The Bloated Nuclear Weapons Budget

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/the-bloated-nuclear-weapons-budget.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1320005008-ijl76jXXi6YMCwt7EObJdg

The Editorial is about how the Nuclear weapons budgets could be cut to save money. It states that the United States of America has a ton of it, and can reduce the number of heads they have, which would be beneficial to the country. It would reduce the number of weapons, scale back unnecessary modernization programs and delay or scrap plans to replace some delivery systems would save billions and make the world safer.

The author of the article is not stated, but editorials are supposed to state the opinions of the periodical, so this particular editorial article represents the NY Times. Also, Editorials are opinionated, and must be backed by facts, so credibility is also not as important as the information.

The context of the piece is most likely the huge economical crisis we have today, as well as the plan to reduce the deficit by 1.5 trillion over 10 years. 1.5 trillion is a lot more than a ton of money, and the only way to cut through it is little by little. The purpose is to show that the nuclear budget is able to be cut and reduced, through the Global Zero campaign that states that 1000 nuclear warheads are enough to hold security. The audience is all citizens of America, as stated in the editorial,"All Americans need to be part of that discussion" The author then begins to list, in paragraphs, everything that can be cut from the nuclear budget, and ends with, "Savings: $..." By doing this, we shows through the description of the cut, and how it is unneeded, and then shows how much money could be saved by cutting it. Though the billions will not even dent the deficit, it will wear away at it eventually if it keeps up, and that the country needs to be rational in spending for nuclear weapons. There are uses of Logos in the following list, by using facts and information to appeal to the reader. he also uses logos when stating that the USA has around five thousand bombs, and that the Global Zero campaign believes that one thousand is enough.

Political Cartoon

This is one of the first political cartoons to be published, created by Benjamin Franklin. The message is simple, join or die. This implies that joining together is the only method of survival. The snake, cut into sections, represent the colonies, and shows that divided, the snake is dead, but connected, would become fearsome. This could also represent famous phrases such as, "united we stand, divided we fall," or "divide and conquer".
The creator of the cartoon is Benjamin Franklin, who is a very well known for being one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and an all around renaissance man, mostly known for being a politician, writer, and scientist. The context of the piece is the seven years war, which was when the Colonies wanted to fight the Indians and the French for control of land past the Appalachian Mountains. The purpose of this cartoon was to unit the 13 colonies (New England represents 4 colonies) to fight together. It basically promoted colonial unity, and how much they were vulnerable separated. The audience is for the people who resided in the 13 colonies. The rhetorical elements of the cartoon was mostly imagery. The snake cut up shows no threat. However, with the word Unite, there is an image related to the snake in its former glory. Franklin leaves the glory of that image to the audience, so they can see how they can shape the snake. This is very powerful, and is more persuasive than just telling them to unite. By planting the idea in the audience, it becomes their own opinion. The "or Die" part of the cartoon shows how useless the snake is and the picture shows the snake in pieces,which shows that the dead snake is virtually dead. This adds to the impact of the Unite. Simply put, the idea is to have the audience see in their own minds what the colonies can be.

Physicists Offer Mundane Explanations for Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/mundane-explanations-neutrinos/

Recently during an OPERA experiment in Italy, they found that neutrinos arriving 60 nanoseconds earlier than they thought was possible which would mean it exceeded the speed of light. This would prove Einstein's theory of relativity wrong, because neutrinos exceeded the speed of light. many scientists were intrigued by the results and are trying to create theories on why this type of result was possible, such as the possibility of new physics being one of the most radical. An example that this is impossible is that a supernova showered earth in 1987 and with the theory of the recent experiment, the time would take 4 years rather than the 3 hours that it was observed. The results of the experiment could be from an error from the movement of the satellite that the movement would account for a 64 nanoseconds discrepancy,

The author of the piece is Adam Mann, and has written many articles on wired.com, which is a notable place for scientific articles, 21 to be exact.he is an and Astronomy and physics reporter for Wired.com, The context of the piece is from the recent experiment that gave impossible results that was thought to be a new phenomenon, though there is now a debate whether this is a viable problem or whether it was an erroneous experiment. The audience is people with interest in science, and contains a large amount of scientific lingo that is not explained, so there is an assumption that the audience knows what exactly he is talking about. He starts off with"Faster-than-light neutrinos mean Einstein is wrong!", which states the most extreme answer, followed by "At least, that’s what some popular press articles have suggested..." This allows the reader to say that it is too early to assume and because there is a scientific context, that the theory must be tested over and over until it has been proven. He uses past events, and applies the theory and see how much results would vary IF the theory was valid, and how much it varies from the actual results (3 months compared to 4 years). He shoots down many theories that don't seem to be valid, and why he thinks so from evidence. However, he ends the article by, "Ultimately, it will take a great deal more time and scholarship before the physics community settles on the true explanation for the OPERA results. Until then, vigorous debate is likely to continue." saying that some theories could still be valid and only time and testing can tell what exactly scientists should make of the results of this OPERA experiment.

