Hi all,
Some of this we've gone over (yawn, but necessary), some perhaps not. In any case, I though this might be a useful once or tenth-over regarding the paper and how you can most successfully approach it.
1. Avoid moral arguments (and moralizing in general). You need to find factual, or at least viable evidence to support your claim. When you are trying to support a moral belief, the support you'll find is likely going to center on others' moral beliefs. In this way, you wind up with a circular argument that can't get off the hamster wheel of judgment. Choose your topic with care.
You can find yourself going down this path with all kinds of claims, not just the ones prohibited on the prompt. I see someone is thinking of writing about home-schooling. Great and of-the-moment topic. But imagine someone chooses this topic and bases his/her claim around the belief that public schools ensure students will be exposed to all sorts of horrible, secular behaviors, viewpoints, and the like. This paper could easily turn into a rant that indicts anyone and everyone affiliated with public schools. However, the next writer centers his/her claim around numbers that show home-school graduates apply to and gain admittance to universities at a higher rate than students public (or privately) schooled. This kind of claim is likely going to be based on factual evidence (in addition to opinion, theorizing, logic, etc.) As such, this paper is likely going to be more logical, more rational . . . and thus more successful.
2. Your thesis statement is really a two-parter. Remember, it's not enough to make the claim and leave it at that. Consider the argument at work here: "Military recruiters should not be allowed to recruit on public high-school campuses." Is the writer's claim clear? Absolutely. However, this thesis lacks the imperative "so what" clause. This phrase is shorthand for questioning why the claim matters in the first place, for establishing significance (the "why should I, as the reader, care about this or buy this person's argument?")for the audience. Your claim has no validity or importance if it doesn't have context and significance. Recall the thesis we came up with in class, which had three reasons attached to the claim. Having read that thesis, any reader would know exactly why the writer is offering the claim and will be more likely to be invested in the topic and argument (whether the reasons offered make the reader feel connected and familiar or combative and ready to debate or dismiss the claim). You will not be able to do this in one sentence -- it's absolutely fine that your thesis is not one sentence (though it's possible it could be if you write very concisely) -- we're not writing a five-paragraph essay here.
3. Consider laying out objections, concessions, and rebuttals throughout the paper rather than in one big chunk. If you offer three reasons in your thesis, it's likely you'll address, or need to address, three objections. You might consider bringing in objections as you move from point to point; the paper will be much more fluid and take on the natural movement of a "real" argument. Remember that anticipating and dealing with objections is an absolute for the argument paper.
4. This is the time to choose sources very carefully. If you have not already read the chapter on evaluating sources in FG, you should. Ultimately, it's not enough to have "good quotes" -- a skilled writer is going to consider (as will a discerning audience) from whence the information comes and the credibility of the source. A source who comments on what it means to be black and middle-class (as does Shelby Steele in an essay in your text) lacks experiential evidence if he/she is not black or middle-class. Does this mean such a source has nothing of value to say about these identity categories? No. However, it's important to establish the context in which the writer is coming from, and sometimes you need to do this explicitly for the audience. If your source is neither black nor middle class but is a professor specializing in ethnic studies/sociology, he/she has authoritative information that a black, middle-class "average Joe" may not have despite having experiential evidence to offer. Always ask yourself WHY the person's claims and viewpoints are viable and persuasive . . . the above two examples showcase viable perspectives, but the context in which these opinions are viable is different. Using scholarly sources will really help you in this arena -- it's usually pretty easy to establish why the author has credibility. On the other hand, if you did a general web search and found a fantastic quote that illustrates exactly what you were looking for but you cannot find any reason why that quote should be taken seriously (other than that it "sounds good"), you don't have a compelling piece of evidence. You have an opinion. Does everyone's opinion matter? In some respects, yes. The weight of that opinion, however, is what you need to consider.
5. As always, you need to focus on grammar, syntax, punctuation. Taking care to write correctly and fluidly tells your readers that you care about your writing, that you have the ability and authority to write about your topic, and that you care about their reading experience. Similarly, sloppy work that's marked with errors and clarity issues can, especially in this genre, tell your readers that you don't have the ability or authority to take a position on the issue (after all, if you can't present it successfully, there's a big, open door for critics), that you don't care about the topic or the reading experience, etc. It's difficult to take someone seriously who doesn't edit their work, and thus the entire argument is undermined. These elements do play a bigger role in this paper, as they will continue to do. While I believe content is more important, big-picture, than mechanics, and was trained in this method, mechanics still count. And, of course, you need to show that you can meet the learning outcomes for the course in order to pass it.
I hope this overview helps you put the project in perspective. If you haven't gotten started yet, there's no time like now!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Blogs For This Week...
I am looking at the schedule. The assignments for this weeks blog (blogs 5 and 6) are the same as last weeks blogs (3 and 4) Does everyone else have the same I do?
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The F Word - Blog 3
In Anna Quindlen’s “Still Needing the F word” the author argues that the feminist movement is still needed as all the goals of it have not been reached. To support this idea she uses an example of a study of Duke University females who are expected to “hide their intelligence in order to succeed with their male peers.” She goes on to say that while women once has to stress about being perfect housewives and meeting standards set by males they now are stressing about being the perfect professional while still meeting standards set by males. In her eyes this proves that the feminist movement still has a long way to go. Quindlen does not deny that the world has changed in the last 40 years but argues that the change that has come about is not all its cracked up to be.
Blog Four-Thank God for School
I chose the article "The Case Against School Prayer". It adresses the issue of whether or not students are allowed to pray in public schools. The author, Annie Laurie Gaylor, insists that schools must not allow government-fostered prayer. She believes is dishonest to call prayer voluntary if it is required or encouraged by school officials, even though requirement and encouragement are two very different things. She appeals to the reader using big claims. "To introduce religion in our public schools builds walls between children who may not have been aware of religious differences before." If she read what she wrote, the word religion, defined as "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" would not limit a child's view of religious differences, but expand it. The author needs to get off the general word "religion" and update it to "Christian religion" which is what she's really arguing against, which is proved when she states that "even Jesus was against school prayer".
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/schoolprayer.php
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/schoolprayer.php
Blog Three- National Sense of Humor?
In the article "Save Our National Sense of Humor", Keiller argues that the matter of the two Domino's pizza members is a joke, and should be treated as such, not blown into the huge affair that it has become. However, Keiller oversimplifies the matter at hand and does not focus on the issues that are getting the attention. Keiller makes it plain his comtempt at society for giving such negative attention to the two teammembers who "got bored one day and had a funny idea." He believes it was a simple joke and should be treated as such.
Fourth Blog
I'm responding to an article titled "U.S. Relents in 11-year-old girl's Deportation Case" by Jim Kavanagh. It's about an 11-year-old girl named Ewelina who is spending every second of her last days in America--until July 20th at least--before she is forced to go back to her homeland, Warsaw, Poland. Her parents, Hubert and Agnes, are legal residents of America, but because the family missed a deadline to file a petition in 2001, their daughter Ewelina is being ordered to leave the country by the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Since the case has been released to the public, the attention it has received has put pressure on the federal government to dismiss the deportation. The author uses an appeal to pathos to evoke the sympathy of readers. He argues that family shouldn't be separated and he uses quotes of the family's attorney, Maria Odom, to support his position and to establish social significance as well. She states, "I am an immigration attorney, and I see families being separated every single day because of our law". After discussing the family's despair, another quote from Odom is added to remind readers that keeping families together isn't exactly the law's number one item on a to-do list. "Our law is designed for enforcement primarily, and it really does not have family unity as a priority. And that is part of the reason why this system is so broken: because our government is not taking into consideration the human aspect of the effect of that law." It may not seem important to people who believe illegals should be deported right away, but most Americans, legal or not, would find this article heartbreaking. Ewelina's father Hubert mentions that "it doesn't make sense to separate families like that, especially when she is only 11 years old and it's going to be hard for her." Her father also compares the tragic split to a divorce -- "I think she's going through something like, you get family separation because of divorces and stuff like that, and that's how children react," he continued. This article not only affects those who are going through the same situation, which is "very typical of a lot of family immigration cases", according to Odom -- but it also affects children going through family separations, divorce, and being torn away from parents. Because most married couples are getting divorced nowadays, this article is somewhat related to the effect separation has on families. Why does it matter? This family is being torn apart because of the law, not by choice... it's a reason for America to take into consideration the value of being supported by loved ones.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/26/georgia.girl.deportation/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/26/georgia.girl.deportation/index.html
Universal Healthcare
In Universal health care - the case in favor, the author, Eric LaRue, a NY Natural Health Examiner, carefully reviews the main points of contention between those who favor or oppose a universal health care system.
He establishes social significance for each point he makes by systematically addressing the “who cares?” and “so what?” questions. In the 2nd paragraph, he mentions employment opportunities and flexibility and its benefits for the economy as a whole, a subject of concern for many in the current conjuncture. In the third paragraph, he addresses the issue of cost by showing how even an increase in taxes could be less than what Americans currently pay in premiums or income-deducted health coverage. Showing Americans how they can get a good value for their money is a good way to get their attention. Furthermore, he reminds voters that regarding concerns of government inefficiency and reduced care options, the power is in their hands. By using the 1st person “we”, he creates a connection with all US residents as a powerful entity that should see their interest as a nation in taking care of everyone equally, while urging them to trust and rely on the democratic process to overcome potential difficulties in implementing a system which is the norm elsewhere.
