Behind Romney’s change of heart on abortion

Regardless of how people feel about particular issues, such as abortions, or particular candidates, such as Romney, I think they should appreciate the fairness of this article. With so many people being ready to criticize politicians whenever they make a tiny mistake or silly comment or contradiction, it's nice to see someone who thinks before criticizing. With a combination of logos, ethos, and pathos, the author of this article convinced me that it's unfair to criticize politicians so quickly. In this particular instance, people are criticizing Romney from changing his opinion on abortions. He was once pro-choice and is now pro-life. Obviously, their are hundreds of critics ready to attack Romney for being inconsistent and "flip-flopping." However, the article argues that criticizing so quickly isn't fair. After all, it says, everyone changes their mind sometimes, especially when presented with new information or new circumstances. When you look at it that way, people who never change their minds appear rather stubborn. This article did not influence my personal opinions about the actual issues, but it convinced me that fairness is important when judging politicians. After all, everyone makes little mistakes or changes their mind sometimes. In the case of politicians, it just so happens that people are watching their every move and preparing to attack them when they do.


The article relied mostly on pathos. It made people stop and consider whether it is really so bad to change your mind occasionally. I think people reading this article would take a look at themselves and feel guilty for being such harsh judges. After all, we are all human and none of us are perfect. In addition, it describe Romney's careful consideration when considering the different sides of the abortion argument. In the end, it is hard to insist that it was merely a political move. Whether or not the reader agrees with Romney's pro-life decision, they have to admit that Romney seems to really believe in his decision. Logos is used as well. Facts and examples are included to support the author's assertions that Romney is not merely "flip-flopping" for political advantages. Much of the information on Romney's change of heart comes from William Hurlburt, who witnessed Romney's research and careful consideration first-hand. Finally, the author appeals to ethos when he identifies himself as "the man who instructed him in 2005 on the basics of embryonic life during the stem-cell research debate then taking place in Massachusetts" With these different rhetorical strategies, I find this article quite persuasive. I hope people will read this and be a little less quick to judge politicians.


article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behind-romneys-change-of-heart-on-abortion/2011/11/29/gIQAi1CFAO_story.html

Why We Spend, Why They Save

This article is about why Americans don't save as much money as people do in many other countries. I wondered if there was some trick to saving money. The article went on to explain that the idea of spending to promote the economy is not the best message to send people. In other countries, people are encouraged to be thrifty and save up money, and their economies are more stable because of it. This news interested me, because I have frequently heard that everyone must spend money in order for the economy to flourish. According to this article, that concept is flawed, and Americans need to do more saving and less spending, especially the people who cannot really afford to spend much at the moment. This made sense to me, because I am constantly hearing about people getting into debt and having financial issues. I have always wondered why people buy more than they can really afford. After all, I have never met anyone in my life who has owned nothing exceeding the bare necessities. Therefore, everyone could spend less, avoid debt, and still survive if they really wanted to. However, I understand that American society is constantly encouraging people to buy what they do not need and spend money they do not have. To defend itself, America also tells people that spending will help the economy. However, hopefully this article will wake people up and change our strategy.
The article relied almost entirely on logos. Unfortunately, this made it a bit boring. I found myself very bored with it after a few sentences, although the information it contained was useful and convincing. But as long as people can get through the article with falling asleep, they will find a great amount of evidence that would be very difficult to dispute. The article is full of statistics proving that Americans spend more, save less, and still are struggling economically compared to other countries. As soon as I finished reading it, I thought every citizen of America should know this, and perhaps we could finally change our behavior and improve the economy. Unfortunately, there are thousands of people who would be all too willing to describe the advantages of borrowing money and spending. Despite the popularity of that point of view, however, this article has a solid, logical argument that thoroughly convinced me of the truth behind it.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/opinion/why-we-spend-why-they-save.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Okay, seriously, what is it about Mitt Romney’s hair?

