresses the importance of connecting with the Afgan peopl, who are “frustrated” that not much had been attained in the last eight years of war.

Tara Parker-Pope. (2009). “With Soap and Water or Sanitizer, a Cleaning That Can Stave Off the Flu.” The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/health/15well.html?ref=views&pagewanted=print

Tara Parker-Pope tells readers that hygiene is a key role to staying healthy and away from the flu. Since germs spread quickly and exist everywhere, it is very important for people to wash their hands. People should also refrain from touching eyes, noses, mouths, and faces. By doing so, germs are less likely to enter one’s body. Pope uses logos to support her argument by providing multiple statistics proving how easily people get sick. She also establishes ethos in her article. Using feedback from doctors at colleges and universities, Pope is able to gain credibility in her argument; college and university doctors are reliable sources and trusted by people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a well-known health organization, further verifies ethos and credibility by advising readers to become extremely hygienic in order to avoid symptoms of sicknesses. Pope also addresses statistics from Harvard University, a top-notch, well-known, Ivy League University. By discussing statistics from Harvard, many people trust the writer’s argument. In this article, Tara Parker-Pope explains the importance of cleanliness and informs readers by using logos and ethos to support her argument.

This article is written in an informative and casual manner. Since Pope is appealing to everyone trying to avoid the flu, which is a broad audience, she uses a casual writing style. By using a casual writing style, she will appeal to many different age groups and personalities. In this deliberative article, Pope writes in an informative manner to give advice to those trying to prevent sickness from entering their immune systems. Throughout the article, Pope also responds to the stasis question “What actions should be taken?” She tells readers to wash their hands frequently, as well as staying away from contacting with one’s face. The advice given throughout the article attracts the reader’s attention. Because Pope is writing an article that would appeal to many individuals, she uses an informal writing style that informs readers about the numerous ways to avoid the flu.

Overall, Pope supports her argument effectively. By using ethos and logos, readers trust the information given by the author. She is able to inform readers in a deliberative article and offer advice that will help people avoid the flu. She briefly mentions her counter-argument, but later refutes it, which strengthens her argument. Tara Parker-Pope is able to inform and advise readers about the flu season, as well as provide advice for readers to help avoid catching the flu this year.

SORRY
The rest of my periodical didnt send
Here it is

McChrystal feel that more troop are need in Afganistan or the war “will likely result in faliure”.
General David Petraeus, the US commander of the Middle East and Central Asia, feels the victory of Afganistan wil be similar to Iraqs’.
He states, that it is imperative that Afganistan can take back control of their own country, and not become a safe-heaven for al-Queda and other extremists.
Keck wrote this article to make you feel sympathic for the Afgan people dealing with the war. She writes, “The average life expactancy is 44 years, McChrystal noted… and there are few people who remember pre-conflict life…”. Keck also states McChrstals goal of protecting the Afgan people and becoming closer partnes with them as well.
This article stresses the importance of how the US impacts the Afgan people and their hope for a more peaceful future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/opinion/21mon4.html

In New York they recently banned taxi drivers from talking on their phone while driving. Many people have listed complaints against the Taxi drivers and the state had to take action. A fine is now given to any New York cab driver on their phone while driving a passenger. Every since, the amount of taxi cab tickets have decreased dramatically. The state was worried that the riders lives were in jeopardy and needed to make decisions.

This argument uses pathos appeal to have the reader connect with the subject. It causes them to have an opinion by showing how it can affect them. A reader usually feels disinterested if they do not connect. The author uses humor to get the point of cross as well to be more appealing to the reader and set the mood. Taxi drivers is not a common or very interesting subject so adding the humor helps author find the way to understand. They also use sarcasm to make fun of the Taxi Cab Bill of Rights showing that a subject that may seem small is actually very large to the average person living in New York.

The author is specific on their opinion on the topic and the issues of the topic itself. They go into details on the different aspects of the arguments. He tends to use words that add fluff or appeal but do not add to the point of the argument. Some of the facts are not clearly stated and added some confusion to the article. But the words and the language of the article are easier to understand. The article does not show that it is formal in any way by using sarcasm and the dictation. The author has gotten the point across about the argument, but did not attract others to the topic or change their opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28mon3.html?pagewanted=print
September 27, 2009. “High Cost of Death Row.” New York Times.

In this editorial, the author makes the assertion that the death penalty should be abolished due to the cost alone. The writer uses logos to win people over to his or her side. He or she uses numbers that show the high cost of death row in comparison to life in prison. The writer proves that the death penalty is more costly than simply keeping a person in prison for life due to the extra security needed to run a death row prison. This editorial is definitely a deliberative piece of writing. The clear goal of the writer was to bring people over to his or her anti-death penalty stance. While most people debate this topic through pathos, talking about the execution or innocent people, this writer chose to use logos to hopefully appeal to more people. The writer reveals this strategy by writing at the end of the piece that if lawmakers would outlaw the death penalty for moral reasons, that maybe they would ban it for economical reasons. Looking at this statement, the writer is attempting to write to an audience who is likely pro-death penalty and may have power to keep it that way or change it. I believe the writer did a great job bringing in facts and figures to lure readers over to his or her side. The writer also does a nice job presenting an anti-death penalty stance in a clear, logical way.

