A tragic mistake, not a crime

I think this is the saddest thing I have read since we first started this whole blogging thing. It's sad because, while it describes a single instance of a horrible tragedy, it also mentions that it happens under similar circumstances 15-30 times each year. The tragedy, in this case, is when a parent accidentally kills their own child by leaving them in the car on a hot day. I understand how people would feel angry at the parents the first time they hear it, but when you think about it, this makes no sense. The author began the article with a quick story. She went to work, under a lot of stress, and a little blip in her memory caused her to forget to drop her 2-year-old daughter off at day care. When she arrived at work, her daughter woke up and reminded her to take her to day care. If someone heard this story, the could hardly call the mother a monster. Even with very important things, everyone has a little memory slip-up occasionally. And if it happens to result in a terrible tragedy, the mother is no more terrible of a person than the one whose child woke up and stopped her. However, this article was specifically about the legal results of such a crime. Throughout the article, I was thinking that the only real reason to punish someone for a crime is to stop them from committing it again and set an example for future offenders. Obviously, neither of these things are valid in this case. Nobody chooses to avoid killing their child because they are afraid of legal consequences, and if there is anyone who we can guarantee will not do this in the future, it is the parents who have already done it once. At the end of the article, the author basically repeated exactly what I was thinking, but added in the possible motive of punishment. However, I think the guilt of killing your own child is more than enough punishment than anyone should have to go through. Honestly, I can hardly believe this is a moral debate. Calling these parents murderers and locking them could not possibly accomplish anything. The mother in the story, who killed her 2-year-old son, is a successful veterinarian who runs her own hospital. Taking her off the streets would harm society, not help it. I totally agree with this article, and it a very strong appeal to pathos and logos. I can't imagine how anybody could read this article without feeling angry at what happens to these families, and guilty for any judgement they have made of parents who have made this terrible mistake.

Saddled with college debt

This article was a depressingly realistic view on paying for college. I wonder how much of this is still true today, but I think it would be naive to hope that things have changed. The author of this article was misled in her childhood when her parents told her that she could go to any college and be anything she wanted, because she would receive loans and financial aid. This really hit home for me, because I don't hear this stuff just from my parents, but from colleges themselves as well. Every college I have been to has told me that they do not see your financial situation until after you are accepted, and then you are guaranteed 100% of your needs covered. Whether this meant loans or grants (and most of the money was always supposed to be grants), it sounded like a nice deal. Plus, I always thought you could work through college if necessary. Basically, I was pretty convinced that even though it might be difficult, it was possible for just about anybody to afford college if they could get in.
Unfortunately, this article makes me question how true that is. The girl who wrote it claims to have gotten straight As and taken AP classes in high school. She wanted to go to a college in New England, and she took out loans and received, in addition to working up to four jobs in the same month throughout college. Yet when she graduated, she had over $100,000 in debt. That's an incredibly staggering number, since I believe that would be at least half the cost of college for most schools. Now she has to do 10 years of service to work of her debt. Maybe that's better than going to jail or whatever, but what is the point of college if you have to work for ten years before you're just out of debt? College is supposed to set you up for a career, and the whole idea of going to a better college, at least for many people, is to get a better education and ultimately make more money. Obviously, this girl now regrets not sticking to a much lower ranked college in her own state. Her better education certainly isn't getting her anywhere.
Most of this is a sad personal story, but at the end the author reveals why this piece is so timely. She is in favor of the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012, and her purpose is to use her story to convince voters to agree. My guess is that people who read this article will be convinced. She appeals heavily to ethos, logos, and pathos in this article. It is fairly safe to assume, I think, that there are thousands of similar cases out there. People who see this article will no longer be able to say that it is easy to pay for college without getting into debt, and once they lose that argument, it is much harder to fight against the bill.