This article caught my attention because it seemed rather silly that an entire article was written on Mitt Romney's hair. It's one thing that people care so much about celebrities' styles, but worrying about the hairdos of politicians seemed to be taking things too far. However, this article was well-written and I think the author had an interesting point. She won me over by making fun of the obsession with hair. Obviously, she agrees with my opinion that hair shouldn't really matter. That said, I was much more open to what she had to say. Her appeal to pathos, pointing out the humor in people's obsession with Romney's hair, was very effective. She also had an appeal to logos. She quoted people who described Romney's hair and people who described his personality, pointing out surprising similarities. Despite what I originally thought when I first clicked on the link to this article, I found myself believing that Romney's hair might actually reflect who he is as a person. I think the article was written very well, because I was not very open to the author's argument, and yet her effective strategies won me over in the end.

Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/okay-seriously-what-is-it-about-mitt-romneys-hair/2011/03/04/gIQAbG38vN_blog.html

The problem with Republican support for waterboarding

This article interested me because it is obviously a very controversial subject. What I learned from the article however, was simply that there is not enough information on this subject. There is no clear knowledge whether using waterboarding is causing other countries to treat us more harshly. There is no research proving whether or not information gained through waterboarding could be gained through other, more humane methods. Basically, the costs and benefits do not seem to have been proven, so it seems impossible to me to decide whether waterboarding should be used or not. Thus, the article seemed to lack a logical argument. It asserted that waterboarding was wrong, but went on to say how no research existed proving anything. I suppose it appeals to pathos, because use of the word "torture" certainly turns some people against the idea instantly. In addition, there was some patriotic stuff about "setting an example" and all that jazz. In my opinion, none of that is what matters. If waterboarding can save large numbers of lives that can be saved no other way, it is an unfortunate necessity. If it produces nothing that couldn't be gained other ways, it is unnecessary and inhumane. However, no one seems to be proving anything one way or another.
That said, the article did a decent job of trying to convince readers that waterboarding should not be used. If he had more evidence to back up his claim, it certainly would have been a stronger argument. However, if no research exists that might help him, he did a pretty good job considering. He appeals strongly to pathos, as I have said, by encouraging people to imagine the same techniques being used on our soldiers. He also appeals to logos, suggesting that information gained through waterboarding might be gained a different way. He refers to knowledgeable people who have suggested that use of waterboarding will encourage other countries to treat our troops more brutally. In addition, he quotes Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann, who all support waterboarding. He makes them look a bit silly when they try to make it out as a humane interrogation technique rather than torture. I think this article certainly leaves room for debate, but I think the author did a fairly convincing job since the information he would need to be more convincing probably does not exist.

Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-problem-with-republican-support-for-waterboarding/2011/11/14/gIQA4pmIMN_story.html

Got More Voters? Get More Electoral Votes

This article caught my attention because it seemed to be suggesting some sort of alteration of the electoral college. The author was criticizing unfair voter practices, and suggesting possible methods to make voting more fair. Personally, I can't even begin to understand why the electoral college still exists. After all, America is based on the idea that all people are equal and that are government is of, by and for the people. Therefore, I see absolutely nothing that could justify a process that makes some votes count more than others. If more Americans vote for a candidate, that candidate should win. It is as simple as that. I find it disgusting that politicians focus on methods of cheating the system in order to win elections. How about focusing on the issues, and winning popularity through good ideas? But I guess it's impossible for anyone to get far in politics with that kind of thinking, which is too bad. Maybe if all the effort politicians put into meaningless propaganda and attempting to pass partisan legislation was put towards fixing national and international problems we would actually be accomplishing things.
That said, I still think the article was pretty good. It doesn't look like the electoral college will be disposed of anytime soon, so if other legislation can lessen the unfairness, that sounds great to me. It makes no sense that electoral college votes are based on population rather than voter turnout. People who do not vote are still being represented, which makes no sense, because their actual opinion is not being taken into account. The idea that the article suggests, which is to give electoral college bonuses to states with higher voter turnouts, seems like a great one to me.
The article appealed heavily to pathos and logos. It described the facts of unfair practices and ways that political parties attempt to rig the system. It is worded so that people see the article from the author's point of view. It talks about ideas like injustice, democracy, etc. that definitely bring out emotion in people. Hopefully people see the sense that this guy is making. Still, I can't wrap my head around the fact that our country doesn't not treat every vote equally. What I would like to know is who exactly is shutting down the attempts to do away with the electoral college entirely. I suppose it's ironic that if everyone's opinion mattered equally, perhaps the electoral college would be eliminated, but until it is eliminated people will never be equal.

