TOW #20 - article: "President Trump Breaks a Promise on Transgender Rights"

            In the article “President Trump Breaks a Promise on Transgender Rights” by the Editorial Board of the New York Times, the recent decision of Donald Trump is criticized and put under a negative light. His new decision to leave it up to the states to decide transgender rights is causing a lot of controversy and is upsetting a lot of people. The author feels as if this is a step in the wrong direction to all the achievement America has made with LGBTQ rights.

            The audience is the general educated public. The author clearly has an urgent tone and wants the audience to know that they believe the decision to give the power to the states is not a good one and many people could soon begin to lose their rights. The author also discusses the lying mechanism of Trump and how he said he would protect LGBT rights and is now making a hypocritical decision. At the end of the article, it is said that it is now up to us, the people, to make a positive change in this movement and keep everyone in America safe and under fair and equal rule.

            I agree with the author’s viewpoints. I am also in agreement that Trump is not standing by the words he spoke during his campaign and he is being hypocritical. I also think that it is very important for everyone to have equal rights and for everyone to be protected under the law. This new law singles different people out and erases the progress that was made before. I think no one should have to live in fear when in reality we are all equals and all deserve the same rights.

            The purpose of the article was to show the general educated public that Trump has changed his view points and that there are many controversial arguments taking place. I think the article could have been stronger if the author included more detail about what the law change is and how it works.

TOW #19: article - "Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?"

          Would you rather drive a minute and get a high-calorie low-nutrition hamburger from the nearest fast-food restaurant or drive fifteen minutes to a grocery store and buy ingredients to make a healthy meal? This question in the game of would you rather is one that many Americans are struggling to answer. In the New York Times article “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?”, Mark Bittman discusses how the idea that fast-food is cheaper than a home-cooked meal is false.

            As an attempt to reach the general public of America, Bittman shows his interest in trying to change the perspective of America and showing them that fast-food is more expensive, unhealthy and is manipulating the culture of people living in this country. Bittman states that a meal for a family of four at McDonalds is much pricier than buying ingredients to a healthy meal. The author gets deeper into the problem of fast food: laziness and convenience.

            Bittman uses data and compare and contrast to get his point across to his audience. Data presented shows various things such as how inflation increased the price of fresh produce and decreased the price of soda to the cost of fast food meals versus healthy meals. This data proves to the audience that the real problem lies within each American. Fast food is changing the neurological wiring in Americans, making them have an addictive reaction to the food. The only way to change the habit is to change the American environment. Bittman also compares prices and nutrition to make a statement about how drastic the difference of eating can be.

            The author wrote this with the intention to show Americans that their preconceived ideas about the cost of fast food are wrong. Bittman wants to give his audience a call to action and tell them to make a change and spread the truth about fast food. 

TOW #18: visual: Women's Rights

         In the rising controversy against the opinions of president elect Donald Trump, women’s rights is one that majorly stands out. Only a short bit ago, millions of women across the nation got together in their cities to march for the rights they deserve. Using peaceful protests to get the attention of the problem at hand, women marched together. It is a fact that men on average get paid more than women, even sometimes for the same exact job. This political cartoon depicts the cutout of a man as an entrance to good careers, implying that women are not cut out for good careers and although employers claim that they give equal opportunities, they do not.

            This visual, attempting to reach the general public of America, is trying to get the message across that women indeed are not equal. The visual even goes to the extent to say that many employers are lying to the public by saying the give equal opportunity when they do not. Amidst the rising tension between Trump and the women of America, this visual has quite an occasion.

            The author utilizes contrast in their political cartoon. The contrast of the women’s shape to the shape of the man shows that there is a really big problem in the difference between the opportunity men and women get. The contrast effectively shows women being less than men.

            The author’s purpose is to show what is happening and open the public’s eyes to what is happening. The author wants to visually show the disadvantage women are always at. Ultimately, the author is urging the public to take action and defend women and get them the rights they deserve. This was effective, considering the amount of recent attention to women’s rights.

IRB Intro Post #3

     For the third marking period, I am choosing to read the book The Social Animal by Elliot Aronson. This book is gives a perspective on social psychology and why people behave the way they do. The author, Elliot Aronson, presents the research and ideas through real life scenarios and various studies. Human nature and social psychology is depicted through patterns in behavior. The book also connects subjects such as politics, religion, race, obedience, terrorism and more to the aspects of why we act the way we do. This book is a guide through social psychology and leads the reader through a journey of figuring out why we do what we do. I chose to read this book because I have a very strong interest in psychology and want to pursue it in the future. I am hoping to gain answers in my questions about myself and human nature in general.

TOW #17 - article: "The Argument Against Headphones"

         In the article “The Argument Against Headphones” by Virginia Heffernan, statistics and history of headphones is discussed in the means to inform and argue that the cons of headphones outweigh the pros. Heffernan, an author for The New York Times, begins her article with data. Teenagers in America are beginning to have hearing loss at an earlier age. Although, given the rise in technological devices with headphone inputs, this hearing loss in the current teenage generation will continue to prosper.

            This audience is mainly geared towards parents of teenagers who use headphones often. The last sentence of the article reads, “And protecting our kids’ hearing is not just as important as protecting their brains; it is protecting their brains” (Heffernan). Parents have a big say in what their kids and cannot do and are involved in maintaining their wellbeing. If parents know how serious the consequences could be by allowing their children to stimulate their ears with such high volumes, they may try and have them cut down on headphone usage.

            I agree with the author’s central claim. I think that her argument against headphones is valid and many teenagers are heading down the path towards early hearing loss, which can be stopped if more information were known about the subject. This leads to the purpose of the article, to argue against headphone usage and encourage a movement to stop excessive usage. Today, wireless headphones are becoming a very popular possession. I think the author would not like this new rise of headphone technology. It makes headphones all the more appealing and makes a wider audience of people vulnerable to the damage headphones can do.

            The purpose of the article was successfully achieved and the consequences of headphone usage were clearly laid out, creating an effective argument. I believe the argument of the article could have been stronger if there was less of a focus on the history.