Article

A Chicken Without Guilt

Occasionally, I like to read news articles that actually have some positive news, and this one seemed pretty great. Basically, it's about new advancements in "fake" meat that will hopefully replace real meat in the future. Now, the whole idea of eating "fake" meat kind of freaks me out, but when people say "fake" I automatically think of over-processed and very unhealthy foods. The article, however, assures me that this meat is healthier than real meat. If that's true, then I share all of the author's hopes that artificial, plant-based meats will replace real meat or at least significantly reduce the amount of real meat consumed.
I've always been disgusted by the way that animals are treated by major meat industries. I think most people have, at some point in their lives, seen some of those horrible videos or read the terrifying stories about it. However, the idea of being a vegetarian never really appealed to me, since I don't think the number of vegetarians will ever be enough to cause a change in the way animals are treated. I was more willing to go for the meat raised by companies who treated their animals well, but the higher cost of such products made it seem unlikely that they would ever gain enough popularity. However, this solution seems perfect. Nobody has to sacrifice anything- the meat, supposedly, will cost less, taste the same, and be healthier for you. If this is all true, then I really hope that restaurants and other companies start using these fake meats instead of real meat. It will solve a problem that has always bothered me, but I never saw a real solution to. And for those animal-rights vegetarians out there- perhaps you would help your cause more if you ate fake meat and spread the word to your acquaintances. 
The article was full of pathos and logos. Even ethos was included, since the author mentioned that she "does this for a living." Mostly, her arguments were very convincing (although I found it a little funny when she said "I don’t believe chickens have souls..."). She used statistics to show that meat consumption is very high, animals are treated poorly, and current protests are having little effect. She frequently reminded readers that was no downside whatsoever, and no argument against eating the new, fake meat. And, of course, she appealed to everyone's humanity when she described the suffering of animals in factories. Overall, I thought it was a great article, and I sincerely hope that it works out as easily and well as she suggests.


Article

The small, sexist joke that became a big deal

This article told me how horrible it was that this label appeared on a pair of pants:

Interestingly enough, half the article was dedicated to the fact that many people will say this isn't a big deal, and the author of the article is a humorless feminist. And that is exactly what I was thinking when I read this article. She certainly addressed the issue- many people shrug off slightly feminist jokes and say that they aren't anything to throw a fit (or write an entire article) about. However, the fact that she nailed the nature of the issue on the head does not mean that she was persuasive, because she didn't change my mind at all, even though I fit exactly into the category of people she seemed to be pleading with. A man wearing these pants does not mean he's sexist. A company selling these pants does not necessarily believe that all men have women who ought to do their laundry. What I'm saying, I guess, is that a sexist joke doesn't matter as long as isn't meant in earnest. If a company was putting out flyers encouraging men to avoid all housework and dump it on their automatically inferior lives, then maybe I'd be worried. Not about the propaganda necessarily, but about the fact that many people still think that way. Sure, I think it's horrible that in some countries women are treated as possessions, but I don't care if an average company makes a joke on pants that will probably go to average American men who have average opinions. No one is going to look at these pants and say, "Wow! To think I've been doing all these chores myself. I should of realized that my wife's responsibility is to serve me and do housework all day." People's opinions won't change. At most, they'll laugh and go back to their normal lives. Maybe some men will agree with the label, but they were probably sexist idiots in the first place. Towards the end of the article, the author explains why something like this is a big deal, saying "But if you want to know why it matters, look no further than the comments to Barnett’s own story (or, I’ll wager, in about 10 minutes, on this one). The crass “Oh, shut up.” The blowjob jokes. The surprise that the writer is neither an “idiotic teenaged girl” nor “horse-faced schoolmarm.” The exasperated “For God’s sake, grow up” and “Calm down, dear.” And the accusations, again and again, of that notoriously humorless feminism." So, interestingly enough, I seem to have just proved that this situation is a big deal by doing exactly what she said people would do. Although I don't see how such comments transform something into a big deal. The author used pathos, basically giving an angry rant about sexist jerks who would make horrible, disgusting jokes such as this one. She tried to use logos, but I honestly didn't think her logic made much sense. 

Article

Rush Limbaugh the uniter

So looking through the opinion articles, it was one of those times where the same story kept popping up, so I figured I ought to write something about it. In this case, I saw many articles discussing comments that Rush Limbaugh made about a Georgetown law student named Sandra Fluke. I think the whole situation is a little funny, assuming that Fluke's feelings haven't been hurt, which I don't believe they have. Limbaugh thought that the new contraceptive law was equivalent to paying women to have sex, making any woman who supports the law a prostitute and a slut. Now, it seems a little out of touch with reality to act as though a women who wants contraception in college is some sort of exception. Limbaugh even said, "So, Miss Fluke, and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives . . . we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.” That seems like an incredibly stupid thing to say if you're trying to make some sort of moral argument. I seriously wonder whether he was trying to be funny or trying to make an actual point. Because if he is seriously against this law, then he is incredibly stupid, since this just makes his argument look absolutely ridiculous. I would like to know how many supporters this guy has, because I can't possibly conceive of any modern day humans being that crazy.
I liked the way that the author approached the topic. She called the article "Rush Limbaugh the uniter" and introduced it by saying that he managed to unite opposing sides by saying things vulgar enough to embarrass everyone, including his fellow conservatives. She used a lot of logos, describing all the reasons why Limbaugh is an idiot who made his own position look bad in a number of ways. She relied on pathos by including quotes that would certainly make feminists very angry. She also included humor- "It is entirely possible that Limbaugh himself never needed contraception in college, but virtue in the absence of opportunity is hardly a moral triumph." Overall, the article was funny and I think the author did a very good job in writing it.


