TOW #16 (IRB): Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America by Yossef Bodansky

Through the second half of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America" author Yossef Bodansky discusses Bin Laden's plans for attack, and his motivations for them. In comparison to the first half of the book, the second half is much more about the terrorism Bin Laden has caused and the events leading up to these acts. Again, like the first half of the book, Bodansky writes in chronological order of Bin Laden's life story, which makes it very easy to follow. One of the strategies that Bodansky uses to make complicated terrorism easy to understand, is he uses cause and effect to explain things. Since in the real world, we know that there is always multiple causation, Bodansky makes sure that he makes the reader aware that Bin Laden doesn't just do things for one reason, but rather a plethora of influences. I found the whole recruitment process interesting, as people volunteered their lives to become a terrorist. When Bodansky explains this process, he includes all of the reasons as to why someone would join Al-Qaeda. This makes the text very easy to understand, and that much more interesting. In the second half of the book, Bodansky's purpose is to try and tie Bin Laden's early life to his terrorism, and by doing so he tries to shed light on why this man did what he did. 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. 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. Overall I thought the book was really interesting as it gave a different perspective on why Bin Laden did what he did.

TOW #15 (TEXT): Are e-cigarettes dangerous? by Harold P. Wimmer

In this article, author Harold P. Wimmer discusses the implications of a new phenomenon, e-cigarettes. Because e-cigarettes are such a new product, Wimmer says that there needs to be regulations on them. Since there is currently no regulation on the e-cigarette, people believe that it is a healthier alternative to the cigarette. Although this is the case, Wimmer argues that the lack of regulation actually makes the e-cigarette more dangerous. In his article Wimmer lists all of the possible effects and dangers of e-cigarettes. What his purpose in writing this article is that Wimmer wants to make people aware of the e-cigarette's health implications and also propose that there be regulations on them. In order to get his point across, Wimmer appeals to the reader's pathos by discussing how e-cigarettes are affecting children. What makes readers' cringe is the fact that a new wave of nicotine addicts are being born from the e-cigarette. Since there is no actual smoke, e-cigarettes create a falsified sense of safety and thus 1 out of 10 high school students have tried an e-cigarette. By using these statistics, the reader's ethical code comes into play as they feel bad that kids are smoking. Wimmer also tries to get readers to feel shocked by using statistics. These eye-opening lab studies make the reader feel, again, more inclined to feel skeptical about the e-cigarette. Wimmer even compares the e-cigarette to the way the original cigarette was first advertised: with attractive women, etc. This parallelism shows that history is going to repeat itself in that e-cigarettes are now going to generate a new wave pool of nicotine addicts. Wimmer's article makes a great point that e-cigarettes are not safer, not regulated, and is just another way for our generation to get hooked onto nicotine. I personally think this article resonated with me because being a high school student, I see many kids getting hooked onto things like e-cigarettes just because they seem safe, when in reality they aren't. 

TOW #14 (Visual Text) Old Spice Momsong Commercial

In this commercial, Old Spice, a deodorant manufacturer, takes a comical route in advertising their product. The commercial is essentially a bunch of mothers singing about how Old Spice turned their sons into men. The mothers sing and complain about how their "little boys" turn into men and during the commercial they list all of the "bad" things their sons are doing like attracting women and being "naughty" with them. What Old Spice is effectively doing is making the mother's problem a selling point to customers, who are mostly teenage boys. These boys that are being targeted are usually the ones who haven't yet chosen their brand of deodorant that they are going to use for the rest of their lives. Since most people stick with one deodorant brand for the entirety of their life, Old Spice is targeting people who have not yet made up their mind. In this commercial, Old Spice uses comical rhetoric in order to get their point across. Scenes like having moms hold on to the bumper of a car, and turn into a janitor to spy on their sons is comical and makes the viewer laugh. However the comical scenes are just the support for the main claim, or purpose of the commercial. The main selling point is how Old Spice essentially gives boys the ability to turn into manly men who attract women. I think that Old spice does a great job in slipping in this selling point without being as obvious as they usually are in their other commercials. Overall I think Old Spice made a hilarious commercial which got its point across by using comical rhetoric and slipping in the main purpose. I personally use Old Spice, and I changed over from Axe to Old Spice much because of their advertising. 

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. 

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.

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.

TOW #10 (TEXT): Don’t Go Shopping on Thanksgiving. Just Don’t. By Ellen Galinsky

In this opinion article, author Ellen Galinsky tries to persuade consumers to not shop on Thanksgiving. Galinsky is co-founder and president of the Families and Work Institute, and believes that by shopping on Thanksgiving Day, consumers are making large retailers like Macy's open their shops and thus have their employees work. Galinsky argues that having people work on holidays is detrimental to their well being, as well as their family values. In order to get her point across, Galinsky uses statistics as well as addresses the counter argument to make her point. Galinsky states, "Nearly one-third (32%) of employees report that their work has a primarily negative impact on their lives off the job by draining energy, so they don't have enough left over for their personal and family life."(par. 4). Galinsky uses this data to show readers that even without working on holidays, jobs affect people's family lives. To further her point, Galinsky uses this statistic to say that by taking off on holidays, employee morale is decreased, and there is unhappiness among the employees. These statistics make the consumer aware that morale is a big problem for employees, and that they therefore should not shop on holidays as to avoid promoting holiday working. Galinsky also addresses the other side of the argument by saying that there are some benefits like one and a half times pay for working on holidays, however she quickly refutes this claim saying that family is more important, especially on holidays. Personally I think Galinsky does a great job persuading consumers to not shop on holidays because after reading the article I feel the plight of the employees. Galinsky taught me that family is truly more valuable than money.