How does the writer appeal to the emotions and self-interest of the audience?
What is the tone of the text?
The author of “Soccer is a Lie: Eduardo Sacheri’s “Papers in the Wind”, Jon Michaud, starts off the article with a quote from the book, “Papers in the Wind” that immediately draws in an audience. In the quote he talks about how Alejandro Raguzzi or “Mono” sees his life as a footballer. Shortly after that explanation, he talks about how athletes aren’t like artists or performers, it’s so rare for people to reach their dreams in sports. I feel that it appeals to the emotions of many readers because I know several who have ambitions of being professional athletes. I myself am more into the arts, especially music, but I definitely understand how people interested in sports could be disappointed. That’s just one example of how Michaud uses emotion to appeal to the audience, but he has several more throughout the article. It’s all very relatable and emotional. The last quote of the article was, “‘Soccer is a lie,’ Mono says as he is dying. ‘It’s all a farce, ... And yet ... somehow ... there’s a ‘but.’ ... ‘There’s still something that just pulls me in. Something I love.’” Michaud’s quote of Mono in Sacheri’s book is very relatable at this point as we all have that one thing we won’t ever give up on, something we’ll always love. The tone of the text fits in with the whole emotional appeal of this article. A lot of the article is explaining what “Papers in the Wind” by Eduardo Sacheri is about, so the tone of the text is informational, but it’s also emotional. Michaud also talks about Sacheri’s other books so it is a bit persuading to want to read those books. “In fact, this book is the perfect read for literate sports fans who are turned off by the excess of the World Cup, who don’t give a damn about golden boots and groups of death. Sacheri’s book is about failure and the ways that people cope with crushed dreams. It reduces the global sport to a human level, yet still acknowledges its flawed appeal.” Michaud both explains why he thinks “Papers in the Wind” is a good book and at the same time has a persuading tone in getting others to read it.
I would have to agree with Jon Michaud that a book that is about dealing with failure and crushed dreams is probably a really good one. It’s something that most people will have to go through sometime during their lives. I myself have never read the book, so I can’t for sure say I agree with him all the way, but based on how he described the book, it sounds excellent. I don’t play soccer, but I understand what it’s like to want something you’ve worked hard for really bad, and end up with not much at all. I like the idea of writing opinions on a book, and I used to not like book summaries because I felt they spoiled books, but I like this book summary because it doesn’t reveal too much about the book, but I’m still persuaded to read it. All in all, this article was pretty good and I agree with the majority of Michaud’s writing. It all seems to be pretty valid from what I see.
Andrea, I think your response was very informative and you answered the questions you chose very coherently. Your response was very easy to read and it flowed very nicely. I could understand what your topic was about and I agree with your opinion on the topic. Nice job!
In this article, author Sally Kohn gives a run down on the United States views and laws on same-sex marriage. Within the article she states that she believes allowing same-sex marriage is a big step towards equality and justice for all. In the text I am able to understand her and her beliefs by the way she presents them, bluntly and truthfully. "But marriage equality is a big and important movement toward fairness and justice for all — a movement that is, at this point, unstoppable." (Kohn.) I believe that Kohn's directed audience is those in the gay community or those who support the community; although there is no blatant point made for this. "We still don't even have a federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity." (Kohn.) I assume by the way she uses "we" that it is directed towards a bigger audience than just one group of people.
I do agree with the author; mainly due to the fact that it goes against rights everyone in the United States is given at birth. I also agree with how she states all the good things that have been happening in the community, such as passing laws and equal rights in 19 states but then pulls back into reality to say that those 19 states don't fix the big issues yet. The way this article is written is facts followed by opinion, which makes this easier to read and agree/disagree without having the authors opinions shoved in your face. I agree with the writer the way this article is written.
“Rethinking the Colorful Kindergarten Classroom” is an article that explains that studies have shown the more decorated a classroom is the more frequently a student will get distracted and the child’s learning could suffer. The tone of this piece is the author wants to inform the audience. Not to lecture them or be angry but to question the effect of decorations in a classroom setting. She writes, “Could all that elaborate décor impede learning? Some experts think so”. She doesn’t write it in a way to evoke the audience but to inform them and make them question the real benefits to children by the colorful and distracting walls. The writer provides information from a study of younger children in two different classrooms. One with crazy decorations on the wall and one simple and plain. In the study they gave lessons to the children and then tested them to see what the results were. The children performed better on the test in the classroom that had no decorations. She also adds, “they were more distracted, their gazes more likely to wander off task”. So giving this piece of evidence she convinced me that decorations in a classroom do not advance younger students learning but actually distract them from the real focus which is learning. For the rest of the article she provided ideas as to what teachers could do to their classrooms instead. Then uses examples from real teachers.
I agree with this author that the decorations would only take away from the child’s learning and distract them. The author’s points are not only non fallacious, but they persuade me and they’re logical with strong evidence to prove them . The wild decorations get the child off task but it doesn't present the actual students process in their learning through their own work. With this in mind teachers should consider this option for their classrooms this coming fall and see the results. With the research provided I do not think the teachers would be disappointed with what their children can accomplish without the distraction.
Your explanation that the premise of colorful and cluttered classrooms is detrimental to learning is very well done. Your questions are answered extremely well and your opinion on it is very logical and agreeable. Overall you did a super job! Hopefully teachers will benefit from this study and use it in their classrooms.
" Being Too Thin Has Its Consequences" is an article saying how our society has come to the point were we are taking deathly steps to be skinny. This article is pretty much straight forward and to the point. It says how losing to much weight could lead to death. " Famous singer Karen Carpenter died at age 32 from heart failure due to her anorexia. She weighed just 80 pounds." When I read this I was completely shocked. I went on Google to look up pictures of Karen and was surprised at what I saw. The overall tone on this piece would have to be objective. The author, Bryant Stanford, tells the facts about anorexia and doesn't put much opinion into it.
When the writer wrote this piece I bet he had a lot of teenagers in mind. Teens are actually going "Pro-Ana", as the article states. Being a teenager myself I was really interested in this topic. The writer writes simply but has a lot of facts so really any one at any age could understand this article. This article really interested me because it talks about hoe models were years ago and how they are now. "In the 1950s, Miss America was likely to be 5 feet 6 inches tall and weigh 150 pounds. Today, Miss America is several inches taller and 40 pounds lighter". I think that the writer is trying to get people to notice the huge change in just 60 years. Not only does this article appeal to a lot of people, it actually has taken place in many of our life's.
I agree with the fact that this topic has become a major facet of our society. The perception of beauty in modern times has definitely changed from previous years, and this change has stifled the individuality and lowered the self-esteem of our youth. Your information about Miss America was intriguing. Great work on your responses!
The article that I chose to read is named "Throw FIFA Out of the Game." The opinion piece, written by New York Times columnist Dave Zirin, explains the many failures and acts of corruption committed by FIFA. One thing that gets under the writer's skin is the fact that FIFA's corruption has been well-known for many years. Zirin writes, "FIFA's corruption has been such an open secret for so many years that when new reports emerge, they tend to provoke more eye-rolls than outrage."
