"Til Death Do Us Part"

'til death do us part... no, forget it, how about two-years?'  ' as long as we both shall live love'     


          Why should marriage last forever? Personally, I think it's a rather weird question. This article

by Mary Elizabeth Williams asks the reader exactly that. When you think of a perfect marriage, (well at least us girls anyway) you probably think of two people hopelessly in love with each other, bride in a pretty white dress walking down the aisle to her prince charming. Well after that, reality tends to set in. Issues tend to arise and feelings fall through, leading to a messy divorce. In most places in the U.S. the divorce rate is a whopping 50%. That's just sad. So, as the article explains, Mexico City has taken a more business like approach to the hole marriage concept- a contract. Yes, you read that correctly- a contract. Instead of traditional vows, couples can opt for a minimum of a two-year renewable contract, complete with children custody, and division of assets. Personally, I think if you're already thinking about splitting up, you shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Yes, this concept lowers "divorce" rates, but it still allows couples to break apart. These are just my original thoughts; I'm still not exactly sure where I stand because the question and issue took me by surprise.

          I think the author has a VERY personal opinion on this issue. In the last couple paragraphs she really kills the hopeless romantic vision.  She writes, "The opportunity, even, to say, maybe it's time to move on? Why not acknowledge that a great five-year run could be more satisfying than a 30-year sentence? After all, we leave jobs and houses and quietly distance ourselves from old friends all the time, and it's rarely considered failure. Instead it's understood to be part of growth and the nature of life. So why is permanence so highly prized? Why is endurance equated with commitment?" (Williams 1). Some tough fighting words. She continues to shove questions in the readers face, really engaging them about the subject. She seems to think the only reality is, "The idea of life outlasting love, especially right when romance is fresh and new and being celebrated, is a harsh one. And endings, unmistakably, bring heartache. The notion that the person you've pledged yourself to might opt not to re-up your contract is a painful one." (Williams 1). She focuses on the harsh realities of rough marriages and the ever-present outcome of divorce. She also bashes the Catholic Church when she writes, "Unsurprisingly, the Catholic Church, still fired up over Mexico City legalizing same-sex unions in 2009, is none too pleased with the move...because anything other than a lifetime binding contract between a man and woman is hooey!" (Williams 1). Overall, I'm not exactly sure about where I stand on this new idea, but Williams seems to have no problem with it at all. 

 

 http://www.salon.com/life/gender_roles/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/09/30/why_marry_forever

Are comedians funnier if they are fat?

Jonah Hill in 2007's "Superbad" (left) and at an event in Los Angeles in July, 2011

This article written by Susannah Gora and is titled "Are comedians funnier when they're fat?" This article discussed comedian Jonah Hill, who has recently lost a lot of weight, and how jerks on twitter say he's not funny anymore because he's not chubby. Now, wait just a minute. Last time I checked, "funny" and "fat" should not be synonyms. However, as Gora points out, "With fatness and funniness so closely linked in the public perception, audiences may feel that when a chubby comedian sheds weight, there’s just less of him to love." (Gora 1). I personally strongly disagree. Losing weight does not change someone's comedic ability. Other celebrities are struggling with their health in their career as well; Ricky Grievous, Seth Rogan, and Arnold Goodman. I do understand that one's weight can become a celebrity's "identity", but adapting a healthier lifestyle shouldn't effect audiences views on the persons skill or personality. If you were a true Jonah Hill's fan you would be happy for his improved health.

Susannah Gora uses a lot of pathos in this article. She makes the reader look at the relation between physical appearance and mental skill or ability. She seems to want the reader to realize that just because Hill is many pounds lighter, he's not less funny- only less fat. She also uses other professional opinions and direct quotes who have experienced the conflict between personal health and weight versus their professional career. Arnold Goodman, recently starring on "Son's of Anarchy" says, "I wanted to lose weight because I knew there was a scene with my shirt off," Arnold explains, but "the director thought it would add more pathos if I did not lose weight, and would make people feel more sorry for [Gyllenhaal’s character]." There is professional reason behind the "fat-ness" of some characters, but when the person's health is in question and they cannot change the situation around for the better without "career suicide"(Gora 1)- just not right.  The author uses a variety of examples of scenarios where this funny versus fat situation has occurred. So moral of the story is that Jonah Hill lost some weight but that doesn't mean he's lost an comedy skills. So stop critizing him- it's not funny anymore. 