Kristin Nelson (2009) “Economy Spooking Halloween Shoppers”

This article is addressing how the recent downfall in the economy is not only affecting big time companies or the Big Three but also affecting common US citizens. As October approaches Halloween follows right on its heels. Lots of people love to dress up and spend great amounts of money on their costume.

Some might say that the economic downfall will have no affect on such a small holiday. Lots of people, though, will be cutting back on their scary look. This year the average consumer will spend about 56 dollars on Halloween this year, down from roughly 66 dollars last year. According to the National Retail Federation that’s down more than 10 million from 2008. Big costume sellers such as Party City and Halloween Town USA will be bumping up coupon prices to get more people into their stores.

This article is proof that no matter if it’s your costume on Halloween, or going out to get fast-food, or even looking to purchase a new shirt that the economy affects our everyday decisions.

Unknown Author. 2009. ” ‘Gossip Girl’ Among Top 10 Books Eyed for Ban”. MSNBC.

The author of this article uses the title to grab a reader’s attention by using the name of a popular television show /book series as the opening phrase. By doing so, he/she has already sparked an interest, and in some cases a curiosity, about what will follow. This article is about how the well known ‘Gossip Girl’ books may soon be banned because of censorship. The author is speaking to those who promote teens reading this series, as he/she shows his/her opinion without ever directly stating it. First, there is an appeal to credibility from the author as he/she alludes to an older book that was banned and why. Then there is an appeal to morality as the author basically lists the “wrong” things about the books and their negative effects. Also, there is a refutation later in the article as the author states that the creator of Gossip Girl likes the controversy brought by the censorship on her books. The author puts this idea down, though, by then jumping to the positive effects censorship has had on young people, as well as listing other popular books that have been censored.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/opinion/01thu1.html?pagewanted=print

This article is about the United States’ federal health care reform in relation to abortion. Conservatives are trying to suggest that American’s should have to pay more for a health care package that includes abortion. The article later goes on to explain that the proposal won’t let anyone us federal subsidies to pay for an abortion. An insurance “rider” can be purchased to cover abortions. However, this would be expensive, permitting many women from investing in it.

The author wrote this editorial to inform the public of what the national health care reform actually covers. After reading this, the author is hoping that many women will be disgraced by the reform. At the end of the article, the writer explains how the government should not be in charge of their citizen’s health care issues. The reader exaggerates this paper in order to show Americans how their government plans to take over their health. This writer mainly uses facts to support her point. This establishes credibility between the writer and reader, which makes the reader trust everything the author writes. The writer wraps up their paper by playing with the reader’s emotions. The last paragraph is intended to make the reader angry towards their government for trying to control their health. Also, there is a call to action for the democrats to stop this reform with interfering with American’s health care issues.

forgot to site my source.

Unknown Author.2009. “Abortion and Health Care Reform”. NYTIMES.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574429423801826360.html

Sean Parnell. (2009). “Alaska Can Meet U.S. Energy Needs.” The Wall Street Journal.

The assertion of this journal states that the US should start drilling for gas and oil in Alaska in order to sustain our country on an energy standpoint for the years to come. The US Department of Interior will make a decision on whether or not exploration on Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) shall be expanded. Parnell states that other countries such as Norway have been off shore drilling in the past and if one were to look at their country, then he or she would see that the production of these resources has helped maintain global energy supplies, has created thousands of jobs in those countries, and has generated tens of billions of dollars in revenue for those governments.

Author Sean Parnell appeals to the readers sense of logic in order to persuade them into agreeing that offshore drilling shall be done. He uses examples such as 1) it creates US jobs, 2) royalties of these resources will go towards our own government as opposed to foreign government, and 3) developing Alaska’s OCS will significantly advance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. Before reading this assertion, I believed that off shore drilling should be done, but after reading this article I not only think it should be done, I think it should be done immediately. Parnell gave me straight facts listed clearly of why offshore drilling would be beneficial. One doesn’t even have to read the article to find out his three main reasons because if he or she was to skim over the article, the three facts are stated clearly in the topic sentence of three separate paragraphs. To contradict those beliefs that offshore drilling should not be done, Parnell gives an example of another country that is striving off the drilling, all of while becoming independent as the US stays dependent on paying foreign governments for oil and gas.

Because Sean Parnell knows his audience consists mainly of liberal citizens, he doesn’t use firm language demanding that we start offshore drilling, but he uses a calm relax language with clear examples in order to keep the reader reading. With clear examples and recognizing and contradicting the opposing view, Sean Parrnell’s assertion was successful in securing my beliefs about offshore drilling.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091002/hl_time/08599192734700

Alice Parks. (2009). “Do Candy-Eating Kids Become Criminal Adults?” Yahoo News, TIME.

