Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Picking a fight with the Cheeseheads on what they know best.
I must say, Wisconsin in one of my favorite places in the world. I go there to visit family every few years, and I always look forward to the cheese curds. They are so good. Even when my grandparents come to visit from Wisconsin, they always bring cheese curds which happen to disappear in a matter of days, maybe hours. I found it interesting that a group of doctors is picking a fight with the dairy state about how bad cheese is for you. Yes, it is bad for you. But it doesn't mean they should just hop on a plane to Wisconsin and start blaming them for everything. It's just not done. I really liked how the first retort came not from the citizens of Wisconsin, but the makers of the cheesehead hats, Foamation Inc. Wisconsin is the dairy state. Of course they are going to produce cheese. There are cheese factories everywhere. (I even went on an extremely boring tour of one a few years ago.) Just because they produce cheese doesn't mean they are controlling the amount of cheese people eat.
This author seems to be on the cheesehead's side for this article. Mary Elizabeth Williams does present facts against cheese, but then argues them with even stronger points for cheese. She uses good sources, quoting them throughout the article. I really liked how she used the analogy of, "Cheese, of course, is to Wisconsin what suicide-inducing rain is to Seattle: a way of life." She also does a good job defending Wisconsin, pointing out that the French are known for their cheese as well, but aren't getting reprimanded or punished for it. Wisconsin knows that a lot of cheese isn't good for you. Mary also points out, " Taking aim at "cheese" is like dissing "bread." It doesn't recognize the distinctions of varieties; it doesn't allow for the different ways in which it can be created and consumed." She also thinks fried cheese curds sound quite amazing. And they are. I'm sorry, it's almost lunch and I'm quite hungry, which may have influenced my selection of this article. I really like the punniness of Williams' last memorable sentence, "And maybe next time the PCRM [The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine] wants to get people to cut the cheese, they can start with a campaign that doesn't stink."
Article: Is the Grim Reaper Gunning for Wisconsin's cheeseheads? by Mary Elizabeth Williams
This author seems to be on the cheesehead's side for this article. Mary Elizabeth Williams does present facts against cheese, but then argues them with even stronger points for cheese. She uses good sources, quoting them throughout the article. I really liked how she used the analogy of, "Cheese, of course, is to Wisconsin what suicide-inducing rain is to Seattle: a way of life." She also does a good job defending Wisconsin, pointing out that the French are known for their cheese as well, but aren't getting reprimanded or punished for it. Wisconsin knows that a lot of cheese isn't good for you. Mary also points out, " Taking aim at "cheese" is like dissing "bread." It doesn't recognize the distinctions of varieties; it doesn't allow for the different ways in which it can be created and consumed." She also thinks fried cheese curds sound quite amazing. And they are. I'm sorry, it's almost lunch and I'm quite hungry, which may have influenced my selection of this article. I really like the punniness of Williams' last memorable sentence, "And maybe next time the PCRM [The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine] wants to get people to cut the cheese, they can start with a campaign that doesn't stink."
I'm just gonna leave this here for your enjoyment. These are fried cheese curds, kinda like mozzarella sticks, but waaaaay better.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Protesting Nudists in California
First off, after reading the article title my immediate thought was, "What the heck are these guys thinking?" These nudists were protesting by being naked this past Saturday in a district in California known for its nudists. I think that public nudity is just plain offensive. Sure, I agree with their message of how everyone should accept their body no matter what they look like. But really? There are ways of doing this without putting citizens at risk of seeing things they don't want to see. The organizer says that the people there believe "there is nothing indecent or offensive about the human body," yet towards the end of the article, a mother and her daughter passing by to see a children's movie did not like what they saw. I agree with the mother when she says that, "when you're at the corner of a kids' event...you should cover up a little." The nudists were questioning why they should have to go to a special resort. I think it's not so much about making them feel bad, but more along the lines of giving the people the option to be around naked people.