Article

Phobias: Things to Fear and Loathe

This article caught my attention because it seemed to be about weird phobias, which are generally interesting to read about. A few things in the article were interesting. There were people who were afraid of mascots, stuffed animals, honey-comb shaped objects, etc., and the author herself was afraid of objects arranged in clusters. Unfortunately, though, I found the article quite boring. I thought the author would use more humor, but instead she relied almost entirely on logos. She described different psychological ideas behind phobias. She also used some ethos in describing her particular phobias. In the end, I was not very interested or entertained.
She hardly had an argument. Perhaps she was arguing against people who do not take the phobias of others seriously, but that was only briefly mentioned. She did not seem to take sides one way or another on the different theories she described. She did suggest, at one point, that we should face our fears and get over them, so maybe that was her argument. My point, I guess, is that this hardly seemed to be an opinion piece, which makes it very difficult for me to assess her rhetorical strategies, since she didn't have a purpose to achieve.

Article

Regulating Our Sugar Habit

I think this article was written by a crazy man. Let me sum it for you. There isn't enough government regulation in our daily lives, so the government should start controlling how much sugar we eat. Soda should be illegal for anyone under seventeen. Sugar is hurting us, blah blah blah, public health crisis, etc. I was absolutely shocked.
Rhetorically, this guy doesn't make much sense to me. He starts off describing why everyone hates Rhonda Storms, an activist who has been fighting to limit the consumption of unhealthy foods. What possible reason would he have by describing why she is so hated? I sure don't know. There is a little bit of rational reasoning when he talks about food stamps; if people are wasting their food stamps on candy, they aren't starving, and that government money would be better spent helping people who need it rather than hurting those who don't. The rest is nonsense, and this guy isn't hitting the question where it would be controversial. We all know that sugar is bad for us. We all know that we would have longer, healthier lives if we ate better foods. We aren't eating junk because we're uneducated, we're eating it because we don't care enough about our health to eat any better than we do. And that's none of the government's business, thank you very much. This guy didn't mention the moral implications of regulating our everyday lives like this. He only talked about health, which isn't really the issue here. Overall, I can't imagine why anyone would be persuaded by this article. There was some logic in the food stamp part, but that argument would have been more effective if the author hadn't filled the article with craziness and cited politicians whom everyone hates.

Article

Corporations don’t need a tax break

I found this article to be incredibly disappointing. Based on what I've been reading about Republican candidates, I would not be particularly pleased having any of them as my president. The alternative, of course, is Obama. One of the biggest things I like about the Democratic Party is its belief in equal, if not higher, taxes for big corporations. And in Obama's speeches, he has repeatedly made me think that he is planning on eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy, bringing in more revenue, decreasing the deficit, helping public education, etc. Yet this article tells me that he is cutting taxes for corporations just like everyone else. This was disappointing because I would like to believe that candidates are making decisions based on their economic views, not on their own personal interests. But seeing a Democrat cut taxes too, it's hard not to believe that there is some self-interest in this decision. I have heard a lot about Obama not accomplishing anything, but I thought he had good ideas and that maybe if we waited a little more he would start making changes based on those ideas. Unfortunately, this is really making me question my optimism. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I ever had any blind faith in the honesty and good intentions of politicians. But this is such a blatantly hypocritical move that it's really bringing me down. Hopefully the article was making it look worse than it was, but with their logos, which included numbers and all that, I'm not too hopeful. Since this is kind of depressing me, I think I will now stop blogging and go enjoy my vacation.

