Hollywood says NO to smoking

In “On More Hollywood Soundstages, Signs Say ‘No Smoking’  a article written by Michael Cieply talks about Holloywood banning smoking in childrens movies. Some companies have banned smoking from children movies, but what really is too much? And how old should these kids be to be considered acceptable? The article is convincing, becasue it gives a unrelated scenario that has a underlying issue that is proven as a key example of the article. In the article Cieply brings up the possibility of banning more behaviors that could be harmful to the public.                       

      Cieply’s article in the first paragraph uses James “Thunder” Early, Eddie Murphy’s character in “Dream Girls” (Pg-13) as an example of what would not be allowed in Time Warner and Disney soundstages. The article compares six different companies use of tobacco in children movies. Not all of the companies’ practice “Disney’s prefect tobacco free films.” Sony corporation showed use of tobacco products in all three “Spider Man” films; Sony’s policy is to “discourage the depiction of tobacco products in youth oriented films.  These scenarios in the article are used to prove the need to ban smoking from G, PG, PG-13 movies. If policies are made individually by each company there will be room left for “wiggle room.”

Once Hollywood bans smoking from soundstages, what will happen next? In Cieply‘s article slippery slope fallacy is a apparent. Groups are going to “rid movies that portray gun use, Trans fat consumption or other behaviors that can be harmful to the public.”  If this happens no telling what else would be taken away.In many places smoking is being banned; places like bars, restaurants and other public places. In Hollywood, smoking is going to be banned in movies that are intended for children.

 

      

Happiness in a Grilled Cheese Sandwich

           Kraft Foods is losing money. Selling cheese is harder than you would think. Today many people are buying the generic sliced cheeses.Kraft needs to change their way of advertising; Kraft’s budget for advertsing was 1.4 billion dollars and now it will raise up to be 300 or 400 billion dollars each year. The Kraft brand is losing it’s touch on the consumer, there new slogan “Have a Happy Sandwich” is hoping to catch the ears of the consumers’. In order to advertise to a younger audience Kraft has made new commercials. One commercial has little red riding hood and the big bad wolf sharing a grilled cheese sandwich together. Kraft’s new slogan to help build up their business is “Have a Happy Sandwich.” Kathy Delaney, global executive creative director in New York says “were not promising happiness; no brand can. All we are promising is that three or for minutes you’re having a Kraft grilled cheese sandwich you’re happy.” Well see if Kraft’s slogan will appeal to the consumers’ or younger audiences. 

     When I was younger I used to eat lots of grilled cheese sandwiches. But, I didn’t use Kraft as my cheese. My family never bought Kraft even now they don’t buy it; we buy the generic store brands. Kraft’s slogan “Have a Happy Sandwich” wouldn’t appeal to me or my family, because we never bought a Kraft sliced cheese product. The article refers to generic store brands in one sentence, but the rest of the article is how to persuade people to buy Kraft products.

  In this article the author tries to persuade the audience by using various fallices. The fallicies include Argument by Slogan, and argument by Selective Observation. The author ties the slogan into the article using it as a argument in certain points. He uses the slogan to capture the audiences appeal to the product using television commercials. The commercials are one way of getting Kraft Foods back in bussiness.  

Using photos without consent through Flickr

Article “Use My Photo? Not Without Permision” by Noam Cohen. The article is effect, becasue of the society belief in property rights. Also, becasue the two scenarios given are a little different, but they can easily be tied into the purpose of the article. Which is stop companies from taking pictures off the web using websites like Flickr or Google. The companies use these pictures for their advertsing campaigns.

 In Cohen’s article he gives two scenarios that are similar because, they include two young females picture being used in an ad without their consent. The pictures were found on Flickr and the people that posted the pictures were not credited. The scenarios are different; because one was taken at the church function and her youth counselor posted the pictures on Flickr and the other girl posted her picture on Flickr and it was used in the O’Riely Factor. She didn’t know that her picture was being used until she saw her face plastered on a bill board for Virgin Mobile; her hat was altered and her friends were cut out. Both girls are suing the companies that used their photos, because they did not give them consent to use the picture.

