Nuclear Waste

Nuclear Waste is an essay by Richard A. Muller about the proper way to dispose of nuclear waste. I honestly do not see one clear thesis for the author to stick to in the article. He writes as if he has no real opinion about the subject, and he is just commenting on something he heard.
The introduction to the essay is not an attention getter but it does not hurt the article as much as the author’s confused sounding voice. Every example Muller gives he displaces it himself leaving the reader to try to guess where his stance is on the situation. He uses a lot of logos to support his many arguments i.e. a lot of statistics but they do not help his argument because he does not stick to any one argument.
The conclusion is interesting because he makes it sound as if he does not care about what he is writing about at all; not in a bad way but more like saying why worry about it. This is amusing and frustrating to me. It is amusing because it makes the rest of the article make sense; it helps me understand why he has no one stance. It is frustrating because he waits until the end to make his point which goes against everything I was taught as a writer.
Overall the article was a bit confusing and I believe that it is a bad idea to try and persuade someone to agree with you by sounding as if you don’t agree with yourself.

Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together In the Cafeteria

Beverly Daniel Tatum wrote the article Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together In The Cafeteria as a way to look at why black kids seem to attract each other. Tatum points out that as young children kids do not care about race but more about just playing and having fun, but when they get older the mind set changes. She says one thing that happens is puberty; at this time people are trying to figure out who they are, and the reason that black kids think of themselves in terms of race is because society does.
Tatum uses her son as an example saying that because he is ten years old society focuses on the fact that he is tall for a ten year old but as he gets older he will be seen as the big black guy not the tall ten year old. She also talks about the events that make the person have to acknowledge their race like being the only black kid in the honors class.
Speaking as a black person I can honestly say I agree with Tatum and her theories. Most times as a child I had no problem being around a lot of white children but as I got older I was told in many ways that I should want to be around more black people. I realize that as the race issue became clearer to me it was not race its self that brought me closer to black people but the understanding that other black people had of my situation. I could not go to my white friends and relate to them about little things like hair or clothes much less bigger issues like racism.
Tatum’s article is a great look into why the black kids are gathering so to speak and though it may not invoke change it does shine a light onto a much overlooked situation.

The Power of Audience

As far as persuasive writings go The Power of Audience by Steven Levy was not my favorite. The thesis was clearly stated: students work better for an audience other than the teacher, but he does not state the thesis in the beginning. You read the article oblivious to the point until the third page. Once he states his thesis he begins to give supporting evidence; he says that students need the motivation of the audience in order to create good work which in turn will help them learn better in the end. Though this is a very practical observation it is circumstantial and nowhere in his article does he prove this is true for every student. Instead of making strong arguments for his thesis he makes generalizations.
The introduction was not what I would call good at all; it did not grab my attention or make me want to continue reading at all. Also there was no indication as to what the article is about in the beginning; he dives head first into a story and then it takes him three pages to state his point. I understand that there is no writing rules against his technique but imagine reading a book and not understanding the purpose until the middle or end you would become frustrated and bored. His conclusion is just as bad as his intro. The conclusion is supposed to repeat the thesis and drive the point home and he does not do this. He restates his thesis but he does it once and then goes on to discussing Expeditionary Learning Schools.
Levy does not really use ethos, pathos, or logos. His evidence is logical in a since that you can say that if the students have an audience they will work harder and learn more, it’s conceivable, but it is not logical in the since that this may not apply to every person. I am glad that he does not try to appeal to the reader’s emotions because I do not think that emotions should drive your decision making. Also since the article is about children it holds a certain emotional appeal already so for him to do any more would be over doing it.
Overall I can honestly say that this article does not persuade me to agree with Levy. If he would have had more compelling evidence and did not generalize his information he may have been more persuasive.

Why We Crave Horror Movies

Stephen King’s Why We Crave Horror Movies is an interesting article. In the article he talks about the reasons people like horror movies.
King starts by saying “I think that we’re all mentally ill; those of us outside the asylums only hide it a little better…” This introduction is great because it compels the reader to keep reading; sort of like the reader says what the heck is he talking about and they have to read in order to find out.
Though I understand his point I honestly do not see a clearly stated thesis. He does not give any one reason why people like horror movies, but instead he uses his supporting evidence as a list of different reasons. The evidence he uses are things that can be proven in everyday life but he does not have any solid reason. As far as his mentioning everyone being mentally ill there is no real evidence to support that either; it is an interesting point to make but there is no evidence to support it.
I felt like his voice was almost comedic like and I liked the feel it brought to the essay. He shares his views and ideas in a voice that lets the reader know not to take him too seriously, which would be important when he says things like we are all mentally ill.
I really did not see this as an persuasive essay but I thought it was a interesting read.

