http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/business/media/07sheen.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Hollywood actor Charlie Sheen is most commonly known for his leading role in "Two and a Half Men". Recently, his over excessive drug and alcohol abuse have become mass publicized and many have spoken out to try and get him help. However, Sheen is raking in the big bucks and it seems most have turned their heads in order to continue making money, giving him freedom to do as he pleases.
Commonplace beliefs in this argument include the knowledge of who Charlie Sheen is and the tv show "Two and a Half Men". Not biased in anyway, the writers report the on goings of the star, and the way the people around him are reacting to it. As writers for the New York Times, they are a pretty credible and academic source. The intended audience is aimed towards anyone that is interested in celebrity gossip, Charlie Sheen, or how Hollywood chooses to turn away from stars in need of help. Using mostly pathos, the writers appeal to the emotions by drawing attention to his family history and depicting Sheen as a like-able, responsible guy and argue that something should be done to help him. I believe this argument is persuasive, however, in my opinion, if he is still able to go out partying until 5am and show up for work at 7am, then let him be. If someone doesn't want to be helped, rehab will 9 times out of 10 be unsuccessful. Until the day Charlie Sheen decides he wants to change, I think it will do him some good if the media stayed out of his life.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
The United States of China
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/112189/who-owns-the-us?mod=bb-debtmanagement
The article is informing the public of our national debt, and what could happen if these countries decided to collect. They put it into perspective by stating which states and national monuments we would lose based on state gross domestic product data. While the argument is not clear cut, the article is arguing the fact that our country is in a mountain of debt, and something should be done before it gets even more out of hand then it already is. The commonplace belief in this argument is the understood situation our country is in. We are in trillions of dollars worth of debt, and the fear of this number growing is a commonplace belief as well. The author is a writer for mainstreet.com, is creditable, and academic. He establishes ethos in the first paragraph by saying that even with Obama balancing the budget better then anything we've seen since 2001, the numbers will still grow every year. He aims towards a wide audience; anyone who lives in the United States is his intended audience.
I believe this article is successful in persuading the audience. Thinking of our debts in terms of losing states, made me realize how screwed we really are. We dug are own grave, and the time will come when we must live down in it and suffer the consequences.
The article is informing the public of our national debt, and what could happen if these countries decided to collect. They put it into perspective by stating which states and national monuments we would lose based on state gross domestic product data. While the argument is not clear cut, the article is arguing the fact that our country is in a mountain of debt, and something should be done before it gets even more out of hand then it already is. The commonplace belief in this argument is the understood situation our country is in. We are in trillions of dollars worth of debt, and the fear of this number growing is a commonplace belief as well. The author is a writer for mainstreet.com, is creditable, and academic. He establishes ethos in the first paragraph by saying that even with Obama balancing the budget better then anything we've seen since 2001, the numbers will still grow every year. He aims towards a wide audience; anyone who lives in the United States is his intended audience.
I believe this article is successful in persuading the audience. Thinking of our debts in terms of losing states, made me realize how screwed we really are. We dug are own grave, and the time will come when we must live down in it and suffer the consequences.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Goodbye Classic Monopoly
http://blog.games.yahoo.com/blog/396-new-monopoly-trades-money-and-dice-for-no-nonsense-computer/
In today's technology driven world, board game companies do not stand a chance against high-tech video games. Because of this, Hasbro revamped their classic Monopoly board game into a game run by an all seeing computer played with ATM cards. While this increases the appeal of the game, they sacrifice the experience of social entertainment, such as creating your own rules and alliances with other players, or rolling dice.
The commonplace beliefs in this article assume the reader is familiar with many different aspects of the game Monopoly, and the names of Hasbro's other games. The writer also uses references to Big Brother, which is clearly aimed at those who read 1984. The argument is extremely biased against the board game evolving to something based on a computer system of some sort. The rhetor does not have any credentials from what I can tell, however, he seems qualified to make this argument based on his knowledge of the different games. He establishes ethos by immediately opening with phrases that directly attacked this new product. The intended audience is anyone who has played the game Monopoly, and feels skeptical about computer domination. The source of this article is completely non academic. The writer uses mostly pathos as it tugs at your childhood's heartstrings in attempt to persuade you to disapprove of the new all-seeing Monopoly board game.
After reading the article, I found myself persuaded at the end. I am not fond of the idea of a computer running the Monopoly game the way the intend on executing it. It's unsettling thinking about an infrared camera keeping track of all the players movements. In my childhood, we would create our own rules and ways of playing, and now this can no longer be done.
In today's technology driven world, board game companies do not stand a chance against high-tech video games. Because of this, Hasbro revamped their classic Monopoly board game into a game run by an all seeing computer played with ATM cards. While this increases the appeal of the game, they sacrifice the experience of social entertainment, such as creating your own rules and alliances with other players, or rolling dice.
The commonplace beliefs in this article assume the reader is familiar with many different aspects of the game Monopoly, and the names of Hasbro's other games. The writer also uses references to Big Brother, which is clearly aimed at those who read 1984. The argument is extremely biased against the board game evolving to something based on a computer system of some sort. The rhetor does not have any credentials from what I can tell, however, he seems qualified to make this argument based on his knowledge of the different games. He establishes ethos by immediately opening with phrases that directly attacked this new product. The intended audience is anyone who has played the game Monopoly, and feels skeptical about computer domination. The source of this article is completely non academic. The writer uses mostly pathos as it tugs at your childhood's heartstrings in attempt to persuade you to disapprove of the new all-seeing Monopoly board game.
After reading the article, I found myself persuaded at the end. I am not fond of the idea of a computer running the Monopoly game the way the intend on executing it. It's unsettling thinking about an infrared camera keeping track of all the players movements. In my childhood, we would create our own rules and ways of playing, and now this can no longer be done.