If they didn’t want their picture being stolen from the website than don’t post your picture for everyone to see. But, the companies should not take someones picture and use it to adverstise their product without asking the person first.

Coral Reef’s spawn with the help of the Moon

 Article” Sexy Corals Keep ‘Eye’ On Moon, Scientists Say” written by William J. Broad is about a discovery that opens doors to more discoveries. The article talks about a particular research that was discovered in 1981, and the discovery was that coral reef spawned at specific moon phases.

 This type of article needs the names of the scientists and their research to make the article more believable. The article gives some of the names of the scientists that he used as examples, but the majority of them he does not name or credit them for their work(s). For example, “Scientists discovered mysterious rite of procreation in 1981…” Who are the “scientists?” Is there more than one scientist? A team or just the one scientist? The author is missing these elements in his article.  

Broad’s article explains 1981’s discoveries about coral reef’s spawning. A coral reef’s spawning is dictated by the moon. The coral releases their spawn in specific phases of the moon. “It looks to be the smoking gun,” Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a team member at the University of Queensland, said in an interview.” The discovery is pivotal to the research on coral reef reproduction. The discovery “is opening up a whole pile of questions” said specialist from University of Calgary, Peter D Vize. The research will be the opener of many more discoveries about coral reef and the mysteries of its spawning.

              The article does an outstanding job telling the reader about the discovery in 1981. The discovery about the moon playing a role in the coral spawning, but the detailed process is still not clear. Other discoveries are ahead in the future; they are not named becasue they have not found a discovery yet.

A Melting Planet

  In Dixon’s article there is a need for detailed experiments and studies that was referred to for the article.This type of article needs details, becasue there are many different scientist that have studied the melting ice caps in the artics. THe information will make the article specific and the reader will know exactly where Dixion got his information from. Dixon does not give the scientists names, dates and how they conducted their experiments. For example he says “Scientists have long known that major features of earth’s interlinked climate system…” Dixon does not credit to the researchers for their studies that he has got his information from.

Comparing Mothers in the 1960’s feeding their children tainted milk has nothing to do with why the artic caps are melting at an alarming rate. These topic are only related for one reason, becasue both scenarios are or were need of a solution. The article tries to connect them because the alarming climate change needs a response, just as the mothers organized together to ban atmospheric testing. The two very different scenarios will need two solutions. The different solutions should fit each of their needs and help them in different ways.

 

The two scenarios are incredibly unrelated. Yes, both scenarios need a solution, but the solution is not going to be the same. These scenarios are going to need individually shaped solutions to the problems that acknowledge the growth of society.

Japan’s woes with Sumo

Sumo has been around for a long time, but the ways of the sumo life and traditions have not changed much. My Bachan (Grandma) watches sumo on her plama TV; I have no clue what the match is really about. To me sumo is just two men trying to push each other down. Sumo’s traditions should adapt to a new century or the popularity that it has will begin to dwindle.

 

Onishi’s article begins with unrelated and random example of sumo’s recent woes. These examples include a woman trying to enter a sumo ring (which is considered impure) and a sumo coach being expelled from the sumo association for hazing. Each example expresses there own need for solution. Every story’s solution should be handled differently because they need different attention.  

The question “should sumo, whose popularity has long been declining change,” will direct readers to a particular answer. The answer is yes, sumo should be changed, because of the quick changes in society everything has the possibility to change. Onishi shares examples, like how “older wrestlers repeatedly throw a novice down on the ring, ostensibly to “toughen him” up but also to mete out punishment.” This example is “symbolic of sumo’s failure to keep up with times.” In order for sumo to be popular again the practices need to change for good to adapt to societies growth.