Article: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/got-more-voters-get-more-electoral-votes/?ref=opinion

The Mysterious Benedict Society by Trenton Lee Stewart

This is what my friend wanted me to read, since apparently it was her favorite book of all time. It probably would have been my favorite book too, if I had read it when I was eight years old. That's not an insult though; this book was obviously written for little children, I thought the author did a spectacular job. I think little kids who enjoy Harry Potter or stuff like that would love this book, especially younger ones, because it doesn't involve the darkness and death that are often present in adventurous kids books. It seemed to be written very carefully, full of deliberate, good messages for children. The main characters, alone at the beginning, learned important lessons about conquering their fears, believing in themselves, and being true to their friends.
The protagonist's name is Reynie, and he and three other students are chosen from a large number of children that take a mysterious test. The four of them are sent to a strange island, where an evil scientist who runs a school for children is trying to take over the world. The children enroll in the institution, spy on him, and end up saving the day. Since this story is definitely aimed at young children, it is very unrealistic at parts. In real life, a story like this would probably involve lots of violence and people getting killed. But it is a great, happy story for little children. I might not recommend it to any of my classmates, but I think it is a fantastic choice for younger children.

Penn State’s abdication of legal and moral obligations

This article caught my attention because I had already noticed several articles about Penn State and was starting to wonder what was going on with it. As it turns out, there have been many instances of Penn State football players and officials sexually abusing little kids. Obviously, this article appealed strongly to pathos. Who wouldn't feel angry when they find out that people have witnessed football officials raping 10-year-old boys without doing anything about it? Logos is also appealed to as well. There are facts and numbers, so that readers are aware that this has happened on multiple occasions, with witnesses, and nothing has been done.
I should hope that just about everyone would agree with the writer of this article. Something should certainly be done about this. Personally, I think Penn State will get what's coming to it. If I've seen multiple articles about this issue in the last few minutes, it must be getting a lot of publicity. I'm sure there will be a high demand for action from people all over the country, and Penn State will be legally punished, and its reputation will be greatly damaged. Hopefully this will serve as a warning to the rest of the country that you cannot hope to get away with stuff like this. Eventually, especially for the individuals responsible, the facts will become public and your reputation will be destroyed. Perhaps this article will inspire people to start speaking out when they witness crimes like this. After all the horrible stuff described, I hope that this whole situation will at least prevent future crimes.

article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/penn-states-abdication-of-legal-and-moral-obligations/2011/11/08/gIQAalhK3M_story.html

No Such Place as ‘Post-Racial’ America

The author of this article is strongly opposed to the term "post-racial." In fact, he is against a lot of terms having to do with racism. Why? According to the article, "post-racial" is horrible for society because it allows people to live in their own fantasy world where race doesn't matter. The article relies mainly on pathos, because people will most likely get upset by the idea of people ignoring racism and allowing it to continue. The author also uses ethos to some extent, using large words like "obfuscating" to convince the reader he is smart. Thanks to english class, however, I know what these words mean. There is little appeal to logos here, which is perhaps a weakness, but it would be hard to incorporate logos in my opinion. Well, perhaps the author could have included more proof that racism still exists. Personally, I don't think anyone is under that delusion, but the author seems to think people are, so he is sort of contradicting himself in that sense.
I sort of think that the author of this article needs to relax a little. In fact, I have never really heard people say "post-racial," but that doesn't mean people don't use it. Still, I think everyone is aware that racism is still an issue. Maybe they just use this term to refer to a time period, not because they think it is a totally accurate term. I think we deserve to be pleased with our progress. A hundred and fifty years ago, black people were considered property. Now we have a black president. Of course, totally equality is what we really want, but we're definitely making progress. I think what we really need is time for the old way of thinking to die out. Hopefully, in a few generations, the term "post-racial" can be used, without being inaccurate at all.