Does candy really have that much of an effect on a kid as to cause them to be criminal when they grow up? Author Alice Park states that many sugary snacks given to children early on in life, makes them more prone to violence starting at a younger age. Although it’s unknown whether or not there are actually compounds in sweets that cause antisocial or aggressive behavior, it sparks the attention to the audience, specifically parents, to possibly watch their child’s habits when they eat many sweets. She uses the appeal of logos, with research and studies shown by University leaders to prove she did her studying on the subject, which also makes her seem like a credible source. This argument isn’t presented in a humorous matter, also known as a type of pathos appeal, because the argument may be taken lightly if it was. Usually, one wouldn’t think that something so simple as candy would cause such a drastic measure in the future, so it’s important to establish credibility along with facts and reasoning behind it. The way Park included a title which includes two uncommon pairs of words, candy and crime, it grabs the attention of the reader which causes them to read on and raise thoughts that this actually is a legitimate argument. People may question this argument, but the more you read on and notice the technique of the ongoing rhetorical questions, the more you feel related to the author and what she is trying to persuade you to believe.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1926222,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

John Cloud. (2009). “Kids Who Get Spanked May Have Lower IQs.” Time Online.

In the Time article, “Kids Who Get Spanked May Have Lower IQ’s” by John Cloud the ethical issue of spanking a child for discipline is discussed.

The author cites a sociologist from the University of New Hampshire who seems to be an authority on this particular topic. The sociologist, Murray Straus, is 83 years old and has been studying the topic since 1969. The article uses a combination of logos (specific facts, studies, and exact evidence) and also ethos because of Straus’ knowledge and specific credibility on the topic. The author starts out by asking a serious of rhetorical questions. These questions strengthen his argument by questioning the ethics involved on this topic. The author then moves on to talk about the specific studies that Straus participated in. This study was completed in many different countries which gives even more credibility to the article. Including specific facts and numbers about the article help to strengthen everything that the author is trying to say. The author uses a few more rhetorical questions which really get you thinking about the topic presented in this paper. The author looks at both sides of this argument and addresses why people may not believe that spanking a child could really lower their IQ. At the end of the article, it is summed up with a few more statistics and relating them to life today. Overall, I believe that the article and the argument are structured very well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/science/earth/01epa.html?bl

This article is about the Environmental Protection Agency or E.P.A. and President Obama’s plan for the Climate Bill. If this bill is passed it will require power plants regulate the amounts of emissions they put into the atmosphere. This bill will be taking effect as soon as 2011 which means a lot of things have to be done quickly. The Climate Bill causes a lot of debate because the bill by requires companies to prove that they have applied the best available technology to reduce emissions or they face penalties. It will be interesting to follow this story and see how much of the bill actually gets passed and if it does if it will be enforced as much as its getting played up to be.

Christopher Dickey. (2009). “The New TNT.” Newsweek.
Lately suicide bombers have been using more extreme methods of concealing weapons to get through security. To illustrate this trend, author Christopher Dickey uses a suicide bomber who tried to blow up Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism chief as an example. The bomber had explosives hidden in his body, a method so discreet it would get through security measures in airports. These new extreme methods make it hard for security to detect the bombers, which means that more measures should be taken to stop the suicide bombers before they go abroad to commit the deed, maybe even before they’re certain they want to be terrorists. To do this, experts have to know what to look for in potential suicide bombers. Dickey argues that three elements most suicide bombers have in common are testosterone, a narrative fantasy, and a desire to make theater.

Dickey claims no authority on the subject, but uses information from others who do have authority, including law enforcement officials, scholars, and a friend who works as a security correspondent. By referencing these respected people, Dickey establishes authority and credibility indirectly, appealing to readers’ ethos. He also appeals to logos through his use of evidence, including specific examples and results of research to support his argument. Assuming that his intended audience—law enforcement and others working to stop suicide bombers, as well as interested readers—may not grasp his argument fully, Dickey explains his reasoning in a practical way that is easy to understand. The tone of the piece is serious, the argument deliberative as Dickey warns of what to look for in the future in order to prevent more suicide bombing attempts. His logical reasoning, abundance of evidence, simple language, and somber subject make the article convincing and interesting to read.

Anne Drapkin Lyerly Margaret Olivia Little and Ruth R. Faden. (2009) “Pregnancy Is No Time to Refuse a Flu Shot”. New York Times

In this article the authors shows the controversy on rather pregnant women should be vaccinated by newly designed vaccines or not. They focus on the newly marketed H1N1 vaccine, that is set to be distributed this month. Though they are quit informative on raising concerns and issues on both sides of the controversy(to get the H1N1 shot or not), they are adamant in urging pregnant women to get vaccinated to prevent any infection of the H1N1 influenza.

These authors waste no time projecting their claim that pregnant women should get the H1N1 flu shot. They first exclaim this after identifying the seriousness of the flu, and its deadly effects. They then establish their potential audience by stressing the high risk of infection of the flu particularly pertaining to pregnant women. After establishing what to do to prevent the flu infection, they establish why women should be vaccinated. The article has a informative outlet, that relies mostly on the argument of logos, and partially on ethos. Their main argument is that pregnant women should get the vaccination in order to prevent infection from the flu and to prevent complications in pregnancy. They do this by highlighting the statistics of women having pregnancy complications because of not getting medicine, verse women who don’t have such complications who have gotten vaccinated. The authors rely on ethos by alluding their informative information from prominent sources in which people can trust like, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors’ goal is to educate their readers about the risk of the flu, and to persuade them to protect themselves from possible infection by getting vaccinated.

