Tow #19: Lone Survivor

Lone Survivor, written by Marcus Luttrell is a heroic account of the Operation Redwing, that was carried out by the SEAL team 10. At the beginning of the book, Marcus Luttrell, starts out by introducing himself and more about the SEALS before he leads up to what had happened. I like the set up of the book a lot because personally, I do not know much about the rigors of being a SEAL and Luttrell does a good job leading into the story with a lot of description. I am not finished this book, but so far from what I am reading, Marcus Lutrell, writes this true inspiring story for people to remember those SEALS that fought hard to protect our country and lost their lives because of it. The context of this book was the War On Terror going on in the United States. I feel like this novel was written for the people in the United States to really appreciate the SEALS and understand what they do.
The way Marcus Luttrell writes is very interesting because he is telling his story and he knows better than anyone else what had happened there. The language in the book is very descriptive in terms of the setting and the feelings that the SEAlS are experiencing.
The descriptions and facts that Luttrell uses really spark a lot of mixed emotions while I read this. When he describes the Taliban and Afghanistan and how dangerous it is, this causes anger. However, as I have already seen this movie and know the ending, this book causes sorrow. Mostly, this memoir brings up feelings of appreciation for the SEALS and what they do for our country. Every time I read this memoir, I feel anxious and want to read more because this memoir is so intriguing I can't wait to see what happens next.
I honestly do like this book, except I feel as though that Marcus could have a bigger purpose in writing this piece. I feel as if Marcus feels guilty that he is the only "lone survivor" just by the way he talks about his "brothers," or the SEALS that died on this operation. However, I want to finish reading this book in order to see if that was Luttrell's intended purpose.

Tow #18: How to Help the Homeless

This article, How to Help the Homeless, was featured in the Economist and it is about Hungary's homeless problem. In Budapest, homeless people camp out in very public places, and they even use landmarks as their restrooms. This problem is getting very severe and the city council passed a regulation law which outlaws "habitual living" in public places. This is becoming very controversial because homeless people refuse to live in the public shelters because they do not want their belongings taken away from them. They say they would rather live on the street. The purpose of this article was to raise awareness of what is going on in Hungry and to call to action that something has to be done about the homeless people.
The context this was written is, is present day because this is going on right now. I think this was written for the government in Hungry for a call to action. And the authors of this editorial remain anonymous because according to the website, it allows for the many writers to "speak in a collaborative voice." I think this is really interesting because it adds credibility with this really famous magazine and a bunch of authors who's opinions coincide.
This article uses a lot of rhetorics, but the main one is imagery, "Homeless people pull down their trousers and underwear in full view of startled tourists before relieving themselves on the pavement near parliament." This descriptive picture of the situation in Budapest really trigger's the audience's emotions and tells that something needs to be done about this situation. Also this this article appeals a lot to emotions because of the brutal winters, "As winter bites, sympathy for the homeless is more widespread than might be expected." This makes the audience feel bad for the homeless and it makes them want to do something about their situation.
I think this article was very well written with a lot of emotion, and statistics and imagery to trigger the emotions and if I were the audience, I would definitely want to do something about the homeless situation.

IRB INTRO MARKING PERIOD 3

Lone Survivor, by Marcus Luttrell, is a personal recount of the Navy Seal team's mission in July 2005, when they went to investigate the activity of an al Qaeda leader who was rumored to have a small army in a Taliban stronghold. Only one seal, Marcus, made it out alive.

This book was really written to give an account of the war on terror and how dangerous it really was and how people literally risks their lives to protect our country and how grateful people should be to the military. I chose to read this book because I am typically not a fan of army books, and typically this isn't my area of interests, but this novel really seems fascinating to me and after reading it, I really hope to understand what it is that the Seals do and how dangerous their work really is.

 

Tow #17: Smoking is Worse Than You Thought

This article was about how much harm tobacco actually causes. Researchers are discovering new things that can cause harm to smokers and nonsmokers who are exposed to the "toxic fumes." People who smoke are subject to cancers, chronic pulmonary diseases, and plus they cost a lot of money in medicare. The purpose of this editorial was clearly to cause awareness of tobacco and encourage people to cut down on smoking.

This editorial is always going to be in context because people are constantly smoking and although they are aware of the effects smoking can cause, they still continue to do it. However, the journalists on the New York Times editorial board decided to inform people that smoking gives only bad side effects.