Article

Contraception, Against Conscience

This article caught my attention because it may be the first seriously conservative article I have seen in the New York Times. In fact, most of the websites I use to find articles are pretty liberal, so this was interesting to read.
I'm sure everyone has heard something about the recently hot issue of contraception- should it be mandatory for companies to include contraception as part of their insurance policies. Personally, it seemed like a fine idea to me. Nobody's forcing contraception onto actual individuals, they're just making it available to people who want it. And the last thing we need is girls who can't afford contraception to be accidentally having babies. But this article presented a side of the argument that I had not considered- what about companies that have entirely religious purposes?
The author of the article, who works for a Catholic media organization, believes that complying with the bill would be "compromising their beliefs." He presents a strong argument. He explains how difficult it would be if the company tried to refuse to comply, and how compliance would be strongly immoral in the eyes of the company. He used logos, with reasonable arguments about the practical effects. He also used ethos, being the president of the organization. Pathos was used when he spoke about the morality of the bill and the idea of compromising one's beliefs.
I was torn on how to feel about the article. I absolutely disagree with his views, and I don't consider contraception to be morally wrong in any way. I hate the idea of people who work for the company in certain areas, like technical staff and such, who don't necessarily agree with the company's views, being denied this right. However, if I were the owner of a company, and I was forced to give my employees a license to do something I considered horribly immoral, I would be disgusted. For this reason, I have some sympathy for this guy. Still, I agree with the bill and I don't think I would want this company to be an exception.

Article

Rick’s Religious Fanaticism

Before reading this article, I knew very little about Rick Santorum. From what I had seen of him on television, he seemed like a reasonable guy, especially compared with some of the others. However, this article convinced me that I would absolutely not want him as president. Of course, it's only one opinion, but this writer had a very strong argument with a lot of logos and pathos. She quoted professionals, in addition to her own beliefs. She addressed possible counterarguments, and explained why she does not agree with them. She appealed to many things that Americans care about- equality, freedom, even Victoria's Secret. Overall, it was an extremely well-written argument.
The article regarded Santorum's religious fanatacism (as I assume you figured out from the title). Apparently he has very strong Catholic views, to the point that I am surprised that he is still in the race. He criticized American "sensualism," claiming that Satan is using such vices to win over our country. He is against gay marriage, contraception, Mormonism, working women, and environmentalists, among other things. According to the author of the article, he has even compared Obama to Hitler. If that's true, I really wonder what his basis for comparison was. The only thing I questioned about the article was how straightforward it was being, and how many of its assertions were distortions of the truth, because some of the claims, such as his opposition to women with jobs, seemed a little difficult to believe. However, prospective voters can surely look up these claims, and if they are true then I can't imagine Santorum could win, after insulting so many groups of people.

Article

When I learned to scrape by

This was one of those personal narratives on Salon.com. I wish it had said how old the girl who wrote it was- she looked pretty young from the picture. Either way, it was a summary of a day in the life of Tiffany Brubeck, a girl with no job or money trying to find work. It didn't say how she got to this point, but she does say that it is part of the recession. She compares her new way of life, scraping around the streets for change, to her old life of designer purses, so obviously she wasn't always as poor as she is now. She has no money to repair her car, has to live off of leftover food given to her by friends, and can't find work no matter what she does. Overall, it was a moving and impressive story.
The author relied on ethos and pathos. She gave a face to the "recession" that people are always talking about, making it feel more real and urgent, especially for people who haven't been hurt too badly by it. This is her personal story, so the appeal to ethos is undeniable strong. However, the strongest appeal is probably pathos, because she describes a conversation with a friend about how hard work isn't enough anymore. She talks about her struggle to hold on to hope, believing that in America you can do anything. It really forces you to come face to face to the reality of where our country is right now. Struggling to afford a $.49 burrito can seem unreal, but the knowledge that it is reality for some people should be enough to get readers worked up.

Article

U.S. drones targeting rescuers and mourners

Well, I've found yet another article telling me about horrible, immoral things that the government is doing without my knowing. In this case, the article is about U.S. drones that are targeting civilians in Pakistan who are either mourning at funerals or attempting to rescue other, injured people. It is considered a war crime to target people who are wearing Red Cross logos, and the same should apply to anyone who is simply attending to the medical needs of injured people. This article was very sad, listing instances where large numbers of children and other civilians were killed by U.S. drones. Equally sad were the statements made by Obama and other politicians, claiming that we have a great record of avoiding civilian deaths. If this article is really accurate, then it was really scary information.
And, unfortunately, the article seemed pretty accurate. There was a lot of logos: statistics, direct quotes from politicians, quotes from other articles and seemingly reliable sources. There was not really a direct appeal to pathos, but it was definitely implied. I found the factual evidence to be more effective than it would have been if the article was an angry rant. However, the article did refer to the immorality of killing civilians, although I think that's a no-brainer.

Article

Mitt Speaks. Oh, No!