Donald G. McNeil Jr. (2009). “Don’t Blame Flu Shots for All Ills”. New York Times.
The new swine flu vaccination will not harm people any more than they already will be harmed. The author is stating that people do have heart attacks after getting a shot but nothing proves it was the vaccine that gave them the heart attack. He argues that people already get flu shots, so getting a different type of flu shot isn’t really any different. He uses logic and sarcasm to get his point across and he recognizes that people against what he’s saying have points. But he disproves them with his own reasoning and in the end, uses evidence that doctors are recommending it to add more credibility to his argument.

Periodical
According to MLive.com, On September 11, 2009 James Poullion, also known as the “sign guy,” of Owasso, Michigan was intentionally targeted and murdered in a drive by shooting across from Owasso High School around 7:20am. Katie Bach reports that the 63 year old Poullion was just doing what he always did, standing up for the rights of the unborn. Whether he was standing outside of Owasso High School or demonstrating in front of abortion clinics or at political rallies in Washington D.C., he was doing what he believed was right in the eyes of God. Poullion was well known in his community as an outspoken pro-life demonstrator who was respected by many and hated by some. He was maliciously gunned down for his pro-life stance and for displaying large graphic photographs of mutilated fetuses which had the tendency to offend many people. He believed since society condones abortion then society should have no problem looking at the pictures of aborted fetuses. Poullion will be remembered by many as a martyr for the unborn.
Ms. Bach’s article attempts to personalize Mr. Poullian by explaining who he was and what he believed in. She appeals to her readers emotions by going into great detail about his life including that he served in the Vietnam War, was a former GM employee and that he suffered from emphysema and carried his oxygen tank around with him and generally portraying him as a good guy. Bach’s article helps her readers understand that this was a man who lived and breathed what he believed. He demonstrated, he prayed and he got others to think about the subject, whether they agreed with him or not. Bach interviewed friends, neighbors and strangers who knew Poullion or knew of him. Those who knew him all agreed that he was a peaceful man who was passionate about this cause and that he often said he’d be willing to die for his beliefs. She also points out how he spent thousands of dollars fighting court cases filed against him for his demonstrations and that he had even been jailed for his actions.
The author explains two sides of Poullian, as both a champion for the unborn and also as one who enjoyed stirring up people’s emotions on the subject of abortion. He wanted people to talk about it and he wanted to do his part in preventing it. Obviously, he was successful because he ended up dying for what he believed in. While Ms. Bach never reveals her own position on the issue of abortion she does a great job of personalizing the man named James Poullian who was murdered for what he believed in. He was quoted as saying, “I’m trying to do for the babies what the Lord did for me.”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/32881898/

Brian Beers. (2009). “End the Fed, Save the Dollar: Ron Paul.” CNBC

According to Congressman Ron Paul, writes Beers, the Federal Reserve is of little benefit to the economy. It imposes the most ruthless tax there is, the “inflation tax.” This “inflation tax” is regressive, hurting the poor the most because they spend the greatest portion of their money on basic items. Ron Paul claims in his new book End the Fed that the Federal Reserve System is the prime cause of all our major economic booms and busts, including this one. The Federal Reserve has existed for 95 years, but no one has really cared about what the Federal Reserve does until now because the economy is bad and Americans are scratching their heads and asking why. Ron Paul, who has an anti-Fed position, has introduced a bill into Congress (H.R. 1207) to Audit the Federal Reserve, and it has gotten 289 co-sponsors in the US House of Representatives so far. Paul believes it is ironic how every time there is a crisis, the Fed ends up with more power despite the fact that they caused it in the first place. Artificially fixing the rate of interest goes against the free market. Lastly, Ron Paul denounces the massive money printing that has been done over the past few months in the name of saving the economy because all it will do is inflame the bad economy and create massive price inflation in the near future.

Brian Beers provides a very good analysis of Ron Paul’s new book. He is trying to inform the reader about the actual content of Ron Paul’s book so the reader can get an unbiased idea of it. Beers uses the logos from Ron Paul’s book in a logical style of his own by bringing out all of the Congressman’s key points, whether they be rational or hard evidence. The author makes sure that the reader knows Paul is a Congressman because this gives him ethos/credibility. He also gives additional background information on the Fed and Paul’s House bill. Brian Beers uses good use of words to describe how Ron Paul’s bill is “gaining solid momentum” and how End the Fed “is a sharp counter to [Keynesianism].” It is also important not to forget Beers’s usage of a segregated sentence structure (“But, wait”) in grabbing the reader’s attention before discussing what Chairman Bernanke has had to say about the state of the economy in contrast to Ron Paul. Near the end of the article, there is the Pathos appeal that the article writer adds in. He describes his feeling after having read the book that it is sort of like Ron Paul’s playbook for everyone who shares his views (or comes to share them after reading it like most do). Finally, Beers creates one last spark of interesting writing style when he uses personification to state that because of his book, Ron Paul’s [argument] “marches on.”

My periodical is about a new concept car created by Nissan. The car itself doesn’t even really resemble a car even though it’s considered a car. This author took his amazement at the entire design of the car and put it into words through very specific means of style. Dillow has a thing for parataxis sentence style. This is used to bring much higher levels of detail to how the car looks and feels to the article. He also has a thing for imagery in the sense that not only does he tell us about the features of the car he actually describes them to us through descriptive language, such as saying that how the car turns and banks gives the riders the feeling of flying in an airplane and such. Therefore this author favors imagery in his writing style.