Zirin's argument may leave a reader incredulous, if it wasn't for the hard-hitting evidence that he provides in order to back his claim. In discussing the financial and human costs for the realization of a World Cup, Zirin writes, "In Brazil, site of the 2014 World Cup, the FIFA-driven push to build new stadiums at breakneck pace has led to the deaths of nine construction workers. FIFA's demands for security and infrastructure may end up displacing as many as 250,000 poor people, who live in the favelas surrounding Brazil's urban centers. The cost of the games continues to tick upward, the latest figures climbing as high as $15 billion."
Zirin ultimately concludes his article by expressing his personal opinion about the topic. Zirin states that people don't have to become displaced and even die for the sake of soccer. He writes, "It (FIFA) is like a gangrenous limb that requires amputation before the infection spreads and the beautiful game becomes decayed beyond all possible recognition."
Your analysis was very interesting for me to read with the World Cup having already started. The analysis was pieced together very nicely. I also enjoyed reading about the severe effects of the cup being in Brazil. Good job!
The article I read, How Obama’s Climate Goals Will Play in Silicon Valley, Focuses on some new goals set forth by Obama. That, and how they will affect the work going on in silicon valley. The audience is most likely investors and entrepreneurs, they talk to a founding chief executive of Sun Microsystems, Mr. Khosla. Mr. Khosla first enters the interview in a way that really stuck out to me, by saying climate deniers must see the proctologist to find their head. And for those of you who do not know, a proctologist deals with the Colon, Rectum, and Anus.
The Author does not appear to choose a side in this argument, but Vinod Khosla clearly believes that silicon valley will change views on how they work. The author brings up how he remembers when “Once upon a time, cleantech was the buzzword in tech. People like John Doerr and Vinod Khosla, big-name venture capitalists who made billions in computers and the web, said it was the next big thing.”. But eventually Entrepreneurs found that cleantech made little profit. I myself agree with Mr. Khosla, He believes that eventually these new technologies will be booming.
“Iraq Asked U.S. for Airstrikes on Militants, Officials Say”, is an article that explains the tension between Iraq and the United States governments and their militaries. Iraq had asked for our military's assistance, to help fight off Iraq extremists, personally from Obama himself, but his request was denied and Obama even withdrew the U.S.’s remaining forces from Iraq. The kind of person who would read this article would be politicians, military, people who work for the government, and adults who like to keep up with the world. “Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials.” Is proving that this issue is related to both of the governments and therefore people involved would definitely pay attention to what’s going on. “But Iraq’s appeals for military assistance have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was closed when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011.” sets the articles main tone; annoyed. The writer made me feel like they were annoyed with both governments. I agree with the writer. The thought that we’re not helping someone when they’re in need is really frustrating, especially since Iraq has been going through some rough times with the war and all that. So I felt that the author was playing up Iraq’s needs more than ours.
Sounds like a very interesting article and possibly something that I may check out. I have read many articles from authors who want to keep out of Iraq, but very rarely do I get the perspective of a person who wants to aid the Iraqi government. Good job on your response!
Is the writer credible? How do you know this, based only on what is said in the text?
What reasons does a writer give you to believe an argument? http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SALHS21-0-9200&artno=0000343321&type=ART
I chose to read the article "In Fight with Obesity, a Bigger Government Is the Wrong Weapon," in which the author Baum, Charles argued that having government regulation will not help combat the obesity epidemic. The author of this article is credible because he is a professor of economics at Middle Tennessee state University. Also the author notes on credible research from places like the Institute of Medicine. Besides being credible, the author also does a good job of putting forth a strong, believable argument. The author does this by putting out counter arguments and terminating them with research and studies which would give this article an ethos appeal and also with logic and reason which is logos. An example of logos used would be when he stated with that "Cigarettes are an appetite inhibitor, and we've all heard of people who have gained 10 pounds or so after quitting smoking. But the decline in smoking--the biggest single contributor to the rise in obesity rates--accounted for only about 2 percent of the increase." The statement "A new USDA study finds that fruits and vegetables actually cost less (by weight) on the whole than "junk" food, meaning there isn't a barrier to filling up on less calorie-dense food," is an example of ethos that shows how the author used it to make his argument more believable. This article overall had a credible author who also relied on good sources to create a good believable argument. Going off that this article had a good argument ,and a credible author, I must agree that government regulation is not the answer to solve obesity. There are too many causes to obesity to try to regulate them we rather need to just encourage healthy lifestyle, after all we do live in America and it's a free country.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/13/why-wont-be-watching-world-cup/ "Why I Won't Be Watching the World Cup", is a persuasive article about the author's reasoning to not watch soccer. The author's argument is how boring watching soccer is. "Now I know why people riot at soccer matches. The same reason inmates riot in prison: there's nothing else to do." (Moore) I think that statement also sets the tone for the article. It expresses how miserable he is watching soccer, while it's not too serious. Moore by saying that is keeping a light tone to a simple topic. Since Moore is writing an article on his opinion of soccer I think he has a very broad target audience. "I've often argued that the only thing in the world, worse than playing soccer is watching it." Moore using that to persuade his audience shows the audience can be from teenagers to people in their mid 70's.
I extremely agree with Moore on this topic. My parents tried to get me into soccer when I was very little. It was a wretched experience for me to run up and down the field when you hardly get an opportunity to make a goal. I also despised going to my older sister's soccer games. The last time I watched soccer I was seven. So this World Cup I will not be watching.
I think this is an interesting topic, since the World Cup just started. I have played soccer since I was about four years old and I really enjoy playing. Sometimes watching a whole game can get boring. But if you know the rules to soccer and understand plays and strategies the teams use it's kind of interesting. I can see how someone who doesn't play the sport would find it boring because I hate watching pretty much all other sports.
The article “‘Thanks for your service’ not enough” is written by three authors; Sebastian Junger, Jim McDermott, and Karl Marlantes. In the article, the authors state that we need to step up our game on Memorial Day. They start out the article with information about the first Memorial Day, which happened on May 1, 1865. The people involved in this event was a group of African American, who were liberated from slavery, recognizing the Union Soldiers buried in the ground of the Charleston Race Course. These authors wants whoever is reading their article to feel obliged to “create” a new Memorial Day.
Junger, McDermott, and Marlantes try to persuade the readers by stating the problems such as: “High rates of unemployment, homelessness, alcoholism, substance abuse and post-traumatic stress are decimating our community of veterans. With the wars of the past 13 years in Iraq and Afghanistan coming to a close, we are seeing too many casualties among American soldiers in this transition to peace.” I feel like the authors included this piece into the article to get an emotional attachment from the audience to the veterans. The authors’ main point is that we need to “accept responsibility for the wounds, psychological and physical, that they [the veterans] bring home from war.” The authors also include that around twenty-two American Veterans take their lives consistently. Junger, McDermott, and Marlantes urge the citizens of America to create a “Memorial Day 2.0.,” because that’s what our soldiers deserve. I agree with these authors that our veterans deserve something better since they’ve risked their lives to keep ours safe. It’s a shame that so many veterans become homeless because they’ve been gone for so long and when they return, they don’t have a job to support themselves and some don’t even have family.