I've been seeing a lot of articles about very offensive sounding comments made by Mitt Romney lately. They sound terrible taken out of context. The latest hit is his statement on CNN: "I'm not concerned about the very poor". Honestly, I think people are sort of overreacting. In context, Romney was trying to say that his primary focus is the middle class, the people who have enough money that they can't get help but not enough money to live well. However, I still thought this article was very funny. I would recommend it; I was laughing out loud. It did not change my opinion about Romney that much (well, the fact that he apparently tied his dog to the roof of his car was a bit worrisome; I'll have to see if that's really true) but I don't think that was the point. I think it was just a little funny piece, more for people who already dislike Romney. I even thought it was funny, and I don't have strong feelings one way or another. It relied almost entirely on logos, because the writer of the article just picks apart everything Romney said in that particular speech. Maybe she was being a little harsh, but it was funny and I certainly think that someone with plenty of people probably writing speeches for him should be able to do a little better. He should know by now that he needs to be very careful what he says publicly, even if it doesn't sound that bad in the middle of a speech or interview. People will pluck out random sentences and write entire articles about them. And then people like me will make entire blogs about those entire articles about those little sentences.

Article

Do-It-Yourself Deportation

This article was written by a seventeen year old boy named Antonio Alacron. He moved to America from Mexico when he was eleven years old, and he explains the difficulties he's had to face as an immigrant. For a seventeen year old, I was pretty impressed by this article. The appeal to pathos is definitely the strongest; imagine how difficult it would be for a teenager with no money who can't apply for college scholarships, no matter how intelligent or otherwise talented you are. Since he is writing from personal experience, there is also a lot of ethos. He uses logos too, explaining his parents' hours and wages when they were in the United States, and comparing Romney's image of "self-deportation" to the reality. It was supposed to be a "kinder" method, but Antonio's parents left because they couldn't find decent jobs anywhere, and now they are separated from their moneyless teenage son.
I've always thought of immigration as an interesting problem. If we keep increasing the population, then it makes sense that poverty and unemployment will increase. However, if I lost a job opportunity to an illegal Mexican immigrant, I wouldn't be able to convince myself that I had been unfairly beaten. If someone came from a more difficult situation than I did, and managed to work harder than I did in order to be a better choice for the job, then I think they deserve it more than I do. Plus, I don't think we should stop talented people from fulfilling their potential. I would rather be taught by an exceptionally talented doctor who was born in Mexico than a mediocre doctor from America. In the article, an intelligent girl named Guadalupe who wanted to study psychology was unable to do so because she was an immigrant who couldn't apply for scholarships. Well, if I ever see a psychiatrist for something, maybe I'll wonder if I could have gotten better treatment if immigrants could go to college more easily. My point is that people should be rewarder for their hard work, abilities, and how well they can accomplish a task, not for having the good luck to be born in America.

Article

Memoir 2

For my second memoir, I will be reading Running With Scissors by Augusten Burroughs.

Don't Mind the Gap

I found this article to be very interesting. It discussed the wealth inequality in America, which is obviously a major issue today. However. its main focus was the fact that people aren't upset by the gap itself, but by the unfair policies that favor the rich. I really agree with that argument. I don't dislike celebrities or politicians because of the fact that they have money; obviously people have to be rich if they're going to run for president. However, if middle class families are paying their taxes just so rich Americans won't have to, I think that's incredibly unfair. Sure, people who work hard should be awarded with wealth. However, the wealthy have just as much of a responsibility as anyone else to support their country with taxes. If people who can't make ends meet are paying taxes, then people living in mansions have no excuse.
The article relied almost entirely on logos. The article itself gave no opinion whatsoever. Basically, it just summarized a poll that Americans recently answered about their feelings on inequity in America. Perhaps the article could have included more personal opinions, but showing bias might have made the article less credible. In some cases, it's easiest to trust an article that is totally factual, so I am left with no doubt that this is true. Americans are fine with the idea of a wealth gap, but are not okay with unfair advantages to the wealthy, and personally I am glad to hear that many people hold this belief.

Article

The right’s latest target: Girl Scout cookies

This article made me pretty mad. People are boycotting girl scout cookies because of "a tenuous tie to planned parenthood" and because a transgendered 7-year-old was accepted into a girl scout troop. I can't believe that people would actually attack girl scouts, out of all the possibilities. What's more innocent than groups of little girls going camping and selling cookies? I agreed one hundred percent with the article, although with issues like these, I doubt it will change the minds of anyone who agrees with the boycott. However, even if the writer of the article did not have obvious liberal views, she still had a few good points. Some parents pulled their children out of girl scouts, after the troops declared that they were against the decision to accept a transgender, because they did not make the announcement quickly or firmly enough. That's a bit of an overreaction, if you ask me. In addition, some of the things conservative critics are saying are blatant lies, like the assertion that some people make that girl scouts have been pro-choice for years. We're talking about little girls here! They do community service and charity work and learn how to make s'mores! Who on earth decided that we should start analyzing their political views and keeping our children safe from them? This whole issue is just another one of those ridiculous stories that I can't believe. It's hard enough for me to wrap my head around the amount of intolerance that still exists, but the fact that the hate has spread to girl scouts is just too much.