Dillow, Clay. “Nissan’s Lean, Green ‘Land Glider’ Banks Like a Motorcycle, Feels Like A Plane .” Popular Science Magazine 10.08.2009 : Print.

Kelly D. Brownell and David S. Ludwig. (2009).”The Soda-Tax Solution.” Los Angeles Times

Kelly D. Brownell and David S. Ludwig wrote this opinion article, The Soda-Tax Solution, to point out the benefits of raising taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. The authors are targeting the adults with children and beverage companies that know these taxes will reduce their sales of consumption. The beverage companies don’t think that taxing sugar-sweetened beverages will reduce obesity since there are so many other factors contributing to this epidemic. The authors state this and refute it by listing studies such as the one conducted by UCLA and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy that shows the percent of children that drink sweetened drinks every day and the outcomes of weight of those children. Brownell and Ludwig use phrases such as “arresting logic” and “scientific evidence” when stating their facts relating kids drinking sugar-sweetened drinks and obesity to make the statements appear legitimate. The authors also make the point that the tax money would benefit the country by raising revenue for healthcare programs and lower costs for healthcare. The authors point out the logical fallacy of a non sequitur argument that energy drinks advertise, (“this drink will make you have a better memory!”) to ridicule the product and show adults what crazy things these advertisements are trying to make children believe so they’ll buy it. The reader is swayed since the authors use very specific facts and studies from valid sources to prove that the benefits of the soda-tax will unquestionably outweigh the detriments of consumers paying a few more cents for a sugar-sweetened beverage and the producers losing some business.

Stein, Joel. (2009). “Cooking by Committee.” Newsweek, 51.

In this article Joel Stein investigates the idea of using the collective knowledge of people to create an ultimate source of information. This was the basis for Wikipedia, and efforts are being made in hopes of having the same success with recipes. Though recipes differ from encyclopedic information in that they are based largely on opinion, Stein points out that even factual entries on Wikipedia are also influenced by this. He claims that what is presented as fact is still subject to opinion and interpretation.

Joel Stein makes an ethos argument about wiki-ing recipes, and includes his customary touch of humor. Collaborative information sites are meant to make finding accurate and usable information easier for the average researcher. Stein reveals the irony in this in regard to cooking. People will agree on the basics of the recipe for a food but they’ll differ on the details, so combining people’s culinary ideas and methods can actually result in a more impractical recipe. Stein mentions a cookie enthusiast who averaged the ingredients and instructions of twelve chocolate chip cookie recipes in order to create a perfect recipe, complete with over-precise measurements. Stein tries her recipe himself and finds that thought this method was a great idea in theory, following the recipe included more hassle, “Making the Mean Cookie was a pain in the ass… You try to measure out 0.17 tbsp. of water or bake at 354.17˚F for 13.04 minutes.” He then tries professional chef’s chocolate chip cookie recipe, and even though it has its own peculiarities, the product is “a lot more compelling than the Mean Cookie.” As Stein experiences for himself, making delicious food is all about preference and interpretation.

Straying from exact instructions and adding one’s own personal touch is what makes cooking interesting and exciting. Average people still experiment and use pinches, handfuls, and dashes when they cook (I know I do), so it is not worth it to try to hone cooking down to a systematic process. Joel Stein doesn’t dispute that collaborative recipe sites have a lot of potential, but they may not be practical. Facts and figures are always appreciated, but opinion and interpretation have their place too. As an amateur chef who chooses not to be bothered with absolute exactness, I agree with his argument.

This article I read spoke of how many people do not believe President Obama is not an American born citizen. An Orange County-based attorney Orly Taitz agrees with this and even filed several lawsuits against the president. She hopes this will get Obama out of the White House since she doesn’t believe he is a born citizen. Taitz believes that certain people have been murdered because she thinks they might have found out something related to President Obama and his non citizenship and believes she will be next in line to be eliminated. She also says the President was born in Kanya, but was brought to Hawaii with his mother when he was a child. She also compares this accusation to having Osama bin Laden come to America with a large sum of money in exchange to be put on the ballot for president. Overall, Taitz is against Obama’s presidency and wants him out.
I feel that Orly Taitz, the Orange County-based attorney, is trying to find excuses to get President Obama out of the White house. I do not believe in any way that the government would let a person not born in the United States run for president. She tries to use scare tactics to make people believe she is right and that Obama is in fact an unreliable president. I feel Taitz simply doesn’t agree with his methods and is therefore trying to turn other people against him to make his ideas and plans less reliable and unrespected. To say that Obama is to be 100 percent American would be a lie. However, being mixed or multi-cultured is not a bad thing and can actually help in a way. By being diverse, Obama has an appeal on different types of people. Taitz must realize that just because his mother is not from America, does not mean he could not have been born here.

Work Cited
Author: Tim Dickinson, Title: What Birthers Want, September 21, 2009, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30205785/what_birthers_want/3

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33332436/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity#storyContinued

Unanimous.(2009). “Interracial Couple denied Marriage.”MSNBC.