What gets under the writer's skin? What does the writer want the audience to do? In this article “Lying About School Shootings” something that obviously gets under the writers skin is that the statistic of 74 more school shooting have happened since the Sandy Hook shooting is over exaggerated and not completely explained to the audience. When a group that goes by the name Everytown released a map of over 74 school shootings in the US alone, Charles Johnson stepped up and corrected this scary statement. He stated that this number was not mass shooting alone, it also included college campuses, self-defense, and claims that “32 could be classified as “school shootings” only if we are to twist the meaning of the term beyond all recognition”. (Johnson) He said that not even half of the so called school shooting could be technically school shootings, but they only were only technically school shootings after the term was so far from the actual meaning. I think that the writer wants us to really understand what the media and people in general tell us. Because this unrealistic number of 74 shootings spread like wildfire through social media. The misconstrued number wasn’t even questioned. So by proving that not even half of that 74 could be school shootings the author is telling us to fully understand what we are reading.
Katie, I really enjoy your response because it provides us with enough information to understand the article and the author's point of view without reading the article.
What gets under the writer’s skin? The writer is annoyed with the idea that America spends more money on healthcare than any other country, yet other rich countries have longer life expectancy. “The other charts and tables in the report—about heart, lung, and kidney disease; diabetes; injuries and homicides; depression; and drug abuse—all show Americans suffering poorer health.” The author claims points out the irony in the fact that so much money is being spent on better healthcare, but they still can’t keep up with the health of other countries because Americans aren’t doing anything to help themselves maintain healthy lifestyles.
Is the writer credible? This writer is definitely credible because he uses a lot of numbers and statistics to prove his point. “The study, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (to which I am a contributing writer), showed that both life expectancy and healthy-life expectancy improved in the United States over two decades.” Since he is an important part of an ongoing study focusing specifically on American healthcare compared to the healthcare of other countries, he knows what he is talking about and is stating real facts.
The author is trying to tell us that there is no point in wasting money on better health care if we, Americans, are going to constantly do things do put our health in danger. I completely agree with him because health is important, and we need to work together and make the citizens of the united states healthier. How are we supposed to eat healthier when it is so easy to eat a greasy burger from McDonalds for only a dollar, and healthy foods are more expensive? The government spends a lot of money of healthcare, but Americans spend equally as much on manufacturing fast food restaurants, new technology, and ect., which takes away our motivation to run, eat healthy, go outdoors, or do other things to improve our health.
I think that your response to this article is very interesting, it makes me want to read this article. I can also tell your point of view on this article, it is very clear to me and I agree with you.
The article that I read, “Iraq crisis: Did Obama's foreign policy blunders sow seeds of disaster?”, is an opinion article written by Cal Thomas, in which he states that we need a “unified approach to fighting Islamic extremism by us and other allied nations” and a “policy that works” in dealing with the threat of Islamic extremism. In the first section of the article, Thomas tries to make the audience (who should be mainly people interested in politics) move to his side using emotional methods involving the many dead soldiers, stating that no life is more wasted than a life lost in vain, which means that lives that are lost to an effort which turns out futile are utterly wasted. After the statement he says the Obama Administration is leaving areas that are being taken by an Al Qaeda affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. He goes on to say that another terrorist state will be established that will help with the terrorists plans to attack “infidel” countries, and shows that the president will not send military forces back to Iraq, unless the Iraqi government finds a way to bridge sectarian differences. He then tries, once again, to use emotional methods involving dead soldiers to get the audience on his side by saying that the families of the dead soldiers would think that it would be horrible of the government to pull out of Iraq because they were told their family members died in a noble cause, after which he shows statistics of dead and wounded soldiers in the war. The next several paragraphs state that the U.S. doesn’t take the terrorist threat as seriously as it should, the Jihadists in Iraq illegally became the richest terrorist group in the world recently, and that the Islamic extremist threat could become the worlds next rulers if we don’t stop them now. He ends with saying withdrawal from this war is a policy of surrender, and we should unite with other allies to fight the terrorist threat using a new policy that makes the old policy obsolete. (continued in comments due to having too many characters)
(Original post continued) I disagree with the author that we should unite with other allied forces to fight the terrorist threat with a new policy. The author tries to persuade me by stating that since we’ve lost quite a substantial amount of resources, we cannot halt the activities that were at play due to the fact that those resources will have been lost in a futile effort, and if we do halt the operations, the extremists have a chance at gaining a massive movement that could take away all of our freedoms. One reason his attempt to persuade me failed is because the U.S. simply cannot afford to keep their presence in Iraq anymore, they are losing countless resources and soldiers, so they are cutting their losses and leaving before it gets worse, and the plethora of soldiers that ultimately fell into eternal oblivion over in Iraq did not die meaninglessly, for they assisted Iraq in dealing with the Islamic extremist threat, and the U.S. is leaving Iraq in better shape than it was in when they got there because of them. Another reason his attempt to persuade me failed is because that the terrorist threat will never escalate to such a point where they can devise a plot that will lead them to world domination because they are a religion-based group. The final reason a religion-based group or government in the 21st century can never get the power to dominate the world is because, even if they muster up the forces of every single one of their followers to fight with them, there will always be the remainder of the world fighting against them that will win, regardless of which religion it turns out to be. Sure the terrorists could obtain quite an amount of forces, but they would start collapsing as soon as they obtained enough land, for they would have to establish a government to control the spread out forces and resources, which would make the head(s) of the operation much easier to track down and neutralize just in case war had the chance to rear its malevolent head before their government inevitably fails and leaves the leaders struggling to maintain power throughout their regime. The U.S. was right to pull out of Iraq, if the extremists do take over more land, the large area of which they will control will be their downfall due to complications in the method of which they will control their land, poor and easily intercepted communications due to low technological achievements, spread out troops, low amount of possible soldiers to fight in large-scale wars, and an infinitesimal amount of tactical knowledge to apply during large-scale wars. The U.S. will also save resources and lives by pulling Iraq as well, which will have a beneficial impact on our debt that we owe to other countries.
The author of the articles appeal to the emotions of the audience shows to be humorous on how he goes with George Takei’s view on Gay rights or how he says it “Takei” in response to the bill parents have tried to push on the government to make it illegal for teachers to say Gay in the classrooms. The author pulls the audience with quotes from Takei and chronological notes from his childhood to when he played Hikaru Sulu in the star trek series to his coming out of the closet in 2007. The authors tone towards the text shows his acceptance of Takei and what he does as well as humor and as well as admiration for Takei for what he does and how he portrays it in media and in his personal life. My opinion to the subject is that why people would even care about it when there are worse things that have happened sexually. People who are homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, even people who are pansexual have rights and are normal human beings as the person next to you so why would anyone even care about if a man like a man or if a girl likes a girl or if a man wants to be a girl and vice versa. When there are people who rape their own children or people who sexually assault people for the fun of it I am baffled at the idea that the media and people put sexuality in front of that all. I love how George Takei is taking this to the media and to the news. Since finding out about his homosexuality my view on him hasn't changed. To me he’s still Sulu, Captain, who does his trademark catchphrase “Oh my” and I catch my little brothers saying.