He establishes social significance for each point he makes by systematically addressing the “who cares?” and “so what?” questions. In the 2nd paragraph, he mentions employment opportunities and flexibility and its benefits for the economy as a whole, a subject of concern for many in the current conjuncture. In the third paragraph, he addresses the issue of cost by showing how even an increase in taxes could be less than what Americans currently pay in premiums or income-deducted health coverage. Showing Americans how they can get a good value for their money is a good way to get their attention. Furthermore, he reminds voters that regarding concerns of government inefficiency and reduced care options, the power is in their hands. By using the 1st person “we”, he creates a connection with all US residents as a powerful entity that should see their interest as a nation in taking care of everyone equally, while urging them to trust and rely on the democratic process to overcome potential difficulties in implementing a system which is the norm elsewhere.
Sense of humor
In his article “Save our national sense of humor!”, Garrison Keillor describes how a Domino's Pizza employee recently made a video of her co-worker doing some disgusting things to a sandwich, and how after it was posted on You Tube it “had such an effect on Domino's business that its president, Patrick Doyle, made his own YouTube appearance defending the brand” and the authors of the video were charged with felonies.
Keillor mostly defends the two misguided employees and sees these events as evidence that we are losing our sense of humor. He contends that the internet magnifies our satirical behavior to “an absurd level” with exaggerated consequences, whereas in the real world, it would be just another fart joke.
Although well worded and entertaining, Keillor's article lacks the kind of substance that would get us to ponder his position. He uses mostly anecdotal evidence for his points, stating how “This shakes up some of the road guys, who wonder what the world has come to.” Are we supposed to relate to the road guys? Take their opinion as that of humor experts? The backdrop for his story just doesn't seem to serve his purpose very effectively, aside for highlighting how information technology, including the internet, is a huge part of the nomadic life of some.
He seems to be writing this article to remind the average American to just cool down and acknowledge that fart jokes and grossing each other out are just something we share as a cultural norm. Yet he brings up roadies, which probably aren't the majority of his reading audience, makes a vague reference to Jonathan Swift (“What Jonathan Swift strove to create in "Gulliver's Travels," the Conover Two brought about with a simple upload”) which, without clarification, will probably go right over most readers' head.
Then for two paragraphs he proceeds to describe his satirical hypothesis on a snowball effect that this allegedly dwindling sense of humor would end up having: “And then we will hear about guerrilla skirmishes between corporations, Domino's sneaking out a video purporting to show rats running through a Pizza Hut and the Hutites responding with one of a coven of witches explaining the Wiccan meaning of the dots on the domino.” Because it is speculation and written as such, he doesn't really do anything to convince readers that his thesis is valid (i.e. that the two employees didn't do anything terrible, the internet is just so powerful that we end up taking everything on there too seriously)
At least part of Keillor's reasoning could be convincing if this article wasn't so random and devoid of supporting evidence that isn't merely hearsay, the opinion of a specific population, or speculation. As it is, it just seems like a rant. Considering that the topic is fairly contentious, the reader would expect a firm position with a well-supported rhetoric. “It's just snot” the case.
Keillor mostly defends the two misguided employees and sees these events as evidence that we are losing our sense of humor. He contends that the internet magnifies our satirical behavior to “an absurd level” with exaggerated consequences, whereas in the real world, it would be just another fart joke.
Although well worded and entertaining, Keillor's article lacks the kind of substance that would get us to ponder his position. He uses mostly anecdotal evidence for his points, stating how “This shakes up some of the road guys, who wonder what the world has come to.” Are we supposed to relate to the road guys? Take their opinion as that of humor experts? The backdrop for his story just doesn't seem to serve his purpose very effectively, aside for highlighting how information technology, including the internet, is a huge part of the nomadic life of some.
He seems to be writing this article to remind the average American to just cool down and acknowledge that fart jokes and grossing each other out are just something we share as a cultural norm. Yet he brings up roadies, which probably aren't the majority of his reading audience, makes a vague reference to Jonathan Swift (“What Jonathan Swift strove to create in "Gulliver's Travels," the Conover Two brought about with a simple upload”) which, without clarification, will probably go right over most readers' head.
Then for two paragraphs he proceeds to describe his satirical hypothesis on a snowball effect that this allegedly dwindling sense of humor would end up having: “And then we will hear about guerrilla skirmishes between corporations, Domino's sneaking out a video purporting to show rats running through a Pizza Hut and the Hutites responding with one of a coven of witches explaining the Wiccan meaning of the dots on the domino.” Because it is speculation and written as such, he doesn't really do anything to convince readers that his thesis is valid (i.e. that the two employees didn't do anything terrible, the internet is just so powerful that we end up taking everything on there too seriously)
At least part of Keillor's reasoning could be convincing if this article wasn't so random and devoid of supporting evidence that isn't merely hearsay, the opinion of a specific population, or speculation. As it is, it just seems like a rant. Considering that the topic is fairly contentious, the reader would expect a firm position with a well-supported rhetoric. “It's just snot” the case.
Blog 4
I chose the article titled "The Disposable Teacher" by Emily Alpert. The article discusses how with the recent increase in California school budget cuts schools in San Diego are beginning to lay off temporary teachers - teachers that are only hired for one year in the school district. Alpert states that the problem is not that the teachers are temporary but that it is not made clear that they only have one year to teach. It is not up to the school itself which teachers come back the next year but up to the school district. The author refers to a school teacher at Torrey Pines High School who "was hired as a temp for four years and then released abruptly with no hearing. A court upheld his termination...because the teacher was working on an emergency basis as a special education teacher" It is cases like this that make the field of teaching a dangerous one to enter at the moment.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/06/15/education/815temp061409.txt
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/06/15/education/815temp061409.txt
Against Universal Healthcare- Blog 4
The article I chose for blog four was “The Argument Against Universal Healthcare,” by S. Porter. Porter believes “the problems with universal healthcare far outweigh the benefits.” The author lays out three main points for his argument against having a nationalized healthcare system; competition, cost, and government.
Porter believes that the natural competition to become the best will die away with government deciding the charges and structure for medical care and in doing this “medical advancement” will be hindered and everyone will receive the “same sub-standard healthcare.” By his claims of sub-standard health care for all, Porter establishes social significance. No one wants mediocre health care to become the norm.
Cost is an issue that all Americans are interested in. According to Porter, universal healthcare will cost the United States “somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 trillion per year.”
Porter’s final argument against universal healthcare is the government and their inability to run any social program efficiently. He claims that government involvement in social security and welfare has “ruined retirement” and “forced more people into welfare.”
Porter believes that the natural competition to become the best will die away with government deciding the charges and structure for medical care and in doing this “medical advancement” will be hindered and everyone will receive the “same sub-standard healthcare.” By his claims of sub-standard health care for all, Porter establishes social significance. No one wants mediocre health care to become the norm.
Cost is an issue that all Americans are interested in. According to Porter, universal healthcare will cost the United States “somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 trillion per year.”
Porter’s final argument against universal healthcare is the government and their inability to run any social program efficiently. He claims that government involvement in social security and welfare has “ruined retirement” and “forced more people into welfare.”
Blog 4
For my fourth blog I chose the article, “Hybrid cars not always green as they seem”, by Michael Cabanatuan. In this article the author discusses different cars from the hybrid that are more green and reliable. “Hybrids may be billed as a pollution solution, but they still run on gasoline, and some models increase gas mileage by 2 or 3 miles per gallon while adding thousands of dollars to the cost of a car.” Manufacturers have been producing higher-mileage compact cars such as Honda Fit or the Toyora Yaris, averaging 36 mpg. Cabanatuan, also points out that experts say there are other options to deal with global warming, such as electric vehicles and gas-powered cars that run on compressed natural gas. He uses statistics and provides quotes from experts to show the reader that there are more green cars that are also less expensive than the hybrid. Plug-in cars do not pollute at all, but only can top out at 25 mph and a range of about 50 miles. Natural gas cars and biodiesel cars are also available at dealerships, but the fuel is hard to find in many places.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/16/BAMR139TBC.DTL
Blog 3
I chose to respond to the paper, ‘The Murder of Dr. Tiller, a Foreshadowing”, by Christina Page. Page considers the murder of Dr. George Tiller, a pattern of violence against abortion providers. She uses facts and statistics from different presidential eras to prove here point. She insists that whenever a president is elected and is pro-abortion, there are random acts of violence, such as murders, attempted murders, bombings, or arson against pro-abortionist. She believes that the anti-abortion movement will become deadlier and more intense with President Obama in office. Page has some very interesting points. She provides statistics, facts, and great quotes. The facts and statistics help her argument, but lack support because she doesn’t list any of sources where she gets this information from. I have to agree with Page and that the anti-abortionist violence will increase. With a pro-abortion president in power the anti-abortionist have loss power and the extremist seem like they will do anything it takes in order to prove their point.
Blog 4 - Tattoos and the Work Place
For my fourth blogged I chose to the internet article by Barrie Gross entitled "Tattoos In the Workplace: What’s An Employer to Do?"
This article is written about the changes made in the tattoo culture, which is ultimately affecting the workforce. Gross addresses the historic fact that tattoos use to be associated with “gangs, bikers, and other groups that were thought to operate outside of the social center.” (Though he does not touch upon their historical facts before that point...) Nowadays however, the range of individuals getting tattoos has widened to include, doctors, electrical engineers, teachers, and many other “decent” individuals.
