Misjudgment of Illegal Immigrants

In the article, “Behind the ‘Illegal Alien’ Label, Real Kids with a lot to Contribute”, Marcos Brenton points out the issue on labeling and stereotyping illegal immigrants. He discusses the work that they do for us and how their contributions to society are often overlooked. They are hard workers who just want to help society and make a better life for themselves. Many times, we as Americans think of them in a negative light and do not give them the time of day; we do not care to listen to their story and automatically make them out to be the bad guys that feed off our tax dollars and welfare. But have we looked at the other side of the issue? Brenton successfully argues that there is a difference between the “day laborer and the drug dealer” by making the average American look from their perspective and understand that they are people with good intentions, wanting to make a difference.

Our American culture is depicted throughout the world as being lazy. In this article, Brenton talks about the farming industry and how Americans do not want to do hard manual labor. We want easy jobs that do not require much “blood, sweat and tears”. However harsh this may seem, I think we can all agree that our work ethic as a country is decreasing. Brenton makes reference to the Sacramento-based California Farm Bureau Federation who said that they would hire people within borders but no one is infatuated with the idea of working on a farm. Farmers have no other option than to hire illegal immigrants because they are the only ones willing to do it. The author makes a challenge in his article saying, “I dare some of you to take a ride up to the Yuba City area in July when it’s good and hot so you can pick melons all stooped over and moving fast as you can keep up with the real workers.” This really stood out to me because I realize that I do not want to do that kind of work. If there are other options, I will take those before I have to do farm labor. Without people doing that work, the farm industry would be in serious trouble. Brenton continues to elaborate that illegal immigrants have other things to offer. They are not “drug dealers” but good people who work hard to get an education so they can help contribute to society.

In conclusion, I think Brenton makes a very good argument that we are not giving the illegal immigration situation enough thought. We need to realize the huge impact they have on our country and that the stereotype of them being “drug dealers” needs to stop.

            

Learning to Love Criticism

The article that I’m analyzing for my Rhetorical Analysis is “Learning to Love Criticism”, written by Tara Mohr. Her purpose in writing this article is to help women overcome their fear of being criticized, and to help them look past the words, and instead analyze if what people are saying about her really is true. Mohr goes about doing this not only through a connection to her female audience, but also through scientific evidence and offering advice on just how to overcome the spiteful words.

Tara Mohr starts out her article by talking about a scientific study done by Kieran Snyder, who analyzed feedback given to women in the workplace. Mohr shares the results of this study, as well as observations she’s seen in her area of work also. Because she starts out her article with not only evidence from an in depth study, but she also builds her credibility by sharing that she’s seen the same results working in her training courses for women. I thought it was a really great way to capture people’s attention, and get them to realize that this isn't just an Opinion Editorial, but something that’s been backed by proven sources.

Another way that Mohr effectively argues her point is through explaining, historically, why women are so fearful of negative criticism. She talks about how for centuries, women couldn't own property, basically having no way to ensure their financial needs. The only thing that they could do to protect their families was to be likable and accepted by people so that they were able to provide for those needs. She points out that while this is no longer the case, women still psychologically are stuck in this mindset. Through sharing this story, and just by her overall word choice in the article, she connects to her audience on a more personal level. By adding herself into the article, she is made out to be “one of us”, and those forges a connection between her intended audience and her, adding even more to her effectiveness in sharing her opinions.

Mohr also goes one step further in her connection, and offers advice to women on how to overcome the negative criticism. She gives multiple tips on how women can look past the negative words, and really analyze them to see if there is any hint of truth in them. She also tells us that we need to move on from the words, and realize that they don’t make us who we really are. I thought overall, through her evidence based arguments, to her connection with her audience, Mohr effectively conveys her point, and wrote not only an entertaining article, but one that gets her point across.

Truth Behind the "Cool"

In the article, “The Cost of Being Cool,” by Hanna Kozlowska, she examines the societal trend of labeling cites with the term “cool.” She focuses on answering the question “what makes a city cool and is that a good thing?” She argues that this label is not as innocent as it seems because it causes more harm than most are aware of. She wants to convince her audience—particularly those Americans who show particular interest in “cool” rankings—that this label is not healthy for our society and therefore we need to abandon that habit.

