The 3 Witches were tagged in the album “Meeting on the Blasted Heath in Bad Weather”

The Witches created an event: Meet Macbeth!

Macbeth wrote on Banquo’s wall: Yeahhhh boyy!! We slaughtered them kerns and Norweyans! Party time!

Macdonald is now offline.

King Duncan is super happy.

Macbeth thinks this is crappy weather to be taking a walk in.

Banquo says: I agree.

The Witches are attending Meet Macbeth!

Witch One is hailing Macbeth, thane of Glamis.

Witch Two is hailing Macbeth, thane of Cawdor.

Witch Three is hailing Macbeth, the future king of Scotland.

Banquo says: WTF?

Banquo wrote on The Witches’ Wall: uhh, what about me?! Don’t I get my future predicted too?

Witch Three thinks Banquo will get kings without being one.

Macbeth says: not cool.

Ross is heading out to the blasted heath. BBL.

Ross says: Ay, yo, Macbeth! Nice job slicing up the Irishmen. King Duncan’s made you Thane of Cawdor now!

Macbeth has commented on Ross’s post: Dude, for reals?

Macbeth has written a note: To Lady Macbeth, I’m the Thane of Cawdor!

Lady Macbeth is thinking… Hmm, these man-witches were right…

Macbeth has commented on Lady Macbeth’s status: OMG, I know, right? I wonder… that third prophecy…

King Duncan is going to chill at Macbeth’s castle for a little while. BBL.

Lady Macbeth is off to the study to plot. TTYL.

Lady Macbeth has written on Macbeth’s Wall: So tonight, we’re going to kill the king. Deal?

Macbeth has written on Lady Macbeth’s Wall: WHAAAAAAT????? I don’t wanna!!!

Lady Macbeth says: You wuss. Unsex me here!

Macbeth says: Oh, all right, honey, if that’s what you want…

King Duncan has arrived at Macbeth’s castle. Night, night Scotland.

Macbeth sees a dagger before him. Ohhh… I shouldn’t have eaten all that mutton…

Lady Macbeth says: Man up! Did you do it?

King Duncan is now offline.

Macbeth says: Yes… OMFG OMFG What did I just do?

Lady Macbeth is ah, crap, why do I have to do everything?

Lady Macbeth is busy framing Duncan’s guards for the murder. BRB.

Macduff is heading out to Inverness.

Macduff says: “O horror, horror, horror!”

Macduff is feeling a little odd about things…

Malcolm says: Oh, crap.

Malcolm is going to England. =[

Macbeth has created an event: Macbeth’s Coronation as king of Scotland. All of your friends are attending.

King Macbeth is uneasy about Banquo…

Banquo is now offline.

Macbeth has created an event: Feast!!

Macbeth says : Good job, murderers!

Macbeth is off to the feast.

Macbeth is OMFG OMFG! It’s the ghost of Banquo! WAAAHHHHH!

Lady Macbeth says: Pull yourself together!

The Feast has been cancelled.

Macbeth doesn’t feel so well. =[ Off to the Witches’ now. BBL.

The Witches have bought some tongue of dog, wool of bat, and adder’s fork on the Facebook Markteplace!

The Witches are busy making apparitions. TTYL.

Macbeth says: I have some questions.

The Witches say: OK, ask the bloody baby, armed head, and crowned baby.

Macbeth says: OK.

Macbeth has updated his “About Me” section: Hi, I’m Macbeth. I’ve got to beware Macduff, none of woman born shall harm me, and I shall never be vanquished until the trees in the Birnam Forest attack my castle. Nice to meet you.

Macduff is going to England. BBL.

Macbeth has created an event: Murder Lady Macduff and her kids!
2 of your friends attended the event.

Lady Macduff is now offline.

Lady Macbeth can’t sleep. =[

The Doctor is going to check up on Lady Macbeth.

The Doctor says: OMFG OMFG psycho lady!!

Ross has written on Macduff’s Wall: Um, sorry to tell you, but your wife and kids are murdered.

Macduff is crying in his corner.

Malcolm wrote on Macduff’s Wall: Duffy, use this as motivation to overthrow the tyrant.

Malcolm is preparing to invade Scotland!

Siward likes Malcolm’s status.

Malcolm is busy cutting down Birnam Forest
and using trees as camouflage. BRB.

Macbeth is panicking.

The Doctor says: I have bad news. Your wife’s dead.

Macbeth says: Damn. Nothing matters in life, does it?

Macbeth is putting his armor on.

Macduff is going to fight!

Macbeth sees Birnam Forest marching up to his castle: OMFG THE PROPHECY!!

Macbeth says: Wait, everyone’s born of woman! Phew.

Macduff says: Not so much. I had a C-section. Not the same thing as being born of woman.

Macbeth says: oh, snap.

Macbeth is now offline.

Malcolm has created an event: Malcolm’s Coronation! All of your friends are attending.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.