The editorial board is composed of a variety of journalists who do research on a variety of different things. They are very credible and this article is very credible because as it's main rhetoric it uses irrefutable data to support it's claim of how harmful smoking really is. "Most shocking, the report finds that today’s smokers have a much higher risk for lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than smokers in 1964, despite smoking fewer cigarettes." This irrefutable data really hits close to home for a lot of people because a lot of people know someone who smokes and this appeals to their emotions because they do not want anything happening to their loved ones. Also the report states facts about the cost that smoking brings, "The report estimates that smoking costs the United States between $289 billion and $333 billion a year for medical care and lost productivity, well above the previous estimate of $193." This appeals to the logic of the audience because they understand that they do not want to pay taxes for smokers who have bad health. This makes the community more aware, once again, of how bad smoking really is. For ethos, the article talks about the law that Congress has passed to regulate tobacco products. This really makes the editorial credible because it really shows that smoking is bad.

I personally believe that the journalists of this editorial really achieved their purpose because they really drove home the point of how terrible smoking really is and the fact that there is new and more evidence about how harmful it really is just shows that something needs to be done to cut it down. 

Tow#16 : Gay-Baiting Before the Olympics

This article is about Russian President, Vladimir Putin's view on homosexuality. There is big controversy whether he is going to be a good host or a "homophobic scold." This controversy has come up because the Winter Olympics are approaching next month in Sochi. The purpose of this article is to show Putin's views.

The writers of this editorial are from the New York editorial board and they are very credible because the editorial board is composed of various journalists who have different areas of expertise.

This editorial has various rhetorical devices such as allusions to President Vladimir Putin and what he says which is very juxtaposing to each other, "You can feel relaxed and calm, but please, leave the children alone." This is what the President of Russia said in his speech directed at the Gay community and this shows juxtaposition because in the first part he is welcoming them and telling them to feel relaxed, but then he is telling them to be cautious and leave the children alone. This is terrible because he is not making the Gay community feel welcome, and while there are other customs and traditions in Russia, no one should be discriminated against and people should be free to be who they want. Also when he states "We do not have a ban on nontraditional sexual relationships, we have a ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia," this is kind of ironic because he is saying that Russia does not have any laws against homosexuals, only the propaganda. This is ironic because if he states that he has no problems with homosexuals, then he should not have problems with the spread of homosexuality.

Honestly, after reading this editorial I was shocked. Both of my parents grew up in Russia and the values and morals my parents have are nothing like this. I did not even know Russia's take on homosexuality and it is completely disgusting to me. As for their purpose, the editors achieved it. They have proven to me how awful and disgusting Vladimir Putin really is. 

Tow #15: Zero Tolerance, Reconsidered

This editorial that I read was about schools all over the country rethinking this concept of "zero tolerance" where students are suspended, expelled, and even arrested for minor offenses such as cursing. I think that this is really relevant because this is actually happening in the country and it is relevant to me because I am still in high school.
The purpose of this article was to really harp on the fact that these harsh punishments bring no good and do not help change the aura of the school, but rather they cause delayed education for the offenders and also they cause them to have a permanent or juvenile record which hurts them in their future when they are trying to be successful.
This was written by the editors of the New York Times and they are very credible because the NYTimes editorial board is constructed of a wide variety of journalists.
I think that this editorial does use a nice variety of rhetorics such as unarguable data with providing facts of policies that congress has made about these laws in school. They provide a good cause and effect of what happens if these kids are suspended and expelled. They provide a research study which really shows the affect that these charges have on a student and it shows that they do not bring anything pleasant.
I really liked this editorial because it really got to the point and provided examples and had a lot of cause and effect reasoning which really helps you see the problem and what should be done about it.

Tow #14

The editorial I just read was called "The New Year Within." It's context is very current because we just welcomed 2014 and wished a farwell to 2013. This editorial talks about the New Year and everyone's hopes for a change. However it distinctly points out that this new change that we all long for is something we can do everyday. I think the purpose of this really was to welcome the New Year and also encourage people to achieve the change they want and not waste a "new year."

The writers of this editorial are very credible because they are on the New York Times editorial board which consists of a variety of well-rounded journalists.

This editorial uses many rhetorical devices such as allusions and references to people such as Henry David Thoreau which makes this editorial seem credible. This editorial also uses symbolism to refer to the cold and dead winter not being a season for rebirth. However, then it talks about the symbolism of nature and how it will emerge from the cold for rebirth in the spring. This editorial really is kind of philosophical, welcoming the New Year and really encouraging people to initiate change while explaining how to welcome the new year. It says that there is no proper way and everyone does it in their own way.

I personally didn't really like this editorial all that much because I thought it could have more depth in really explaining how to initiate change in the New Year. I think these editors could have done better.