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.