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SALHS21-0-269&artno=0000341023&type=ART This article talks about the five myths on gay marriage and how there are complications to supporting claims. One of the myths is that same-sex marriage can hurt children. Opponents say that children can do better when they have their biological parents with them. That is not true because gay couples are raising children without a problem. The real problem today in the US is the rate of non-gay couples getting a divorce is higher then ever. Non-gay couples are having an issue of getting married and stay married. Due to cohabitation that has been rising for 10 years, one third of children don't live with married parents. Same-sex couples are trying to solve the problem, not to be apart of it. Another myth is that the entire country should have the same policies. People think having different marriage standards in different states is creating chaos. The thing is, states have always thought of same-sex marriage differently. This isn't a communist country, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Each and every state is allowed their own policies.
This article titled “Five Arguments against gay marriage”, tries to give an updated interpretation of same sex marriage and its effects or none on today’s society. A question I often ask when reading non-fiction or an opinionated article is “what are the facts?”. Author, Seth Forman gives his opinion in this article without using any real facts. An example of Forman doing this is in the first paragraph when he says, “Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry”. His use of the word “bigotry” is harsh in the sense that he is grouping all religious people to be intolerant to homosexuals. Another question to ask would be “What is the author’s goal in writing this article and expressing his opinion?” or “Does the author have the best interests of the issue at heart or is there a conflict of interest?”. I would also be curious if the author has a biased opinion? Ultimately, I think the author’s purpose is to spark interest and/or concern in this topic and get people to talk about it. At the beginning of the article he says, “New York State, the media report with poorly disguised elation, is set to legally redefine marriage to include relationships between two same-sex adults. Before this happens, people of good conscience, supporters and opponents both, should at least be given the opportunity to consider the possible consequences.” I don’t have a very strong opinion on gay marriage. I do believe that people should have the right to marry who they want to. There can be negative effects like the article says. Some of the article, I believe, was fallacy. I do think it is an important topic today and should be discussed. But ultimately, in the United States, a.k.a “land of the free”, people should love who they want without being discriminated against or criticized, while those who hold religious beliefs should not be seen as bigots.
"It's OK to Watch World Cup While the World Burns" is saying everyone around the world should take a break in fighting and bask in the emotion of the games. The author is just asking for peace for people to enjoy all the emotions that come with the World Cup. "Is it wrong to watch football while the world's on fire? Is it wrong to love the World Cup, to get excited about a goal scored in Brazil while there's mayhem in Iraq, destruction in Syria, Russian troops massing near Ukraine? The answer is no. Enjoy the Cup. When I was a child I had what I thought was a brilliant idea: Instead of fighting all those awful wars, countries with gripes should challenge each other to a soccer game. The victor could be declared the winner without all the nastiness of fighting a real war" (Ghitis.) I think that she is addressing everyone everywhere and considers every person as her audience. "This is true even for the people caught in the middle of real wars. In Syria, in the middle of a civil war, rebel fighters put their weapons aside to watch the World Cup. In Baghdad, as the ruthless ISIS jihadists march toward the Iraqi capital, cafes are filled with people watching the Cup. In Vienna, Iranian officials took a break from nuclear negotiations to watch their team. Refugees, astronauts, politicians are all watching the World Cup." This article was well written and very thought through. Due to that and the strong opinion expressed I would have to agree with the author because I also believe that everyone should lay down there arms and watch a different kind of battle unfold. This isn't a battle of army strength its a battle of skill and wits... it's a battle of football.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/obamacare-costs-jobs-hurts-most-vulnerable-103299.html#.U8UpW31X-uZ What gets under the writers skin? In the article Obamacare is Anything but Compassionate, the author seem extraordinarily confused by the presidents priorities. According to the article the president is planing to expand medicaid to cover many Americans in their working prime before he works upon helping the disabled. "I have another question for President Obama: Why is expanding Medicaid to cover millions of working-age Americans a bigger priority than giving access to hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities waiting for care?" (Jindal).
Who is the Audience? I believe the Governor's target audience is concerned Americans. Americans who are not covered by medicaid or medicare who should have been helped five to ten years ago but have been ignored.
I do agree with the authors main points, that their are many Americans especially the disabled who are lacking health coverage and need it. The fact that the poor are being discouraged from finding work and/or bettering their lives because it is so easy to get covered from the government if you are poor, and in the end it is the hard working citizen's tax money paying for all of this.
This article seems really interesting, and I agree with you on how the poor are getting treated bad. And I like how you can tell what the author is thinking just by reading your response's.
In the article “NFL is ready for its first openly gay player”, the major argument is how will the NFL and all that surrounds it respond to having an openly gay player. The author believes that the NFL is ready to have an openly gay player be involved in the league. He talked about how a player (Colton) was an openly gay football player for his high school football team. “Colton helped us win football games. That was all that mattered.” He states that it should and will be all about having Michael Sam, the openly gay football player, helping the St. Louis Rams win football games. “Michael Sam should be judged on his football abilities...”
I do not agree with all of what the author says and thinks. He is basing his opinion on his high school football career years ago. The NFL is a whole different level than high school. There are fan bases and spectators that go along with it. There will be people (20 percent) that do not agree with an openly gay football player being on the field competing with other men. The other task is everyone being comfortable in the locker room and having one thing on their mind, winning football games. People will say homophobic slurs in the locker room and be showering with an openly gay man. It is a distraction, maybe not for everyone, but definitely for some. “Similarly, an ESPN survey stated that 86 percent of NFL players would have no problem having an openly-gay teammate.” While that is a high percentage, there are still some against it. The NFL is a business and the job is to win games, distractions can take away from that. I think they are close to being ready, but there are many tasks they have to complete, its just the start.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/23/opinion/bare-ice-bucket-challenge/index.html?iid=article_sidebar How does the writer appeal to the emotions and self-interest of the audience? The author uses words such as power, and talking about how peers are challenging each other to take the challenge. "It's not the funny videos that matter. It's the power of the peer-to-peer economy, driven by young people, now rippling through the social sector. Businesses such as Airbnb, Uberx and "P2P" lending firms such as Prosper Marketplace have demonstrated the heft of peer models." (Bare)
What is the tone of the text? The tone is powerful, and inspring. They're talking about how one movement can make such a huge difference. They explain that people would more likely donate to a charity if a friend asked rather than a random person emailing them, and that the cause brings people closer and they can help donate and promote awareness to the disease; ALS. "When my sister participates in a fundraising run and sends an email asking me to donate, I do. When the professional expert from that same nonprofit organization asks me to donate, I treat the note as spam." (Bare)
I agree with the writer. They feel that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is a helpful cause. And the fact that you see the videos all over facebook is just proving that people are successfully spreading awareness. The author feels that it brings people together.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/06/soccer-is-a-lie-eduardo-sacheris-papers-in-the-wind.html#entry-more
ReplyDeleteHow does the writer appeal to the emotions and self-interest of the audience?
What is the tone of the text?