Unit 1

Assignment Question Reflection: 
The most helpful activity was the in class essay. Though the textbook provides many examples and are covered in class, I feel like I improve most from experience. However, I still have trouble conveying the information, even though the process and synthesis of the process of writing as a rhetor is explained in detail throughout the course. I would like to do more in class essays(even though it's really hurting my grade) to put the use of rhetoric in writing more commonplace and natural. I feel it is more important to know what my weaknesses are and improve in those areas than getting a good grade, and the in class essay is the best indication of where the level of my writing is located.


Essential Question Reflection: How do speakers & writers use Rhetorical devices to communicate their ideas?


The use of rhetorical devices varies for each rhetor. However, all rhetorical devices are used to communicate their ideas. Rhetorical devices are basically methods to convince the reader to take on one's idea. Ethos is used to prove one's credibility, Pathos to appeal to the emotions of the reader, thus making one's argument stronger, and Logos to back up your point of writing. These are the basic forms of rhetorical writing, and all other devices branch off of these three. By using these rhetorical devices, the argument and analysis of rhetor's work becomes more clear and persuasive than just stating opinions by backing up the opinions with facts, examples, and analysis.

Editorial: Immunity in Iraq

http://arabnews.com/opinion/editorial/article514695.ece

    This editorial basically bashes on America and the Iraq war, and how America is in huge trouble because of it, similar to Guantanamo bay. He/She says that the war was started all for a lie and the oedipal complex of an insecure president, and that the war's basis, were all lies, such as the weapons of mass destruction, saddam hussein's link to Al Qaeda and 9/11 (Which was a huge topic during the time following 9/11 because people were really freaked out), and much else. Not to mention the other acts of violence and terror they inflicted on Iraq to be punishable under international law.
 I wasn't sure who the author was but i believe if was Dhuʻl-Qiʻdah (Copy pasted because i couldn't really write it), and tried to search for his credibility but couldn't find it. Though I wasn't sure i should do this article because of credibility, he/she does a good job of using facts and pathos to prove his argument.
     The context is that US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has demanded that Iraq provide total immunity to the US troops staying on beyond the scheduled pullout later this year, even past Obama's promised withdrawal from the country.  The editorial was written to bring light upon the situation that America is in, and shed light upon the seeming arrogance of the US.  The author, whoever it may be, uses very strong words, such as audacity and temerity, as well as uses phrases found throughout the article such as, "Talk about adding insult to injury," and, "Is it any wonder then that most Arabs and Muslims believe that the US war in Iraq is spawned and driven by Israel and its friends in high places?"  The author has huge control over the author by the pure amount of confidence that the writing emits. The style in which he/she wrote the article states facts and that the evidence is apparently very clear cut and dry evidence by using questions that state, 'isn't it blatantly obvious?' after an important piece of evidence. He has a clear use of logos through his use of information, and pathos through the rhetorical questions that he asks.

The Tipping point (1 - 80)

Tipping point is about a how a psychological idea or even a fashion trend could be spread like a pandemic. The author details it into 3 different rules of Epidemics; the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context. Up to page 80, only the Law of the Few is defined. Simply stated, it's the few people who are able to spread messages that pave the way for a successful social epidemic. These people are, as stated on page 76, "Mavens are data banks. They provide the message. Connectors are social glue: they spread it. But there is also a select group of people — Salesmen — with the skills to persuade us when we are unconvinced of what we are hearing, and they are as critical to the tipping of word-of-mouth epidemics as the other two groups." Which is a good summary of the what the 80 pages covered, because these are the three 'people' described as the few who spread the message.

     The author is very analytical with his writing. He provides an example, takes apart the meat of an example and proceed to analyze that. He uses repetition of the words like epidemic, and uses very vivid and common examples to explain his argument, such as, when he was using yawning as an example, he proceeded to use the word a couple times in each sentence during his entire explanation. His examples are mostly fact based with statistics to establish his ethos and logos. His writing doesn't have much pathos, but  in some parts of his book, for instance, in the yawning example, he  writes, "Even as I'm writing this, I've yawned twice." sort of as a way to relate to the reader.