The episode named “Saigon 1965” presented by a podcast called Revisionist History hosted by Malcom Gladwell talks about The Pentagon’s and the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. Gladwell also talks about a interview from a former pentagon agent who was sent to Saigon to interview captured Vietcong members to get information out of them. He also talks about how the war was more than just two countries fighting against each other, it was negotiating and trying to intimidate the advisory.
My grandfather fought in the Vietnam War from 1969 to 1970 and when he was over there he was exposed to “Agent Orange”. He didn’t know why he was sent there and what he was doing there besides killing the Vietcong before they kill him. Before his untimely death in the mid 80s he never talked about what he saw but if he ever did you would probably have nightmares for weeks. War is a brutal thing to happen but sometimes it needs to be done just so that they can protect either your country or even the world.
The episode named “McDonalds Broke my Heart” presented by a podcast called Revisionist History hosted by Malcom Gladwell talks about how when he was 13 years old he tried McDonalds for the first time in his life and it changed his world. Gladwell talks about a experiment to see which fries are better the McDonalds fries from back in the day or todays fries. Than after he and a few coworkers tasted the fries they called a few Millennials to see which fries they liked better and they all had the same answer and the millennials chose the fries from the past. Gladwell goes on and talks about how in 1990 McDonalds changed their fry recipe because they were told that they were unhealthy because they use beef tallow which is beef fat.
Through out my almost 20 years on this planet every time I go to McDonalds my parents always complains about how the fries aren’t as good as when they were children. Even my grandparents complain about how they aren’t as good when they were the 1960s when McDonalds first came to Las Vegas. Even when I was a kid I remember those fries being great and that was in 2006, but as times have changed and so have their fries. What I’m trying to say is things change, whether its for the good or the bad. Even when it comes to our favorite French fries
The episode named “The Satire Paradox” presented by a podcast called Revisionist History hosted by Malcom Gladwell talks about how comedy likes to target politicians and how their are so many sketches promoting laughter at politicians. Through out the podcast Gladwell how Stephen Colbert who plays a stereotypical Republican pokes fun at then President Bush and Gladwell’s experience on his show. Gladwell also talks about what is kind of a controversial tv character in todays standards named Archie Bunker from the hit 1970s show “All in the Family” where Archie would make fun of everyone whether their white, black, Democrat or Republican.
Political comedy is different from what it was when guys like Don Rickles would make fun of President/Governor Ronald Reagan but at the end of his bit he would say that Reagan is a fantastic person and wishes him the best of luck. Even Jay Leno when he was on tv he would make fun of Bill Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama but at the end of the day he respected them for their hard work they do for the country. Now a days everyone brutally makes fun of Republicans, President Trump and his family just because they align themselves with the President. Last year at the White House correspondents dinner Michelle Wolf who is a comedian spent about 20 minutes just brutally making fun of Sarah Huckabee Sanders who is the White House’s press secretary which were so vial that the FCC had to ban the airing of the jokes. I just hope one day people go back to the Don Rickles style and give thanks to those people instead of the trash we see and hear today.
The day was September 11, 2001 in
New York City, for many it was just another Tuesday morning but that was all
about to change when a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist
organization called Al-Qaeda hijacked four airplanes and flew two of them into
the World Trade Center. The world was in shock as how the biggest superpower in
the world could be dropped to their knees in defeat. The
image shows destruction and mayhem. It also shows how just one man can destroy
a symbol of Americana and destroy the American spirit. It wasn’t just a person
destroying two buildings in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington D.C, and
a field in Pennsylvania. He also took the lives of 3,000 people and destroyed
the families affected through these terrific acts. I got this picture from a
website called “Activist Post” who was doing this article talking about the 15th
remembrance of the 9/11 terrorist attack
but I could not find who took the picture.
The picture shows the last three standing steel bars that
made the World Trade Center exoskeleton and around it is the debris and ash
covering everything around it. Also if you focus to the bottom center of the
picture you can see a couple of firemen just looking at what used to be the
World Trade Center while their fire truck is destroyed from the falling
concrete.
