TOW #15: "The Civil Rights of Children" by The New York Times Editorial Board

While humorous, this cartoon makes a valid point: public schools are becoming
increasing strict about topics such as violence and drugs and alcohol, even to
the point of punishing students when they do nothing more than
allude to those things.

Nowadays it is not out of the ordinary to hear news stories about school officials crossing the line: punishing students, even young ones, for making gun shapes with their fingers or saying things like, "I'm going to kill you", obviously without meaning it. Sometimes the punishments are as harsh as suspending or expelling students, calling the police, or even arresting students. There has been some backlash, and it has been featured in the article "The Civil Rights of Children", which argues that not only that the constitutional rights of students are violated when "zero-tolerance policies" are enforced, but that those students usually belong to racial minority groups.
In the third paragraph of the article, the Editorial Board name-drops the entire United States government. They state, "Over the last several years, civil rights officials in the Obama administration have begun to focus on this problem, increasing civil rights investigations and forcing school districts to revise disciplinary policies that disproportionately affect minorities." Mentioning the fact that the President of the United States and those who work with him are concerned about the effect of zero-tolerance policies on minorities will cause readers to believe that the matter is much more pressing; after all, it is the job of the President and his administration to tackle tough issues. As the article is meant to convince readers that minority students are much more affected by zero-tolerance policies than non-minority students, mentioning that the federal government is concerned is an excellent tactic.
For the first several paragraphs, the article only says that students who belong to a minority group are "disproportionally" subjected to punishments because of zero-tolerance policies, without giving any real data. However, about halfway through, the Editorial Board writes, "African-American students represent only 15 percent of public school students, but they make of [sic] 35 percent of students suspended once, 44 percent of those suspended more than once, and 36 percent of those expelled... research has shown that black students do not engage in more serious or more frequent misbehavior than other students." Later the article provides statistics about the unfair treatment of disabled students. Statistics and other forms of data are much more convincing than anecdotal evidence, as they are more concrete and are gathered in a more scientific manner. As the statistics featured in the article show the disparity between the percentage of African-American students in public schools and the racial breakdown of students being severely punished, they help prove that students of color are punished harsher and more often than white students thanks to zero-tolerance policies.
With the combined effects of the ethos of the Obama administration and the use of statistics, it seems that any reader would recognize that minority students receive harsher punishments than non-minority students and that public schools are becoming too harsh when it comes to disciplinary infractions.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/opinion/sunday/the-civil-rights-of-children.html?ref=editorials

TOW #14: The Hot Zone by Richard Preston

Richard Preston is the author of The Hot Zone and numerous other works about
bioterrorism and infectious diseases.

Published in 1994, The Hot Zone tells the terrifying true stories of viral hemorrhagic fevers, a group of deadly diseases that includes the infamous Ebola virus.  The book focuses on the discovery of the Reston virus, related to Ebola, that popped up in a monkey holding facility in Reston, Virginia, not far from Washington, DC.  Since the Reston virus killed nearly all the monkeys it affected, the prospect of it crossing into the human population scared researchers and medical experts out of their wits.  The process of identifying the disease and decontaminating the holding facility takes up about half the book, which is told through the perspective of any one of those at the site of the Reston outbreak or of Preston himself.
The Hot Zone is mostly made up of testimony from people who are experts on viral hemorrhagic fevers or where at the Reston holding facility, so a lot of the book does not have a very 'personal touch'.  However, the book's last section is entirely about the author's own experiences visiting two places central to The Hot Zone. The first is Kitum Cave in Kenya, where two people fatally contracted the Marburg virus in the 1980's.  Their experiences were crucial to the beginning of the work, as the research done on their cases set the stage for later exploration into similar diseases.  When Preston writes about his own visit, it is somewhat of an appeal to ethos, as it makes it seem like he understands the topic better; nothing is better than first-hand experience.
The second place Preston visits is the monkey holding facility where the Reston virus had broken out, but this involves a different rhetorical device.  Long abandoned, vines had grown up the sides of the building, which was inhabited only by spiders and other insects.  Preston writes at the very end of the book, "Life had established itself inside the monkey house.  Ebola had risen in these rooms, flashed its color, fed, and subsided into the forest.  It will be back" (Preston 411).  By the end of the book, readers know that the Ebola virus is deadly to humans and that the Reston virus would be equally devastating.  By wrapping up with a phrase as ominous as "It will be back", Preston ensures that readers will think about his book for a long time and even be haunted by it; I can attest to this idea, as I certainly thought about The Hot Zone for a long time after finishing it.