The author of “Soccer is a Lie: Eduardo Sacheri’s “Papers in the Wind”, Jon Michaud, starts off the article with a quote from the book, “Papers in the Wind” that immediately draws in an audience. In the quote he talks about how Alejandro Raguzzi or “Mono” sees his life as a footballer. Shortly after that explanation, he talks about how athletes aren’t like artists or performers, it’s so rare for people to reach their dreams in sports. I feel that it appeals to the emotions of many readers because I know several who have ambitions of being professional athletes. I myself am more into the arts, especially music, but I definitely understand how people interested in sports could be disappointed. That’s just one example of how Michaud uses emotion to appeal to the audience, but he has several more throughout the article. It’s all very relatable and emotional. The last quote of the article was, “‘Soccer is a lie,’ Mono says as he is dying. ‘It’s all a farce, ... And yet ... somehow ... there’s a ‘but.’ ... ‘There’s still something that just pulls me in. Something I love.’” Michaud’s quote of Mono in Sacheri’s book is very relatable at this point as we all have that one thing we won’t ever give up on, something we’ll always love. The tone of the text fits in with the whole emotional appeal of this article. A lot of the article is explaining what “Papers in the Wind” by Eduardo Sacheri is about, so the tone of the text is informational, but it’s also emotional. Michaud also talks about Sacheri’s other books so it is a bit persuading to want to read those books. “In fact, this book is the perfect read for literate sports fans who are turned off by the excess of the World Cup, who don’t give a damn about golden boots and groups of death. Sacheri’s book is about failure and the ways that people cope with crushed dreams. It reduces the global sport to a human level, yet still acknowledges its flawed appeal.” Michaud both explains why he thinks “Papers in the Wind” is a good book and at the same time has a persuading tone in getting others to read it.
I would have to agree with Jon Michaud that a book that is about dealing with failure and crushed dreams is probably a really good one. It’s something that most people will have to go through sometime during their lives. I myself have never read the book, so I can’t for sure say I agree with him all the way, but based on how he described the book, it sounds excellent. I don’t play soccer, but I understand what it’s like to want something you’ve worked hard for really bad, and end up with not much at all. I like the idea of writing opinions on a book, and I used to not like book summaries because I felt they spoiled books, but I like this book summary because it doesn’t reveal too much about the book, but I’m still persuaded to read it. All in all, this article was pretty good and I agree with the majority of Michaud’s writing. It all seems to be pretty valid from what I see.
Andrea, I think your response was very informative and you answered the questions you chose very coherently. Your response was very easy to read and it flowed very nicely. I could understand what your topic was about and I agree with your opinion on the topic. Nice job!
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/opinion/kohn-gay-marriage/index.html?hpt=op_bn6
ReplyDeleteIn this article, author Sally Kohn gives a run down on the United States views and laws on same-sex marriage. Within the article she states that she believes allowing same-sex marriage is a big step towards equality and justice for all. In the text I am able to understand her and her beliefs by the way she presents them, bluntly and truthfully. "But marriage equality is a big and important movement toward fairness and justice for all — a movement that is, at this point, unstoppable." (Kohn.) I believe that Kohn's directed audience is those in the gay community or those who support the community; although there is no blatant point made for this. "We still don't even have a federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity." (Kohn.) I assume by the way she uses "we" that it is directed towards a bigger audience than just one group of people.
I do agree with the author; mainly due to the fact that it goes against rights everyone in the United States is given at birth. I also agree with how she states all the good things that have been happening in the community, such as passing laws and equal rights in 19 states but then pulls back into reality to say that those 19 states don't fix the big issues yet. The way this article is written is facts followed by opinion, which makes this easier to read and agree/disagree without having the authors opinions shoved in your face. I agree with the writer the way this article is written.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/rethinking-the-colorful-kindergarten-classroom/?rref=health&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Health&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=Blogs
ReplyDelete“Rethinking the Colorful Kindergarten Classroom” is an article that explains that studies have shown the more decorated a classroom is the more frequently a student will get distracted and the child’s learning could suffer. The tone of this piece is the author wants to inform the audience. Not to lecture them or be angry but to question the effect of decorations in a classroom setting. She writes, “Could all that elaborate décor impede learning? Some experts think so”. She doesn’t write it in a way to evoke the audience but to inform them and make them question the real benefits to children by the colorful and distracting walls. The writer provides information from a study of younger children in two different classrooms. One with crazy decorations on the wall and one simple and plain. In the study they gave lessons to the children and then tested them to see what the results were. The children performed better on the test in the classroom that had no decorations. She also adds, “they were more distracted, their gazes more likely to wander off task”. So giving this piece of evidence she convinced me that decorations in a classroom do not advance younger students learning but actually distract them from the real focus which is learning. For the rest of the article she provided ideas as to what teachers could do to their classrooms instead. Then uses examples from real teachers.
I agree with this author that the decorations would only take away from the child’s learning and distract them. The author’s points are not only non fallacious, but they persuade me and they’re logical with strong evidence to prove them . The wild decorations get the child off task but it doesn't present the actual students process in their learning through their own work. With this in mind teachers should consider this option for their classrooms this coming fall and see the results. With the research provided I do not think the teachers would be disappointed with what their children can accomplish without the distraction.
Your explanation that the premise of colorful and cluttered classrooms is detrimental to learning is very well done. Your questions are answered extremely well and your opinion on it is very logical and agreeable. Overall you did a super job! Hopefully teachers will benefit from this study and use it in their classrooms.
Deletehttp://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=S1476CBCSD-0-5539&artno=0000353922&type=ART
ReplyDelete" Being Too Thin Has Its Consequences" is an article saying how our society has come to the point were we are taking deathly steps to be skinny. This article is pretty much straight forward and to the point. It says how losing to much weight could lead to death. " Famous singer Karen Carpenter died at age 32 from heart failure due to her anorexia. She weighed just 80 pounds." When I read this I was completely shocked. I went on Google to look up pictures of Karen and was surprised at what I saw. The overall tone on this piece would have to be objective. The author, Bryant Stanford, tells the facts about anorexia and doesn't put much opinion into it.
When the writer wrote this piece I bet he had a lot of teenagers in mind. Teens are actually going "Pro-Ana", as the article states. Being a teenager myself I was really interested in this topic. The writer writes simply but has a lot of facts so really any one at any age could understand this article. This article really interested me because it talks about hoe models were years ago and how they are now. "In the 1950s, Miss America was likely to be 5 feet 6 inches tall and weigh 150 pounds. Today, Miss America is several inches taller and 40 pounds lighter". I think that the writer is trying to get people to notice the huge change in just 60 years. Not only does this article appeal to a lot of people, it actually has taken place in many of our life's.
I agree with the fact that this topic has become a major facet of our society. The perception of beauty in modern times has definitely changed from previous years, and this change has stifled the individuality and lowered the self-esteem of our youth. Your information about Miss America was intriguing. Great work on your responses!
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/opinion/sunday/throw-fifa-out-of-the-game.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe article that I chose to read is named "Throw FIFA Out of the Game." The opinion piece, written by New York Times columnist Dave Zirin, explains the many failures and acts of corruption committed by FIFA. One thing that gets under the writer's skin is the fact that FIFA's corruption has been well-known for many years. Zirin writes, "FIFA's corruption has been such an open secret for so many years that when new reports emerge, they tend to provoke more eye-rolls than outrage."
Zirin's argument may leave a reader incredulous, if it wasn't for the hard-hitting evidence that he provides in order to back his claim. In discussing the financial and human costs for the realization of a World Cup, Zirin writes, "In Brazil, site of the 2014 World Cup, the FIFA-driven push to build new stadiums at breakneck pace has led to the deaths of nine construction workers. FIFA's demands for security and infrastructure may end up displacing as many as 250,000 poor people, who live in the favelas surrounding Brazil's urban centers. The cost of the games continues to tick upward, the latest figures climbing as high as $15 billion."
