Happy Hour at Starbucks?

           This article was about a Starbucks chain in Seattle has announced it's going to spice up their menu a little bit. They will soon be offering alcoholic beverages and "premium food offerings" to their coffee shop. Some stores also say they are going to rearrange their seating plan to help accomodate groups and bigger parties for meeting or larger outings. I personally think it's weird, winding down after work at a Starbucks for a glass of wine? I don't know, I think they should keep it a casual coffe shop. I see where they are coming from though, they want to make it a more "around-the-clock" stop for their customers and make more of a profit by expanding their audience. Whatever, I'll still see it as a coffe shop and probably won't be stopping in for dinner any time soon.
          The main purpose of this article was to inform the readers about the new addition to the menu and to inspire them to voice their opinions about the change. After describing the change and reason for it, the last few lines ask readers "Do you think the menu makeovers will actually give these eateries a boost? Any of these new selections sound appealing to you? Tell us in the comments section." (Halzack 1). Those not-so-rhetorical questions are meant to be answered by the readers so Starbucks may gain some insight on how well this change might work out. The author also explains other popular eateries that have made similar changes. For example, Dunkin' Donuts offering lunch items in addition to breakfast, and Subway offering breakfast as well as lunch/dinner options. Those example of changes that worked persuade readers to think that this could be a positive and useful change and bring in more profits to Starbucks. 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/starbucks-happy-hour-is-retailers-latest-effort-to-expand-its-reach/2012/01/24/gIQAZ7DsNQ_story.html

Pay Hundreds of Dollars Not to Eat!

Gwyneth needs her organic wine, and she needs it now.

         
           Gwyneth Paltrow says "Buy my overpriced cleanse!"... okay not really but that's the truth. Who would want to pay hundreds of dollars  ($425 to be exact) to not eat anything but protein powder-ed "food" and a bunch of pills and vitamins? No thanks, not me. Oh but the occasional Glee guest star uses it- oh wait, still no thanks. As Williams  says, "Suddenly, deep fried stuffing looks better and better." (Willaims 1).
            The author basically hates the idea of a celebrity advertising for a cleanse for hundreds of dollars that probably won't even work. I actually think she's jealous of Goop. She writes as an added note, "Goop does note that the invitation to cleanse is 'not intended as medical advice' and is 'just a suggestion,' thereby covering Paltrow’s toned, slender butt." (Williams 1). Then she basically humiliates Paltrow's credibility and asks rhetorical questions like, "Not Emmy-winner Mariska Hargitay, who says that the system “has changed my life.” Not celebrity divorcee Demi Moore, who calls it “the best!” Mmm mmm, what could be better than a “filling” 90-calorie shake composed mostly of rice protein concentrate, rice bran and rice syrup solids?" (Willaims 1). She also deems her  “tone deaf… Marie Antoinette” (Williams 1). 


http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/gwyneth_paltrow_buy_my_overpriced_cleanse/

Search Your Brain

           This article was about a new case in which the government can forcefully search your brain for information like computer passwords etc. This not only infringes on the fifth amendment, "that you cannot be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself"; but also the fourth amendment, "prohibition of  unreasonable searches and seizures." I think because searching peoples brains for information clearly violates both of those, it should not be prohibited. You can't just go changing things like that because you think it will be easier to gain information for crimes and court cases. But, lie detectors and other similar technologies basically do the same thing so I guess this whole thing is simply a grey area that needs to be sorted out.
          The author seems to think this idea isn't so lawful either. He uses diction like "appalling" and "forcibly." (Sirota 1). He also openly states "Regardless of whether you believe the defendant in this particular case is innocent or guilty, the case clearly threatens the most basic constitutional rights." (Sirota 1). The article was easy to comprehend and could be appealing to a wide audience range. Nothing is final yet which leaves the article without much  closure, but it also keeps the audience's ears pealed for future news on the topic. Sirota's main purpose was to inform readers about this new controversy and to point out it's amendment violations. 

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/should_the_government_search_your_brain/

Marky Mark Saves the Universe?

Just one of many...