This terrorist attack made every country in the world from
Japan to England aware of how much destruction Al-Qaeda and their leader and
dish out onto the world. The days following countries around the world showed
support for the United States. But not just that even the own citizens of the
United States rejoiced in patriotism for the red, white and blue because we
thought just because they destroy our buildings doesn’t mean they destroyed our
spirit of being Americans.
This photograph is a remembrance of what happened that day
but there is a few things that the photographer could focus more on. For
starters the photographer could have focused more on the light beaming down
from the heavens on what used to be the World Trade Center and a little more on
the debris and carnage surrounding the former building. Changing those things
in this picture would get a little of a darker message to what happened on that
day in September. But it would also show more of the destruction that was
caused by Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
The significance for me picking this picture is because the older I get the more people don’t know what happened because they weren’t born yet or for some people they just think “Some people did something” (Rep. Omar). But more importantly it’s to remind people of what happened that September day. I don’t believe that after deconstruction and reconstructing this picture has changed my viewpoint on it. I just hope on day people can see it as a terrorist attack from Bin Laden instead of blaming President Bush and making memes about the tragedy.
Chapter 8: As a result In this chapter it talks about how to connect sentences to make them sound much better What I learned: for some reason I always have trouble connecting my sentence because my hands will move faster than my brain.
Chapter 9: Ain’t so/Is so In chapter 9 it shows us how to be ourselves and relax with we write and how combining academic writing with personal writing to give that sentence an extra kick to make it really good. What I learned: I felt like I didn’t learn anything because I was always told to be yourself will you write
Chapter 10: But Don’t Get Me Wrong Chapter 10 is about what metacommentary is and how to use it as readers/writers What I learned:I have never heard of metacommentary before reading this chapter
Chapter 11: He Talks About Deplores In chapter 11 Graff and Birkenstein talk about revision and how it is the most crucial thing you need to do to a paper. What I learned: I’ve always had trouble with revising my paper because I would sometimes take out stuff I thought was bad but it was actually good or add stuff I thought was good but it was actually bad
On September 11, 2001 a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden and his organization called “Al-Qaeda” helped create this picture of pure evil and destruction. It was to show that they are not to be messed with and if you did mess with them this could possibly happen to you too.
The world watched in fear as how this terrorist group from Afghanistan destroyed one of the big super powers in the world. The objective was clear, kill as many people as possible and possibly kill the American spirit as well.
As the ash and dust rise there is nothing but ruble and debris laying at the site of what was the World Trade Center. But if you look light is beaming down at the carnage which shows even through evil there is still light and brighter days will come. More importantly the last three standing pieces of the World Trade Center could show that they may have destroyed us on the outside but on the inside we are still standing.
Since the dawn of man humans have been eating meat to survive but for some reason since the 1960s many people have been trying to tell everyone that animals are friends not food and that they have feelings. But yet a lot of those same people won’t talk about how animals eat other animals to survive. Another issue is for some reason since about the 1990s the rise of feminists have been saying men are evil scum and they use their masculinity to get ahead in life.
According to “Having it his Way” by Carrie Packwood and Debra Merskin the authors talk about what its like in a male dominated society and how they control fast food advertisement. They give examples from some famous fast food restaurants are male targeted like Carl’s Jr that likes to use sex to sell their burgers with stars like Kim Kardashian that have been shown in the commercials. Another example that Packwood and Merskin use is from Arby’s and the commercial shows these three construction workers watching all these women walk past them but its not until they start shouting and hollering at this guy walking with a Rueben sandwich from Arby’s
Through out this reading I found that they had no logic behind their reasoning. I say that because there was no correlation between a beautiful women eating a burger and you having to get that burger because a supermodel is eating it is. I understand that in todays world there are a lot of different rules from the early 2000s to now or even the 1990s to now but we have to follow the “rules” because nobody wants their little feelings hurt, but to say this is a valid reason on why male masculinity is real over a fast food commercial is absolutely ridiculous.
Chapter 4: Three Ways to Respond In chapter four the authors moved from the they say to the I say part of the book. But most importantly they tell us about academic writing which is how to respond will doing that type of writing. What I learned: To be honest I actually learned this in my senior year of high school and it helped me when we would do essays in class
Chapter 5: And Yet The chapter talks about how to transition from what other people are talking/writing about to what you are talking/writing about without making people super confused on what just happened. What I learned: It actually helped me more than I learned from it because sometimes when I write I transition from topic to topic and even I have to stop, read it, and fix it because it made absolutely no sense.