TOW #13: Pamela Anderson PETA Advertisement

This provocative and somewhat off-putting poster shows Pam Anderson with
parts of her body marked with words usually used to describe animal
parts that are for sale as food.

The animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been known for its liberal stances on removing meat from the human diet, banning the use of fur in clothing, and stopping the use of animals in laboratory testing.  One of their spokespeople is actress, model, and activist Pamela Anderson, who has been a vegan for many years.  She has posed in numerous PSAs for the organization, but the one above has been seen by many as a disgrace; she is clad in only a revealing bikini, allowing viewers to see the words and dotted lines all over her body.  Those are the same words given to parts of animals that are consumed by humans.  PETA's message is clear: all animals are the same, and if we don't eat humans, then we shouldn't eat animals.
The most obvious thing about the poster is Anderson herself, minus the words all over her body.  She's regarded by many as a gorgeous sex symbol, and the poster clearly shows her off; she's wearing almost nothing, she's in full makeup, is sporting a huge hairstyle, and is posed in such a way that her chest and legs are on full display.  Anderson is even giving viewers a bit of a suggestive "come hither" look.  The whole effect is extremely eye-grabbing and definitely "pops" in comparison to many other advertisements, so viewers are more likely to see it and to understand PETA's message.  
Clearly visible on Anderson's body are the same words used to label different kinds of meat for sale, a very strong method of comparison.  Anderson's leg is not different from a chicken leg and her ribs are no different from those of a pig or a cow, PETA claims.  It begs the question that the organization hopes to put into the minds of viewers: why should we kill and eat animals, whose bodies are really no different from our own, while condemning the consumption of humans?  Without those words and dotted lines, the poster's power would be seriously diminished, as viewers would not necessarily think to compare Anderson to animals.
This poster has brought much criticism of PETA, mostly by women who believe that Anderson is being unnecessarily objectified.  They argue that women are often already seen as nothing but "pieces of meat" for the pleasures of men and that this advertisement encourages such a view.  It is true that PETA could have done this in a much different way, by perhaps having a anatomical diagram of a "generic" person, not sexualized in the way that Anderson has been.  Whatever the case, the poster certainly grabs the attention of anyone who may happen upon it and may make viewers think more about including meat in their diets.  In addition, some people may never have heard of or seen the advertisement without all the controversy surrounding it, which helps in getting PETA's message out there.


P.S. To be clear, I don't like this.  I think it's sexist and unnecessary.  PETA is kind of awful in a lot of ways.  You should look it up.  Go.  Wikipedia is calling you.  Go.


Image link: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/10/22/1287767319786/
Pamela-Anderson-in-Peta-c-006.jpg

TOW #12: "Who Says Math Has to Be Boring?" by The New York Times Editorial Board

I am definitely not a math person, but the article "Who Says Math Has to Be Boring?"
made me understand just how important math is for everyone's future, given the way the world is turning, and that STEM subjects are not well-taught in high school.