The authors of this article (by authors I mean more than one person wrote this article because it says that it's "by Associated Press") seemed to be neutral to the article; it didn't seem as if they had much of an argument. At the start of the article, their diction made it seem as though nudists in California was a common thing, though they might know it isn't common in other places. I think that because it was written by more than one person, there might have been different opinions involved, making this article serve more for the purpose of informing rather than persuading. The first half defended the nudists, using persuasion method of interviewing them. That way, his audience can get to know individuals as opposed to just the nudists as a whole. They obviously think it is not a big deal to be naked in public. It seems as though the audience will understand the point of view of the nudists, and perhaps agree with them. Then, towards the end of the article, the authors change the angle a bit and make their audience think about its effect on families and children when they interview a mother and child. A 27-year-old mother was bringing her 7-year-old daughter to the movies and they happened to pass the protesting nudists. The authors then leave the audience with the child's negative opinion of the nudists as she says that they should put clothes on.
Article: San Francisco protesters: No nudes is bad news by Associated Press
Click here for the article
The authors of this article (by authors I mean more than one person wrote this article because it says that it's "by Associated Press") seemed to be neutral to the article; it didn't seem as if they had much of an argument. At the start of the article, their diction made it seem as though nudists in California was a common thing, though they might know it isn't common in other places. I think that because it was written by more than one person, there might have been different opinions involved, making this article serve more for the purpose of informing rather than persuading. The first half defended the nudists, using persuasion method of interviewing them. That way, his audience can get to know individuals as opposed to just the nudists as a whole. They obviously think it is not a big deal to be naked in public. It seems as though the audience will understand the point of view of the nudists, and perhaps agree with them. Then, towards the end of the article, the authors change the angle a bit and make their audience think about its effect on families and children when they interview a mother and child. A 27-year-old mother was bringing her 7-year-old daughter to the movies and they happened to pass the protesting nudists. The authors then leave the audience with the child's negative opinion of the nudists as she says that they should put clothes on.
Article: San Francisco protesters: No nudes is bad news by Associated Press
Click here for the article
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Spongebob vs. Caillou
Personally, after reading this article, I definitely agree with the author's point of view. If I was a little kid, I'd definitely choose Spongebob over Caillou any day. Caillou is, simply put, boring. But that's not the point. The point is, Spongebob is allegedly damaging the brains of little children. I think any type of television will hinder one's brain. Like mom always said, "TV turns your brain into mush." However, I don't think Spongebob is more likely to "have immediate impact on a child's neurological function" then say, MTV. This article claims that there have been studies at the University of Virginia that came to the conclusion that Caillou was better for children than Spongebob when it comes to "impairment in their executive function" because it was slow-paced. I think Spongebob will teach children that it is okay to be weird and to encourage them to be themselves.
The author of this article understands her audience very well. Knowing her subject, Spongebob and Caillou, helped her form the structured yet casual use of words. She realized that people most likely to read her article were ones that have seen or at least heard of Spongebob, and therefore influenced her to speak more freely. Kind of like talking to a friend. After reading the title, "Go ahead, Spongebob, rot my kids' brains" it immediately tells the reader that Spongebob is not good for children, yet it won't stop her and her family from watching the show. That alone may attract readers to reading the article; she takes a familiar and quite popular character and puts him in a negative and positive light. She convinces her audience of her point of view using facts, like the study from the University of Virginia, and using her personal experience. She also uses a rhetorical question, "...but have these researchers considered that [Caillou will] also drive an otherwise rational parent to throw her television out the window?" Overall, the author's argument is very believable and well-supported.
Article: "Go ahead Spongebob, rot my kids' brains" by Mary Elizabeth Williams
Click here for the link
The author of this article understands her audience very well. Knowing her subject, Spongebob and Caillou, helped her form the structured yet casual use of words. She realized that people most likely to read her article were ones that have seen or at least heard of Spongebob, and therefore influenced her to speak more freely. Kind of like talking to a friend. After reading the title, "Go ahead, Spongebob, rot my kids' brains" it immediately tells the reader that Spongebob is not good for children, yet it won't stop her and her family from watching the show. That alone may attract readers to reading the article; she takes a familiar and quite popular character and puts him in a negative and positive light. She convinces her audience of her point of view using facts, like the study from the University of Virginia, and using her personal experience. She also uses a rhetorical question, "...but have these researchers considered that [Caillou will] also drive an otherwise rational parent to throw her television out the window?" Overall, the author's argument is very believable and well-supported.
Article: "Go ahead Spongebob, rot my kids' brains" by Mary Elizabeth Williams
Click here for the link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)