TOW #24 "Animal Cruelty or the Price of Dinner?" by Nicholas Kristof

In Kristof's article, "Animal Cruelty or the Price of Dinner?" he eloquently makes an argument against the poultry industry. He begins with an anecdote about a man who was arrested in Florida for dangling his dog upside-down out of a twelve story window. This anecdote is really powerful, because he then calls attention to the nine billion chickens that will be slaughtered in the US this year by being dangling upside-down over conveyer belts. As I am a vegetarian, it is probably not surprising that I agree very strongly with his opinion. He then moves into discussing why poultry farming in its very nature is animal abuse and cites several experts, ranging from farmers to people on the corporate end of the operation. He also uses a quotation from  Leah Garces, from the organization Compassion in World Farming. He quote Garces, "It is inhumane to breed a bird with a huge breast that its legs can barely support." This expert opinion in particular really changes his argument, in that it exemplifies his stance well. He does not say anything about vegetarianism or veganism in his writing- and although I do believe he would support both of these dietary styles as a means of improvement- what he is really proposing is for the means of the poultry industry to change. Kristof praises Whole Foods for proposing to sell chicken with more traditional genetics to avoid the issue that Garces illuminates. Although this change has not been implemented yet, I believe that once it is, people will begin to fulfill the author's vision to a much greater extent. Hopefully, if people continue to demand this, other food suppliers will have to follow the example Whole Foods will set. However, one could argue that this is not something that could be feasibly implemented due to the fact that a change in genetics could take a lot of time, cost money to companies and consumers, and also potentially preventing their being enough supply to meet demand. If I was rewriting this argument, I would try to address these concerns and also add more of an emotional appeal.

I accessed this article through the NY Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/animal-cruelty-or-the-price-of-dinner.html?ref=opinion

TOW #23 Banksy's Work on the West Bank Barrier

In a series of work that Banksy did on the West Bank Wall, he communicated his strong opposition towards the massive barrier. In some statements he released regarding his opinion towards the West Bank Wall, he declared that "It essentially turns Palestine into the world’s largest open-air prison".  In this regard, I have to agree with Banksy, considering not only the wall itself but also the tragic way of life that the people constrained by it are forced to experience. The particular mural I decided to interpret struck me as a really powerful image, as it depicts two young children with sand pails and shovels, completely cut off from the ocean that is shown coming through cracks on the wall. I think this is really representative of the restrictive nature of the wall, and also who the wall is really hurting- not the violent extremists that it was meant to protect from, but rather innocent people and children. If I could create my own version, I would make it a series to really show the wide variety of people who are seemingly punished by the wall. The biggest 'source' that Banksy's work needs to accomplish its intended purpose is really just its very backdrop, the wall itself. The massive barrier, three times the height of the Berlin wall, proves his point for him. While as a Jewish-American it is my natural tendency to favor Israel, I do not think it is ethical to use such aggressive means. I think that Banksy would be even more outraged with what is going on today, considering that he created this work around 2003 and little has changed since. Additionally, in the past year the prime minister of Israel proclaimed that he would not be willing to try to reach compromise with Palestinians through the implementation of two state solution. This makes the situation seem even more bleak for the oppressed people that Banksy was trying to advocate for over a decade ago. Even though I agree with what the artist is trying to communicate, I can also recognize the validity in the opposing argument. Israel and Palestine have a troubled history, with a great deal of violence afflicted on each side by the other. Therefore, for the protection of both Israelis and Palestinians, having some kind of barrier certainly makes sense due to the harmful extremists on both sides.  