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/moneyball/index.html?story=/ent/movies/2011/09/23/jonah_hill_slims_down

NHL is Split on Head Shot Rule

This article from The New York Times written by Jeff Z. Klein is titled "With Stricter Rule on Hits to the Head, Some N.H.L. Stars Are Split on a Full Ban". The basis of the article is that NHL players seem to be split between the new and slightly stricter head shot rule and ruling out hits made to the head altogether. For 2011-2012 season, the article states that "the 'lateral or blindside' provision of Rule 48 was removed, making potentially illegal any hit to the head, regardless of the direction from which it is delivered."(Klein 1). The question of going even further and adopting the Ontario Hockey League's rule of banning head shots all together is mixed responses from the players. When 17 of the N.H.L.’s top players were asked whether they favored a full ban on head contact, 7 said yes, 4 said no, and the other 6 said they were not sure. When this idea was first brought up, many people seemed to think it would limit the amount of concussions and other head injuries. In my opinion, defenseman Dion Phaneuf says it best.“We have a fast, physical sport — that’s what we are,” he said. “You can’t take that out of the game. If a guy cuts across the middle, he gets hit, he gets hurt, that’s a hockey play.”(Phaneuf, Klein 2). One this is for sure, this is going to be a game changer.

Klein uses some writing strategies through the article to try to allow readers to form an opinion. He uses ethos when he uses the professional hockey players voice and opinions in the article to make the point that these are the people that play the sport and what they have to say. This makes the reader confident in knowing that these people know what they're talking about. The author also goes back and fourth between both sides which makes the reader want to continue reading and form their own opinion. Klein uses logic and engages the readers common sense when he say that three other leagues or federations have banned checks made the the head completely; including the OHL, where most of the NHL players come from. Klein does an excellent job of recognizing his audience and appealing to them. He uses a variety of hockey jargon and uses quotes from favorite hockey players from a variety of teams. His word choice is not too confusing for an average hockey fan like myself, but also isn't over simplified to make it seem like the author is talking to the reader as if they are 2 years old.

The concussion sustained by Marc Savard of the Bruins in 2010 helped prompt a change

  Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/sports/hockey/nhls-top-stars-weigh-in-on-hits-to-the-head.html?pagewanted=1&ref=hockey

Children's Hospitals Under Golden Arches

           The article from Salon.com titled "Why Children's Hospitals Tolerate McDonald's"  is about the "difficult alliance" (Parikh 1) between children's hospitals around the country and the famous golden arches. Personally, I had absolutely no idea why any reputable children's hospital would go as far as having an actual fast food restaurant on site in the same building as children suffering from type II diabetes, obesity, and other health related illnesses, but many of the top hospitals do exactly that. But, as I read the article the proof was in the profits. Although both companies benefited from the other, I found it odd that hospitals picked a fast food restaurant famous for unhealthy foods to help bring in revenue. There did seem to be some moral sense to it however; the article brings up the point that it provides sick children with a familiar and normal aspect to their hectic hospitalized lives.Also, the fact that McDonald's funds a foundation to raise money for chronic children helps provide some reason for the partnership. Even after reading the article, although I see some of it's benefits, I don't agree with the whole idea of something so famously unhealthy in the center of a place for recovery that is so pro-health. But, that's just my opinion.
          Throughout the article, the author uses some negative diction to describe McDonald's . He says McDonald's is "the archetypal bad guy in the war against childhood obesity" and that Morgan Spurlock "called it 'utterly irresponsible' and 'a flagrant violation of the doctor's pledge of "Primum non nocere' (First, do no harm.)" (Parikh 1). The author also uses some statistics, prior knowledge of the audience, and common sense points of evidence, logos. These statistics seem to work because they shock the reader at the sheer abundance of such a partnership. Based on their prior knowledge, readers are forced to agree that hospitals are against unhealthy eating which makes them utilize common sense and come to the conclusion that this isn't a great idea. He then uses pathos to appeal to the reader emotionally and force them to think about a different perspective. He says, " Imagine having to come to the hospital over and over again for invasive and painful treatments. McDonald's represents normalcy for many kids and their families, and could be a fun, comfortable place to go under very grave circumstances." (Parikh 1). The article also mentions that Spurlock writes: "The doctors at Texas Children's Hospital told me they had young patients who were dying of cancer, and it was hard to get them to eat anything. At least these poor kids would eat some fries, take a bite of a burger: food they were familiar with." (Spurlock, Parikh 1). This use of pathos allows the reader to acknowledge one of the benefits of the unlikely business partners. This article forces the reader to question the stereotype of super-size-me McDonald's, and see the somewhat unusual partnership the restaurant has with top children's hospitals around the country.

"Why Children's Hospitals Tolerate McDonald's" by Rahul Parikh
http://www.salon.com/life/poprx/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/09/19/poprx_mcdonalds