The author argues that because of the shift into acceptance for getting tattoos is has made it difficult for employers to implement rules regarding their employees having them.
“Does having a visible tattoo say anything about an individual that is relevant to his or her job?” The issue is that even though many people are getting tattoos, the work force is not moving in the direction of acceptance as quickly as its workers. Gross ads “The laws still tend to support employer dress code/appearance policies in general and employers retain some flexibility in creating rules that require employees to present themselves in a way that is consistent with the employer's image.” Not hiring someone because of having tattoos could be against the law, but asking them to cover it up is perfectly acceptable. Gross continues in giving examples of times an employer could justify keeping a good employee because they have a job that where they do not have much contact with the public. There in, lies the problem. Smart, well educated and hard working people have tattoos, but now because of their desire to display art on their own bodies, whether appropriate or not, will have the list of jobs available to them, shortened. Gross gives advice to employers of making sure employers apply the same tattoo policy to all employees no matter the person’s situation, in cluding their sex. “Policies that prohibit tattoos should not reflect value judgments about tattoos or the people who get them.” He also ads caution when he states “...an employer can be exposed to liability for sex discrimination if the presence of the tattoo was an issue in making the hiring decision.” For matters concerning the touchy subject of religious tattoos Gross advises an employer seek counsel with their Human Resource department.
Gross is making an argument that displays social significance because it is something affecting many individuals currently who both have tattoos or want to get them and also for employers seeking to hire. Though Gross’s argument is relevant I would have liked him to go into more depth about perhaps how employees could work towards hiring more people with tattoos, not that would jut be hiding form the public, but who work one on one with customers. For example, I for one am a teacher with many tattoos. Are my tattoos violent, no? I have a robot eating an ice cream cone on one arm and a diamond on my ring finger as my engagement ring. However, schools I have taught at have asked me to cover these up so as to not offend parents. This has been difficult to understand when most of my students parents and care givers have in fact had many more tattoos than myself. I always preferred my students know I have tattoo because if someone starts to be open-minded at a young at about tattoos, gay marriage, etc they will make for a more understanding and liberal generation.
A business needs to know its audience/clientele. Tattoos are so widely accepted their are reality television shows about getting them and it is a practiced art of people from all over the world. If more people in general are getting tattoos, wouldn’t it be a positive business move to have employees with non offense tattoos working along those without any tattoos to attract new customers and keep old ones. Personally, I love going to the bank and seeing a teller with tattoos, I’m more likely to go over them to make my transaction. I feel that this person is more open-minded and I’d rather spend my time dealing with my bank transaction with them.
http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workforce-management-employee/4113152-1.html
This article is written about the changes made in the tattoo culture, which is ultimately affecting the workforce. Gross addresses the historic fact that tattoos use to be associated with “gangs, bikers, and other groups that were thought to operate outside of the social center.” (Though he does not touch upon their historical facts before that point...) Nowadays however, the range of individuals getting tattoos has widened to include, doctors, electrical engineers, teachers, and many other “decent” individuals.
The author argues that because of the shift into acceptance for getting tattoos is has made it difficult for employers to implement rules regarding their employees having them.
“Does having a visible tattoo say anything about an individual that is relevant to his or her job?” The issue is that even though many people are getting tattoos, the work force is not moving in the direction of acceptance as quickly as its workers. Gross ads “The laws still tend to support employer dress code/appearance policies in general and employers retain some flexibility in creating rules that require employees to present themselves in a way that is consistent with the employer's image.” Not hiring someone because of having tattoos could be against the law, but asking them to cover it up is perfectly acceptable. Gross continues in giving examples of times an employer could justify keeping a good employee because they have a job that where they do not have much contact with the public. There in, lies the problem. Smart, well educated and hard working people have tattoos, but now because of their desire to display art on their own bodies, whether appropriate or not, will have the list of jobs available to them, shortened. Gross gives advice to employers of making sure employers apply the same tattoo policy to all employees no matter the person’s situation, in cluding their sex. “Policies that prohibit tattoos should not reflect value judgments about tattoos or the people who get them.” He also ads caution when he states “...an employer can be exposed to liability for sex discrimination if the presence of the tattoo was an issue in making the hiring decision.” For matters concerning the touchy subject of religious tattoos Gross advises an employer seek counsel with their Human Resource department.
Gross is making an argument that displays social significance because it is something affecting many individuals currently who both have tattoos or want to get them and also for employers seeking to hire. Though Gross’s argument is relevant I would have liked him to go into more depth about perhaps how employees could work towards hiring more people with tattoos, not that would jut be hiding form the public, but who work one on one with customers. For example, I for one am a teacher with many tattoos. Are my tattoos violent, no? I have a robot eating an ice cream cone on one arm and a diamond on my ring finger as my engagement ring. However, schools I have taught at have asked me to cover these up so as to not offend parents. This has been difficult to understand when most of my students parents and care givers have in fact had many more tattoos than myself. I always preferred my students know I have tattoo because if someone starts to be open-minded at a young at about tattoos, gay marriage, etc they will make for a more understanding and liberal generation.
A business needs to know its audience/clientele. Tattoos are so widely accepted their are reality television shows about getting them and it is a practiced art of people from all over the world. If more people in general are getting tattoos, wouldn’t it be a positive business move to have employees with non offense tattoos working along those without any tattoos to attract new customers and keep old ones. Personally, I love going to the bank and seeing a teller with tattoos, I’m more likely to go over them to make my transaction. I feel that this person is more open-minded and I’d rather spend my time dealing with my bank transaction with them.
http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workforce-management-employee/4113152-1.html
Anyone know...
In our schedule it says there would be a blog post of types of evidence. This was to be applied in our third blog and ancillary 2. I do not see it... but maybe I am just missing it? Does anyone else know anything about this?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Blog 3, All These Skinny Bitches With Just Their Bones To Stand On
For my argument paper I chose the article "British Vogue Editor's Lame PR Coup: No More Size Zero's!" This is written by Foster Kamer. In Kamer’s text he refers to a letter written by an extremely influential fashion personality, the editor of British Vogue, Alexandra Shulman. In Shulman’s letter, written to high end fashion designers, she argues that it is time to stop making models be a size zero.
While Shulman offers a founded argument, Kamer calls “bullshit,” on her letter citing it to be cut and dry to publicity for a time of recession and even commends her on her chosen strategic route. Kamer seems eager to dismiss Shulman’s letter as being a heartfelt text and to submit to his idea of it being for her personal gain. Kamer gives his own opinion of why the letter has come into circulation, but couples it with the fact that he has no knowledge of the fashion world. It is odd to me that he would make such a firm standing on the situation without a more knowledgeable grasp of what he is writing about. Kamer uses observation, testimony, and textual evidence to support is argument.
As a former model, therefore having knowledge of this industry, I disagree with Kamer’s stance of why the letter has come to be written and also leaked out. The people in the fashion industry have been trained to think a certain way. If you aren’t rail thin, than you’re fat. Obviously, this is not a logical pattern of thought, but it is what models, designers, photographers, and magazine editors have been programmed to think. I will give you some personal examples of this. I am the world’s shortest model to ever walk the runway in New York City. I’m 5’1” and at the time of my career I weighed 110-115. This was considered heavy as I actually had breasts. Having breasts was an issue during fittings at photo shoots and I was often “taped down” to fit inside a dress. There was an audition; I once attended, for a campaign for a famous designer. (I will not name to avoid his embarrassment.) The audition process is simple. The designer has decided if he wants to hire you or not the second you walk in the door. However, to keep things running formally you hand them your portfolio and then you try on a garment. When he spoke to me privately he told me he couldn’t use me for his ad campaign because I wasn’t “boyish” enough. What he said I have always remembered and shared with others to offer perspective. He told me “Fashion in New York is run by gay men. From the designers to who runs the hair and make up and runs the backstage area of the show. They want girls who look androgynous, who are skinny enough to look as if they have no breasts and could be in fact young boys. They don’t care how pretty you really are. Make up and airbrushing can make them look like anything they want. You would do better in California because you look like a woman.” I was angry at first by what he said. I only took with me the part about not being the right type of model, not just for him, but all of New York! Yet, when given time to think it over I was able to utilize it as comfort when I didn’t get a job... or even a boyfriend. Just because I wasn’t their type didn’t mean I was hideous or fat.
It will take a lot for an entire industry of people, who have their own way of thinking, eating, and simply interacting to make a unified movement to something so boldly different. I see Shulman’s letter as a step in the right direction to start changing things. I agree that with Kamer that Shulman’s letter probably was not “leaked out.” I am sure she wanted it out to make a statement that she meant business. If she wrote to the designers and models in a discreet way they might take her words as a mere suggestion not a rule of thumb. Now with her statement being made so public it is something that can’t be ignored.
Kamer even tries to argue, like a kid on the school yard that Shulman started the whole thing! Well someone has to stop a fight; even if they were someone who helped started it. People are aloud and encouraged to realize the fight (in this case, to force people to become so skinny and sickly,) is wrong and it’s time to stop. It takes just one person to make a world of change. Yes, during a recession girls can’t obsess as much over the things they want in magazines. But it’s not because of the sizes it’s because of the price. If it’s affordable enough girls will put down the cookie and try to squeeze their curvy butts into that small outfit!
I agree with Shulman we are at that breaking point. Just like if’s time to use new forms of energy it’s time to make a change in the fashion industry, for the better of those who work in it and the people who obsess over it.
