Wallace’s, an award-winning American novelist, short story writer, essayist, and professor at Pomona College in Claremont, in his article “The Weasel, Twelve Monkeys and the shrub,” implies that a great leader is born when they set aside self-interest. He supports his implication by describing how McCain has two different sides by illustrating how both sides meld together to create a fantastic candidate for president.  Wallaces’s purpose is to make the young readers more involved in politics, so the nations decisions don’t just fall under the older generations in order to show that there vote and personal opinion is just as important.  He establishes a highly educated and informative tone with his audience of the younger generations, while creating a personal connection to McCain as a person and a candidate.

 
 
Hamiltion is informing using in her article that she is struggle to make meats end because of  money, along with the price she paid for the disapproval and distrust she feels towards the jail and health-care systems and she aims to deliver the readers a personal firsthand experience of her life story. She drives the point that everyone should think before acting upon an decision, because it may not be for the best. She provides a detailed experience in the jail system for embezzling money. She portrays they struggle she has encountered living behind bars, while giving birth to her child in a C-Section. Olivia wants to make it clear to the readers that you should always be willing to help someone, especially when they are close to you.
 
 

  PACES analysis 

The Occupied Wall Street Journal protest previously one going injustice in the government in order to capture the public’s attention, stand up and make their voices heard. He grabs the readers by appealing to the audience emotionally by eye opening facts that state the lack of righteousness. They argue the cruel treatment of animals, inequality in the workplace and the participation in torture of innocent people overseas. They rationalize their reasoning with emphasizing the demand on social change. The Journal’s point here is that they want to emphasis that reality is skewed. It must be stressed that this article is directed to the citizens who aren’t aware of such actions. The evidence place through illustrates a mental image to us. Personal experience, being the New York City General Assembly, certainly helps to prove it’s from a credible source. The way the article is presented to the readers gives a clear indication as to the impact they want to leave in their minds. The informative tone draws the readers in to want to find out what’s going to happen next.  The factual based, intriguing evidence appeals to the public. The thriving interest for justice really gains the reader’s attention.

 

 
 
Pulitzer Prize winner Nicholas Kristof’s, published his editorial “War & Wisdom” in the New York Times (February 7, 2003), argues that invading Iraq isn’t necessary because war and violence is the very last resort. Kristof supports his implication by contradicting President Bush’s justification for war, by illustrating that even if Saddam hides existing weapons form inspection, he wouldn’t be able to develop nuclear weapons, due to the vast detectible electrical hookups. His central purpose is to express the concern about rushing into war in order to emphasize the mass destruction that would be taken place, along with a massive increase in spending money. Kristof creates an informal and conversational tone, gearing towards the general public in order to connect emotionally to his audience.

Benjamin Franklin
"There never was a good war or a bad peace."

George W. Bush
"No, I know all the war rhetoric, but it's all aimed at achieving peace."

"War And Wisdom"
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

 
Published: February 07, 2003

President Bush and Colin Powell have adroitly shown that Iraq is hiding weapons, that Saddam Hussein is a lying scoundrel and that Iraqi officials should be less chatty on the telephone.

But they did not demonstrate that the solution is to invade Iraq.

If you've seen kids torn apart by machine-gun fire, you know that war should be only a last resort. And we're not there yet. We still have a better option: containment.

That's why in the Pentagon, civilian leaders are gung-ho but many in uniform are leery. Former generals like Norman Schwarzkopf, Anthony Zinni and Wesley Clark have all expressed concern about the rush to war.

''Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made,'' General Schwarzkopf told The Washington Post, adding: ''I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with.'' (The White House has apparently launched a post-emptive strike on General Schwarzkopf, for he now refuses interviews.)


As for General Zinni, he said of the hawks: ''I'm not sure which planet they live on, because it isn't the one that I travel.'' In an October speech to the Middle East Institute in Washington, he added: ''[If] we intend to solve this through violent action, we're on the wrong course. First of all, I don't see that that's necessary. Second of all, I think that war and violence are a very last resort.''