This article talks about how a interracial man and woman were ready to get married and were told they could not get married. Bardwell, the man who denied the marriage, said it was not because he was racist but he said the reason why, was because of the fact that it is hard on the children. He does not think it is right for parents to have children, and for them to suffer. Meaning, Bardwell thinks that putting an interracial kid in this world is a bad idea. The couple is going to file charges on discrimination.
If I were part of a couple that wanted to get married and was not allowed, I definitely would put forth a complaint and figure out a way to sue the person that denied me from my right. No child should have to suffer because of a marriage, nor will they. Discrimination should not exist and what Bardwell did may not seem racist to him, but in reality it was because to be racist, there is no need to flat out be mean about a certain issue. However, the reason why he would not grant this couple the wish of getting married shows that there is something deep down that makes him believe times like that are not over and it is because of reasons like these that we still don’t have an equal society.

In this article, Stephanie Lindsley has a gifted twelve year old daughter and a severely disabled eight year old son. Her son receives a lot of excess attention at school through the government funded programs. Her daughter, on the other hand, sits idly in class because she is ahead of everyone else and is thoroughly bored. The government gives money to programs to help disabled children to be able to get the same kind of education that a normal child receives. Gifted children normally don’t get any additional programs. They are just simply gifted. Should extra attention be given Lindsley eldest, gifted daughter or to her disabled son?

The author of this periodical is appealing to a person’s pathos. Lindsley is bringing up facts and talking a lot about how their children feel. She really brings to attention not only what she is going through, but what her children are, as well. She almost makes you feel sorrier for her gifted daughter than her disabled son. Appealing to a person’s pathos brings them down to the writer’s level and thinks emotionally instead of logically. Logically, you would think the disabled child would need the most attention but Lindsley is attempting to make you think differently. It might be necessary for government funding to not just go to the disabled children, but also to those who are gifted.

Stephanie Lindsley. (2009). “Autism and Education”. Newsweek

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/opinion/10sat1.html?ref=opinion (2009). “The Peace Prize.” New York Times.

Periodical Review
The author of this editorial is asserting that Barack Obama deservedly won the Nobel Peace Prize this year and has proper justification for winning it. He supports his assertion by stating the different actions that Obama has taken to improve the nation and its relations with other nations around the world. This article is mostly logos-based because the author presents hard evidence to support his opinion. However, pathos is also involved because he is sympathizing with his audience as to why Obama won. A major technique he uses here is concession; he acknowledges that Obama may not have done anything world-changing yet, but he is definitely on his way there. Also, as part of his concession, he gives examples such as George Bush’s unhappiness with Obama winning the Nobel Prize (because he hasn’t ended the war yet) and how the White House had a bittersweet joy after hearing the news. This is to show that he truly understands the reason behind many people’s skepticism as to why Obama won the prize. Because of the use of concession, the author builds his credibility and appeals to all audiences whether they support his opinion or not; people on the opposing side can at least get a sense that the author does know what he is talking about because he supports them on some points. A significant example of pathos is demonstrated when the author says that Obama did not “seek” the prize. This sentence is thrown in there with the mix of logical evidence to make readers really put themselves in Obama’s shoes. They can understand on an emotional level rather than a logical level that whether Obama deserves it or not, he was not making this achievement as his goal as president; it was just something that came along the way. Overall, this article is well-written because of its’ clever use of concession, logical evidence, and pathos appeals.

Ross Levitt. Susan Candiotti. (2009). “New York workers must get flu shots, for now, judge rules.” http://www.cnn.com.

This article illustrates the main focus of New York to control the spread of the H1N1 virus and their plan of action to achieve this. The goal of the state is to mandate health care workers to be vaccinated for the flu in order to protect the interests of patients. New York is the only state trying to do this; however, their reasoning is very valid, as this disease requires extreme precautions and measures to be taken. Unfortunately, some health care workers who are being forced to do this argue that they receive side effects from this vaccination and should, therefore, not be required to take it.

A major technique used by the authors of this article in order to address this important issue to citizens is the act of refuting. It is clear that they support the state of New York’s decision to mandate this vaccination to health care professionals. However, they make sure to include valid points from both sides, and then refute the opposing side with more logical evidence from theirs. This establishes their credibility and better shapes the readers’ opinion as well, as they are more easily able to choose a side having knowledge from both. Being able to address concerns and opposing views and refuting them is an essential element to formulating arguments. Therefore, this can cause the readers to support the authors’ opinion as their reasoning appears to be credible.

The style of writing in this article is very persuasive and informative. The authors use their firm knowledge on the addressed issue to persuade the readers to agree with them. This chosen style of writing reflects their knowledge of the audience in that they know readers are more easily able to consent with their side based on specific evidence thrown at them. The best way to win people over to your side is, therefore, to explain and disprove the other side with clear proof. As the authors are able to effectively do this through their persuasion of the audience, their argument is consequently effective as well.

Butch
10/15/09
3rd hour

In the attached article, Nicolas Kristof argues that the Democratic Party has been trying to fight poverty in the wrong way. He asserts that the most effective way to fight poverty is to reform education. He shows many examples proving how the educational system is corrupt, and then discusses the plausible changes that could be made to make the education of the United States more efficient. Finally, he concludes with a hopeful look at what he hopes will happen to education in the future.