While Shulman offers a founded argument, Kamer calls “bullshit,” on her letter citing it to be cut and dry to publicity for a time of recession and even commends her on her chosen strategic route. Kamer seems eager to dismiss Shulman’s letter as being a heartfelt text and to submit to his idea of it being for her personal gain. Kamer gives his own opinion of why the letter has come into circulation, but couples it with the fact that he has no knowledge of the fashion world. It is odd to me that he would make such a firm standing on the situation without a more knowledgeable grasp of what he is writing about. Kamer uses observation, testimony, and textual evidence to support is argument.
As a former model, therefore having knowledge of this industry, I disagree with Kamer’s stance of why the letter has come to be written and also leaked out. The people in the fashion industry have been trained to think a certain way. If you aren’t rail thin, than you’re fat. Obviously, this is not a logical pattern of thought, but it is what models, designers, photographers, and magazine editors have been programmed to think. I will give you some personal examples of this. I am the world’s shortest model to ever walk the runway in New York City. I’m 5’1” and at the time of my career I weighed 110-115. This was considered heavy as I actually had breasts. Having breasts was an issue during fittings at photo shoots and I was often “taped down” to fit inside a dress. There was an audition; I once attended, for a campaign for a famous designer. (I will not name to avoid his embarrassment.) The audition process is simple. The designer has decided if he wants to hire you or not the second you walk in the door. However, to keep things running formally you hand them your portfolio and then you try on a garment. When he spoke to me privately he told me he couldn’t use me for his ad campaign because I wasn’t “boyish” enough. What he said I have always remembered and shared with others to offer perspective. He told me “Fashion in New York is run by gay men. From the designers to who runs the hair and make up and runs the backstage area of the show. They want girls who look androgynous, who are skinny enough to look as if they have no breasts and could be in fact young boys. They don’t care how pretty you really are. Make up and airbrushing can make them look like anything they want. You would do better in California because you look like a woman.” I was angry at first by what he said. I only took with me the part about not being the right type of model, not just for him, but all of New York! Yet, when given time to think it over I was able to utilize it as comfort when I didn’t get a job... or even a boyfriend. Just because I wasn’t their type didn’t mean I was hideous or fat.
It will take a lot for an entire industry of people, who have their own way of thinking, eating, and simply interacting to make a unified movement to something so boldly different. I see Shulman’s letter as a step in the right direction to start changing things. I agree that with Kamer that Shulman’s letter probably was not “leaked out.” I am sure she wanted it out to make a statement that she meant business. If she wrote to the designers and models in a discreet way they might take her words as a mere suggestion not a rule of thumb. Now with her statement being made so public it is something that can’t be ignored.
Kamer even tries to argue, like a kid on the school yard that Shulman started the whole thing! Well someone has to stop a fight; even if they were someone who helped started it. People are aloud and encouraged to realize the fight (in this case, to force people to become so skinny and sickly,) is wrong and it’s time to stop. It takes just one person to make a world of change. Yes, during a recession girls can’t obsess as much over the things they want in magazines. But it’s not because of the sizes it’s because of the price. If it’s affordable enough girls will put down the cookie and try to squeeze their curvy butts into that small outfit!
I agree with Shulman we are at that breaking point. Just like if’s time to use new forms of energy it’s time to make a change in the fashion industry, for the better of those who work in it and the people who obsess over it.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Third Blog
"The Murder of Dr. Tiller, a Foreshadowing" by Cristina Page, is an article that not only sympathizes with Dr. Tiller's death, but strategically identifies acts of cruelty performed by anti-abortion groups. The author strongly justifies her argument of being against the punishment that is not being forced upon the abortion clinic bombings and murder of Dr. Tiller. She accomplishes this by using statistics, comparisons, and a quote from a clinic staff member, Claire Keyes, to support the idea that this type of violence is being ignored. Keyes states that "police were called but so far they don't seem to be responding appropriately" and that is effectively added into the article to reinforce Page's argument. The insufficent amount of action being taken to recognize the alternating terrorism during the 3 presidential administrations is changing my view on the importance of authority in this day and age, as well as the extremes anti-abortionists will go to stand up for their beliefs. Page's argument for the lack of concern with these horrific events is strongly effective because it spreads awareness on the difficult problem of violence towards pro-choice believers. I agree with Cristina Page and am very driven to help acknowledge the many problems that are arising during Obama's administration. He has done nothing but try to help prevent abortion, so why is he being harrassed and attacked? The comparison between the two pro-choice presidents, Clinton and Obama, and pro-life president, Bush, helps me understand the motives of the terrorists, and how willing they are to press the "boundaries of legal, civil protest." Although I'm not really supposed to give my opinion on the whole abortion issue, I feel as if I need to, especially now that I have read this article. I had no clue that this type of aggression was being taken out on innocent women, and clinic staff members, and I believe Cristina Page has done the right thing by writing this article. She has done a splendid job, but she didn't really acknowledge or refute other positions. She might have mentioned the National Right to Life Committee and the American Life League, but she didn't exactly say why she believed calling Obama a "hardcore pro-abortion president" was wrong... Her strengths in the article stood out a lot more to me than the weaknesses did considering I agreed with her argument.
Extra Post...
I originally sent this to Amy, but I thought some of the aclss might like to read this as well.
As I have been writing my first paper on the Twitter article I found this new news article amusing. Well... not that what happened was amusing, but my biggest problem with the article is it did not argue both sides. We are social being! We need to be social and if we are confined, as many teenagers are now, to communicating through only these internet applications such as Twiiter, FaceBook or Myspace - than they are forced to become very dependant on them to sustain the level of social mentality they require to function.. which leads to addiction. And now here is a 17 year old girl who died in Romania because of her addiction to Twitter. (And also a lack of common sense and most likely a product of poor parenting.) So this girl was "Tweeting" in the bathtub... with her laptop! She had been using it so much that the battery was depleted. So she went to plug it in with her wet hand. She was electrocuted and died :(
http://news.softpedia.com/news/17-Year-Old-Girl-Dies-Electrocuted-While-Twittering-114776.shtml
As I have been writing my first paper on the Twitter article I found this new news article amusing. Well... not that what happened was amusing, but my biggest problem with the article is it did not argue both sides. We are social being! We need to be social and if we are confined, as many teenagers are now, to communicating through only these internet applications such as Twiiter, FaceBook or Myspace - than they are forced to become very dependant on them to sustain the level of social mentality they require to function.. which leads to addiction. And now here is a 17 year old girl who died in Romania because of her addiction to Twitter. (And also a lack of common sense and most likely a product of poor parenting.) So this girl was "Tweeting" in the bathtub... with her laptop! She had been using it so much that the battery was depleted. So she went to plug it in with her wet hand. She was electrocuted and died :(
http://news.softpedia.com/news/17-Year-Old-Girl-Dies-Electrocuted-While-Twittering-114776.shtml
Blog 4 - Why the government can't run a business
“Why the government can’t run a business” is a opinion piece written in the Wall Street Journal on May, 21 By John Steel Gordon who wrote “An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power” (Harper Collins, 2004). In this article Mr. Gordon provides many claims on how government is incapable of running an economic entity and supports his claims with cited evidence. The author uses his claims to support the fact that the government taking over the healthcare, automobile, and banking industries will not help with country.
Blog 3
In "Why critics of a public option for healthcare are wrong", Robert Reich writes that “Big Pharma, the AMA, the insurers” are all against the public option because of “economic self-interest.” Reich states that the public option will be able to provide the most cost-effective option because of the large scale of the government and its ability to decrease administrative costs. The author makes many strong claims but does not cite important statistics or facts to support his claims, which makes me skeptic on the validity of his argument. I would like to agree with Mr. Reich that the public option would provide much needed competition but his argument provides too many claims with no supporting evidence. The author makes many claims of large pharmaceutical companies and the American medical association and then refutes these claims with all rhetoric and no evidence.
Blog 4 - The Angel Experiment
The young adult science fiction/fantasy series Maximum Ride by author James Patterson is about six remarkable children. As if growing up wasn’t difficult enough, these children ages six through fourteen deal with something more difficult than even the worst schoolyard crush – they have wings. That’s right; these children are 98% human and 2% avian, the successful result of genetic experimentation. Besides being a wonderful adventure novel for teenagers (one of my favorites growing up), the series acts as a social commentary, arguing that while science has made many positive advancement there is in fact such a thing as going too far. The series is written from a first person point of view of the title character Maximum Ride, a fourteen year old “Avian-American” not only struggling with the normal difficulties of puberty but also on the run with the other five members of her Flock from the scientists who created them. By using a first person narrative of the genetic experiment herself, the reader gets a very personal, often touching sense of how science can harm rather than help.
“The six of us… were made on purpose by the sickest, most horrible “scientists” you could possibly imagine. They created us as an experiment… We grew up in a science lab/prison called the School, in cages like lab rats. It’s pretty amazing we can speak at all. But we can – and so much more.”
The idea of putting children in cages seems to the reader like a horrible thing. The novels read much like what you might hear from a genetically altered lab rat if it could speak.
“The six of us… were made on purpose by the sickest, most horrible “scientists” you could possibly imagine. They created us as an experiment… We grew up in a science lab/prison called the School, in cages like lab rats. It’s pretty amazing we can speak at all. But we can – and so much more.”
