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