Article

Romney’s tax plan would cut his own taxes by nearly half, new analysis finds

I agree with most articles I have read, which say that Romney is definitely the best GOP candidate. However, I still don't know whether I like him or not, and this article really makes me wonder. I was trying to avoid blogging about a boring political issue, but I saw so many articles on the subject that I thought I'd better see what was going on. Here's the deal: Romney is proposing a new tax bill (maybe this is old news, but it's new to me) which would cut taxes for the wealthy, including cutting his own taxes by more than forty percent. Another article I saw said he considered three hundred something thousand dollars "not very much" to make each year. Well, personally, I don't think tax breaks for the wealthy have accomplished much over the years, and I find it hard to support candidates whose decisions benefit themselves personally.

The article was well-written, informative and concise. It relied almost entirely on logos, including statistics and allowing the numbers to speak for themselves. In this situation, I think that's a great strategy. The more empty insults an article includes, the less likely I would be to trust it, so I find the basic facts to be much more persuasive. This is one of the first straightforward plans of action that I have heard of from Romney, and it isn't making me optimistic.

Article

Memoir

For my first memoir, I will be reading I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou.

Should the government search your brain?

This writer definitely knows how to write an article to get people riled up. The government searching my brain?! I had to read this article! I ended up being a little disappointed. Well, I guess it's good that no government officials we be directly invading my mind, but I was expected a somewhat exciting article. Actually, I was left a little bit confused by the time I finished reading it. The article mentioned all sorts of technology that will supposedly exist in the future, but if I understood correctly, the current issue is simply whether or not government officials can force you to give up your password. Well, if they have a legitimate reason to believe you have important evidence on your computer, I think that's perfectly fine. The government shouldn't be breaking into people's personal computers and looking at private documents whenever they want, but that is another issue. If someone may have committed a serious crime, and if evidence might exist on their computer, a simple password shouldn't keep the government out.
Despite my personal opinions, it was a very well-written article. It appealed to pathos with all of its talk about our rights and its bleak description of a future where no thoughts are private and the fifth amendement no longer exists. Logos is used as well, explaining how this could be considered unconstitutional. I think this could certainly get people angry, but I still think it's a bit of an overreaction and the article makes the facts sound much worse than they are.

Article

College diversity at risk

This article caught my eye because at this day in age, it seems like everybody's all about diversity. A decision that would make things less diverse would probably get a lot of bad attention for the media. In this case, however, I actually disagree entirely with the article. The author tries to make his case sound good by talking about "diversity" and meeting people from different backgrounds, but to be honest I think that he is promoting discrimination. Sometimes I fill out things, and I bet college applications will be similar, that ask for my race and say "we do not discriminate based on race." Then why the hell are you asking what my race is? I'll tell you after you accept me! Maybe I'm a little biased, being a white American girl planning to apply to competitive colleges, but my point is still valid. I think colleges should accept people before they know anything about race. Hopefully they will end up with a diverse school anyway, but it isn't fair to reject hardworking, intelligent students in order to accept more people of different races.
I'm not saying it was a badly written argument. Especially given my current situation in life, there isn't much the author could have said that would have persuaded me. They appealed to pathos will of their diversity nonsense. They also appealed to logos when they discussed the benefits of experiencing a racially diverse environment. This article still makes me mad though. Schools shouldn't be proud of accepting a high number of students of a certain race if most of the students who applied are not that race. That's basically saying, "If you are this race, your chance s are better."

Article

The secret lives of feral dogs

This article caught my attention immediately because of the sentence underneath the title: "A Pennsylvania city instructs police to shoot strays, opening a sad window on animal care in the age of austerity". I wondered how this could be possible. Wouldn't it create a horrible image for the police if they're shooting puppies? Even if they had reasoning behind their decision, people would get horribly upset. It must be a serious situation if they're resorting to these measures. As I read on, I seemed to be correct. There are too many stray dogs and no one knows what to do with them. Shelters are full, and the lives of dogs on the streets can be horrible. Personally, I don't blame the police. What about the people who dump the dogs on the street in the first place? Actually, I think that breeding new dogs is also an issue. Why create more puppies that need to find homes when there are already dogs in shelters who will die if they don't find homes?
Anyway, back to the article. It was a little dry considering what a controversial, emotional subject it is. I think the writer of this article could have done a lot more to get people upset. Of course, their goal might have been simply to inform people, not to start a riot. Still, though. A little more spice would have been nice. The author obviously used pathos. What would appeal to the emotions of Americans more than puppy murder? Otherwise, there was a lot of logos. There was information about the surprising number of stray dogs in the world, and information on how they live. I think this is an issue that ought to be addressed, but I think we should really start hitting the problem at its cause. We need to stop bringing more dogs into a world where they will be dumped in the street.