[I know this isn't exactly the kind of passage I should be analyzing but I'm going to make it work.. and I couldn't resist]
        This short article (and corresponding slide show) is about Mark Wahlberg's comments about 9/11 that honked his own horn a little.... okay, a lot. These comments came out his mouth earlier in the week during an interview with Men's Journal when he seemed to "confuse himself with Chuck Norris" (Mustich 1). He said, referring to 9/11, "If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, ‘OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry.’" I chuckled- that's pretty easy to say more than ten years after it happened.
       The author, Emma Mustich, seems to agree with me. She makes crazy comparisons (like the Chuck Norris one above) and uses negative diction when discussing the ordeal. She uses words like "insensitve" and "lightning-rod remarks" when describing his interview and "incredulity" when explaining its effects. (Mustich 1). Although he apologized profusely, the internet has exploded with memes and pictures mocking Wahlburg. Those "more notable examples of Wahlberg-inspired Internet art" are conveniently attacked to the brief article for the audiences entertainment. I think writing an article about something like this and attaching embarrassing edited pictures is only creating more of an outbreak of effects by informing a larger audience in such a negative way about this silly scandal instead of just forgetting about it. Whatever.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/marky_mark_saves_the_universe/

Death Be Not Proud (Memoir)

          "Johnny did not lose function. He lived almost a year after this, and he did not die a vegetable. he died like a man with perfect dignity." (Gunther 68)
           My memoir is called Death Be Not Proud by John Gunther. So far, I'm a little past half way through the book and I really like it. It's written by a dad who lost his son Johnny (Jr.) to a brain tumor when he was seventeen years old. The story isn't all sad though, it focuses on Johnny's extreme will to live and the fact he outlived the tumor over a year longer than the doctors predicted. He remained in cheerful spirits all the way to the end. His parents did everything they could to keep Johnny alive and happy and his dad discusses his own emotional struggles in seeing his son suffer. Johnny was in and out of the hospital, underwent many intense treatments but still managed to graduate high school and get accepted into Harvard in the process. He was obsessed with his school work and completely devoted to science. After his fist major surgery, before he could even open his eyes, he asked his dad to read him problems in the back of his physics book to ensure that he had not lost any memory and to keep his mind occupied. His mother wrote eloquent letters that he dictated to her adressed to college professors, famous chemists, and his friends. He was every nurses favorite patient and was convinced he would beat this disease. Unfortunately he died the summer before his freshman year in college. That's where I am in the book right now and I predict the remainder of the novel includes more of his letters and probably how his loved ones coped with his death.
         The book is told in a very informal and conversational style which leaves the reader with a feeling that they have met Johnny and his family and are going through the struggle right alongside them. The book is extremely said but because Gunther continues to focus on the positives and his sons wit, friendliness, courage and extreme patience though the disease, it makes it quite the heartwarming story. Gunther makes extremely clear to the reader his respect and undying love for his son. I think anyone who has lost a loved one or been with someone in a time of ill health or struggle can relate to this memoir.
So far, so good!

The Science of Getting Along

           This article was about studies of child psychology and how, and when, children develop the ability to cooperate. I found the article  for the most part extremely dry, and I love children and psychology. I thought it was a few interesting facts and explanations in between a bunch of over technical terms and bland filling.I think it would be more suitable for someone who has, or is, studying this subject in great detail. A parent or curious student like myself doesn't get too much out of the information.
          The author's audience at first seemed to be parents, but as I said earlier, I think this would go right over most of their heads. Sennet uses a lot of expert opinion in the article which can be used as ethos evidence. Some examples occurred usually at the beginning of each paragraph with statements like "The child psychologist Alison Gopnik observes..." and "The psychologist Jerome Bruner has emphasized the importance of such..." (Sennett 1). Although the article was about an interesting topic, I think it was dry, over-technical and hard to comprehend.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/15/how_we_learn_to_play_with_others/