It is clear that Kristof appeals to his readers’ sense of what is wrong. He warrants each of his points with examples from dependable sources. His examples all show the incompetency of teachers through the use of direct quotations. Furthermore, he builds upon each example with a more radical follow-up example. He starts with an example about an incompetent teacher, then discusses a drunk teacher, and then even discusses a teacher who advocated his students’ suicide. Kristof sets the climax of his periodical at the middle of the page with his most radical example. With this extreme example already established, he goes on to discuss what truly matters in an education. At this point, he stops using examples as his evidence and depends instead on research and studies to support his claims. Until he gets to the high point of his article, Kristof keeps increasing the intensity of his examples, at which point he begins to provide systematic evidence in the form of research and data studies.

Kristof’s argument is effective because he is able to warrant his points with two different types of evidence. In the first part of the article, Kristof presents his voice in the form of his examples. He does not simply state that he is unsatisfied with the direction education is going, but he sharpens the reader’s feelings against the issue as well by showing such strong examples. In the second part, he organizes each paragraph into a different study or research project, while using words that indicate that he has evidence backing his assertion. Finally, he adds three paragraphs of conclusion to his paragraph in order to draw the two points together and connect them with Union interference. In his conclusion, he takes an optimistic tone in order to convince his readers that these measures he proposes are not drastic, but are actually quite realistic. He ends his periodical with a rhetorical question in order to leave a cliffhanger ending. Kristof clearly makes a very effective argument in this article because of his well-presented evidence and his ability to leave the reader thinking past the realm of the article.

[Correction, the article is from TIME magazine.]

Stein, Joel. (2009). “Cooking by Committee.” TIME, 51.

In this article Joel Stein investigates the idea of using the collective knowledge of people to create an ultimate source of information. This was the basis for Wikipedia, and efforts are being made in hopes of having the same success with recipes. Though recipes differ from encyclopedic information in that they are based largely on opinion, Stein points out that even factual entries on Wikipedia are also influenced by this. He claims that what is presented as fact is still subject to opinion and interpretation.

Joel Stein makes an ethos argument about wiki-ing recipes, and includes his customary touch of humor. Collaborative information sites are meant to make finding accurate and usable information easier for the average researcher. Stein reveals the irony in this in regard to cooking. People will agree on the basics of the recipe for a food but they’ll differ on the details, so combining people’s culinary ideas and methods can actually result in a more impractical recipe. Stein mentions a cookie enthusiast who averaged the ingredients and instructions of twelve chocolate chip cookie recipes in order to create a perfect recipe, complete with over-precise measurements. Stein tries her recipe himself and finds that thought this method was a great idea in theory, following the recipe included more hassle, “Making the Mean Cookie was a pain in the ass… You try to measure out 0.17 tbsp. of water or bake at 354.17˚F for 13.04 minutes.” He then tries a professional chef’s chocolate chip cookie recipe, and even though it has its own peculiarities, the product is “a lot more compelling than the Mean Cookie.” As Stein experiences for himself, making delicious food is all about preference and interpretation.

Straying from exact instructions and adding one’s own personal touch is what makes cooking interesting and exciting. Average people still experiment and use pinches, handfuls, and dashes when they cook (I know I do), so it is not worth it to try to hone cooking down to a systematic process. Joel Stein doesn’t dispute that collaborative recipe sites have a lot of potential, but they may not be practical. Facts and figures are always appreciated, but opinion and interpretation have their place too. As an amateur chef who chooses not to be bothered with absolute exactness, I agree with his argument.

http://www.dailytoreador.com/opinions/shooter-peace-prize-no-longer-noble-now-mere-political-vehicle-1.2001160

Cole Shooter. (2009). “Shooter: Peace prize no longer noble, now mere political vehicle.” Daily Toreador.

Cole Shooter’s main claim in this article is that the Nobel Prize, based on its recent winners, has lost its credibility. Shooter describes the prize being awarded to Barack Obama as of late and how he did not deserve it based on what he has done thus far in his presidency. If one was to look at his “resume,” he or she would see that all he has done so far was close Guantanamo Bay, allowed federal aid to given in support of abortion, and his $800 billion bailout given to big businesses that don’t deserve second chances. By Shooter knowing his audience consists mainly of conservatives wanting their rage to be supported, he mocks past winners such as Al Gore to prove what a joke them winning the prize was. Shooter also appeals to his audience by lowering his social status to a more laid back, relaxed American lifestyle as opposed to the tense writing lifestyle in which he already is living in by alluding to popular awards in Hollywood. These prizes include the Heisman trophy, Emmy’s, and Grammy’s. By alluding to these awards, the reader knows that he or she can connect to him easily, thus providing further understanding of his point.

