Sunday, December 15, 2013

TOW #13 (TEXT): Football: A Waste of Taxpayers’ Money, Why are we subsidizing such a hugely profitable sport? By: Nick Gillespie

In this opinion piece, author, Nick Gillespie, discusses how it is a waste of money for citizens to pay for National Football League (NFL) teams instead of for actual government needs. Gillespie argues that taxpayer money should be spent on actual government problems, and not huge industries like NFL teams. In this article, Gillespie tries to appeal to the reader's logos by using shocking statistics that will make the average taxpayer upset with the government's allotment of money. Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and the co-author of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America. In the article, Gillespie starts by showing the general public how the NFL is actually affecting their wallets by giving a statistic. He writes, "Over the 30-year life of the project, the public share of costs will come to $678 million." (par.2) This statistic was very effective as it showed the public how exactly football is effecting them. Instead of just talking about the overall market of the NFL, Gillespie targets how the NFL effects the citizens, and therefore makes a greater impact on the reader. The reader, or taxpayer, by reading this statistic, feels upset that their money is going to something as childish as football. Gillespie makes sure to not anger the reader by bashing football, but instead just talks about how people's money can be used elsewhere for a greater impact. This sensitivity to the reader's probable love for football, makes the logical statistics even more impactful as they aren't muddled by the reader's personal opinions. As a fan of the game, I personally think Gillespie did a great job in this because even though I love football, I saw that the amount of money that is being taken from taxes for football is way too much considering all the other problems society has. For this reason, I think Gillespie made his point clear, and effective because even an advocate of the game like myself could see light in his argument. 

Sunday, December 8, 2013

TOW #12 (IRB) Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America by Yossef Bodansky

Through the first part of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America" author Yossef Bodansky discusses Bin Laden's early life and how he rose to becoming a terrorist. Essentially Bodansky writes the book as though it is a chronological story of Bin Laden's life, taking the reader through each aspect of his life. Bodansky starts the book by talking about how Bin Laden was originally a promising young engineer, and how he was affluent, but then Bodansky starts to gradually show Bin Laden's change. One of the better things Bodansky does is he doesn't make things seem very cause and effect-like. Since in the real world many things are due to multiple causation as opposed to cause and effect, Bodansky makes sure to paint the whole picture for the reader instead of making the book seem bland and fake. In this first section, Bodansky's purpose is to simply introduce Bin Laden and give background information to the reader while not boring them with sequential writing. One way Bodansky is effective at achieving this purpose is by writing the book as a narrative. Instead of boring the reader with a list of facts about Bin Laden, Bodansky takes the reader through the events as though they are actually happening. This effect makes the reader more engaged in the book and provides for a much deeper understanding than just raw fact. In addition to using a narrative style of writing, Bodansky poses rhetorical questions such as, "What makes these individuals commit themselves to this kind of war?"(Bodansky, 1) These rhetorical, "check-up" questions set the reader up for what is going to come up in the next section. So again, in order to capture the audience's attention, Bodansky alerts them through questions to say that new information is coming up. Personally I think these two strategies make "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America" a much more connectable and interesting non-fiction piece. As opposed to being a boring non-fiction book, Bodanksy's rhetorical devices engage the reader and make them feel like they are in the time period instead of reading a list of facts.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

TOW #11 (TEXT): Don’t Like the American Way of Meat? Blame That First Thanksgiving Meal by Maureen Ogle

Maureen Ogle, a historian and author of several books, wrote this opinion piece in order to shed light on the origin of American meat eating habits. While ostensibly seeming that this article is just a history lesson, Ogle uses narrative writing and cause and effect in order to logically show that Thanksgiving may be a day of problems as opposed to thanks. Ogle starts her article by taking the reader back to the days where colonists were first arriving in the New World. Ogle uses a narrative style of writing such that the reader feels like they are learning about the history of the colonists. This basic establishment of information allows for the reader to understand where exactly our meat eating habits come from. Since Ogle is trying to show that Thanksgiving was to blame for our unhealthiness, she takes the reader back to the time period so that they can understand how exactly Thanksgiving affected our unhealthy diets. After establishing this base knowledge, Ogle takes the information and connects it to today's society to show the effect on our diets. This cause and effect as seen by this quote, "meat-centric diets are killing us,"(par. 7) shows how the Thanksgiving meal directly is hurting us today. By using cause and effect, the reader understands that Ogle's argument makes sense and this appeals to the readers logos. All of these rhetorical devices allow Ogle to further solidify her claim that Thanksgiving is the blame of our meat heavy diet. By showing the change over time, using cause and effect, as well as narrative writing, Ogle even makes me feel like Thanksgiving is to blame for our meat heavy diets. I think that Ogle did a good job establishing her point, however I think that she tried to make too far of a stretch by connecting our meat habit to Thanksgiving as opposed to just colonization. I understand she did so because of the holiday, however I think her point would've been more correct, and effective if it was just talking about the connection to the natives as opposed to Thanksgiving as a whole.