The War on Only Children

            This article was about the somewhat inner judgment of only children. People tend to make assumptions about them too quickly. For example the "only child syndrome" is a common term for a kid that's used to getting what they want when they wanted it and are "spoiled brats". Personally, not every only child is spoiled and not every spoiled child is an only one. I've met a bunch of children who are spoiled rotten and have multiple siblings who are the same way.
          The author, Mary Elizabeth Williams, is an only child herself so she sometimes speaks from personal experience. I've never seen someone openly judge an only child or their parents blatantly, right in front of their faces. But, apparently it happens. her speaking from personal experience can be used as ethos evidence in the article along with quoting results of research studies from qualified sources. She refers to only children as ''onlies" which  in a way separates them from the other kids with siblings even further. The lame name makes you sort of feel bad for the "onlies". She also uses the rhetorical strategy of asking rhetorical questions. After explaining that the oddities of being an only child are outdated, she asks " Hi, what year is this?" (Williams 1). After using an example of logos evidence she asks another question to get readers thinking, "There are now roughly 20 million only children in America, representing nearly a quarter of all our families. You’d think those swelling ranks would have changed those misconceptions.  So how come if we don’t smoke in bars anymore, we’re still dissing only children?" (Williams 1). She also asks a question and makes a metaphor to something most every reader can relate to. " But whether it’s by the hand of fate or conscious decision, who’s to knock another’s choices, anyway? Why be a self-appointed Goldilocks of family size, bloviating that one is pathetic, five is pushing it, but two or three is juuuuust right?"(Willaims 1).  I think this article is well written, using a lot of evidence and appeal to a large reader audience, and brings up an issue that not many people realize exists in society today.

Why the Kodak Moment Will Never Die

            This article was about the decline of old film and pictures that really capture those "Kodak Moments". With the rise of photoshop and digital photography, its takes less and less to appear to be a "good" photographer and create beautiful art.  This article brings up that it's not a flawless picture's aesthetics thats makes its special, but the memories that you associate it with that exact moment that the picture was taken. I think the article brings up a few great points. For one, "Neither the simplicity of digital nor the cleverness of Photoshop can make a person a good photographer – though they can make it easier for someone to appear to be one." (Williams 1). Appearing to be a good photographer is very different that actually being one.
            The author uses a lot of examples in her writing. She compares and contrasts digital and film camera photography and explaining how digital has evolved to make some pictures look like old toy analogs with a grainy and retro image. She also criticizes expensive camera equipment and photoshop. She says, "...all the expensive gear in the world won’t make a great picture. It can just make a really, clear one." (Williams 1). Her main point and thesis comes at the end of the article. She writes, " They’re a new mutation of our abiding affection for things that are dinged up and cracked and scratched around the edges. Things that are a little imperfect and fuzzy. Like our memories themselves. Like our Kodak moments." (Williams 1). Overall I thought the article was interesting and well written. 


http://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/why_the_kodak_moment_will_never_die/

The Gatorade Shower

           This article was about the tradition of a gatorade shower after a big sports win. It explains the first time it happened, which was in 1984 at a football game where Bill Parcells was the victim. The article also explains the traditions oddities and pokes fun at the nations sports leagues. It includes first hand experiences of the Gatorade shower and explains that its not all fun and games.
           The author seems to think that its a ridiculous tradition. She throws in comments like "In ancient Rome, successful military commanders were honored with...elaborate animal sacrifice, the burning of incense and a procession in which the victor was showered with flowers tossed by adoring crowds...The rite by which we honor our heroes is dumping Ga­tor­ade on their heads." (Hesse 1). Also, "There are disputes on the correct vernacular, but no disputes as to whether it must happen, for the nation that has declared the noogie an acceptable display of affection has also deemed the Ga­tor­ade Dump an appropriate sign of respect." and "A sports fan must find something to give the experience continuity. That thing shall be called “electrolytes.”"(Hesse 1). Ouch- Low blow. She brings up a lot of cons to the tradition. For example, an expert explained that the glucose, artificial flavor and coloring when let sit on a warm body is a recipe for "the perfect storm of stains" (Hesse, Heloise 2). Sucks for whoever does the laundry. Also, "In 1990, Long Beach State’s coach, George Allen (formerly of the Redskins), received a dousing. Allen, then 72, died six weeks later. He had said he hadn’t felt healthy since the Ga­tor­ade shower — which, incidentally, was not Ga­tor­ade at all: His cash-strapped team had used ice water." (Hesse 1). I bet that team feels guilty. Some logos evidence was used when Hesse writes "Approximately 20,000 gallons of Ga­tor­ade are consumed by NCAA football teams each year. An additional 14,500 gallons are consumed by the NFL. That’s Gatorade’s word, “consumed.” It does not specify how many of those gallons are consumed by players and how many of them are consumed by the permeable fabric of the hypothermic coach’s sportswear."  (Hesse 2). Wowza. Anybody thirsty?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-gatorade-shower-the-victory-ritual-that-cant-be-ducked/2012/01/04/gIQAjaSQbP_story_1.html