 

Onishi’s article would be more believable if he had more names of the people he was referring to. He refers to “critics” of the sumo practice and “sumo officials” but we do not know who these people are or if they have the authority to say what they said. Onishi’s article begins with unrelated and random example of sumo’s recent woes. These examples include a woman trying to enter a sumo ring (which is considered impure) and a sumo coach was expelled from the sumo association for hazing. Each example expresses there own need for solution. Every story’s solution should be handled differently because they need different attention.  

The question “should sumo, whose popularity has long been declining change” will lead readers to a particular answer. The answer is yes, sumo should be changed. because of the change in society. This is what the article talks about. Onishi shares examples like how “older wrestlers repeatedly throw a novice down on the ring, ostensibly to “toughen him” up but also to mete out punishment.” This example is “symbolic of sumo’s failure to keep up with times.” In order for sumo to be popular again the practices need to change for good.

Onishi’s article would be more believable if he had more names of the people he was referring to. He refers to “critics” of the sumo practice as “sumo officials” but we do not know who these people are, or if they have the authority to say what they said.  

Neocon means what again?

  

In “The New L-word: Necon” article there are general sentences. For example, “everyone from President Bush to Ann Coulter was using it to denote wimplike, Volvo-driving softies too spineless dangerous times and too given to speaking French” talks about a general collection of people. The sentence makes it unclear to who they are trying to direct the article to.

        The first four paragraphs should be revised. The paragraphs are very general and unrelated to each other. In the fourth paragraph Arnold Schwarzenegger says “if you believe you must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism- then you are Republican.” This statement is unrelated to the “Volvo driving softies” quote. Both subjects should be accepted or rejected on their own merit.    

Family meals needed. TV optional.

Tara Parker-Pope’s article “The family Meal is what counts, TV on or off” is an example of moving goal posts, argument by question and casual reductionism. This article starts off simple and builds to more detailed complex studies. The article does not ask simple one word questions. This article also tries to “use one cause to explain something.”

The article starts off “Television viewing has long been linked with poor eating habits.” The first study finds the statement to be false, because what matters the most is if the family eats together.

When the family eats together the chances of the children using drugs, alcohol or smoking will decrease. I believe this to be true; if the family eats together regularly there will be less time for the children to do this behind the parents’ back. Next the University of Minnesota says that “family connectedness” is essential to the family’s needs. The University said “children from highly connected families have been shown to eat healthier foods, get better grades and have lower risk for smoking, drug and alcohol use.” The following study in the article said that “two-thirds of the students ate dinner with their parents’ three times a week. But about half of that group said they watched TV during the family meal.” Each study increases the complexity of the topic. The topic gets more focused and detailed as the article ends. The article’s conclusion is that parents don’t realize how important family meals are.

            Popes article’s question “could it be that kids from happier, more health conscious families are simply more likely to sit down to a family meal?” This question could not be answered with just a no or a yes. This question is used to direct the reader to certain answer. The University of Minnesota’s researchers answered the question looking at “family connectedness.” The question wanted each reader to be directed towards University’s research.

            The article first blames the television for children’s poor eating habits, but the scientists discovered through research the family should eat together regularly. So, the children’s chances using drugs or alcohol would minimize. A family that shares a meal together can catch up on what is going on in their lives creating love and compassion for each other.

           

   

Do Fortune Cookies speak the truth?

Fortune Cookies love them or hate them. They seem to give us fake fortunes that are vague and have nothing to do with what we are going through. But, some take the random advise to heart. Fortune Cookies are getting more negative as society becomes prone to negative acts. The New York Times Article, “Don’t open this cookie “Disaster Day inside” one of fortunes says, “Today is disastrous day. If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em.” If I got this fortune I would have brushed it off, but for some it might have affected their whole day. Does this intend to influence more than to entertain?Does is it show us the “progress” that violence has done to our society?The writers of the fortunes at Wonton Food was told to “add a little more value to the fortunes.” If a “little more value” is steering towards negativity what will they do in the future? The writers were also told to keep it PG, rating systems have become more laid back then the have been in the past.

Is society more focused on negativity rather than the positive on life?Or is that negativity sells more than positive fortunes? What ever the case it is up to consumers to voice their opinions.