Hawks often compare Saddam to Hitler, suggesting that if we don't stand up to him today in Baghdad we'll face him tomorrow in the Mediterranean. The same was said of Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom the West saw as the Hitler of the 1950's and 1960's. But as with Nasser the analogy is faulty: Saddam may be as nasty as Hitler, but he is unable to invade his neighbors. His army has degraded even since the days when Iran fought him to a standstill, and he won't be a threat to us tomorrow; more likely, he'll be dead.

A better analogy is Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, who used to be denounced as the Hitler of the 1980's. Saddam and Colonel Qaddafi are little changed since those days, but back then we reviled Mr. Qaddafi -- while Don Rumsfeld was charming our man in Baghdad.

In the 1980's Libya was aggressively intervening abroad, trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, losing air battles with American warplanes and dabbling in terrorism. Its terrorists bombed a Berlin nightclub patronized by American soldiers and blew up a Pan Am airliner over Scotland. Libya was never a military power on the scale of Iraq but was more involved in terror; indeed, one could have made as good a case for invading Libya in the 1980's as for invading Iraq today.

But President Ronald Reagan wisely chose to contain Libya, not invade it -- and this worked. Does anybody think we would be better off today if we had invaded Libya and occupied it, spending the last two decades with our troops being shot at by Bedouins in the desert?

It's true, as President Bush suggested last night, that Saddam is trying to play games with us. But the inspectors proved in the 1990's that they are no dummies; they made headway and destroyed much more weaponry than the U.S. had hit during the gulf war.

Even if Saddam manages to hide existing weapons from inspectors, he won't be able to refine them. And he won't be able to develop nuclear weapons.

Nuclear programs are relatively easily detected, partly because they require large plants with vast electrical hookups. Inspections have real shortcomings, but they can keep Saddam from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Then there's the question of resources. Aside from lives, the war and reconstruction will cost $100 billion to $200 billion. That bill comes to $750 to $1,500 per American taxpayer, and there are real trade-offs in spending that money.

We could do more for our national security by spending the money on education, or by financing a major campaign to promote hybrid cars and hydrogen-powered vehicles, and taking other steps toward energy independence.

So while President Bush has eloquently made the case that we are justified in invading Iraq, are we wise to do so? Is this really the best way to spend thousands of lives and at least $100 billion?

 
 
Picture















Jeremy Rifkin, the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C, in his editorial piece entitled, “A Change of Heart About Animals,” published in Los Angeles Times( September 1, 2003),  suggests that humans have more in common with animals “ than we ever imagined,”  in recent scientific research. Rifkin supports his argument by offering examples of research suggesting that animals can acquire language, use tools, show self-awareness, and pass down knowledge to future generations, similar to humans. His purpose is to make his readers, open their minds and recognize all that we share in common with animals, in order to broaden our empathy towards them, along with altering animal rights. He establishes a fairly formal argument with his audience targeted to be quite sophisticated, assuming that human rights are a shared value, using conversational, informal tone, makes Rifkin He establishes a fairly formal argument with his audience targeted to be quite sophisticated newspaper editorial readers, he uses conversational, informal tone, makes Rifkin appealing. Rifkin establishes a fairly brilliant article, intending his audience to be sophisticated editorial readers, which connect with his conversational, informal tone and carefully chosen examples.


A Change of Heart About Animals
by Jeremy Rifkin


They are more like us than we imagined, scientists are finding

Jeremy Rifkin, Los Angeles Times, September 1, 2003. Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Biotech Century (Tarcher Putnam, 1998), is the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C.


[1] Though much of big science has centered on breakthroughs in biotechnology, nanotechnology and more esoteric questions like the age of our universe, a quieter story has been unfolding behind the scenes in laboratories around the world — one whose effect on human perception and our understanding of life is likely to be profound.

[2] What these researchers are finding is that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined. They feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love — and these findings are changing how we view animals.

[3] Strangely enough, some of the research sponsors are fast food purveyors, such as McDonald's, Burger King and KFC. Pressured by animal rights activists and by growing public support for the humane treatment of animals, these companies have financed research into, among other things, the emotional, mental and behavioral states of our fellow creatures.