Article

Romney’s nomination is only a matter of time now

I was trying to avoid all the political articles and look for something more interesting, but I finally gave in. I chose this particular article because it surprised me in how certain it sounded- most articles were still asking how things will turn out. This article seemed absolutely confident in Romney. After reading it, I think it has a good point. It relied mainly on logos, listing the main problems which each of the other candidates and pointing out what Romney had to offer. I have noticed, based on the news lately, that most of this seems true. Ron Paul has been running for president for a long time, so I doubt he's ever going to win. Obviously there were the scandals with Gingrich and all that stuff. Also, few of the candidates seem moderate enough to win over any independent voters. Basically, I agree with the article when it says that Romney will almost certainly be nominated. The only thing, I think, that could have stopped him was his relative moderateness compared to the other candidates, but in this case everyone seems to have major flaws, and Romney remains as the most likely person. I still think other things could happen, since only one state has voted, so perhaps I am not as confident as this article was in the way that events will play out. However, it was a well-written article with good points, and I am pretty sure its predictions will turn out accurate.

Article

Hailing the Wrong Taxi

This article was about a new plan in New York City to add 2,000 wheelchair accesible taxis around the city, so that disabled people can use taxis as well. The writer of the article is strongly opposed to this idea. He thinks that this system would be ineffective, and a much better method would be to have a centralized dispatch system. He uses mostly logos, because he is simply arguing which method would be more practical to achieve the same goal. He uses a great deal of specific numbers to show how much different methods would cost, and whether they would be worth it. He cites specific places where dispatch systems have been used, and explains how well they worked. He also uses simple logical arguments- Wheelchair users would probably prefer a home pickup to waiting outside- to back up his argument. Overall, I would say it was a well-researched and persuasive article.
I think the writer has a good point when he says that wheelchair accesible taxis will not be very effective. After all, if there is only a small number of such taxis out there, it might be hard to find one. It's also expensive, and there are a number of other drawbacks mentioned in the article. It's a nice thought, and I agree that it is unfair if people in wheelchairs aren't accommodated. To be honest, thought, I'm not sure if this home pickup plan will work well either. However, if one of the plans must be implemented, the article convinced me that the dispatch system would make far more sense. Hopefully it works out in the end.

Article

Bless Me, Ultima: Part 4

I thought the ending of the book was somewhat inconclusive as to what Antonio wanted to do with his life. I guess he made it very clear that he did not want to be a priest, but he did not seem to want to follow his brothers either. Perhaps, like I thought at the beginning, he will follow in Ultima's footsteps rather than those of his mother or father.
The first interesting passage in this section of the book was the priest's description of eternity. I think Anaya was trying to really drive home the concept of being in Hell for an eternity in order to show that such a punishment is too harsh for anyone, no matter what they have done in life. This idea goes along with the themes of forgiveness and the harshness of Antonio's christian God. Another significant scene was when the boys were playing around, pretending Antonio was their priest. It became clear that they didn't want a forgiving priest, but one who punished people for their sins. Maybe Anaya was suggesting that human nature, which can be harsh and vengeful, is the reason that people look to God as someone to punish people for their sins. If everyone tried to be compassionate and forgiving like Antonio, we could look to God for compassion and understanding instead. The overall idea seems to be that religion does not make good people, because people apply their own personal values to their religions. Being a good person regardless of your religious beliefs is what really matters. After all, Florence was portrayed as a moral character, who seemed to be good and kind. Many of the other boys, who seem more immoral and cruel than Florence, believe wholeheartedly in their religion.
Antonio's first communion was a major turning point in the novel. He had been expecting some sort of revelation, where God would explain everything and reward his dedication to his religion. Instead, Antonio finally had to accept that he would never get simple answers to the complex issues of life. Simply believing in his religion would not solve his problems and make everything in his life good and fair. In the end, he finally faced the harsh reality that life was full of unfairness, and the only certain way to solve it was by being a good person and fighting for justice, not by asking God for assistance. I think it's hard to tell how Antonio feels about his religion at the end of the book. However, he certainly feels different than he does at the beginning. He realizes that everything related to religion will always be uncertain.
One particularly powerful line in the book is spoken by Cico: "You have to choose between the god of the church, or the beauty that is here or now..." I think Anaya wants to convince us that the correct choice is the here and now, because we should do what we think is good and right, and not worry about what form it comes in. It doesn't matter whether there is a god, or whether Ultima is a witch, or whether the story of the golden carp is true. People should do the right thing whether or not they will be rewarded amd Ultima should be judged by her actions, not by whether she can walk through a door with a cross on it.
I don't know exactly what to make of Florence's death. Maybe Anaya wanted to make it clear that Florence died without ever embracing any god, so readers will question the idea of nonbelievers going to hell. After all, Florence had a difficult life and was a good person, but the other children say that he will go to hell for not believing. His death makes that concept seem frightening and unfair.
In the very last chapter, Ultima dies because her spirit actually lives inside her owl rather than her body. I think that if Antonio told everyone this, they would believe more that ever that she was a witch, and maybe kill her for it. Her death proves beyond doubt that she had some sort of supernatural powers. As she is dying, Antonio says "Bless me, Ultima," which is obviously a significant line since it is the title of the book. Maybe this implies that Antonio values her blessing, rather than a religious blessing, because she is a real person who has proven her goodness through her actions on earth. Since this is the title of the book, I would say that it sums up the overall theme. Religion does not matter as much as being a good person, and we should judge people based on their actions rather than there religious affiliation.