I hate math.  It's as simple as that.  I'm not very good at it, I don't find it interesting, I don't see how I personally will use half the things I learn, and I find it rather tedious, difficult, and confusing.  However, the article "Who Says Math Has to Be Boring?" that recently appeared in the opinion section of The New York Times has made me think about math a bit differently; perhaps the subject is not inherently mundane and, as I often call it, awful, but maybe the way it has been introduced to me is.  The editorial argues that high schoolers do not appreciate the value of a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subject or career and do not even have the skills necessary to pursue those things.  However, instead of blaming the students, the article blames the education system for not sufficiently teaching students about these topics.  Despite the fact that it was in the opinion section, the article uses many hard statistics and appeals to the authority of a certain President Obama to prove that STEM careers and skills have been sorely neglected in high school. 
A person's mere opinion about how STEM  subjects and careers are undervalued by high school students may not be enough to convince readers that there is actually a problem.  However, the Editorial Board supplements their opinion with statistics, often from distinguished universities and organizations.  For example, they write, "Nearly 90 percent of high school graduates say they're not interested in a career or a college major involving science, technology, engineering or math, known collectively as STEM, according to a survey of more than a million students who take the ACT test" (Editorial Board 1).  No one can deny that 90 percent is a pretty high number, especially considering the population of high school students in the United States.  Having a statistic like that, in addition to the others, makes it easier for readers to believe that the STEM awareness and ability situations is dire and that the suggestions the Editorial Board makes are warranted.
Towards the end of the article, there is a section where the writers suggest that schools give students real-life experience in the world of STEM and talk about President Obama's position on the topic.  They write, "... high school in Brooklyn known as P-Tech, which President Obama recently visited... prepares students for jobs like manufacturing technician and software specialist... President Obama announced a promising new grant program to encourage dozens more high schools to offer job-oriented STEM education" (Editorial Board 1).  As the leader of our nation, President Obama is a public figure, and often his opinions are emulated by others.  When one hears that he visited a technical school, one realizes that the school must be in some way extraordinary.  When one hears that he announced a grant that would allow high schools to educate students so they can enter STEM careers, one realizes that high schoolers must not be interested in STEM or have the necessary skills.  Name-dropping President Obama shines a light on this issue, making the public more aware of it and classifying it as something worth paying attention to. 


Article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/who-says-math-has-to-be-boring.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

TOW #11: "The Pitfalls of Dating and Mating With Social Media" by Tyler Curry

All of these social media sites and more, writer Tyler Curry of The Advocate argues,
can ruin a relationship by presenting narrow or outdated views of a person.

One would expect that those who oppose social media are middle-aged or elderly people, unused to the influence of technology in our modern world, or conservatives who believe that you should get to know someone in person by talking to them head-on.  However, in his op-ed piece published in LGBT-interest magazine The Advocate, Tyler Curry, a younger writer, familiar with social media, argues that it can ruin many relationships just after they begin by presenting a false or outdated image of a person and that people should "unplug" when it comes to finding "The One".  By apparently addressing the reader personally and giving numerous realistic examples, Curry definitely highlights the problems social media causes when it comes to dating and is probably successful at convincing readers to agree with him.
Most magazine articles would not address the reader as "you" or use phrasing like "your best foot forward", but Curry does this throughout "The Pitfalls of Dating and Mating With Social Media".  For example, he writes, "If you didn’t already Facebook-stalk the man you're meeting for Friday night plans, you most definitely will afterward. The updates he posts, the photos he takes, and the statuses he likes have become equally as important as the words out of his mouth" (Curry 1).  Using such personal phrasing causes the reader to identify with what Curry is writing about; "you" is much more up-close than "one" or "some people".  If Curry had used those words, a reader may think, "Oh, other people stalk their dates on Facebook? How weird!" However, when he uses "you" and "your", the reader thinks, "I've definitely done that from time to time", as they can't hide from it.  From personal identification with a claim, it is a short jump to identification and agreement with an argument as a whole.
Of course, Curry goes further to make the reader understand and agree with his argument by including examples of how social media can wreck a relationship.  He states, "He made you laugh, he was charming, and you left dinner a little intrigued. But you just couldn’t wait until he returned from his work trip, so you decided to perform a harmless Internet search. Some guys are just not very photogenic. Suddenly you’re questioning the real connection you had because you are having trouble picturing your wedding photos together" (1).  Obviously, Curry intimates, photographs do not show the real person, and should not be viewed as a window into the soul.  Even though you may have a date with someone and like them a lot, thanks to social media, you can find one minor undesirable detail about them that makes you dislike them; this prevents relationships from growing.  Besides highlighting undesirable traits, Curry argues later, profiles on social media sites can be outdated and provide a view only of how a person used to be, not who they are today.  With all of these examples, a reader cannot deny that social media can cause a lot of problems between two people who are dating, and they may even see that "unplugging" whilst on the dating scene is the best option.  

Article: http://www.advocate.com/commentary/tyler-curry/2013/11/22/op-ed-pitfalls-dating-and-mating-social-media

TOW #10: The Hot Zone by Richard Preston

This is an extreme magnification of the Ebola virus, an violently deadly pathogen
 that first cropped up along the Ebola river in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Approximately two-thirds of people who contract Ebola die from it.