Zirin ultimately concludes his article by expressing his personal opinion about the topic. Zirin states that people don't have to become displaced and even die for the sake of soccer. He writes, "It (FIFA) is like a gangrenous limb that requires amputation before the infection spreads and the beautiful game becomes decayed beyond all possible recognition."
Your analysis was very interesting for me to read with the World Cup having already started. The analysis was pieced together very nicely. I also enjoyed reading about the severe effects of the cup being in Brazil. Good job!
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/upshot/watching-silicon-valleys-response-to-climate-goals.html?ref=science&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe article I read, How Obama’s Climate Goals Will Play in Silicon Valley, Focuses on some new goals set forth by Obama. That, and how they will affect the work going on in silicon valley. The audience is most likely investors and entrepreneurs, they talk to a founding chief executive of Sun Microsystems, Mr. Khosla. Mr. Khosla first enters the interview in a way that really stuck out to me, by saying climate deniers must see the proctologist to find their head. And for those of you who do not know, a proctologist deals with the Colon, Rectum, and Anus.
The Author does not appear to choose a side in this argument, but Vinod Khosla clearly believes that silicon valley will change views on how they work. The author brings up how he remembers when “Once upon a time, cleantech was the buzzword in tech. People like John Doerr and Vinod Khosla, big-name venture capitalists who made billions in computers and the web, said it was the next big thing.”. But eventually Entrepreneurs found that cleantech made little profit. I myself agree with Mr. Khosla, He believes that eventually these new technologies will be booming.
“Iraq Asked U.S. for Airstrikes on Militants, Officials Say”, is an article that explains the tension between Iraq and the United States governments and their militaries. Iraq had asked for our military's assistance, to help fight off Iraq extremists, personally from Obama himself, but his request was denied and Obama even withdrew the U.S.’s remaining forces from Iraq. The kind of person who would read this article would be politicians, military, people who work for the government, and adults who like to keep up with the world. “Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials.” Is proving that this issue is related to both of the governments and therefore people involved would definitely pay attention to what’s going on. “But Iraq’s appeals for military assistance have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was closed when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011.” sets the articles main tone; annoyed. The writer made me feel like they were annoyed with both governments.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the writer. The thought that we’re not helping someone when they’re in need is really frustrating, especially since Iraq has been going through some rough times with the war and all that. So I felt that the author was playing up Iraq’s needs more than ours.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/iraq-asked-us-for-airstrikes-on-militants-officials-say.html?_r=0
Sounds like a very interesting article and possibly something that I may check out. I have read many articles from authors who want to keep out of Iraq, but very rarely do I get the perspective of a person who wants to aid the Iraqi government. Good job on your response!
DeleteIs the writer credible? How do you know this, based only on what is said in the text?
ReplyDeleteWhat reasons does a writer give you to believe an argument?
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SALHS21-0-9200&artno=0000343321&type=ART
I chose to read the article "In Fight with Obesity, a Bigger Government Is the Wrong Weapon," in which the author Baum, Charles argued that having government regulation will not help combat the obesity epidemic. The author of this article is credible because he is a professor of economics at Middle Tennessee state University. Also the author notes on credible research from places like the Institute of Medicine. Besides being credible, the author also does a good job of putting forth a strong, believable argument. The author does this by putting out counter arguments and terminating them with research and studies which would give this article an ethos appeal and also with logic and reason which is logos. An example of logos used would be when he stated with that "Cigarettes are an appetite inhibitor, and we've all heard of people who have gained 10 pounds or so after quitting smoking. But the decline in smoking--the biggest single contributor to the rise in obesity rates--accounted for only about 2 percent of the increase." The statement "A new USDA study finds that fruits and vegetables actually cost less (by weight) on the whole than "junk" food, meaning there isn't a barrier to filling up on less calorie-dense food," is an example of ethos that shows how the author used it to make his argument more believable. This article overall had a credible author who also relied on good sources to create a good believable argument.
Going off that this article had a good argument ,and a credible author, I must agree that government regulation is not the answer to solve obesity. There are too many causes to obesity to try to regulate them we rather need to just encourage healthy lifestyle, after all we do live in America and it's a free country.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/13/why-wont-be-watching-world-cup/
ReplyDelete"Why I Won't Be Watching the World Cup", is a persuasive article about the author's reasoning to not watch soccer. The author's argument is how boring watching soccer is. "Now I know why people riot at soccer matches. The same reason inmates riot in prison: there's nothing else to do." (Moore) I think that statement also sets the tone for the article. It expresses how miserable he is watching soccer, while it's not too serious. Moore by saying that is keeping a light tone to a simple topic. Since Moore is writing an article on his opinion of soccer I think he has a very broad target audience. "I've often argued that the only thing in the world, worse than playing soccer is watching it." Moore using that to persuade his audience shows the audience can be from teenagers to people in their mid 70's.
I extremely agree with Moore on this topic. My parents tried to get me into soccer when I was very little. It was a wretched experience for me to run up and down the field when you hardly get an opportunity to make a goal. I also despised going to my older sister's soccer games. The last time I watched soccer I was seven. So this World Cup I will not be watching.
I think this is an interesting topic, since the World Cup just started. I have played soccer since I was about four years old and I really enjoy playing. Sometimes watching a whole game can get boring. But if you know the rules to soccer and understand plays and strategies the teams use it's kind of interesting. I can see how someone who doesn't play the sport would find it boring because I hate watching pretty much all other sports.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/05/24/opinion/junger-mcdermott-marlantes-veterans-suicide-memorial-day/index.html?hpt=op_bn5
ReplyDeleteThe article “‘Thanks for your service’ not enough” is written by three authors; Sebastian Junger, Jim McDermott, and Karl Marlantes. In the article, the authors state that we need to step up our game on Memorial Day. They start out the article with information about the first Memorial Day, which happened on May 1, 1865. The people involved in this event was a group of African American, who were liberated from slavery, recognizing the Union Soldiers buried in the ground of the Charleston Race Course. These authors wants whoever is reading their article to feel obliged to “create” a new Memorial Day.
Junger, McDermott, and Marlantes try to persuade the readers by stating the problems such as: “High rates of unemployment, homelessness, alcoholism, substance abuse and post-traumatic stress are decimating our community of veterans. With the wars of the past 13 years in Iraq and Afghanistan coming to a close, we are seeing too many casualties among American soldiers in this transition to peace.” I feel like the authors included this piece into the article to get an emotional attachment from the audience to the veterans. The authors’ main point is that we need to “accept responsibility for the wounds, psychological and physical, that they [the veterans] bring home from war.” The authors also include that around twenty-two American Veterans take their lives consistently. Junger, McDermott, and Marlantes urge the citizens of America to create a “Memorial Day 2.0.,” because that’s what our soldiers deserve. I agree with these authors that our veterans deserve something better since they’ve risked their lives to keep ours safe. It’s a shame that so many veterans become homeless because they’ve been gone for so long and when they return, they don’t have a job to support themselves and some don’t even have family.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380108/lying-about-school-shootings-charles-c-w-cooke
ReplyDeleteWhat gets under the writer's skin? What does the writer want the audience to do?