Chapter 6: Skeptics May Object Chapter 6 is about how people will critizize you and how you as a writer/person can just block it out. What I learned: this is another review for me because through out my life I’ve been taught how to deal with criticism from people and how to just block them out whether its a person telling me my football team sucks to people judging me just because i love my country.
Chapter 7: “So What? Who Cares” Chapter seven is about the different ways that you can answer to the questions “so what” and “who cares”. Both so what and who cares get their own separate respected sections in the chapter. The who cares part of the chapter helps you be more open on who or what you are talking about in your essay or just talking to your friend. The so what part of the chapter is about how to answer someone’s question from their best claims. What I learned: I learned that
If I could be honest for a second I only have ten loves in this world and one of those loves are guns. I don’t care if you’re Republican, Democrat, Communist, or whatever we have to ad might that guns helped make this country. Without guns we would be under Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan control, without guns we would still have slavery, but most importantly without guns we would have never gotten our independence from England. Now that I’ve put my little two cents into this lets start shall we.
Brief Summary: It is about how many Democrats want the second amendment repealed three days after the Las Vegas shooting and what would it be like if Democrats would actually succeed in doing that. He also talks about if we want to be a country with guns we must figure a way so gun violence can substantially drop.
Rhetorical Situation
Author’s Background: His name is Johnathon S. Tobin and he is a respected conservative writer Target Audience: Conservatives, Gun owners and red blooded Americans Context: Published on Oct. 4, 2017 three days after the October 1 shooting in Las Vegas, NV
Argumentative Elements
Main argument: The gun control is pointless but Democrats won’t admit it Claims: It would make law bidding citizens even harder to purchase a gun, guns would become very expensive due to the black market, and gun control won’t end gun violence Evidence: The black market, constitutionally protected, Chicago and New York gun laws
Evidence appeals
Logos/questionable logic: The author does use sound and logical arguments of if this happens or this is what is gonna happen if we do this. All the examples that the author uses are reasonable because you can look at history and it can show that this didn’t work but yet they want it. Ethos/credibility: It depends how you look at. If you are a conservative you would see this as “yes, exactly that is what would happen if Democrats could repeal the second amendment” but if you are Liberal you could possibly see this as “that is not correct we only want to get rid of guns because they cause way to much damage to our society”. But in my eyes I do believe that this author has the credibility and expertise because if you look at his other articles that he has done he uses facts and not just his opinion. Pathos/language: I would say is language is passionate about guns but at the same time straight to the point to what he says. He does help you learn from what he has to say but he doesn’t persuade or manipulate you to thinking one way and one way only. Definitions: He doesn’t really define anything because he is using fact and logic but in his other articles he does define and he does it very well.
Arrangement/Organizatio
Consistency: The author remains consistent throughout his article and each paragraph flows together. The article doesn’t distract through the article. Arrangement: Yes the arguments in this article does help understand what the topic is and its reasons.
The definition of evidence is “something that furnishes proof”(Merriam-Webster). That is something that we have used to proven so many thing in this world. However there are times that we did not have the evidence to prove that something was true, whether God exists, the dinosaur noises in Jurassic Park, or even that aliens exist. That was sometimes the case of the Salem Witch trials, they would try a person who they think was a witch without any real evidence and a lot of the time the people were going off of looks or how the person presented themselves.
In the passage the author Kathryn Schulz talks about without evidence we are just using our beliefs and prier knowledge. In the first quiz she gave us three questions, the first question was about what is being covered up behind this rectangle, the second question talks about “What is a Gavagia?” which is a rabbit, and the third question is about you finishing the sentence. However the next quiz has the same questions but it makes you think about the possible answers.
Through out the rest of the passage she talks about how stereotypes have zero evidence that can correspond with the stereotype. She also talks about how without science we wouldn’t know all the great things that we know today, whether its the planets, disease, or life itself.
At the end of the day we as humans use evidence to back up so many things that we constantly have to know the truth about everything. As we evolved as people we gained knowledge of what is the truth and what could be fake but now we know what is good for us and what is bad. Without evidence we would still be like cavemen wondering instead of thinking.
CorbinGrady 