The idea of putting children in cages seems to the reader like a horrible thing. The novels read much like what you might hear from a genetically altered lab rat if it could speak.
Blog 3 - Mini Skirts, Yes. Burqas, No?
In the article “Mini Skirts, Yes. Burqas, No?”, author Deepak Chopra argues that it is unfair and even racist that women are not permitted to wear burqas in France. Not allowing burqas targets religious Arabic women, who have been second class citizens in France for years. The author’s strongest point is that women are allowed to walk around bearing legs and tattoos without any problem, but that the modesty of Arabic women is being punished. Personally, I agree with his point. While I feel forcing women to wear a burqa as many middle eastern countries do is inappropriate, I also believe women should be allowed the choice to wear them if they want. If France is willing to let women bear it all, it is only fair that they should allow women to cover themselves as much as they feel comfortable doing.
King of Pop or Wacko Jacko
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.international.reaction/index.html
In this article, a debate ensues about whether Michael Jackson is the pinnacle of fame for the 20th century. Did his antics overshadow his success? The author is not stated, but the article is written on behalf of the media in general. A synopsis of different sources shows that, in general, the concensus is that Jackson, indeed, damaged his reputation due to his troubles. The article starts with the statement "Michael Jackson's bizarre private life and change in appearance ended up eclipsing his musical achievements, according to the world's media."
To prove that Jackson's actions were unacceptable, the article must state examples of socially unacceptable behavior. The article is made up of differing opinions, but there are several that stand out regarding the controversies.
"The Mail said star's behavior drew increasing alarm following a 'documentary in which he pronounced sharing a bedroom with a child to be 'charming' and an incident in Germany in which he dangled his baby son Prince Michael II over a balcony.'" Naturally, it is socially unacceptable to put your child in danger, and desire to share a bedroom with them past a certain age. Our society values establishing independence in a child and giving them their own space to grow and develop. Charming certainly isn't a word most would use to describe sleeping in a room with a child.
"Thailand's Bangkok Post newspaper said: 'While Jackson ruled the charts and dazzled audiences with electric dance moves like the backwards "moonwalk" in the 1980s, his once-stellar career was overshadowed by his colorful public behavior, his startling physical transformation and multiple allegations of child abuse.'" Jackson's physical changes are viewed as eccentric and unnecessary. Although we live in an extremely shallow culture, there are still lines that can be crossed. Jackson was unique in his desire to look "white", and his drastic facial changes were the butt of many jokes. Naturally, the child abuse allegations were absolutely unnacceptable, and did indeed tarnish his reputation.
However, even with these socially unnacceptable behavioral traits, many fans remain steadfast to Jackson. It's as though Jackson has given himself an untouchable protection from the norm. Regardless of his actions, fans still view him as the epitome of the pop revolution. He still holds the #1 best selling album, and had a sold out tour at the age of 50, many years after he reached the top. 750,000 tickets sold out within 5 hours! This leads me to believe that nothing can overshadow his influence in the industry. He will always be the King of Pop.
I believe the media has this wrong. What I do agree with, however, is that Jackson was troubled and plagued by the demons of success. As the the Guardian states in the article, ""If ever there was an illustration of the adage that celebrity destroys what it touches, Jackson was it." I think it is because of this fact that the myriad of fans forgive Michael.
In this article, a debate ensues about whether Michael Jackson is the pinnacle of fame for the 20th century. Did his antics overshadow his success? The author is not stated, but the article is written on behalf of the media in general. A synopsis of different sources shows that, in general, the concensus is that Jackson, indeed, damaged his reputation due to his troubles. The article starts with the statement "Michael Jackson's bizarre private life and change in appearance ended up eclipsing his musical achievements, according to the world's media."
To prove that Jackson's actions were unacceptable, the article must state examples of socially unacceptable behavior. The article is made up of differing opinions, but there are several that stand out regarding the controversies.
"The Mail said star's behavior drew increasing alarm following a 'documentary in which he pronounced sharing a bedroom with a child to be 'charming' and an incident in Germany in which he dangled his baby son Prince Michael II over a balcony.'" Naturally, it is socially unacceptable to put your child in danger, and desire to share a bedroom with them past a certain age. Our society values establishing independence in a child and giving them their own space to grow and develop. Charming certainly isn't a word most would use to describe sleeping in a room with a child.
"Thailand's Bangkok Post newspaper said: 'While Jackson ruled the charts and dazzled audiences with electric dance moves like the backwards "moonwalk" in the 1980s, his once-stellar career was overshadowed by his colorful public behavior, his startling physical transformation and multiple allegations of child abuse.'" Jackson's physical changes are viewed as eccentric and unnecessary. Although we live in an extremely shallow culture, there are still lines that can be crossed. Jackson was unique in his desire to look "white", and his drastic facial changes were the butt of many jokes. Naturally, the child abuse allegations were absolutely unnacceptable, and did indeed tarnish his reputation.
However, even with these socially unnacceptable behavioral traits, many fans remain steadfast to Jackson. It's as though Jackson has given himself an untouchable protection from the norm. Regardless of his actions, fans still view him as the epitome of the pop revolution. He still holds the #1 best selling album, and had a sold out tour at the age of 50, many years after he reached the top. 750,000 tickets sold out within 5 hours! This leads me to believe that nothing can overshadow his influence in the industry. He will always be the King of Pop.
I believe the media has this wrong. What I do agree with, however, is that Jackson was troubled and plagued by the demons of success. As the the Guardian states in the article, ""If ever there was an illustration of the adage that celebrity destroys what it touches, Jackson was it." I think it is because of this fact that the myriad of fans forgive Michael.
Argument Piece - President Obama has not betrayed the gay community
The topic of gay rights is something I hold dear to my heart. Having many friends within the community, I have the fortunate opportunity of seeing "the other side" of the story. Without question, when subjected to the experience of learning about something considered different, you soon learn that there are always two sides.
The piece I am going to write about is "President Obama has not betrayed the gay community" by Chris Geidner. I have incredible difficulty with my thoughts on this subject. Although I am extremely pro-gay rights, I also see the reasoning and realistic timing issues related to the execution of legal change. It appears that Chris Geidner somewhat shares my feelings.
Chris Geidner, being openly gay, creates a fair argument. He states the feelings of the gay community, and the reasoning behind their feeling betrayed. However, he also shows why the gay community may be creating an over-reactive storm out of something that can actually be seen as a small step toward progress. An example is the brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Chris points out that "...and when they read descriptions in the gay media of that brief that claimed it compared us to pedophiles and practitioners of incest." Here he clearly shows that the gay media claimed this, but upon his own review he sees that he "disagree(d) that the Obama administration had a real choice about whether it would defend DOMA in court and that DOJ's brief "compared us" to incest and pedophilia." Now, bottom line is, this shouldn't, theoretically, even have to be a discussion. Equal rights should be granted to all, however, it is not reality right now.
Gay activists, including myself, would love to see the day where political movements don't need to be critized and inspected for proof of betrayal. So long as gays are refused the right to marry, there will be a sense of betrayal. Democracy is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." The irony lies in the fact that democracy's intended purpose is to create equality for all, but in historical cases, including gay rights, democracy is the very thing that can thwart equality for all. When a majority is able to stamp out a minority, democracy needs to be questioned.
Has Obama betrayed the community? Perhaps. As I said earlier, as long as there is not equality, there will be betrayal. Since we live in a democracy, and politics are politics, we must bide our time and wait for things to happen when they will be most effective. It is my hope that Obama is waiting for the most opportune time to make his move. As Chris Geidner also states, "Our leaders, though, deserve nothing less from us than fair and honest debate and direction as we advance on the way toward that goal. That is the path that will lead us multitudes to the equality we seek." As much as I hate to say it, and I'm sure Chris would agree, the gay community must remain steadfast and patient. This democracy we live in must go through its steps.
The piece I am going to write about is "President Obama has not betrayed the gay community" by Chris Geidner. I have incredible difficulty with my thoughts on this subject. Although I am extremely pro-gay rights, I also see the reasoning and realistic timing issues related to the execution of legal change. It appears that Chris Geidner somewhat shares my feelings.
Chris Geidner, being openly gay, creates a fair argument. He states the feelings of the gay community, and the reasoning behind their feeling betrayed. However, he also shows why the gay community may be creating an over-reactive storm out of something that can actually be seen as a small step toward progress. An example is the brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Chris points out that "...and when they read descriptions in the gay media of that brief that claimed it compared us to pedophiles and practitioners of incest." Here he clearly shows that the gay media claimed this, but upon his own review he sees that he "disagree(d) that the Obama administration had a real choice about whether it would defend DOMA in court and that DOJ's brief "compared us" to incest and pedophilia." Now, bottom line is, this shouldn't, theoretically, even have to be a discussion. Equal rights should be granted to all, however, it is not reality right now.
Gay activists, including myself, would love to see the day where political movements don't need to be critized and inspected for proof of betrayal. So long as gays are refused the right to marry, there will be a sense of betrayal. Democracy is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." The irony lies in the fact that democracy's intended purpose is to create equality for all, but in historical cases, including gay rights, democracy is the very thing that can thwart equality for all. When a majority is able to stamp out a minority, democracy needs to be questioned.