Life is Precious or It’s Not

The article Life is Precious by Barbara Kingsolver is about the columbine shootings and what she believes caused it to happen. Her thesis states that the violent behavior in the media and in society is what prompted the boys to do the shootings.
Though she does not give solid evidence or statistical information she does point out things in our society that we all see. She mentions the violent music, video games, movies, and even the political choices made. She talks about how killing is used as a form of punishment and as a way to get justice. Barbara calls death permanent which explains why it is appealing to society; if the problem can no longer pose a threat then it is a good thing.
All of what Barbara says can be seen in society but her article still lacks logos. Due to the subject it automatically appeals to a person’s emotions. The lack of logos does not hurt her argument in my opinion; her topic in many ways speaks for its self. It’s almost as if her examples were actually supported by the topic; the reason the evidence appears to be true is because of the shooting.
The intro is not the most attention getting intro but her conclusion is strong and to the point. She says that when we remove all of the violent things from society then we will be better off and even though this sounds extreme she says death is extreme. I can truly see how what she says is true in society and because of what I know about society I think that the article is very true.

Crack and the Box

“Crack and the Box” by Pete Hamill was a bad example of a persuasive argument. Hamill does provide a clear thesis; television is to blame for drug use. “I also remembered when I was a boy in the forties and early fifties, and drugs were a minor sideshow, a kind of dark little rumor. And there was one major difference between that time and this: television”. Throughout the article he compares his generation’s conditions and these generations’ conditions and comes to the conclusion that the only difference is television.
Though his thesis is clearly stated it is not accurately supported. He gives overly exaggerated facts or spins the truth to fit his situation. “We had unemployment then; illiteracy, poor living conditions, racism, governmental stupidity, a gap between rich and poor. We didn't have the all-consuming presence of television in our lives. Now two generations of Americans have grown up with television from their earliest moments of consciousness. Those same American generations are afflicted by the pox of drug addiction.” There is some truth to his statement, there is a lot not being said as well. He does not mention that drug use spiked not only with television usage but with wars as well, or that the drugs that the earlier generations were addicted to were provided by our government. “Television, like drugs, dominates the lives of its addicts. And though some lonely Americans leave their sets on without watching them, using them as electronic companions, television usually absorbs its viewers the way drugs absorb their users. Viewers can't work or play while watching television; they can't read; they can't be out on the streets, falling in love with the wrong people, learning how to quarrel and compromise with other human beings. In short they are asocial. So are drug addicts.” Once again there is some truth in the statement, but he is speaking as if television watches are watching television and doing nothing else. As we all can see four hours of television does not disrupt anyone’s life. Another thing he does not bring up is that television has become a way of socializing in public; often conversations are held over what is on television and even strangers have gotten to know one another through conversation about television. So even though one does not socialize during television watching does not make them asocial.
Hamill does not use emotional appeal in his article which I believe is a good thing. If he was to try to appeal to the reader’s emotions and use the facts he uses it would have sounded like he was begging for the reader’s approval. He has no real credibility in my opinion; all he uses to support his thesis are facts that are in many ways unrelated. If his facts were not so farfetched he could have made a good point but all of his evidence seems to be nothing but word play.