I think that Kozlowska is effective in convincing her audience because she gives many reasons to support her claim. She builds credibility because she consistently quotes individuals who are qualified to address these issues, such as town mayors and reputable newspaper/online editors. One of the first issues she addresses is that when we attach things a city should be proud of (diversity, urbanity, transit accessibility, etc) to a sociological identity it polarizes them from the rest of society and therefore creates bitter feelings towards the general public and the “young snobbish hipsters” who congregate in these “cool” cities. In addition, she argues that the influx of semi-permanent tourists drives up the cost of rent for locals which creates a disparity between that city’s income and what foreigners pay for their real estate; she claims that inevitably, that the locals become a service economy catered to the tourists. One of her lasts points includes the fact that some cities (such as Portland) does not have the infrastructure and potential for growth that is necessary for the reputation that they have because the city is unable to offer enough jobs to cover the influx of young, qualified people.

In addition to using credible sources, Kozlowska backs up her argument with her successful use of subtle irony/paradox, even ending with a powerful rhetorical question. In essence she uses these elements to get readers to think and consider on their own; what can we do to ensure that “cities whose amenities that attract people [don’t] end up eroding what made a city desirable in the first place?” Her paragraphs are well structured and flow from point to point making it easy to understand. She also varies her sentence structure frequently which not only keeps the attention of her audience, but makes it easier to be convinced by her argument.

Kozlowska addresses a very interesting, kairotic issue and she successfully convinces her target audience that naming cities “cool” has a multitude of negative effects. Her use of several rhetorical devices helps to establish that point throughout the article.

Finding Common Ground

 In the article "Fat and Thin Find Common Ground" Abby Ellin addresses treating binge eating disorders along side the "typical" eating disorders through the logistics behind the benefits that would ensue due to it. Though there is much controversy about whether these disorders should be treated equally Ellin mentions how "low self esteem is extremely common in both, as is body dissatisfaction. They are both very much environmentally driven. Both place excessive emphasis on appearance and body size. In the same way, many of the same psychological underpinnings play into both.”

Not only that, eating disorders- whether it’s binge eating or restricting/purging- is a coping mechanism for people who feel their external environment is out of control. The lack of or overuse intake of food feels as if it is the one thing they have control over. Moreover, Ellin makes a very effective point at stating how by treating these as equal many of the social stigmas about "dieting to be happy" will no longer be the way the nation thinks. After all, from bulimic and anorexic patients we see that, that is not the case. Skinny doesn't mean happiness. I completely agree with Ellin in that by merging these two disorders together we may start to not only consider obesity as the growing problem in our nation. The thing about eating disorders is that it’s known as the “silent illness” because many patients stay quiet about it. Why is this? Well for many it’s shameful that their whole life is focused on what they eat and how much they exercise. Not to mention the praise that rises from so many who don’t struggle with this mental illness when one starts to lose weight! It’s like everyone is complementing you about being skinny and being “so strong” for not eating “bad foods”, surely then there really isn’t bad to be so obsessive over it, right? Wrong.

Ellin does a wonderful job at stating how by joining B.E.D and E.D the media world that is constantly putting extremely skinny people on their magazines will start to realize that it is more important to be healthy rather than skinny. All of this is in hopes that one day our nation may start to focus on healthy behaviors rather than dieting. I know in my life, I have come to see the great blessings from just trusting my hunger and fullness cues rather than focusing on my size and how many calories I consume. I strongly believe that if we as a nation start thinking “All food is good food in moderation” we may live a better lifestyle.

Restoring Ethics in the Sporting World

          The article I have selected to rhetorically analyze is titled, “How to Get Doping Out of Sports.”  The author, Jonathan Vaughters, proves to be a prime candidate to address such a topic as a former professional cyclist.  Recently, efforts have been increased and enhanced to test for performance enhancing drugs which has exposed super-star athletes of their dishonest secret to success.  Fellow cyclist Lance Armstrong has faced much scrutiny recently when his record-breaking performances proved to be fraudulent when leaked information proved him guilty of using steroids.  Once caught in this whirlwind himself, Vaughters uses his personal experience with steroids to convincingly admonish athletes to steer clear of these drugs.  To this effect, his purpose is accomplished in this article. 

