Tow #7: "The monarchy is at odds with a modern Britain" from The Observer

The British Royal Family has increased in size and has gained popularity since
this photograph was taken a few years ago, but some still believe the family
represents inequality, undeserved privilege, and is a threat to democracy in
Britain and the Commonwealth. 

For the past few years the British Royal Family has been in the spotlight, as the recent weddings, birth, and christenings of various members have all drawn much positive publicity. However, many still argue against the usefulness and effectiveness of the royals, claiming that British citizens deserve more rights and more equality.  This editorial from The Observer, featured in its sister paper The Guardian, argues the same and, being in a British newspaper, is clearly aimed at citizens of that country.  However, it does not state its point a way that would turn any royalist into a fervent republican.  Though many pieces with epigraphs include only one, this article seems to have two.  A photograph of the late Christopher Hitchens is inserted above the article, the words "Christopher Hitchens said we should emancipate ourselves from the mental habits of royalism" set beneath the picture. The second epigraph is at the end of the first paragraph, which states "As republicanism gathered a little wind in the 1990s... Ian McEwan announced: 'It is time to say boo! to the big goose.'" The title of the article might not be enough to clue some readers in to the subject matter, as after all, it could just be pointing out that the monarchy is outdated instead of practically calling for its end. However, these two epigraphs, each coming from a well-known British author, set the tone of the editorial quite nicely and make it clear what direction it is going in.To try to support their argument, the author of the editorial uses also political facts and statistical evidence.  For example, the author writes, "According to the campaign group, Republic, in the top 20 UK tourist attractions, Windsor Castle is the only "living" royal tourist draw... it only just creeps in at number 17... Tourists will visit whether or not we have a sovereign."  They also state "We have no written constitution, no right to call ourselves citizens.  In a time of alleged increasing transparency, the royal household is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act."  An argument is stronger when supported with hard facts and not just quotes from authors or emotional protests.  However, in this case, the problem with the above passages, as well as many others in the article, is that none of the information is a secret; British citizens know their place in the country and they know how their political system works.  As for the Windsor Castle example, it is probable that many readers would find it irrelevant; even the author states that there are "more serious points to make".  If the author truly wants to convert royalist readers to republicanism, they would be better off citing concrete facts about things that negatively affect and anger the British people instead of restating that which has been written down over and over and assuming that the British have no idea what is going on in their own country.

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/27/future-of-the-royal-family

TOW #6: Gun Safety Advertisment

The words at the bottom may be difficult to read, so they are as follows:
"We won't sell Kinder eggs in the interest of child safety. Why not assault weapons?"
with the URL momsdemandaction.org.

This advertisment is sponsored by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, an anti-gun organization formed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  It depicts a boy holding a Kinder egg, a plastic egg surrounded by thin layers of white and milk chocolate that holds a small toy, and a girl holding an assault weapon.  The ad criticizes the idea that Kinder eggs, which are sold in Europe, are banned in the United States because of the choking risk, but that assault weapons are not.  It can be assumed that Kinder eggs can be substituted by other non-threatening products that are banned in the name of child safety.  
Many written works mention or evoke colors in order to set a mood, and this ad does something very similar.  There is not much light in the ad, but there are a lot of shadows and drab colors, including various shades of gray.  This creates a dark or depressing mood, appropriate for the serious subject matter.  Also prominent are elements of juxtaposition: one between the black, dangerous gun and the innocent, colorful Kinder egg, and the other between the young girl and the gun.  The former aims to make viewers believe that Kinder eggs and other products are harmless and that assault weapons are too deadly to be legal, while the latter shows that assault weapons do not belong anywhere around children, let alone in their hands, thereby supporting the aim of Moms Demand Action.
The ad can be thought-provoking or confusing to look at, depending on the viewer.  It is obvious that the advertisement wants to convince people that assault weapons are dangerous, should be banned, and that the fact that they haven't is ridiculous.  However, for those who have never heard of Kinder eggs, the message is confusing, and many believe that banning them is sensible because of the choking risk.  Consequently, the ad's message would not really reach or affect these people, though it would affect those who fully understand what the ad is saying.

Link: http://adland.tv/files/imagecache/postimage/media/print/ChooseOne3.jpg

TOW #5: "We're Still in the Dark About Kids and Concussions" by Dr. Robert Cantu

The brain is the most important and possibly one of the most delicate parts
of the body.  Unfortunately, the brains of many young athletes are at
risk due to concussions, which often happen repeatedly.