[4] Studies on pigs' social behavior funded by McDonald's at Purdue University, for example, have found that they crave affection and are easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other. The lack of mental and physical stimuli can result in deterioration of health.

[5] The European Union has taken such studies to heart and outlawed the use of isolating pig stalls by 2012. In Germany, the government is encouraging pig farmers to give each pig 20 seconds of human contact each day and to provide them with toys to prevent them from fighting.

[6] Other funding sources have fueled the growing field of study into animal emotions and cognitive abilities.

[7] Researchers were stunned recently by findings (published in the journal Science) on the conceptual abilities of New Caledonian crows. In controlled experiments, scientists at Oxford University reported that two birds named Betty and Abel were given a choice between using two tools, one a straight wire, the other a hooked wire, to snag a piece of meat from inside a tube. Both chose the hooked wire. Abel, the more dominant male, then stole Betty's hook, leaving her with only a straight wire. Betty then used her beak to wedge the straight wire in a crack and bent it with her beak to produce a hook. She then snagged the food from inside the tube. Researchers repeated the experiment and she fashioned a hook out of the wire nine of out of 10 times.

[8] Equally impressive is Koko, the 300-pound gorilla at the Gorilla Foundation in Northern California, who was taught sign language and has mastered more than 1,000 signs and understands several thousand English words. On human IQ tests, she scores between 70 and 95.

[9] Tool-making and the development of sophisticated language skills are just two of the many attributes we thought were exclusive to our species. Self-awareness is another.

[10] Some philosophers and animal behaviorists have long argued that other animals are not capable of self-awareness because they lack a sense of individualism. Not so, according to new studies. At the Washington National Zoo, orangutans given mirrors explore parts of their bodies they can't otherwise see, showing a sense of self. An orangutan named Chantek who lives at the Atlanta Zoo used a mirror to groom his teeth and adjust his sunglasses.

[11] Of course, when it comes to the ultimate test of what distinguishes humans from the other creatures, scientists have long believed that mourning for the dead represents the real divide. It's commonly believed that other animals have no sense of their mortality and are unable to comprehend the concept of their own death. Not necessarily so. Animals, it appears, experience grief. Elephants will often stand next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks.

[12] We also know that animals play, especially when young. Recent studies in the brain chemistry of rats show that when they play, their brains release large amounts of dopamine, a neurochemical associated with pleasure and excitement in human beings.

[13] Noting the striking similarities in brain anatomy and chemistry of humans and other animals, Stephen M. Siviy, a behavioral scientist at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, asks a question increasingly on the minds of other researchers. "If you believe in evolution by natural selection, how can you believe that feelings suddenly appeared, out of the blue, with human beings?"

[14] Until very recently, scientists were still advancing the idea that most creatures behaved by sheer instinct and that what appeared to be learned behavior was merely genetically wired activity. Now we know that geese have to teach their goslings their migration routes. In fact, we are finding that learning is passed on from parent to offspring far more often than not and that most animals engage in all kinds of learned experience brought on by continued experimentation.

[15] So what does all of this portend for the way we treat our fellow creatures? And for the thousands of animals subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments? Or the millions of domestic animals raised under the most inhumane conditions and destined for slaughter and human consumption? Should we discourage the sale and purchase of fur coats? What about fox hunting in the English countryside, bull fighting in Spain? Should wild lions be caged in zoos?

[16] Such questions are being raised. Harvard and 25 other U.S. law schools have introduced law courses on animal rights, and an increasing number of animal rights lawsuits are being filed. Germany recently became the first nation to guarantee animal rights in its constitution.

[17] The human journey is, at its core, about the extension of empathy to broader and more inclusive domains. At first, the empathy extended only to kin and tribe. Eventually it was extended to people of like-minded values. In the 19th century, the first animal humane societies were established. The current studies open up a new phase, allowing us to expand and deepen our empathy to include the broader community of creatures with whom we share the Earth.