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.
Monday, February 28, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)