TOW #22 "Why Slaves' Graves Matter" by Sandra Arnold

The Arnold's central claim is that, "Our country should explore ways to preserve the public memory of enslaved Americans," in order to contribute to healing, help understanding and potentially lead to reconciliation. I completely agree with the statements that Arnold's makes, especially after reading the piece and seeing all of the sound and convincing evidence that she includes in the piece. The sources that she includes, such as statistics from various burial grounds and communities make her piece much stronger and really back up what she is trying to communicate. In addition, the argument is as well supported as it is well written. The author uses inductive structure to make a really strong point, beginning with smaller conclusions about all of the positives that slaves' graves could contribute to, and ends by tying all of these smaller conclusions into one larger concept that comprises her central claim. Arnold also utilizes the classical model of oration for the most part, but embellishes with narrative and actually does not really have much of a counter argument section. However, if someone was trying to refute Arnold's claim, they could definitely suggest that stronger action be taken in order to ensure remembrance, far beyond allocated land with the purpose of burial ground preservation. One could argue that having historical societies put in place, as well as upping the amount of education on this subject in schools would be more effective. Even so, Arnold may not disagree with these notions. Although she focuses on the importance of slaves' having proper commemorative graves, from other statements that she makes it is evident that she would certainly not protest anything that would lead to communities being more educated on slavery and the fundamental impact that slavery had on our modern society. Even though the country's level of education on this subject is far from ideal, more and more steps are being taken to make the author's vision a reality. We fulfill this vision more and more, as we begin to see ex slaves less and less as unfamiliar, and more and more as our ancestors.

I found this piece digitally on the NY Times site: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/why-slaves-graves-matter.html?ref=opinion

TOW #21 "The Bernie Sanders Revolution" by The NY Times Editorial Board

In this article, the NY Times Editorial Staff accesses the validity in Bernie Sander's most frequently used word in his campaigning, "revolution." The Times Editorial staff argues that Sanders will not be able to actually induce a revolution, but rather an evolution at best. As a very big Sanders supporter, I can definitely think of some examples that would argue against this particular take on the situation. Sanders has a great deal of experience and has made some enormous strides towards progress during the fifty plus years that he has played an active role in politics. He also has a large, passionate group of supporters willing to do whatever it takes to implement his bold ideas. However, I think I have to agree with the Editorial Staff overall in that I do think Sanders will be able to create a great deal of change, just not necessarily in an immediate sense. A revolution is usually defined as a dramatic 180 degree turn which results in a change in direction of sorts. I think that while a change is inevitable, and a new direction for American would surely occur if he became President, it would take a lot of time and effort for his ideas to be implemented. Even though it would be really helpful to have such a liberal person overseeing the executive branch of government, there would still be some major disputes with the other various branches of government. A really strong example that the author provides regarding how we fulfill the author’s vision today is some of the setbacks that Barak Obama faced during his presidency. Although he certainly had many great ideas and programs, many of these plans were put on pause by the Senate, preventing him from being able to implement, them. He uses many figures that outline the percent of the House and Senate that are republican, in addition to drawing statements from websites who campaign for and against Sanders. This contributes to the argument in that it seems much more logical, and gives a more well-rounded take on the situation. If I were to rewrite this argument, I would want to add even more of these sources earlier on. Considering how strongly this argument makes its claim, it is most likely safe to say that the author does not believe any president could make a revolution happen overnight. I think we can assume that Trump is no more likely to "make America great again," than Sander is to spark a revolution.

TOW #20 "What If Animals Tested on Humans?" by PETA

This visual text, published by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) really caught my attention because of the strong claim it's making and the strong visual means it uses to make this claim. Overall, I do agree with the author's claim in that I believe animal testing for cosmetic purposes is unethical. However, the portion of the add that states that the add is only against cosmetic testing isn't emphasized at all so it seems as though it is against all animal testing. Although I am definitely a huge animal lover, I do think that for scientific and medical reasons some animal testing should be allowed. So many incredible scientific discoveries have come from animal testing, and any of these advancements and innovations could be used to challenge the author's position. Additionally,  because the advertisement doesn't qualify exactly what "cosmetic" pertains to, someone could easily talk about skin treatment and things along those lines that seem much more essential, rather than talking about the luxury lipstick and mascara that people may usually think of.

PETA usually caters to a very extreme group of people, so my guess as to why the fact that this advertisement deemphasizes the fact that it is just about cosmetic testing was probably very strategic. PETA supporters often argue against eating animals and animal byproducts, animal testing, animal exploitation, and very strong against animals being used for fur. However, with advertisements such as this one, PETA is not merely trying to gain the support of people who already avidly support their cause. I think that this advertisement does a really good job in being relatable, but also playing off of something surreal in order to make sure it catches the eye. Most people grow up with this concept of terrifying aliens abducting humans and doing horrible things to them due to the way aliens are portrayed in most movies and television shows. So, this concept is somewhat familiar. Yet, this advertisement is definitely one that is hard to miss due to the juxtaposition of color and form, plus the giant green alien in the back. I think the sense of flashiness that is created by this strong composition is definitely something I would choose to incorporate if I was making my own visual text similar to this. Also the add, which was originally featured in a Bollywood magazine, featured a famous actress which would also greatly help its success.