Additionally, he seeks to solve this pressing issue by offering general solutions.  Although there is no fix-all, Vaughters offers clear insight and perspective on the path he once walked.  He says, “Future generations must begin by making the right choice realistic . . . winning isn’t possible if anti-doping regulations aren’t enforced.”  To authenticate this claim, he outlines the vision of ambitious athletes, and the dedication required to fulfill their dreams.  He addresses the pressure to succeed that weighs heavily upon the minds of anyone who has ever suited up for a big game.  He suggests that in order to be competitive, you first have to keep up.  In order to keep up, you have to go the extra two percent- that two percent oftentimes requires more than mere mortal strength.  He strongly believes that the only reason athletes dope is to “level the playing field” in order to compete with others around them.  He desires to help athletes “live their dreams without compromising their morals.”

Vaughters has unquestionable validation with the issue, which adds to the ethos of his article. The rhetorical purpose in his writing also includes the emotions of pathos, wherein he draws upon his personal experience.  To add to his claims, he is able to use logic and reason by stressing the unethical implications of performance enhancing drugs.  By referring to them as “a bad mistake” and by using connotations such as lying and cheating when referring to the practice, he degrades the immoral behavior and attempts to dismiss the curiosity in any athlete’s mind.  In these efforts, I believe that the author effectively conveys a message of hope to athletes with aspirations to excel in their respective sport- the right, ethical, and honest way.

Winning Back the Hearts of the American People

In 1974 the United States were in a crisis involving their president, Richard Nixon. It was learned that President Nixon and members of his administration had broken into the Democratic National Committee headquarters and preformed illegal activities, such as bugging offices. This act alone was bad enough, but Nixon and his administration’s attempt at covering it up only made it worse. When evidence was found that President Nixon definitely played a part in the scandal, it was almost certain that the House of Representative and Senate would impeach him. Being aware of this near certainty, Nixon decided to resign as president of the United States. When addressing the country on his decision, he wanted people to remember him for all the good he did as a president, rather than the downfalls. He also wanted to convince the American people that all the actions he made were for the benefit of the country.

            I believe that President Nixon did a good job at getting his points of successes he had across to the American people, and he did so in a very convincing way. In the end, however, it was not successful because there was nothing he could say that would make the people forget of the illegal activities he participated in and the way he let down the nation. He was able to remind people of all the success he had as president, even though it did not fully distract from his recent wrong doings. He talks of his success with countries abroad, and his involvement with things such as ending the war in Vietnam, opening the door to China, and making improvements with relations in the Middle East. These statements are successful in reminding the American people of all the success Nixon had as president, and make them feel gratitude toward him. In the end, however, these reminders were not enough to make people forget of Nixon’s involvement in illegal activities.

            In his speech, Nixon also tells the American people of his love for the nation, and that he puts the needs of the United States before himself or his family, saying, “the interests of the Nation must always come before any personal considerations” (Nixon). He also goes on to state that he “always tried to do what was best for the Nation” (Nixon) as he served his country. This makes the reader feel that Nixon’s decision to break the law was seen in his eyes as the best decision for the country. If he believed that breaking the law was what was best for the country, then the American people begin to doubt all of his other arguments, feeling that his judgment might be skewed. This not only takes away his appeal of emotion to the audience, but also takes away the credibility that he established earlier.

            

Put Your Money Where Their Mouths Are

Nicholas D. Kristof address the issue of child labor in his article, Put Your Money Where Their Mouths Are. He explains that those of us from developed countries and "warm-and-fuzzy humanitarians" like to believe that setting a universal child labor law will be beneficial to third world countries and those children who are working under aged. Something we don't realize, and Kristof points out is: these third world countries need the children to work in order for the country to survive. At these young ages, children are usually in school, unlike the children in developed countries, many don't have access to a school house and if they do, the average grade taught to is fourth. In developed countries, when a child has completed school, they begin to work. The difference is children in third world countries happen upon this life event much sooner than the children in developed countries. Kristof tells of the need for child labor in these countries. Parents simply do not make enough money to support their families and so the children are forced to work or else they will die and the country we cease to exist. The working conditions these children work in may not be ideal, but they are better than the alternatives.  If children are not able to work in the more protected environments, they will be forced to find work elsewhere and many feel the need to turn to prostitution. This article makes you question which morality you feel more strongly about. 
Kristof closes his article by challenging university students to "Put your money where their mouths are." It costs a mere $0.19 to feed a child each day. He challenges them to spend their energy and efforts towards a cause that will truly make a difference. Children work because they need food, children will go to school if it means they can have a meal, so why not donate $0.19--pocket change--to not only feed a child, but also to give them an education. 
Kristoff, I feel, is quite successful in convincing the audience. It tugs a little at the heart and as college students we know how it feels to be hungry, so if you can, why not help?