Before reading Cole Shooter’s goal, I was already a non-supporter of both Obama and his winning of the Nobel Peace Prize. After reading this article though I am able to say that I am still a strong believer that Obama should not have won. Some say that the non-supporters of Obama winning are people who base it on his skin color. But if that were true, then how could someone with such a weak resume such as Al Gore win the prize as well. By acknowledging the counter argument and taking it down in a clean, decisive manner, my view towards Obama winning the prize is confirmed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09krugman.html
Paul Krugman from the New York Times writes about the uneducated American in modern society in my article. He explains that America was on top of education during the post WWII era but then goes on to say that America’s educational system has been gradually deteriorating since then. He also states that because of economic conditions, it is harder for young Americans to stay in college. Finally he suggests that congress should invest in education to improve the situation.
Paul Krugman writes very straightforward in his article while using logical appeals and brief references to history. The very first thing Krugman does is explain what America did right in education in the past. This is important because nobody likes to be told they fail at educating right away when reading an article. He then compares the failure in education to the failure in economy. By putting these two things next to each other, educational failure gains importance. He uses the phrase “most people” in the fourth paragraph; this is my favorite line because readers, myself included, immediately think, “Did I do something?” Krugman tries to move the reader by proving what they think and then proving what is “reality” in order to move the reader. In the second half of his argument, Krugman continues to write about the economic crisis. He uses statistics and an example for Californian educational systems. Lastly he warns that not investing in education is a waste of human potential and a neglect to improvement in the future.
I agree with Krugmans argument simply because education is necessary both for a democracy to function and for future improvement of society.

Steinhauer, Jennifer. “Swine Flu Shots Revive a Debate About Vaccines.” 16 Oct 2009. .

In this article, Jennifer Steinhauer asserts that even though she supports swine flu vaccines, she has a hard time deciding whether or not to take the vaccine. Steinhauer uses logos and ethos to verify and establish her argument. By using data, statistics, and quotes from others, she is able to prove that she has researched the topic. She even uses Twitter, a popular well-known website, to attract the reader’s attention towards a familiar topic. As the mother of a 10 month old, Steinhauer has some credibility since she has debated wit herself about this vaccine. Overall, this is not an effective article because Steinhauer has not taken a firm position on this topic. She switches between the two viewpoints, for and against the swine flu vaccine, but she is still unable to choose. Rather than refuting her counterargument, there are times where the writer supports her counterargument. Steinhauer wrote this article in a casual manner. She mentions her ten month old child, and didn’t write in a serious tone. This article isn’t necessarily persuasive because she doesn’t make a strong stand; she discusses both sides of the argument. Although Jennifer Steinhauer may have included research, logical appeals, and personal opinions, she has not chosen one viewpoint.

Andrew Marshall. (2009). “Can things get any worse for Pakistan?” Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE59E0SL20091015

In “Can Things get any worse for Pakistan”, Andrew Marshall lists the possible scenarios the nation of Pakistan could face in the near future. He lists four possible scenarios, and all four involve violence and fighting. Marshall knows that the outlook for Pakistan’s future is bleak, and he does not try to hide it from the reader. He uses some historical references from Pakistan’s past when going over some possible scenarios, and he also alludes to Pakistan’s influence on the creation of the Taliban. He connects to the reader because he does not try and hide anything from them; he simply states the facts and the most likely solutions. Marshall also quotes many people with a large knowledge of the events occurring in Pakistan. By having these reliable sources included in his argument, Marshall knows that the readers will develop a sense of trust in him because he is establishing his credibility.
Reading this article, I learned how bad the tension really is in the Middle East. Pakistan is actually considering starting a conflict with India just in order to hide internal unrest from the outside world. Pakistan actually has more internal problems then external, which is something you will almost never see on our (United States) half of the globe. The tension is so bad that Pakistan is worried that some of its own citizens will attempt to steal nuclear material from a nuclear power plant, and use it to make a bomb that would be used on the Pakistani people. The bottom line is that Pakistan has more problems then we American citizens may ever see in our lives, and we should all be less ignorant to the situations occurring around the globe.

Unknown Author. (2009). “The Peace Prize.” The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/opinion/10sat1.html?_r=1&hp

The central thesis of the article is that Obama has not done enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize. The author claims that Obama has promised to do big things like end nuclear tensions and end the war on terrorism, but has not accomplished them yet. He supports his claim by stating all the goals in which Obama hoped to accomplish when he entered office, and what he has yet to do. The author implies that the Nobel Peace Prize is a very prestigious award that is only rewarded for extraordinary things. Obama has not done anything extraordinary in his administration to earn such a great award.

The author does a great job of conveying his view of the issue and organizing his thoughts. His word usage seems advanced and he displays his thoughts on the issue in an expressive tone. He writes in an optimistic tone in which he talks about the situation right now, and how the issue can go away in the future. The author appeals to the reader’s logos by stating that it only makes sense if a person with outstanding and unique achievement wins the Nobel Peace Prize. It is logical that only great people win the award, but Obama is supposedly not great enough. Before I had read the article I was already against Obama receiving the award, but now I am even more in opposition. The author proves that he knows a lot about the Peace Prize and is deeply concerned that the award would go to such a normal person. The author presents the other side of the issue by explaining why some people would support Obama’s award. He then refutes the claim and suggests that Obama does not possess anything to his name that would win him the Nobel Peace Prize. The author’s organization is the main reason why I like this article because he doesn’t just throw a bunch of information at the reader. He feeds in different facts at different areas of the article and then explains why the facts add up to his claim. He establishes himself as a credible author and someone who knows what he is talking about. He is writing to readers who think Obama deserves the award.

Your comment

Name __('(required)')

E-Mail (Required, not published )

Website

Anti-spam word: (Required)*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>