Gay rights’ surprise weapon: Morality

I thought this article looked pretty interesting, and it was. It was about how the most useful tool for gay rights activists was morality rather than tolerance. At first, I thought it seemed obvious that gay rights was a question of morality. However, I think the article had a good point. People who favor gay rights have probably said many times that people should live their own lives and allow other people to live theirs. If someone else does something you disagree with, you shouldn't care, as long as it doesn't affect you. However, as logical as this argument is, it doesn't surprise that people aren't responding. After all, it seems like it has never been human nature to live and let live, despite how much better the world might be if everyone were more tolerant. I'm not surprised that arguing against the idea of gay marriage being moral was a more successful argument. Believing that everyone will stop judging and let people do what they want is wishful thinking. Arguing that love in a relationship is what matters, rather than whether the relationship is straight or gay, sounds like a more effective strategy. And with this argument, according to the article, polls have finally suggested that the majority of Americans are for gay marriage. The article relied, surprisingly enough, on logos. Obviously pathos could be used in an article about gay marriage, considering it is a controversial and emotional subject, but in this case the article was not taking a stance on gay marriage, but on the new strategy being used to promote it. With statistics and common sense, the article backed up its suggestion that morality, rather than tolerance, is the argument that will win people over.
As much as I am glad to be making progress, I was honestly surprised by the fact that only 53% of Americans are in favor of gay marriage being legal. Living in a very liberal state like Massachusetts, I guess it's easy to forget how common intolerance towards gay marriage still is. However, if the percentage of people who support gay rights is continuing to increase, I think that is a reason to be optimistic about the future. And if activists are taking a different approach to their argument, I hope this means that that percentage will start increasing faster. It's too bad if an argument of tolerance doesn't work, but if it is really as ineffective as the article suggests, it's good that a new strategy is being employed.

Article

Should we erase painful memories?

This article caught my attention because it raised an interesting question and implied that it might be possible to selectively destroy some of our memories. Well, the author of this article seemed to think that this might become a reality in the near future. They discussed different opinions on the matter from different people, but did not express a clear personal opinion. I would say they relied almost entirely on logos, because they quoted many scientists and contained a lot of facts. There was also a little bit of pathos, because this is really a moral question. However, it's hard to say the writer really used any particular strategy because they didn't have a real argument. The point seemed to be informing people, and leaving it to them to decide how they felt. Both sides of the argument were presented. Despite the interesting topic, the article was a bit dry and factual and not very entertaining.
The question of deleting memories is an interesting idea. Personally, I think it's hard to determine an answer that would apply to every situation. I think that if this technology really becomes perfected, it should be up to every individual whether they want to erase a traumatic memory. Or maybe it could be a sort of prescription treatment that must be recommended by a psychiatrist. I can't really imagine an experience that would be so traumatic that I would want to erase it entirely from my memory. However, if the memory was really bothering me so much that I was having trouble living my life, maybe I would want it gone. However, the article also talked about soldiers erasing their memories of the war. I don't think I would ever want something like that, because it might change who I am as a person. I think it should be up to each individual to decide for themselves, but it's certainly an interesting think to think about.

Article