TOW #19 "Review: ‘Full House’ Sequel Is a Forced March Down Memory Lane" by James Poniewozik

In his review of the recently premiered "Fuller House"( A"Full House" sequel) James Poniewozik shares a very strong opinion arguing that the Netflix series could at best be called "not good" due to the its lack of originality, betrayal of the original show, and cringe worthy content. He humorously compares, "To make a “Full House” sequel “good” — less formulaic, more innovative — would be like baking an artisanal, organic Hostess CupCake: You could do it, it might be delicious, but it would be a betrayal of the product." (para. 1). Although I found the pilot of the show to be quite amusing, I have to agree with Poniewozik. There isn't much cause However, one could certainly argue that there is something good about the series considering that it has gained lots of attention and made the Netflix "popular page" within only a few hours. Additionally, it could also be said that the series was not made with the intention of reinventing "Full House," but actually allowing viewers of the show to reminiscence. Since the audience of the original show is probably 'all grown up' at this point, there is definitely something positive about the fact that the new show is something they can watch with their families and share a part of their childhood. Yet, there is something rather conflicting about this concept because it would seemingly be much easier, and much more accurate, for "Full House" lovers to just share the original series with their families instead of the newer one. Considering that much of the content on "Fuller House" alludes to the original, there is definitely some fallacy to be accounted for with this argument.

Poniewozik's apparent frustration is completely valid in the midst of a generation of television that seems to plagued with spinoff after spinoff after spinoff. Seldom is it that a televsion show, or even movie, of this nature can even be compared in success and quality to the original. This would be an interesting topic to get into, especially if it involved accounting in why it is so difficult for a decent sequel to be produced from such a popular original. Assuming that the author would feel similarly about other seemingly unnecessary sequels, I doubt he would be a fan of the next Harry Potter movie, not to mention the other many sequels coming out this year.

TOW #18 "Why Do We Teach Girls That It’s Cute to Be Scared?" by Caroline Paul

This week I was absolutely wowed by "Why Do We Teach Girls That It’s Cute to Be Scared?" by writer and firefighter, Caroline Paul. Although Paul does not have an extensive collection of published work, her experiences as one of the first female firefighters for the San Francisco Fire Department and her New York Times publication led me to regard her as a highly credible author. In her piece, she shares her personal experience in a convincing narrative format that left me pondering the gender stereotypes that are ingrained into us by society from the time we are too young to even realize it. I walked away from this article with a completely new appreciation for all of the times that my Mom and Dad told me to "quit being damsel in distress" when I got stuck in a tree or on top of the monkey bars. However, the reliability of the piece is not exclusive to girls who were raised by parents who encouraged them to face problems on their own but also the "10 year old girls who were taught it was cute to screech 'I'm too scared'" (para. 14).  Through her use of anecdotes, first-person plural pronouns, and statistics from the Journal of Psychology, Paul creates a logical, yet emotionally appealing, argument disagreeing with the accepted norms that teachers girl to be delicate instead of taking risks.

Paul begins by sharing several of her more daring feats as a female firefighter: "I’ve pulled a bloated body from the bay, performed CPR on a baby and crawled down countless smoky hallways," (para. 1) and ends her piece with what she believes allowed her to accomplish these incredible things: " I put my fear where it belonged, behind my feelings of focus, confidence and courage," (para. 15). These examples make her argument much stronger and also evoke feelings of admiration, as these feats are very impressive to begin with considering that she literally saved lives. Since her purpose is to not only draw attention to this negative stereotyping but also to get her audience to do something about it, this is really effective. She also repeats the word "we" over and over again which helps her piece feel very relatable and also make it seem like something the audience should really take an interest in. Additionally, the statements Paul utilizes from the Journal of Psychology help bring a strong logical appeal into a very emotionally based argument. The combination of devices helps her really achieve her purpose, as does the occasion in which the text was written. In an era of great social change, it is crucial that strong female role models step away from social norms and show the potential in all.

I accessed this article through the NY Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/why-do-we-teach-girls-that-its-cute-to-be-scared.html?ref=opinion