article: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/no-such-place-as-post-racial-america/?ref=opinion

The question on everyone's mind

The question that this article is referring to is "What do you do for a living?" At first, upon reading this, I wondered why the author was reading into the question so much. It seemed innocent to me. Many people might enjoy talking about their jobs. Jobs can tell you what someone's interests and passions are. However, perhaps if that was all you cared about learning you could ask directly about interests, hobbies, etc. The author of this article has a good point. There is a good chance that someone who responds to this question will be instantly judged. Once the author logically leads the reader to this conclusion, he actually applies it to Occupy Wall Street. He thinks that perhaps people mainly want to be accepted and valued, instead of looked down upon because they aren't all doctors and lawyers. By the end of the article, I think the main focus is just to remind people that jobs, money, etc. don't matter. Perhaps the idea of "money isn't everything" is a bit cliche, but it's still true. If you assume a lawyer is happy and a cashier at McDonald's is sad (the examples used in the article), you may be right. However, that does not mean money brings happiness. It just means that those workers, like the people who judge them, have been raised to believe that your career and how much money you make represent who you are. The author backs up his arguments with personal experience; he travelled around, meeting new strangers, paying close attention to the questions they asked first. "What do you do for a living?" sometimes came before "What's your name?" I agree with the author when he concludes his article by saying "Now it just all seemed so sad"


Article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/25/opinion/granderson-what-do-you-do/index.html?hpt=op_bn4

Seeing Something, Saying Something

The author of this article wants to point out one of the positive uses of the web: It can be used to raise awareness about issues and make changes. Specifically, the article discusses Judge William Adams, who abused his daughter. She posted a video online, which gained a lot of attention. The article points out that whatever justice comes from this is because of the internet.
The article definitely appeals to ethos, since the example of a father abusing a disabled child is used. Obviously, the thought of that will upset many readers. The fact that the internet solved the issue implies that it can solve future issues, which is an appeal to logos. Readers will be upset by the situation, glad that there was a solution, and perhaps find a new reason to believe in the advantages of the web. The author seems convinced that many reasons have a belief that the internet, or at least the social aspect of it, is mainly a bad thing. He concedes that in some cases, internet publicity can ruin lives and be a very bad thing. However, the main point is to convince people that the internet has some useful applications, and issues like child abuse, which seem impossible to ever eradicate completely, can be improved greatly through the use of the internet.

article: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/03/seeing_something_saying_something/

The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux

I finished The Phantom of the Opera yesterday, and I can honestly say it was one of the best books I have ever read. It was a translation of the french book, which is kind of depressing, because I feel like I should read it in its native language. Unfortunately, I am not quite fluent in French.
I would probably recommend this book to most people. Well, depending on what they like. As long as they aren't afraid of books that were written more than a few years ago. The book was written in the early 1900s, so the writing is a bit different than books that are written today. But if you aren't afraid of a bit of a challenge, I totally think you should read it. It's too bad the author's dead, or they could see all of these lovely things I'm saying and make me famous. Except for that issue I mentioned earlier, with the author speaking French and all that.
I don't want to summarize the book, because that would give away all the fun surprises, but I'll say what I can about it. The book is about, not surprisingly, the Opera Ghost that people believed to live in the Paris Opera House. The story has everything that a good story should have: romance, action, suspense, mystery, humor and interesting characters. It's beautifully written and the author clearly put a lot of thought and care into it.
It's difficult to say anything about the plot without giving anything away, but I suppose people might like to know a bit about the story. The book takes place almost entirely inside the Paris Opera House. The people who spend their time there- singers, dancers, workers- are all suspicious of a ghost that haunts the building. When the opera house changes managers, the new partners are skeptical when the ghost demands a regular payment from them as well as his own reserved area to sit in during the shows. Meanwhile, Raoul de Chagny comes into the story, in love with one of the opera singers who has been his friend since childhood. When he tries to approach her, he quickly realizes there is something strange going on, and the mystery behind the Opera Ghost is slowly unraveled. The story is extremely powerful and emotional, and has really left me thinking. I think it is definitely worth reading to anyone who is interested.