In 1994, Richard Preston, who has written numerous pieces about bio-terrorism and dangerous diseases, released a book titled The Hot Zone, filled with stories about viral hemorrhagic fevers, their symptoms, and how they have wreaked havoc all over the world.  It is written much like a work of fiction, and readers might wish that the terrifying stories contained within it were indeed made up, as none of them are tales for the weak of heart.  Preston's repeated use of grim anecdotes and quotations from highly esteemed experts on viral hemorrhagic fevers force the reader to understand the horror of these diseases and perhaps even to become deeply afraid themselves.  I know from personal experience that has certainly succeeded, as after I started reading the book, I had some trouble sleeping, and no one can deny that he paints these diseases as extraordinarly dangerous to everyone on the planet.
The Hot Zone does not open, as one may expect, with a science-heavy explanation of what viral hemorrhagic fevers are.  Instead, Preston tells readers about a victim of Marburg virus (MARV) upon whom Preston bestows the false name Charles Monet.  Preston describes his initial symptoms (backaches and headaches), before describing Monet's experience on a plane to Nairobi so he could get to a hospital.  He writes, "His eyes are the color of rubies... his whole head is turning black-and-blue... The muscles of his face droop... His personality is being wipes away by brain damage... He loses consciousness... he continues to vomit blood and black matter... The linings of his intestines have come off and are being expelled" (Preston 17-24).  It is clear from these passages that Monet suffered greatly before his death and that any victim who comes down with MARV or any other viral hemorrhagic fever, will have the same experience.  This inspires readers to think "This could happen to me or to anyone I know", striking fear into their very hearts.  After reading this section and others like it in the book, it is difficult to deny that this type of disease is very scary and serious.  However, as Preston himself is not a medical expert, some readers may doubt these stories.  Combating this are Preston's multiple mentions of people who are experts on viral hemorrhagic fevers and other serious diseases.  He interviews people such as Major Nancy Jaax and her husband Major Jerry Jaax, veterinarians at the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and uses their experiences working with the Reston and Ebola viruses as material for The Hot Zone.  Most of the information about viral hemorrhagic fevers in the book come from people like the Jaaxes, and the rest from Preston's own research.  Readers are more likely to believe things written in The Hot Zone when experts are referred to and quoted, as they obviously have more knowledge in this particular subject area.  

TOW #9: Apple Advertisment

The smaller white words say "32 GB iPhone starting at just $349" and that small
object next to the iPhone appears to be some kind of bluetooth device. 

Apple is a world-famous, insanely popular technology company, and their lines of iPhone is probably their best-known product.  Although the company releases a newer iPhone with apparently minor modifications every few months, those customers loyal to Apple or looking to try something new buy every single one.  This advertisement is plain, boring, and dark at first glance, but it is made with the sole purpose of trying to get people to buy the new iPhone.  It appeals to five characteristics that are very important to consumers (besides price, of course): brand, looks, speed, and age, and therefore chicness, of the product.
Apple and the ad agency worked together to make this ad, and they wisely chose to display the Apple logo on the phone.  Apple is very popular and is known for its excellent engineering and design; it is trusted by consumers more than almost any other tech company.  This trust, this credibility, is shown through that little logo, thereby making an appeal to ethos.  As this ad is for the iPhone, it includes a picture of the new one, showing off its clean, smooth lines and cool, gray color.  Consumers love owning "attractive" objects, and when they see a phone with these characteristics, which are very popular at the moment, they want to buy it.  The text on the right side of the advertisement gives one example of the new iPhone's superiority: it is "faster", presumably than older models.  In this fast-paced world, people want products that keep up with their busy lives and are used to speed.  Reading that the new iPhone is fast, even though it's a very vague description, appeals to the desires of the consumer.  On the subject of newness, this ad clearly states that this iPhone is the newest product.  The word "new" is nowadays associated with terms like "modern" and "superior" and "updated", and in the realm of technology, anyone would agree that newer is better.  Many consumers also believe, often subconsciously, that the newer their purchased objects the "better" they are as people, so clearly, new, sleek iPhones are very appealing.
All of these "devices", and others that go unmentioned here, make the iPhone extremely enticing to consumers, often too enticing to ignore.  It would take a solid dislike of Apple products or complete indifference to technology to ignore such a message, but what about hardcore Apple lovers?  It's easy say that they'd fall head over heels for the newest iPhone after seeing this ad.