Has Obama betrayed the community? Perhaps. As I said earlier, as long as there is not equality, there will be betrayal. Since we live in a democracy, and politics are politics, we must bide our time and wait for things to happen when they will be most effective. It is my hope that Obama is waiting for the most opportune time to make his move. As Chris Geidner also states, "Our leaders, though, deserve nothing less from us than fair and honest debate and direction as we advance on the way toward that goal. That is the path that will lead us multitudes to the equality we seek." As much as I hate to say it, and I'm sure Chris would agree, the gay community must remain steadfast and patient. This democracy we live in must go through its steps.
Marijuana - argument for legalization - column
This article is for marijuana to be legalized, or at least for medical problems. It starts off with Keith Mano's personal story about his mother dying from a tumor in her spine. She is very weak and wasting before his eyes and she won't eat a single thing. After her weight drops about 15 pounds he takes action. Mano goes out to the street and buys marijuana to cook it into cookies. When he fed it to her in the hospital, 3 hours later she started eating, and they released her 15 days later. This touching story kicks off his article by portraying a good, clean use of marijuana that helped save an old woman's life. After this story, Mano goes on to explain how marijuana has very few health side effects and does not make one fall over or slurr their words. He uses he repetition of the phrase, " Alcohol is legal, but you can be put in jai for pot." He goes back to this saying at the end of every single paragraph after the story, to push it into the audiences head. In the paragraphs, Mano introduces reasons why marijuana is not bad, but helpful, and that alcohol is much worse. He makes it seem like people who drink alcohol are monsters. "Alcohol, remember, is big business. It has a powerful lobby, I'm certain. I suspect that, by intent or not, some of our most passionate anti-drug people are serving as mercenary militiamen in the liquor cartel's fight to keep marijuana from competing with beer or hooch." By using this quote, he makes anti-drug people look like alcoholics and defenders of something that is worse than they are fighting against. Using the words mercenary and militia men imply that the anti-drug people are ruthless soldiers who are just doing as they are told. The words liquor cartel are used to create the connection between drugs and alcohol, because cartel is a word mainly used for drugs.
The Twilight Zone
I did my blog on " The Twilight Zone" because it had a lot of different figurative language in it and very interesting view points. James Wolcott compares Twilight to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, True Blood and more and he points out that Twilight was sucking the last bit of entertainment out of the vampires theme. He describes the summary of the novel with great exaggeration with a tone of sarcasm hidden behind it. "Perhaps the most beautiful, fashion-modelly of the lunch bunch is Edward, Bella’s future and forever vampire lover, a high-cheekboned cross between Rudolf Nureyev and Chris Isaak in their princely prime, whose irises change color according to his moody moods." Wolcott uses imagery to mock how the story tells of the vampires great beauty. He explains much about how the main character Edward was what every girl could possibly want in one package, this shows why the movie made so much money and was the main basis of the movie. Wolcott talks about all the good things the movie did and implied who the audience was for the movie. " Watching the footage made me feel like a 14-year-old girl again." This review for Twilight uses many quotes to show direct examples from the movie to prove his points. The review is very detailed, but if swallowed slowly, there much hidden just below his words.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Convoluted Iranian Politics
I chose an article by my co-workers father, Kambiz Zarabi, who is a geologist and intellectual, Mr. Zarabi from 1969-1979 was the Iranian Chief of the Bureau of Mines as well as CEO of Doreen IMCO Inc., the leading mining company in Iran (working side-by-side with Haliburton, yes that Haliburton), and was forced to leave his homeland of Iran during the 1979 Cultural Revolution. Since then Mr. Zarabi has focused his attention on philosophy and the politics of his onetime homeland of Iran and how it relates to his new homeland of the United States.
“Iran: Who’s Country is it, Anyway?” is largely critical of the way the Western media has manipulated the current situation which is going on in Iran, as clearly stated “it is only in the international arena where the results of Iran’s presidential elections does truly make a difference. This difference has absolutely nothing to do with Iran’s actual attitude or policy shifts, but everything to do with the portrayal of Iran by the international propaganda media.” What he means by this is that the country is very set in its ways and needs lot of time to change, even a new more moderate president would not be able to take on these changes without the clerical structure going along with and helping it into action.
Despite what seems like the majority of people demonstrating in the streets this is far from the actual situation, most of these people are city-dwelling, middle-class and professionals (a distinct minority of the population). The majority of the people are, poor urbanites and those who still live a rural existence, still happy with their government enough to “[pay] with their sweat and blood to protect the homeland” during the Iran-Iraq War (which the West sponsored under Saddam Hussein); these people are “the ones you’d seldom see in these massive protest demonstrations.”
Iran is one of the most important countries in the Middle East, and before 1979 America had a very large hand in their development for the previous three decades, since we have become the arch-enemy, the social significance should not be hard to recognize here. Although the U.S. gets a very filtered interpretation of events around the world, especially in the Middle East, Mr. Zarabi gives us several good reasons why this is important to us which may not seem completely apparent to the average U.S. citizen.
The first reason is that Iran cannot be seen as soft, which is why the election was rigged to keep the hardliner Ahmadinejad in power, to Israel or America, because it could cause Israel to “[attack] Iran’s nuclear power plant or some other strategic target to draw Iran into some retaliatory response.” What we would do in America is to justify Israel’s pre-emptive action with some sort of twisted propaganda which would make Iran look like the instigators.
The second reason, even if there was an over throw of the government, like in 1979, what government would come out of it, “should we have a dictatorship of the proletariat, or should we just let the masses plough the field so that the pretend-Trotskyite could then direct their destinies as he or she sees fit? How different would that be from a conservative theocracy or a totalitarian monarchy?” Mr. Zarabi shows his contempt for those who may not be as realistic as himself (or Machiavellian as he admits), who may think that somehow all of a sudden in the Islamic-dominated Middle East there can be true “freedom and democracy.”
Despite this he maintains that without his help they have done “rather well”, pointing out that the town he grew up in now has a technical university and a tourist resort built since the time he left in 1979, again showing his worth as an unbiased observer, as unbiased as is possible anyways.
“Iran: Who’s Country is it, Anyway?” is largely critical of the way the Western media has manipulated the current situation which is going on in Iran, as clearly stated “it is only in the international arena where the results of Iran’s presidential elections does truly make a difference. This difference has absolutely nothing to do with Iran’s actual attitude or policy shifts, but everything to do with the portrayal of Iran by the international propaganda media.” What he means by this is that the country is very set in its ways and needs lot of time to change, even a new more moderate president would not be able to take on these changes without the clerical structure going along with and helping it into action.
Despite what seems like the majority of people demonstrating in the streets this is far from the actual situation, most of these people are city-dwelling, middle-class and professionals (a distinct minority of the population). The majority of the people are, poor urbanites and those who still live a rural existence, still happy with their government enough to “[pay] with their sweat and blood to protect the homeland” during the Iran-Iraq War (which the West sponsored under Saddam Hussein); these people are “the ones you’d seldom see in these massive protest demonstrations.”
Iran is one of the most important countries in the Middle East, and before 1979 America had a very large hand in their development for the previous three decades, since we have become the arch-enemy, the social significance should not be hard to recognize here. Although the U.S. gets a very filtered interpretation of events around the world, especially in the Middle East, Mr. Zarabi gives us several good reasons why this is important to us which may not seem completely apparent to the average U.S. citizen.
The first reason is that Iran cannot be seen as soft, which is why the election was rigged to keep the hardliner Ahmadinejad in power, to Israel or America, because it could cause Israel to “[attack] Iran’s nuclear power plant or some other strategic target to draw Iran into some retaliatory response.” What we would do in America is to justify Israel’s pre-emptive action with some sort of twisted propaganda which would make Iran look like the instigators.
The second reason, even if there was an over throw of the government, like in 1979, what government would come out of it, “should we have a dictatorship of the proletariat, or should we just let the masses plough the field so that the pretend-Trotskyite could then direct their destinies as he or she sees fit? How different would that be from a conservative theocracy or a totalitarian monarchy?” Mr. Zarabi shows his contempt for those who may not be as realistic as himself (or Machiavellian as he admits), who may think that somehow all of a sudden in the Islamic-dominated Middle East there can be true “freedom and democracy.”
Despite this he maintains that without his help they have done “rather well”, pointing out that the town he grew up in now has a technical university and a tourist resort built since the time he left in 1979, again showing his worth as an unbiased observer, as unbiased as is possible anyways.
Anti-abortion Violence
In “The Murder of Dr. Tiller, a Foreshadowing”, Cristina Page uses several types of evidence including comparisons, statistics, and quotations.
A comparison she uses effectively is when she links the actions of battered women to that of abortion clinics, noting that it is at the time when battered women are at the strongest, when they attempt to leave, is it most often they are killed. An increase in violence is a classic response to loss of control , which is what pro-lifers must perceive what is happening (although as the article points out abortions actually went up during junior Bush’s presidency, so I don’t know what control they really think they are losing). This is also a way in which she links something horrible, wife beaters, with something she wants the reader to perceive as undesirable, anti-abortion groups.
She provides pertinent statistics about violent crimes which have happened at or around abortion providers with a link to the NAF (National Abortion Federation, a very credible source) highlighting the most important of these statistics. Another statistic from this chart which is also interesting is the 554 anthrax threats in 2001 (ten times as many as every other year combined, apparently committed all by the same guy, Clayton Waagner, but still), which just so happened to be the same year that the only actual anthrax attacks happened; this really proves her point that the pro-life terrorists just do whatever they see in the media.
