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