Many kids and teenagers play sports, which typically involve a lot of physical contact and roughhousing and can result in severe injuries as well as concussions.  This fact has received a lot of press lately as seriously concussed young athletes, their families, and doctors go public with their experiences.  In this article featured in Time Magazine, Dr. Robert Cantu argues that many doctors are unsure about how risky certain sports are and the exact effects of concussions on children, then goes on to outline a study that would expose unknowns such as these.  Fortunately, his piece is written in terms that anyone, not just medical professionals, could understand, but it would probably resonate best with young athletes, their parents, and doctors who work with children who play sports.
As the article is about a serious medical topic, a reader would have to know the writer is credible in order to believe that the information is true.  Throughout the piece, Cantu writes in the first person, using the word "we" to refer to a group made up of himself and other medical professionals.  He talks about speaking to pediatricians and how he has "more than 375 papers published in peer-reviewed journals".  The clincher comes at the end when his qualifications are listed, stating that he works at Boston University as a clinical professor in the department of neurosurgery and as their co-director for the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy.  All of these culminate in an excellent appeal to ethos, proving to the reader that Cantu knows what he is writing about and is qualified to make the conclusions he does.  "We're Still in the Dark About Kids and Concussions" is an opinion piece about a serious problem, so Cantu also offers a potential solution to the problem: in order to find out how concussions affect children, a ten-year study of athletes playing many different sports would take place.  This addresses a concern he mentioned earlier that there is not enough information about concussions to justify banning sports for children under certain ages or mandating more safety gear.  Cantu therefore addresses the opposition, but not to show them that they're wrong, but to prove that one day the safety measures he supports will be fully justified.
Though Cantu writes very well and makes a convincing argument, it would not go over well with those who love to play sports; when people enjoy something, they sometimes dismiss the problems with it.  Also, he notes the expense of the study he proposes, so his financially-minded readers would too be concerned and possibly disagree with him.


Link: http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/10/were-still-in-the-dark-about-kids-and-concussions/?iid=op-main-belt

TOW #4: Zealot by Reza Aslan

Zealot endeavors to tell the true story of Jesus Christ, but even the cover is a lie:
it portrays Jesus as a white man even though he was an Arab Jew.

Religious scholar Reza Aslan has made quite the stir in recent months with his new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.  As the title suggests, the book aims to tell the truest story of the somewhat-mysterious prophet possible, as it has been repeatedly obscured and changed over the past two thousand years.  Obviously, religion is a touchy subject.  While anyone would be capable of reading Zealot, only those who are deeply interested in religion, history, or both, and are receptive to reading a story about Jesus different from the concocted one presented nowadays would actually be able to absorb and respect the information in the book.  This TOW focuses on the introduction, as it is incredibly interesting for reasons explored below.
As the book is a biography that strives to be as accurate as possible, Aslan begins to use facts in the very introduction to tell readers that their journey to discover the real Jesus could be surprising.  He writes, "We now have access to an entire library of noncanonical scriptures written mostly in the second and third centuries that provides a vastly different perspective on the life of Jesus of Nazareth... discovered in Upper Egypt, near the town of Nag Hammadi, in 1945." (Alsan 5).  He sets the reader up to expect not a lot of speculation and guesswork, as in many books about religious figures from long ago, but cold hard facts put together to support historically-possible theories.  This makes him seem much more credible, someone who is much more sure of the picture they are painting.  At the end of the introduction, Aslan also makes a quick appeal to pathos.  He tells his readers, "The Jesus that is uncovered... may not be the Jesus we expect... but in the end, he is the only Jesus we can access by historical means. Everything else is a matter of faith." (Aslan 9).  In one way, it is to be expected that Aslan would bring a bit of emotion into such a topic; Jesus is a religious prophet, and religion always means feeling something.  Readers could become a bit miffed that nothing about faith was really mentioned in the introduction, but Aslan wisely acknowledges that faith and views about Jesus are tightly entwined.
Aslan focuses on the fact that the man most of us know as Jesus is essentially a myth and that there are many facets to His complicated story.  He conveys this message to readers very well, as he acknowledges the faith that is always involved when one thinks about what version of Jesus they believe to be true while still writing about the "real", historically accurate Jesus.