In this article “Lying About School Shootings” something that obviously gets under the writers skin is that the statistic of 74 more school shooting have happened since the Sandy Hook shooting is over exaggerated and not completely explained to the audience. When a group that goes by the name Everytown released a map of over 74 school shootings in the US alone, Charles Johnson stepped up and corrected this scary statement. He stated that this number was not mass shooting alone, it also included college campuses, self-defense, and claims that “32 could be classified as “school shootings” only if we are to twist the meaning of the term beyond all recognition”. (Johnson) He said that not even half of the so called school shooting could be technically school shootings, but they only were only technically school shootings after the term was so far from the actual meaning.
I think that the writer wants us to really understand what the media and people in general tell us. Because this unrealistic number of 74 shootings spread like wildfire through social media. The misconstrued number wasn’t even questioned. So by proving that not even half of that 74 could be school shootings the author is telling us to fully understand what we are reading.
Katie, I really enjoy your response because it provides us with enough information to understand the article and the author's point of view without reading the article.
Deletehttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/06/why-america-is-losing-the-health-race.html
ReplyDeleteWhat gets under the writer’s skin?
The writer is annoyed with the idea that America spends more money on healthcare than any other country, yet other rich countries have longer life expectancy. “The other charts and tables in the report—about heart, lung, and kidney disease; diabetes; injuries and homicides; depression; and drug abuse—all show Americans suffering poorer health.” The author claims points out the irony in the fact that so much money is being spent on better healthcare, but they still can’t keep up with the health of other countries because Americans aren’t doing anything to help themselves maintain healthy lifestyles.
Is the writer credible?
This writer is definitely credible because he uses a lot of numbers and statistics to prove his point. “The study, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (to which I am a contributing writer), showed that both life expectancy and healthy-life expectancy improved in the United States over two decades.” Since he is an important part of an ongoing study focusing specifically on American healthcare compared to the healthcare of other countries, he knows what he is talking about and is stating real facts.
The author is trying to tell us that there is no point in wasting money on better health care if we, Americans, are going to constantly do things do put our health in danger. I completely agree with him because health is important, and we need to work together and make the citizens of the united states healthier. How are we supposed to eat healthier when it is so easy to eat a greasy burger from McDonalds for only a dollar, and healthy foods are more expensive? The government spends a lot of money of healthcare, but Americans spend equally as much on manufacturing fast food restaurants, new technology, and ect., which takes away our motivation to run, eat healthy, go outdoors, or do other things to improve our health.
I think that your response to this article is very interesting, it makes me want to read this article. I can also tell your point of view on this article, it is very clear to me and I agree with you.
Deletehttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/14/iraq-crisis-did-obama-foreign-policy-blunders-sow-seeds-disaster/
ReplyDeleteThe article that I read, “Iraq crisis: Did Obama's foreign policy blunders sow seeds of disaster?”, is an opinion article written by Cal Thomas, in which he states that we need a “unified approach to fighting Islamic extremism by us and other allied nations” and a “policy that works” in dealing with the threat of Islamic extremism. In the first section of the article, Thomas tries to make the audience (who should be mainly people interested in politics) move to his side using emotional methods involving the many dead soldiers, stating that no life is more wasted than a life lost in vain, which means that lives that are lost to an effort which turns out futile are utterly wasted. After the statement he says the Obama Administration is leaving areas that are being taken by an Al Qaeda affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. He goes on to say that another terrorist state will be established that will help with the terrorists plans to attack “infidel” countries, and shows that the president will not send military forces back to Iraq, unless the Iraqi government finds a way to bridge sectarian differences. He then tries, once again, to use emotional methods involving dead soldiers to get the audience on his side by saying that the families of the dead soldiers would think that it would be horrible of the government to pull out of Iraq because they were told their family members died in a noble cause, after which he shows statistics of dead and wounded soldiers in the war. The next several paragraphs state that the U.S. doesn’t take the terrorist threat as seriously as it should, the Jihadists in Iraq illegally became the richest terrorist group in the world recently, and that the Islamic extremist threat could become the worlds next rulers if we don’t stop them now. He ends with saying withdrawal from this war is a policy of surrender, and we should unite with other allies to fight the terrorist threat using a new policy that makes the old policy obsolete.
(continued in comments due to having too many characters)
(Original post continued)
DeleteI disagree with the author that we should unite with other allied forces to fight the terrorist threat with a new policy. The author tries to persuade me by stating that since we’ve lost quite a substantial amount of resources, we cannot halt the activities that were at play due to the fact that those resources will have been lost in a futile effort, and if we do halt the operations, the extremists have a chance at gaining a massive movement that could take away all of our freedoms. One reason his attempt to persuade me failed is because the U.S. simply cannot afford to keep their presence in Iraq anymore, they are losing countless resources and soldiers, so they are cutting their losses and leaving before it gets worse, and the plethora of soldiers that ultimately fell into eternal oblivion over in Iraq did not die meaninglessly, for they assisted Iraq in dealing with the Islamic extremist threat, and the U.S. is leaving Iraq in better shape than it was in when they got there because of them. Another reason his attempt to persuade me failed is because that the terrorist threat will never escalate to such a point where they can devise a plot that will lead them to world domination because they are a religion-based group. The final reason a religion-based group or government in the 21st century can never get the power to dominate the world is because, even if they muster up the forces of every single one of their followers to fight with them, there will always be the remainder of the world fighting against them that will win, regardless of which religion it turns out to be. Sure the terrorists could obtain quite an amount of forces, but they would start collapsing as soon as they obtained enough land, for they would have to establish a government to control the spread out forces and resources, which would make the head(s) of the operation much easier to track down and neutralize just in case war had the chance to rear its malevolent head before their government inevitably fails and leaves the leaders struggling to maintain power throughout their regime. The U.S. was right to pull out of Iraq, if the extremists do take over more land, the large area of which they will control will be their downfall due to complications in the method of which they will control their land, poor and easily intercepted communications due to low technological achievements, spread out troops, low amount of possible soldiers to fight in large-scale wars, and an infinitesimal amount of tactical knowledge to apply during large-scale wars. The U.S. will also save resources and lives by pulling Iraq as well, which will have a beneficial impact on our debt that we owe to other countries.
The author of the articles appeal to the emotions of the audience shows to be humorous on how he goes with George Takei’s view on Gay rights or how he says it “Takei” in response to the bill parents have tried to push on the government to make it illegal for teachers to say Gay in the classrooms. The author pulls the audience with quotes from Takei and chronological notes from his childhood to when he played Hikaru Sulu in the star trek series to his coming out of the closet in 2007. The authors tone towards the text shows his acceptance of Takei and what he does as well as humor and as well as admiration for Takei for what he does and how he portrays it in media and in his personal life.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion to the subject is that why people would even care about it when there are worse things that have happened sexually. People who are homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, even people who are pansexual have rights and are normal human beings as the person next to you so why would anyone even care about if a man like a man or if a girl likes a girl or if a man wants to be a girl and vice versa. When there are people who rape their own children or people who sexually assault people for the fun of it I am baffled at the idea that the media and people put sexuality in front of that all. I love how George Takei is taking this to the media and to the news. Since finding out about his homosexuality my view on him hasn't changed. To me he’s still Sulu, Captain, who does his trademark catchphrase “Oh my” and I catch my little brothers saying.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/fashion/george-takei-of-star-trek-now-advocating-for-gay-rights.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SALHS21-0-269&artno=0000341023&type=ART
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the five myths on gay marriage and how there are complications to supporting claims.
