Blogging's Not Dead, Say Bloggers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110221/cm_atlantic/bloggingsnotdeadsaybloggers7053

My blog is about an article from the Atlantic wire discussing whether blogging was becoming an obsolete form of communication. The article cites a New York Times article that features a study showing a negative trend in the amount of blogs. The writter's slant is that blogging is not really dead. She uses extrinsic proof from other studies and intrinsic proof from other peoples opinions to make her argument. The author writes for anyone who is interested in blogging.

 

Later in her article, the author makes the assertion that social networking cites are basically blogs and so blogging is stronger than ever. I think that is a wishy-washy way to make an argument. By changing the definition of what she is arguing she undermines some of the ethos of her arguments. The author did not leave me feeling convinced, although I have a slant in favor of not-blogging. Seriously this is torture.

U.S. unveils $53 billion in high-speed rail plan

My blog is on a February Reuters article, "U.S unveils 53 billion in high-speed rail plan". The article was about the governments plan to invest in infrastructure by building new rail systems. The article also talks about Amtrak decision to spend 15 billion on a railway from New York City and New Jersey.

The author argues that although this spending is a step in the right direction, we are still falling behind countries like China (who plans to invest $451 billion to $602 billion in the next four years). The intended audience are people who are interested in the way their governments spend money and people interested in railways. The author uses almost entirely logos, which should be expected in a Reuters article.

It is strange that for the most part, we have less railways than most developed countries. We seem compelled to compete with them and keep up with their technology but we rely more on our highways and auto industries. This is becoming less practical as time goes on.

New study: science teachers favor creationism

My blog is on a February 1st Fox news article called "New study: science teachers favor creationism". This title is a little misleading to the article because the study cited reveal that some high school teachers are still teaching creationism. According to the study, 13% of teachers surveyed actively advocate creationism in their classrooms. The argument is being made by Dennis Bodzash, a

Cleveland Astronomy Examiner. His bias is that he is a scientist and does not want creationism being thrown in with legitimate scientific information. He assumes that his audience shares his commonplace belief. I would say that there is an equal balance of pathos and logos in his argument. He proves that some teachers teach creationism by showing facts and then uses pathos to describe why this is not a good thing. The authors argument is summed up by his last few sentences, "There are many great things about religion, such as ethical principles, its function as a social bonding agent, influence on the arts, and many others. However, religion is not science and it should be kept out of the science classroom." Since I already felt this way it is hard for me to say if I was persuaded by the article or not.