Bless Me, Ultima (17-end)

 I think this blog is due today- I think.
           Anyways, I was somewhat disappointed with the end of the book. My predictions were both correct and incorrect. I thought Ultima was going to die, and she did. I thought Antonio's destiny and future would be revealed, it wasn't. Was he going to be a priest? A farmer? a teacher? like his brothers? like Ultima? Who knows, I wish Anaya just told us. This technique of a mystery ending can be effective in keeping the book and the lessons inside it on the reader's mind after they have finished reading it. I would've preferred a more eventful and affirmative ending, but that's just me.
          Anaya also foreshadows a lot of the book's ending through Antonio's dream, which makes it predictable. For example Ultima's death and Antonio's brothers wandering and restlessness. 
          One thing that I really liked  about the ending chapters, was the story the priest told to the children about eternity. I thought it was very powerful and also very easy to imagine. (I would type it here but its almost an entire page long...)
          The ending of the book seemed to highlight Antonio's desire for answers from God, but also the fact that he wasn't getting any of these answers. God let people like evil Tenorio die, but also the good Narciso. God can't or won't lift the curse like those on Uncle Lucas and the Tellez family. Antonio dis everything right in believing and preparing to receive God in communion, and He was silent. God was silent during Antonio's questions, He was silent to his confessions, and silent still for his communion. God seemed always silent yet he had the right to determine whether you went to heaven or hell when you died. In a way, through Antonio (and also the story of Florence), Anaya is trying to say that "life isn't always fair". And that you cant change the past or your life in general, but you can control how you respond to it and how much it affects you. Don't blame God for your every misfortune. Sometimes it rains on the people who most deserve the sun.

The Polar Bear Plunge

           This article was about the annual polar bear plunge into Boston Harbor on New Years Day. Now, it was a short and very brief article but I chose it because I have participated in two ''polar bear plunges" before, so I wanted to see what people had to say about it. In my personal opinion, this particular plunge was somewhat pointless. It sounded like a bunch of crazy friends running into the frigid waters on New Years Day. That being said, there's nothing wrong with a little fun, but I prefer freezing my butt off in the middle of winter to support a charity. My first plunge was last New Years Day with some of my family because, well, peer pressure to join in from my cousins and uncle. The only thing I got out of it was bragging rights, a picture, and a freezing body that even a hot shower can't fix. The second one was over last February vacation was a fundraiser to support Special Olympics and not only was it more involved and organized, I also felt like I was helping someone and making a difference to those kids-along with the pictures and bragging rights. It was much more "worth it".
         Now, as for the article, it was very short and brief. The author probably thought everyone involved belonged in an insane asylum. She described each persons appearance as if they were some sort of different species. "She stood on the beach shivering in her one-piece black Speedo bathing suit with her son Eoin, 11." (McCabe 1). I just felt it was pointless, shes just a normal person who went out to have a little fun with her family- who cares what color bathing suit she's wearing? The author wrote this same type of description for each of the participants that were mentioned as if she needed to clarify to readers that they participants, were in fact, average human beings. I think people, including the author complicate things. You just be brave and jump into the freezing water whatever your reason may be. The end of the article somewhat displays this; "[when] asked for advice on how to brave the water, Brown said “You just run and fall in.”" (McCabe 1). Exactly. I just felt it was a silly question. I guess you have to experience it first hand to fully understand it; the author clearly thought the participants were all insane.(which to some degree- you have to be)

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/01/hundreds-join-street-brownies-annual-new-year-day-polar-bear-plunge/BzsxhhusIX0CCmdihrbGtN/index.html?p1=Upbox_links