One of the myths is that same-sex marriage can hurt children. Opponents say that children can do better when they have their biological parents with them. That is not true because gay couples are raising children without a problem. The real problem today in the US is the rate of non-gay couples getting a divorce is higher then ever. Non-gay couples are having an issue of getting married and stay married. Due to cohabitation that has been rising for 10 years, one third of children don't live with married parents. Same-sex couples are trying to solve the problem, not to be apart of it.
Another myth is that the entire country should have the same policies. People think having different marriage standards in different states is creating chaos. The thing is, states have always thought of same-sex marriage differently. This isn't a communist country, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Each and every state is allowed their own policies.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/arguments-gay-marriage-society-brace-corrosive-change-article-1.131144
ReplyDeleteThis article titled “Five Arguments against gay marriage”, tries to give an updated interpretation of same sex marriage and its effects or none on today’s society. A question I often ask when reading non-fiction or an opinionated article is “what are the facts?”. Author, Seth Forman gives his opinion in this article without using any real facts. An example of Forman doing this is in the first paragraph when he says, “Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry”. His use of the word “bigotry” is harsh in the sense that he is grouping all religious people to be intolerant to homosexuals. Another question to ask would be “What is the author’s goal in writing this article and expressing his opinion?” or “Does the author have the best interests of the issue at heart or is there a conflict of interest?”. I would also be curious if the author has a biased opinion? Ultimately, I think the author’s purpose is to spark interest and/or concern in this topic and get people to talk about it. At the beginning of the article he says, “New York State, the media report with poorly disguised elation, is set to legally redefine marriage to include relationships between two same-sex adults. Before this happens, people of good conscience, supporters and opponents both, should at least be given the opportunity to consider the possible consequences.”
I don’t have a very strong opinion on gay marriage. I do believe that people should have the right to marry who they want to. There can be negative effects like the article says. Some of the article, I believe, was fallacy. I do think it is an important topic today and should be discussed. But ultimately, in the United States, a.k.a “land of the free”, people should love who they want without being discriminated against or criticized, while those who hold religious beliefs should not be seen as bigots.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/21/opinion/ghitis-world-cup-world-strife/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
ReplyDeleteWhat does the writer want the audience to do?
Who is the audience?
"It's OK to Watch World Cup While the World Burns" is saying everyone around the world should take a break in fighting and bask in the emotion of the games. The author is just asking for peace for people to enjoy all the emotions that come with the World Cup. "Is it wrong to watch football while the world's on fire? Is it wrong to love the World Cup, to get excited about a goal scored in Brazil while there's mayhem in Iraq, destruction in Syria, Russian troops massing near Ukraine? The answer is no. Enjoy the Cup. When I was a child I had what I thought was a brilliant idea: Instead of fighting all those awful wars, countries with gripes should challenge each other to a soccer game. The victor could be declared the winner without all the nastiness of fighting a real war" (Ghitis.) I think that she is addressing everyone everywhere and considers every person as her audience. "This is true even for the people caught in the middle of real wars. In Syria, in the middle of a civil war, rebel fighters put their weapons aside to watch the World Cup. In Baghdad, as the ruthless ISIS jihadists march toward the Iraqi capital, cafes are filled with people watching the Cup. In Vienna, Iranian officials took a break from nuclear negotiations to watch their team. Refugees, astronauts, politicians are all watching the World Cup."
This article was well written and very thought through. Due to that and the strong opinion expressed I would have to agree with the author because I also believe that everyone should lay down there arms and watch a different kind of battle unfold. This isn't a battle of army strength its a battle of skill and wits... it's a battle of football.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/obamacare-costs-jobs-hurts-most-vulnerable-103299.html#.U8UpW31X-uZ
ReplyDeleteWhat gets under the writers skin?
In the article Obamacare is Anything but Compassionate, the author seem extraordinarily confused by the presidents priorities. According to the article the president is planing to expand medicaid to cover many Americans in their working prime before he works upon helping the disabled. "I have another question for President Obama: Why is expanding Medicaid to cover millions of working-age Americans a bigger priority than giving access to hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities waiting for care?" (Jindal).
Who is the Audience?
I believe the Governor's target audience is concerned Americans. Americans who are not covered by medicaid or medicare who should have been helped five to ten years ago but have been ignored.
I do agree with the authors main points, that their are many Americans especially the disabled who are lacking health coverage and need it. The fact that the poor are being discouraged from finding work and/or bettering their lives because it is so easy to get covered from the government if you are poor, and in the end it is the hard working citizen's tax money paying for all of this.
This article seems really interesting, and I agree with you on how the poor are getting treated bad. And I like how you can tell what the author is thinking just by reading your response's.
Deletehttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/24/nfl-is-ready-for-its-first-openly-gay-player/
ReplyDeleteWhat are the major arguments?
Who is the audience?
In the article “NFL is ready for its first openly gay player”, the major argument is how will the NFL and all that surrounds it respond to having an openly gay player. The author believes that the NFL is ready to have an openly gay player be involved in the league. He talked about how a player (Colton) was an openly gay football player for his high school football team. “Colton helped us win football games. That was all that mattered.” He states that it should and will be all about having Michael Sam, the openly gay football player, helping the St. Louis Rams win football games. “Michael Sam should be judged on his football abilities...”
I do not agree with all of what the author says and thinks. He is basing his opinion on his high school football career years ago. The NFL is a whole different level than high school. There are fan bases and spectators that go along with it. There will be people (20 percent) that do not agree with an openly gay football player being on the field competing with other men. The other task is everyone being comfortable in the locker room and having one thing on their mind, winning football games. People will say homophobic slurs in the locker room and be showering with an openly gay man. It is a distraction, maybe not for everyone, but definitely for some. “Similarly, an ESPN survey stated that 86 percent of NFL players would have no problem having an openly-gay teammate.” While that is a high percentage, there are still some against it. The NFL is a business and the job is to win games, distractions can take away from that. I think they are close to being ready, but there are many tasks they have to complete, its just the start.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/23/opinion/bare-ice-bucket-challenge/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
ReplyDeleteHow does the writer appeal to the emotions and self-interest of the audience?
The author uses words such as power, and talking about how peers are challenging each other to take the challenge. "It's not the funny videos that matter. It's the power of the peer-to-peer economy, driven by young people, now rippling through the social sector. Businesses such as Airbnb, Uberx and "P2P" lending firms such as Prosper Marketplace have demonstrated the heft of peer models." (Bare)
What is the tone of the text?
The tone is powerful, and inspring. They're talking about how one movement can make such a huge difference. They explain that people would more likely donate to a charity if a friend asked rather than a random person emailing them, and that the cause brings people closer and they can help donate and promote awareness to the disease; ALS. "When my sister participates in a fundraising run and sends an email asking me to donate, I do. When the professional expert from that same nonprofit organization asks me to donate, I treat the note as spam." (Bare)
I agree with the writer. They feel that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is a helpful cause. And the fact that you see the videos all over facebook is just proving that people are successfully spreading awareness. The author feels that it brings people together.