Monday, February 7, 2011
"I'm the mascot of an evil corporation!"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Disney-Looking-Into-the-nytimes-2703573757.html?x=0&.v=1
The global-giant corporation of Walt Disney World, is now extending its greedy marketing and advertising hand to target newborns and their mothers. Their plan is to offer new mothers a onesie with different characters, special e-mail newsletters, and quite possibly free park tickets for their child's first Disney park experience. The argument being made in this article is not one that is obvious. The writer reports highlights other opinions and arguments, but ultimately is arguing against this act of commercialism. Her commonplace beliefs are the awareness of Disney and all that umbrellas, and understanding everything that happens in a hospital during the first few days of giving birth. The argument is biased towards mothers and their thoughts and emotions on this subject, and to all people who would love to see a decline in extensive marketing and advertising. Brooks Barnes, the author of the article, writes for the New York Times, which carries credibility in itself and is academic. The intended audience is families with newborns and relies heavily on pathos to persuade you.
For anyone who has seen The Simpson's Movie, that is where the quote in my title came from. Upon reading this article, I was rather enraged. Walt Disney is the world's largest, greediest, and most loved corporation. The fact that they are now stretching out just a little bit more to target children just minutes after birth, is completely appalling and disgusting. Mothers who have just given birth would like privacy and would not appreciate Disney pushing their merchandise on their newborn children.
The global-giant corporation of Walt Disney World, is now extending its greedy marketing and advertising hand to target newborns and their mothers. Their plan is to offer new mothers a onesie with different characters, special e-mail newsletters, and quite possibly free park tickets for their child's first Disney park experience. The argument being made in this article is not one that is obvious. The writer reports highlights other opinions and arguments, but ultimately is arguing against this act of commercialism. Her commonplace beliefs are the awareness of Disney and all that umbrellas, and understanding everything that happens in a hospital during the first few days of giving birth. The argument is biased towards mothers and their thoughts and emotions on this subject, and to all people who would love to see a decline in extensive marketing and advertising. Brooks Barnes, the author of the article, writes for the New York Times, which carries credibility in itself and is academic. The intended audience is families with newborns and relies heavily on pathos to persuade you.
For anyone who has seen The Simpson's Movie, that is where the quote in my title came from. Upon reading this article, I was rather enraged. Walt Disney is the world's largest, greediest, and most loved corporation. The fact that they are now stretching out just a little bit more to target children just minutes after birth, is completely appalling and disgusting. Mothers who have just given birth would like privacy and would not appreciate Disney pushing their merchandise on their newborn children.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Can Fry Street Rise Again?
http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_Magazine/2011/February/Can_Denton_Fry_Street_Rise_Again.aspx
A few years ago, Fry Street was the heart of Denton, full of people from all walks of life and thriving with family owned businesses. After the unfortunate demolition of the buildings, and the terrible arson of the Tomato, the vacant lot is now being prepped for apartment buildings and corporate owned restaurants. Many of Denton's inhabitants are severely upset that our once original Fry Street, will now be like every other place in America. The argument being made is on behalf of all the Dentonites that cringe at the thought of corporate take over, and would be considered a little biased as it is written by a former member of our community. Its a commonplace belief that our city is home to many hippies who detest anything mainstream or widespread, such as Starbucks, and watching our Fry Street home turn into this, is disheartening. The writer establishes ethos by talking about the family-feel environment that filled the street, and all the different cultures that prospered together. He's qualified to make this argument because he lived in Denton at the time of the funky-hearted era and his memories still hang in the air. The article is written for anyone willing to listen and absorb the belief that Fry Street will not have the same energy as it once had and because of that, Denton's community and overall feel will suffer from the lack of culture. The writer relies more on intrinsic proofs and pathos to make this argument, and is in fact successful because it pulls in pictures and stories of the families and students that are suffering at the hand of the corporations. I believe this argument is persuasive as it paints a picture of the happy, light-hearted fun place that Fry Street used to be, which will now become as generic as the grey bricks that will be used to build the apartment complex and shopping center. Unfortunately, no matter how persuasive this article may be, it is inevitable that soon we will be forced to stare into the eyes of corporate America, as the diminishing existence of our unique community continues.
A few years ago, Fry Street was the heart of Denton, full of people from all walks of life and thriving with family owned businesses. After the unfortunate demolition of the buildings, and the terrible arson of the Tomato, the vacant lot is now being prepped for apartment buildings and corporate owned restaurants. Many of Denton's inhabitants are severely upset that our once original Fry Street, will now be like every other place in America. The argument being made is on behalf of all the Dentonites that cringe at the thought of corporate take over, and would be considered a little biased as it is written by a former member of our community. Its a commonplace belief that our city is home to many hippies who detest anything mainstream or widespread, such as Starbucks, and watching our Fry Street home turn into this, is disheartening. The writer establishes ethos by talking about the family-feel environment that filled the street, and all the different cultures that prospered together. He's qualified to make this argument because he lived in Denton at the time of the funky-hearted era and his memories still hang in the air. The article is written for anyone willing to listen and absorb the belief that Fry Street will not have the same energy as it once had and because of that, Denton's community and overall feel will suffer from the lack of culture. The writer relies more on intrinsic proofs and pathos to make this argument, and is in fact successful because it pulls in pictures and stories of the families and students that are suffering at the hand of the corporations. I believe this argument is persuasive as it paints a picture of the happy, light-hearted fun place that Fry Street used to be, which will now become as generic as the grey bricks that will be used to build the apartment complex and shopping center. Unfortunately, no matter how persuasive this article may be, it is inevitable that soon we will be forced to stare into the eyes of corporate America, as the diminishing existence of our unique community continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)