The main box quote is very revealing, offer some disturbing accounts of what is happening at clinics and hospitals, but Page also uses quotes from the opposition to show what some of this rhetoric she is accusing them of saying. Her use of these quotes is effective in the piece she is writing, however she doesn’t give her opposing side a stance at all; this might be detrimental to her piece if it wasn’t as inflammatory as it was anyways (she refers to pro-lifers as “antis”).
A comparison she uses effectively is when she links the actions of battered women to that of abortion clinics, noting that it is at the time when battered women are at the strongest, when they attempt to leave, is it most often they are killed. An increase in violence is a classic response to loss of control , which is what pro-lifers must perceive what is happening (although as the article points out abortions actually went up during junior Bush’s presidency, so I don’t know what control they really think they are losing). This is also a way in which she links something horrible, wife beaters, with something she wants the reader to perceive as undesirable, anti-abortion groups.
She provides pertinent statistics about violent crimes which have happened at or around abortion providers with a link to the NAF (National Abortion Federation, a very credible source) highlighting the most important of these statistics. Another statistic from this chart which is also interesting is the 554 anthrax threats in 2001 (ten times as many as every other year combined, apparently committed all by the same guy, Clayton Waagner, but still), which just so happened to be the same year that the only actual anthrax attacks happened; this really proves her point that the pro-life terrorists just do whatever they see in the media.
The main box quote is very revealing, offer some disturbing accounts of what is happening at clinics and hospitals, but Page also uses quotes from the opposition to show what some of this rhetoric she is accusing them of saying. Her use of these quotes is effective in the piece she is writing, however she doesn’t give her opposing side a stance at all; this might be detrimental to her piece if it wasn’t as inflammatory as it was anyways (she refers to pro-lifers as “antis”).
Fourth Discussion Board/ Blog
The written argument that I chose to write about is from a website named “Common Sense Journal” (http://www.commonsensejournal.com/2006/04/15/hateful-racist-vitriole-from-the-pro-illegal-immigration-protests/), article named, “Hateful, Racist Vitriole from the Pro-Illegal Immigration Protest”, by an unknown author. The article is about the dangers and consequences of continuing to let illegal immigration occur. The author establishes social significance first by saying that we need to build a fence on the border to not only control the people coming in and out of our country, but also to keep terrorists out. The author supports this by saying, “We need a state of the art fence to keep terrorists out, and, by common sense, keep track of who enters and leaves the country.” The author establishes social significance by putting some of the blame on illegal immigrants for some problems in our cities, messing up the environment of some areas and driving down everyone’s wages. The author supports this by saying, “see how uncontrolled immigration has led to and will lead to the destruction of America’s natural environment, more urban sprawl, and lower wages.” Lastly the author establishes social significance when saying that there are some illegal immigrants that want to take back California and the parts of the United States taken a long time ago. The author supports this by saying, “Many people call for part of the United States to be “given back” to Mexico.”
Third Discussion board/ Blog
In the article, “The Murder of Dr. Tiller, a Foreshadowing” by Christina Page, the author is inferring that the murder of Dr. Tiller, an abortion doctor, is because we once again have a President in office that is pro abortion. The author gives statistics and numbers comparing the time periods of anti-abortion presidents against time periods of pro-abortion presidents. The author is saying that the anti-abortion movement is going to intensify. The strengths of this piece is that the author does offer a lot of surprising statistics to back up his argument which tells me that the author did a lot of research on the matter. The weakness is that the author does not reveal his sources which would have been very helpful in adding to his argument. The type of evidence that the author uses is statistics and maybe source if the author reveals his/her sources for the information. I agree with the author because the numbers are much more than a coincidence to ignore and not too many reasons for the outcome to occur.
Assignments for this week
Ok, so in the latest class email it states "the only assignments due this week are your rhetorical analysis paper and this week's blog discussions", but in the schedule it says for week 2 "***Submit Ancillary #2 via Blackboard."
So is Ancillary 2 due this Saturday or not? I had to start over for having selected the wrong text and subsequently deleted my Blog 3 post, so extra time wouldn't be a luxury. But I don't want to find out after the facts that it was indeed due...
Anyone knows the answer for sure?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Blogging
Hi all,
Again, I am impressed with the level of detail you use and your obvious commitment to exploring issues thoroughly. These are probably the most thorough blogs I've seen in a 100 class yet (and I've taught more sections of it than I can remember). I also enjoy reading through the comments you are leaving. If you are not reading comments, you are missing out on valuable information and viewpoints that might really be of use to you, so try to make sure you are at least scanning comments here and there. And, of course, make sure you begin commenting if you have not done so yet -- I don't grade (in the beginning) on commenting, but I do begin to do so once we get to the third and fourth blog (and we're just about there). A blog is, in essence, a large dialogue with many authors, and it is designed to work around commenting as well as the basis for the commenting: the post itself.
Again, I am impressed with the level of detail you use and your obvious commitment to exploring issues thoroughly. These are probably the most thorough blogs I've seen in a 100 class yet (and I've taught more sections of it than I can remember). I also enjoy reading through the comments you are leaving. If you are not reading comments, you are missing out on valuable information and viewpoints that might really be of use to you, so try to make sure you are at least scanning comments here and there. And, of course, make sure you begin commenting if you have not done so yet -- I don't grade (in the beginning) on commenting, but I do begin to do so once we get to the third and fourth blog (and we're just about there). A blog is, in essence, a large dialogue with many authors, and it is designed to work around commenting as well as the basis for the commenting: the post itself.
Blog 3
I choose to argue in favor of the article "Does Facebook Replace Face Time or Enhance It?". This article is very interesting because it is something that a part of the majority of people's lives today. For many people it is the the first site they go to when on the Internet. "Facebook is geared toward helping people maintain existing connections". The author of this article argues that Facebook is slowly but surely becoming a replacement of face to face communication. There is a large truth in this statement because Facebook is a way to be notified of minute to minute updates on your friends lives. In our busy lives today who would not want to keep in touch with friends in the easiest possible way?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Blog 2
I chose the article entitles " Obama's War". I chose this article because of my military experience I thought I would be more qualified to analyze something I am familiar with, and I was curious to see what was considered to be Obamas war. After reading the first few pages however it became clear that the articles title was intended to grab your attention rather then discuss any of the President's policies or strategies for the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. Michael Hasting's article was very well written and had a lot of good credible opinions from several sources in the Military and former Head of the Bin Laden unit of the CIA Michael Scheur. The other topic that intrigued me was " Re-thinking the American Dream" but I decided to stay with the first one I picked because of my curiosity and the name dropping in the title.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Blog 2
I chose the article, “Does facebook replace face time or enhance it?” I picked this article because I know people who are totally obsessed with it and spend so much time on it. Some people are so drawn to the virtual world that they lose interest in the real world. I have friends on facebook who update their status like almost every hour of the day. Facebook to them is like their life and everyone around them needs to know what they are doing and what’s happening. Although, I have to agree that facebook does bring people closer together and is a great form of communication. Identifying the rhetorical strategies can be was kind of tough for me. It’s hard to analyze diction.
Blog 2
After quickly browsing the topics I thought I’d be writing about another political blunder or a topic I vaguely understand until I came across an article on the hangover. I first saw this a couple weeks and came out with my cheeks hurting. I have quite a crude sense of humor, which the hangover catered to extremely well. I enjoyed it so much I spent the absurd $11.50 to see it again on Monday night. The article on huffington post is not a typical movie review but more of a dive into the world of “bro”, through the movie. I’ll be turning 21 in Vegas in August, relegating myself to the debauchery of America’s adult playground.
Blog 1
I’ll be going into my fourth and final year of college in fall and I’ve been able to avoid English until now. At first glance rhetorical analysis appears complex and beyond my reading and comprehension level but after going through the lecture and reading other blogs, I’ve realize its something we do everyday. In casual conversation, watching television, or reading an article, almost anything can be broken down analytically. Being an engineering major enjoy breaking down problems analytically. The challenge will be scrutinizing the written word, which is a world I have never understood.
As for my experience with a particular subject matter, the Wall Street Journal is the only reading I do on a regular basis. In particular the opinion page often has intelligently written articles that take, stance, and vehemently defend their position. An article I read recently: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html has a few literary techniques tucked inside.
Blog 2 No More Skinny Bitches!
I chose the article “British Vogue Editor's Lame PR Coup: No More Size Zeros!” by Foster Kamer for Ancillary #1. The subject matter of the article is something that’s really important to me as a young woman in the entertainment industry, but I also really enjoyed reading the article. Kamer was very witty in his word choice, and wrote in a way that allowed me to almost hear his voice in my head as I read. His opinion piece persuaded me right away, and I had previously been excited about the editor of Vogue’s decision to scold the fashion industry. Normally I’m a pretty hard person to persuade, but something about his article really struck me. Rhetorical analysis should help me figure out what.
I also had a general question about rhetorical analysis. I have taken several classes in the past that have talked about rhetoric as the ability to use words to persuade. Am I right in assuming then that rhetorical analysis is breaking down what about the argument is persuasive?
I also had a general question about rhetorical analysis. I have taken several classes in the past that have talked about rhetoric as the ability to use words to persuade. Am I right in assuming then that rhetorical analysis is breaking down what about the argument is persuasive?
Blog 2 - The Paradox of Health Form
I chose this article because I was interested in the current situation with the health insurance in the United States and the intended outcome. I thought this was an interesting article as Obama now has the decision to make, he is responsible for the future of our country. There has been an argument with this issue for several years now, I currently do not have any qusestions about the analytical process, however if any are raised I am going to post them.
