Rhetorical Analysis

In “Bring Back Flogging”, Jeff Jacoby addresses the problems within America 's criminal justice system. He gives many reasons why imprisonment simply does not work, and suggests that corporal punishment should be used as an alternative. Published in the Boston Globe, a newspaper well known for being liberal, Jacoby provides a conservative view and directs his argument towards those who strongly support imprisonment and view corporal punishment to be highly barbaric and inhumane. However, in order to shed light on our current situation, Jacoby discusses the dangers that we face though our criminal justice system a nd shows concern that imprisonment is doing more harm than good. In effect, Jacoby looks to the past for solutions, and

When you see a solider in his or her uniform, you are proud that they are serving this country to protect our freedom, securing our country, and defending democracy worldwide. The solider can come from different branches of the Military. The one you might be familiar with is the U.S. Army. These soldiers are well respected and prepared to serve our country whenever and wherever needed, combat-ready at all times, and trained to counter any threat, anywhere. In 2007, the United States Army department published a recruitment ad for U.S.

The Main point of view in this article is how disasters like flooding and drought which are attributed to the changing climate are affecting some parts of the country. Weather forecasters issued flash flooding for the Deep South’s coastal areas while California is struggling with drought that has created trouble for the economy.

In this case, BPI has sued ABC news for defamation after the network cladded the lean and finely texture beef of the company “pink slime.” These reports caused damages to the company and it drove customers away from buying the product. The damage was a major loss of $1.2 billion espeiclly because it was used in hamburger chains and by the National Scholl Lunch Program

Liebeck for spilling coffee in the first place because of faulty I will support him $ 160,000 instead of $ 100,000 a reduced compensation on the damages. I also suing McDonald focused more people than statistics, and concluded that they were not careless in handling the rights of consumers. Burger was supposed to be hot for consumption would have a different view in cases such as pickles burns. cause second-degree burns and was extremely hot pickle is permanently injured, however, it will still be the case in favor of Martin.

The mini-case on taco bell thanking the people for suing them was a way to get their side of the story told. Back in 2011, a customer sued Taco Bell who claimed the beef meat in the tacos was more “filler” meat than beef (Crandall, Parnell, & Spillan, 2013). Plastering the allegations over the internet became popular very quickly. Taco Bell decided to use the negative publicly to their advantage.

I would agree with the jury on this case verses the judge. When the judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 it says in the book that it only was equivalent to "two days worth of coffee sales"(shaw 232) I feel like it was not enough. The jury wanted to send a message and I agree that a lot times businesses in general over look the risks of their products and it causes unnecessary pain to consumers. To me two days worth of coffee sales doesn't seem like a weak punishment considering if you do the math McDonald's does over $85 million in coffee sales alone a year (based on the figures from the case).

McDonald’s class-action lawsuit can serve as a benchmark for any similar cases that follows. If Kraft ever get sued because of our advertising practice toward children, the loss can be in multi-million dollars.

McDonalds is very focused on the standards of the legal aspects. This is the case because McDonalds has dealt with many lawsuits since the corporation has been created. For example, in the famous coffee case,

This is where a good lawyer comes in handy. Undoubtedly, the jury gained sympathy for a little old lady who visited McDonald’s for an innocent cup of coffee, only to end up in the hospital with third degree burns. Furthermore, McDonald’s certainly looked like a very cruel company when they refused to pay the bare minimum the plaintiff asked for out of court - $20,000 to cover just the actual expenses of what she had endured and would need for further work to be performed. In all of the research material I have read on this case, one important detail is always mentioned - the lawyer for the plaintiff suggests to the jury awarding Mrs. Liebeck the total revenue McDonald’s receives from coffee for one to two days, though no definite connection is made to this extreme amount

Another well-known case, McDonalds Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997] EWHC QB 366, known famously as the McLibel Case, was a libel lawsuit which was filed by McDonalds against Steel & Morris who were environmental activists, and had distributed a pamphlet which was critical to McDonalds. McDonalds won their case, but Steel and Morris subsequently took a claim to the European Court of Human Rights against the UK, Steel & Morris v United Kingdom [2005] EMLR 314, under article 10, the right to freedom of expression and Article 6, the right to a fair trial. The ECHR ruled in favour of Steel and Morris. Following on from this case, English law has now been reformed. The Defamation Act 2013 now requires that “a claimant has to demonstrate that the allegedly defamatory statement has or will cause serious harm”. The law before the Defamation Act was at risk of encouraging libel tourism and other inappropriate claims – such as the Mclibel case. It also set limits on geographical relevance, ensured trial by jury and limited the scope of continuing defamation.

As you can see from these two differing Big Mac packages McDonalds has had to change the appearance of its packaging in order to continue to compete with the new healthy living culture. McDonalds now puts full colour pictures of there burgers on the box, so as to give the impression that all the meat and other ingredients in the burger are genuine. By having the very pleasant picture of the burger and indeed the various vegetables used, makes the burger seem fresher and generally healthier. It is not just the burgers that McDonald’s have applied this method to, there original red and

From what we have read and interpreted from the case, the main issue is the ethical criticism of the fast food giant, McDonald, in Europe. By referring to the case, the organizational ethical issues which are filled around McDonald consist of food health, ill-treatment of animals, exploitation of children, and destruction of rainforests. Besides, anti-globalization, anti-American, anti-McDonald’s activism, and Europe governments had also been the concerns and ethical challenges for the fast food giant.

Scott Rodrick, McDonald’s Owner, explains how they are just giving the customers what they want, "They wanted us to provide choice on the menu, they wanted us to follow the letter of the law" (McDonald 's finding, 2011). Also, “[McDonald’s] claims that its meals are "right-sized for kids," and that it offers food choices that are healthy. The company changed the public to focus on the portion of food from the nutrition.

Depending on the area of operation, McDonalds has certain specific social responsibilities. The use of non-biodegradable resources by the company when offering their food has often led to attacks from different fronts.