As They Say, Drugs Kill

“As They Say, Drugs Kill” by Laura Rowley is an article that tries to persuade people not to do drugs because they can kill you. Her thesis is made clear from the beginning of the essay, and is supported throughout the essay. Throughout the essay Rowley gives evidence that drug use is dangerous by talking about her personal experience. She speaks of her personal experience at a party where someone dies after taking “shrooms”. She recounted how traumatic the experience was and how it was an eye opener for her.
Even though her thesis of not using drugs because they can kill is a valid point and holds true to many situations I feel that her support was not strong enough. Though she gave a real life experience her particular experience could be seen almost as an unfortunate mishap meaning that it is unheard of for someone to die from “shrooms”. If you were to take the time to look up the effects of “shrooms” you would see that the only time death has occurred is when someone mistakes a poisonous mushroom for the one used for drugs. Also in the article it was never confirmed that his death was directly related to the mushrooms; all that is said is he died while taking mushrooms. I understand that it would be most logical to blame the mushrooms, but if he had been eating broccoli at the time would we automatically think that’s what killed him.
Her examples contain fact in a since that it is a real life experience, but it has no real facts that support what she is saying in my opinion. There is a lot of emotional appeal in her example. The way she describes the events appeals to the emotions, and she even goes as far to talk about how someone at the party had watched their father die of a heart attack and how this was bringing back bad memories for him. I think that because there are no real facts supporting her thesis that her emotional appeal is ineffective. Speaking for myself I know it’s hard to watch any one die, but since that is true in any case if she cannot prove he died from drug use then this story does not properly support her thesis.
Rowley’s intro is very effective in capturing the reader, but her conclusion is just like the rest of her article; based on emotion and holds no real value. The reason I say her conclusion has no real value is because in her conclusion she talks about how no one seemed to learn from the young man’s death, but since she has no proof that he died from the mushrooms there really is no lesson to learn. If she had facts to support the correlation of his drug use and his death she would have a more valid point.
As I said in the beginning her thesis is a valid thesis; people should not use drugs, but her reasons do not support the thesis well enough to make this article persuasive.

Three Days to See

Helen Keller’s Three Days to See was a difficult reading for me to analyze as far as persuasive writings go. I find it hard to say yes or no to a writing that is so hard to relate to and so emotional. I can honestly say that her point/thesis is clear from the beginning: people take their senses, primarily sight, for granted. She even states “I have often thought it would be a blessing if each human being were stricken blind and deaf for a few days at some time during his early adult life. Darkness would make him more appreciative of sight; silence would teach him the joys of sound”. Throughout the essay she talks about how it would be a blessing for her to see, and what she would do if she had her sight. She gave great details, but as someone who can see I could not relate to her I could only feel sorry for her.
Keller gave evidence to support her thesis in the article. She spoke of her friend who went hiking and claimed she saw nothing special. Helen then asked, “How was it possible…to walk for an hour through the woods and see nothing worthy of note?” This situation is used to prove that people with sight do not appreciate it, “the seeing see little.” In the rest of the writing her evidence is really just a hypothetical situation that she gives to show how much she would appreciate the “gift of sight”.
The article has no logical or ethical evidence to support the thesis; it is purely based on emotions. Due to whom she is, a blind woman, there is already an emotional appeal to her article. Except for one story she tells in the article all of her examples are appealing to the emotions and hold no real value as far as evidence goes. If there were any real evidence that proves all people should experience blindness stated in the article it would have been a more compelling read, but there is none just emotional appeals.
Her introduction is an attention getter, but not in a good way. She starts with “I have often thought it would be a blessing if each human being were stricken blind and deaf for a few days at some time during his early adult life. Darkness would make him more appreciative of sight; silence would teach him the joys of sound.” When I read this I was captured, but not in a “this sounds interesting sort of way” but more like a “what the hell is she talking about”. Honestly if I did not have to finish the reading I wouldn’t have because a sentence like that is ridiculous to me. I get her point, but it does not sound like she is going to persuade me of anything; it sounds more like she is bitter about her situation. Unlike her introduction her conclusion was not a complete turn off for me. She still appeals to the emotions, but she does not sound bitter at all. She is simply telling the people that can see to not take their sight for granted, or any of their senses.
Although the article probably does its job and convinces people not to take their senses for granted I think that the tactic is unfair. It is hard to say some one is right or wrong when you feel sorry for them.

Agonism in the Academy:

I truly enjoyed reading Deborah Tannen’s article, Agonism in the Academy. From the beginning I was interested in what she had to say because she started with a personal experience. Though her opening is not as exciting as an action movie it still gains my attention because human curiosity automatically makes me want to know what is going to happen to her. I feel as if she is talking to me instead of at me; a conversation instead of a lecture.
Though her thesis is not mentioned in the first paragraph she does clearly state it later on; “I remain convinced that agonism is endemic in academe -- and bad for it.” She defines agonism through the words the cultural linguist Walter Ong; he defines as "programmed contentiousness" or "ceremonial combat." She goes on to say that “The way we train our students, conduct our classes and our research, and exchange ideas at meetings and in print are all driven by our ideological assumption that intellectual inquiry is a metaphorical battle. Following from that is a second assumption, that the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize, find fault, and attack.” From reading this I came to understand that she was saying that students were being taught to automatically argue with someone else’s work instead of finding the true meaning of it, or somehow finding fault in some one else’s point of view makes them smarter.
She supports her argument all throughout the article. She talks about the work students are assigned saying “We assign scholarly work for them to read, then invite them to tear it apart.” She also points out that often “academic rewards are given to the students who learn to tear down others work” and she gave the example of teachers observing students at colloquia, a meeting to trade ideas, by saying “And the professors didn't admire students who asked "a nice little supportive question," as one put it -- they valued “tough and challenging questions.” Another point she made is that often times when there is such a hostile environment in a class room there is limited class participation. I found that to be true from my own experience. Even in our English class this problem is evident. Every class the same students present their arguments while most of the others sit around and do nothing. Our class even has one student who refuses to agree with any article we read he constantly looks for the negative in every situation. I can truly see that her points are valid just from this class alone.
At the end of the article she proposes that we teach students to look for strengths in readings instead of arguments. She gave plenty of examples from other authors like Don McCormick and Michael Kahn who said “critical thinking can be taught better if we use the metaphor of a barn raising, instead of that of a boxing match. We should think of "a group of builders constructing a building, or a group of artists fabricating a creation together.” They also say “Living, working, and thinking in ways shaped by the battle metaphor produces an atmosphere of animosity that poisons our relations with each other at the same time that it corrupts the integrity of our research. Not only is the agonistic culture of academe not the best path to truth and knowledge, but it also is corrosive to the human spirit.” She closes out the artilcle saying “Refocusing our attention in that way is the greatest gain in store if we can move beyond critique in its narrow sense. We would learn more from each other, be heard more clearly by others, attract more varied talents to the scholarly life, and restore a measure of humanity to ourselves, our endeavor, and the academic world we inhabit.”
I agree with this article fully. I can honestly say that my ability to agree with her came mostly from having experienced this in my everyday life as a student, and not from her “compelling” arguments. She does stick to her thesis throughout the article and her conclusion does not reiterate her point, but it does inspire change from her audience.

Don't Blame the Eater

After reading David Zinczenko’s Don’t Blame the Eater, an article written about the teenagers suing McDonald’s for making them fat, I have come to realize that people should take responsibility for their own actions. At the beginning of the article he states that these girls suing McDonald’s is like “middle-aged men suing Porsche for making them get speeding tickets”. This is a statement I totally agree with. It is not the service provider’s job to prevent the “abuse” of a product it is all up to the individual.
“Whatever happened to personal responsibility?” this was the question Zinczenko asked in the beginning of his article, which I found to be very appropriate for the situation, but in the next line he speaks of the sympathy he has for these girls and others like them. He goes on to tell us that he was once like these girls, “Lunch and dinner, for me, was a daily choice between McDonald's, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken or Pizza Hut. Then as now, these were the only available options for an American kid to get an affordable meal. By age 15, I had packed 212 pounds of torpid teenage tallow on my once lanky 5-foot-10 frame.” I found it interesting that he says it’s the responsibility of the “eater” to eat these items every day, yet he says that fast food is there only option. If fast food is truly the only option how can they take responsibility for their condition? Would it not then fall on the industry to produce more healthy items for the people with no choice? Due to the fact that I grew up in a single parent home I can honestly say that fast food is not the only option for teenagers. Yes it is the most convenient, but as long as your parents go grocery shopping there are other options.
While I truly believe that it is the job of the individual to determine what and where to eat, I also believe that it would be more beneficial to society if the fast food industry provided the nutritional information on the food they are serving. In the present time there is more nutritional information being provided, and once again people are still choosing to eat at these places. Now there is no excuse if a person gains wait or becomes unhealthy from fast food there is no one to blame but themselves.
Another issue brought up in the article is childhood diabetes and obesity. “Before 1994, diabetes in children was generally caused by a genetic disorder -- only about 5 percent of childhood cases were obesity-related, or Type 2, diabetes. Today, according to the National Institutes of Health, Type 2 diabetes accounts for at least 30 percent of all new childhood cases of diabetes in this country.” In this case it is not just the eater who is the blame but also the parents. I understand that it is a lot easier to pick up food on the way home after a long day of work than it is to cook, but if your child is developing life threatening diseases is it not better in the long run to cook a healthy meal. Even if your child does not develop any diseases right away you have still taught them that fast food is okay to have every day which leads to health problems in the future.
I have also heard about price being a factor in deciding to eat fast food. Yes it is cheaper to eat off of a dollar menu, but if you develop health problems and you are forced to pay insurance and medical bills how much did you save? To buy vegetables and bake your meats may seem like the expensive time consuming way to go but at the end of the day I think your life is worth it.