Blog 1
I watched a film in my last English class, it discussed a number of rhetorical strategies used. It was interesting after being informed by my teacher to see how a producer can use interesting techniques to persuade the viewer to see certain views. There was a persuasive speech in the movie which was interesting, it was motivational and I thought it was very effective on the film staff to create this.
Blog 1 Gregory House - Champion of Rhetoric
If you aren’t familiar with the show House MD, for shame! It is one of the most clever shows on television at the moment, certainly with the most clever character on television – Doctor Gregory House. “House”, as he’s more commonly called around the fictional Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital, would have been fired multiple times over in the real world for his dreadful bedside manner, careless drug addiction, and most unscrupulous nature. So how do the writers of the show explain the fact House is still employed? His ability to rhetorically analyze people and situations, and to use what he learns to manipulate them. Unfortunately he often lacks the ability to rhetorically analyze his own dialogues and rarely censors himself, which causes a lot of trouble in his personal relationship. House’s best weapon is pure sarcasm, and he is often known to use metaphors in the differential diagnosis process so that his team is forced to rhetorically analyze what their boss has said in order to help the patient of the week.
Blog 1
One of the factors of rhetorical analysis is audience. I watched a film in a previous class where an artist used obscene materials to create art. She even went as far as using her bodily fluids to decorate a canvas. The entire time the film was playing the class kept making faces and whispering about how "weird" it was. Although I personally also thought that using bodily fluids to create art is a bit on the edge the film showed many other artists and historians who thought it was a fascinating idea. They said it created a unique and original masterpiece. I guess the way an audience views and interprets a work of art integrates that persons background.
Blog 2
For my Ancillary Assignment I choose to dissect the article "Bro-Hood and its Discontents - The Hangover". What first attracted my attention to this article was not only the fact that I recently viewed this film in theaters but that a guttural comedy such as this could be the focus of a English paper. After quickly skimming the article I thought it would be a difficult article to write about because it basically told what the movie was about. But when I went back and carefully dissected each sentence individually I began to see that this article was really about showing how the bond of friendship is a strong, impermeable force.
The second part of the worksheet was quite difficult and I had to look up almost all the the strategies listed. This is because it had been a long time since I have seen most of these terms and a first time seeing the other terms. It would be helpful to have a universal list of common rhetorical strategies to look for in our future readings.
The second part of the worksheet was quite difficult and I had to look up almost all the the strategies listed. This is because it had been a long time since I have seen most of these terms and a first time seeing the other terms. It would be helpful to have a universal list of common rhetorical strategies to look for in our future readings.
Rhetorical Analysis- Blackberry
After going through several links and reading the articles, the article on Blackberry piqued my interest and it is what I chose to write my first paper about. I chose this article because it made me laugh and is something that I can relate to all too well, being a Blackberry addict myself. I especially liked that all the articles were on recent topics, things we can all relate to. My question about the analytical process is on identifying rhetorical strategies in general. I found that it was not always that easy to pick these out of the article. Do you have any tips that would make this an easier process?
First Discussion/Blog Post
When I first began going through the course documents for this online English class I was tempted to drop. Like some of my other classmates, it has been a very long time since I’ve taken an actual writing class and was feeling very overwhelmed. Rhetorical analysis what was that? After reading the text and lecture materials I realized that while most people wouldn’t know that is what they were doing, rhetorical analysis happens in everyday life- In watching television and movies, reading the newspaper or books, in conversations.
When thinking of a specific experience to share about, a conversation at work came to mind. Rhetorical strategies are also the tactics used to understand the other person in a conversation and help you determine how to respond to them. What tone are they speaking in, humor or anger? Is their fallacy in their logic? Do they keep coming back to the same point of comparison?
When thinking of a specific experience to share about, a conversation at work came to mind. Rhetorical strategies are also the tactics used to understand the other person in a conversation and help you determine how to respond to them. What tone are they speaking in, humor or anger? Is their fallacy in their logic? Do they keep coming back to the same point of comparison?
Blackberry Tales
For my first assignment, I elected to analyze the article entitled: "The Blackberry: Destroyer of Worlds -- and the New York Senate."
It just so happens that this was the very last article I clicked on after reading all the others and feeling utterly uninspired, except maybe by the Hangover review. I started reading the title and first paragraph, and truly enjoyed the deliberately overdramatic tone. Then as I often do to quickly assess the overall quality of a text, I skipped to the end (I am sure your English teachers have told you before that a strong intro and conclusion will save a poor essay).
After what I imagined was a cautionary tale against Blackberry use, the article ends with an italicized comment indicating that the article was "Written on a blackberry wireless handheld device". I just loved it. Clever irony always gets me. That final comment came like a critical stage direction in a Moliere play.
So based on the beginning and ending of that text, I chose to make it the topic of my first paper. I have read it since and enjoyed it as a whole, although I do feel a bit concerned about doing my first rhetorical analysis of a non-literary text. As I mentioned in my previous blog entry, I am made of pure literary nerdiness and am very much an academic used to dissecting the masterpieces of European literature and philosophy loaded with symbolism, figures of speech and other such stylistic devices. I am having a hard time finding such richness in the way Jonathan Alter chose to write his otherwise very interesting article. It might take some getting used to.
Blog Two
I chose to write on "Does Facebook Replace Face Time or Enhance It?" It starts out with a story of how a girl named Jenny hasn't even spoken to the author in a good amount of time, but thanks to Facebook, has given the author presents and other things. In the article, the author makes it clear that Facebook can indeed be a good thing, especially for people who are very busy with kids or work. While I agree with the author that, yes, Facebook can be a good thing for people to connect better, I believe that the issue was simplified. It was simplified to down to a smaller group of people, normally single parents who were busy with their lives. If all the "inane and intamate details" that make up life aren't something you get on a regular basis without Facebook, then maybe you aren't really a part of their lives at all. I think getting to know someone and keeping them in your life means actively updating them. It's very convenient to update on Facebook, but requires virtually no effort, no pun intended.
Blog One
I've been out of school for almost a year, and the thought of jumping back into it scared me, especially when the first assignment said something about "rhetorical analysis". But, after reading about it in the book and lecture, I realized that it's nothing more than things we do every day. Some of the best people of rhetorical analysis are what we call, in a social setting, "people-pleasers". There is nothing more people-pleasers want than to, well, please people, and in their attempt to do so, they use all kinds of strategies in order to appeal to someone. If they want someone, they learn all the right things to say, and the right ways to say them. They always know exactly what their audience is looking for and finds the perfect ways to give that to them.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Tax Profits from Legal Cannabis
As I scanned down the articles “A Toke and a Tax” was the first one to really catch my eye, well enough to actually click on it anyways, and I was impressed with the level of realism put forth by the article for proposed policy of legalizing and taxing marijuana, as well as the seriousness with which the writer, Jeremy Singer-Vine, went about examining the different theories of taxing. What is really intriguing to me is the different theories on which cannabis (cannabis is the name of the plant) could be taxed and why the opposing camps support their theories over the other. One proposal is that, like alcohol and tobacco, cannabis be given a large excise tax at the counter; the other proposes that the growers pay a large tax or license to grow cannabis and hence this would raise the price.
The two things that struck me most about the article was 1) the perceived audience the writer was focusing on and 2) the manipulation of the audience by assuming some things and effectively not knowing most others. First, the perceived audience is obviously liberals, but not only that, cannabis users or those who could vote on the issue in states such as ours. The writer is fully conscious of this with his several uses of marijuana related jargon, like “spliff” and “toke”, as well as his appeals to emotion and ethics with several references to ridiculous marijuana laws (like taxes just to add tax evasion to any other charge of someone arrested with marijuana). Second, he manipulates the audience very well in his assumption of some things, like marijuana is actually already legal which he plays off very well making a rather convincing argument by the end of the article without even really saying anything about it; and the complete unknowing of others, he doesn’t proclaim to know which is the best way to tax the plant, but simply proves either way is better than the current situation. Which of course he makes quite apparent is not working by adding one more fact at the end, the 13 billion dollars the U.S. spends on arresting and incarcerating marijuana users. Obviously this is a case where the law makes the criminals, not the criminals breaking the law.
The two things that struck me most about the article was 1) the perceived audience the writer was focusing on and 2) the manipulation of the audience by assuming some things and effectively not knowing most others. First, the perceived audience is obviously liberals, but not only that, cannabis users or those who could vote on the issue in states such as ours. The writer is fully conscious of this with his several uses of marijuana related jargon, like “spliff” and “toke”, as well as his appeals to emotion and ethics with several references to ridiculous marijuana laws (like taxes just to add tax evasion to any other charge of someone arrested with marijuana). Second, he manipulates the audience very well in his assumption of some things, like marijuana is actually already legal which he plays off very well making a rather convincing argument by the end of the article without even really saying anything about it; and the complete unknowing of others, he doesn’t proclaim to know which is the best way to tax the plant, but simply proves either way is better than the current situation. Which of course he makes quite apparent is not working by adding one more fact at the end, the 13 billion dollars the U.S. spends on arresting and incarcerating marijuana users. Obviously this is a case where the law makes the criminals, not the criminals breaking the law.
The other thing I found rather ironic was that the one misspelling of “state Legislature” which reads “slate Legislature,” the name of the website is of course Slate.com , maybe an intentional mistake.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)