TOW #19- Why is it so hard to see Black and White?

"Why is it so hard to see Black and Blue" is a advertisement that evokes the "The Dress" phenomenon to talk about the need to end domestic violence. The advertisement argues that there meed to be a focus on the "One and six women" who suffer from domestic abuse. Its hard not to agree with their argument. Instead of focusing on trivial internet comedies there needs to be focus on issues that still are prevalent in today's world. The issue of domestic violence has only recently been brought to the light, as more women have been coming forward as victims of abuse. Domestic Abuse being a common issue in this day and time and still one that needs to be solved. At its core that author says that domestic violence need more focus that an internet illusion. As many women and men are affected by domestic violence, the only pitfall of this ad that it doesn't address domestic violence in a objective matter. As one in seven men are victims of domestic violence. By only portraying a women in the ad they section off a huge part of domestic violence victims, excluding a whole percentage of victims who need help. But nonetheless the argument is effective in the way it shows the horrors of domestic violence. By adding the shock value of a women being beaten it exemplifies how the reality of domestic violence. Overall this advertisement highlight and argues for the need to help and aid the fight to help victims of domestic abuse.

TOW #18- Put an Atheist on the Supreme Court

Atheism is becoming one of the most growing sects in America, as many individuals are now tending to not identify as religious or believe in god at all. This group of people is the subject of editorial written by Lawrence Krauss, an American theoretical physicist and cosmetologist. Krauss explains the lack of religious diversity in the Supreme Court, explaining that most Supreme Court justices are Catholic and Jewish. He argues the notion that rather than elect another person of a different faith that the way to bring about religious diversity in the Supreme Court is to appoint a declared Atheist. Krauss's purpose and argument being that this would keep the government secular giving a more unbiased perceptive in the Supreme Court. Krauss does this by making religious allusions and detailing hypothetical situations. Krauss explains that our government that was intentionally made to be secular should base officials based on their religious affiliation. "The Ten Commandments are reserved for houses of worship; the laws of the land are, or should be, secular" (2), by referencing the biblical Ten Commandments Krauss is able to show that appointment of a atheist in the Supreme Court will keep this reservation of a secular government. This issue is again address when he brings up issues in our present day courts that an atheist justice would be effective in handling. Most notably the issue of gay marriage, Krauss explains that hypothetically since the justice would have no religious affiliation that they would have no religious bias holding them back from allowing this right. He goes on to say that this would also be beneficial in issues such as birth control and abortion. Although I do agree with Krauss claim to an Atheist Supreme Court justice, he does not provide enough substantial evidence to make his argument effective. Most of the evidence he presents in hypothetical, if he were to bring in a real life example of an Atheist in a government position it would make his argument more effective. But overall he has the right ideas but the evidence is not enough to make a clear judgement of an Atheist in the Supreme Court.

TOW #17- Nonfiction Piece- How to Stop 'Saving' the English Major

How to Stop 'Saving' the English Major, is an editorial written by Ryan Chapin Mach, a freelance writer and creative contributor for the Huffington Post. In the article he details the ongoing struggle between classic literature versus new wave books and their contemporary audience. Stating the position that the 'narcissism' apparently shown by the new generation of readers and books is present in the old classic novels. He does this best by using hypothera to challenge the way in which many editors and critics view the new wave of readers. Mach questions "Just because people are critiquing the classics, does that mean they've stopped consuming them? If you think that these works stand the test of time, why won't you let a new generation examine them on its own terms? It's probably because the new generation is too wrapped up in itself to think about them right." (6/7). By utilizing hypothera Mach is able to present the perceptive in the view of the critics and present the main reason for their dispute with the younger audience. Claiming that the new generation is too narcissistic to enjoy the classic novels which are praised by literary critics everywhere. He further discusses and answers these question by questioning the use of narcissism in the classic's argument. "I guess I'm just wondering at what point narcissism became an impediment to writing. Literary masters have a tendency towards self-importance because it seems to go well with attempting to capture the essence of the human condition" (9). By using hypothera, Mach is able to successfully and effectively capture how both the classics and the new wave novels show the vice of selfishness. Presenting a thought provoking piece on how the new and old generation of readers are not that different.