Writer, William Blumenfield, in his Huffington Post article, “ Environmental Justice a Form of Social Justice,” details the perceptive and political fallibilities of the Republican party in regards to their courses of action towards environmental justice aims. His inclination is to convey the err in their claims and capitalistic objectives, and to promote his ideology that social justice cannot occur without there first being strives to combat against environmental degradation. He develops a strong, but misplaced, pathos throughout his article, devoid of purposeful facts, resulting in a weak argument seemingly based on his resentment towards the Republican party. Blumenfield’s argument is weak in the fact that is argues based on unapologetically tearing down the other side instead of advocating his point while respectfully pointing out the flaws of conflicting views.
Since the beginning, America has been considered synonymous with freedom and new beginnings. The first revolutionaries fought with these ideals in mind and saw them as achievable goals, no matter how far away they actually were. Now years after, America has reached its goal and declared its independence from the tyrannical Great Britain. As the United States of America grows in both prestige and population, a strong and organized government is necessary for it to be as strong as it can be. A constitution such as the one being proposed will do exactly this, in addition to providing the nation with a purpose. Granted, there are many valid arguments against the Constitution being posed. However when considering the bigger picture, the Constitution will do more good than harm. Ultimately ratifying the new Constitution is the best option for America in its current situation in order to
Rachel Carson is a noted biologist who studies biology, a branch of science addressing living organisms, yet she has written a book called Silent Spring to speak about the harmful effects of pesticides on nature. Carson doesn’t write about birds’ genetic and physical makeup, the role of them in the animal food chain, or even how to identify their unbelievable bird songs, yet strongly attests the fight for a well developed environment containing birds, humans, and insects is just and necessary. To Carson, the war for a natural environment is instantly essential for holding on to her true love for the study of biology. Thus Carson claims that whether it be a direct hit towards birds or an indirect hit towards humans and wildlife, farmers need to understand the effects and abandon the usage of pesticides in order to save the environment by appealing to officials, farmers, and Americans in her 1962 book, Silent Spring. She positions her defense by using rhetorical devices such as rhetorical questioning to establish logos, juxtaposing ideas, and using connotative and denotative diction.
“Timber!” is a word that engulfed Woodrow Wilson in fear, as a loving, determined environmentalist he was the driving force behind the Organic Act of 1916. Wilson’s Organic Act set grounds for the founding of the National Park Service, which sets and enforces regulations that protect National Parks. Woodrow Wilson’s determination, conveyed by his adamant support for the Organic Act, was evident throughout Wilson’s lifetime. Wilson realized how important it was to protect America’s land and took action to protect it. Through the Organic Act, Wilson was able to save the current thirty-five national parks and land for hundreds of future national parks throughout the United States. The founding of the National Park Service was a major part of Wilson’s plan to preserve and protect America 's natural land. Wilson’s idea of preservation of the United States’ land has lived throughout the years through the National Park Service. The National Park Service today continues with the same responsibilities along with a multifarious collection of others. The actions taken in the Organic Act of 1916 have helped eternalize the ideas proposed by President Wilson by preserving the scarce remaining natural land of America.
Rather than governmental identification of social problems and their solutions, conservations rely upon the market mechanics of supply and demand and the individual incentive of profit. Because government is exponentially larger today than it was before the Great Depression, conservatives today often critique the status quo and are resistant to further governmental expansion.
The authors Lydia Huntley Sigourney, and Henry David Thoreau, both demonstrate similarities and differences in their works. While comparing both essays, it is evident that both authors share similar views on environmental issues, and at the same time demonstrate great emotional journeys in their works. The extraordinary beauty of nature appears frequently in both pieces. Both authors focus their personal experiences, however, within different subject matters. The way in which the authors express their beliefs and feelings is demonstrated through personal life endeavors. It is apparent that the authors are expressing their perception of the atrocities committed to the environment by humans.
The subject of environmentalists is one that is just asking for a series of childish bickering amongst fully grown adults. No one can ever agree to disagree because everyone wants to be right. Of course, that is impossible, but God forbid that people just come to a reasonable agreement to leave opinions as they are, opinions. Mr. Edward O. Wilson does a very good job illustrating how pointless these political arguments are. How does he do this? He simply writes his own passages, setting himself in the shoes of both of the opposing parties.
Writing the constitution was a very challenging and lengthy process. When state legislators received the Constitution for their formal approval, not everybody was hoping to sign it. Americans split into two separate groups. The groups consisted of those who supported the Constitution and those who felt other changes needed to be dealt with first. Those who supported the Constitution were known and Federalists and those who argued against it were known as anti-federalists. Although anti-federalists may have had some good arguments against ratifying the constitution, a stronger central government than what the Articles of Confederation provided was needed and supporting the constitution was good way to satisfy that need.
James Hansen’s appeal relies heavily upon Pathos. In his opening statement, as well as his closing remarks, calling for civil resistance, stating this is the most urgent fight of our lives, and finally, it is our last chance, is a persistent engagement of your emotional response. Seven points regarding fossil fuel use and environmental onslaught to obtain them appear factual. Consequently, the use of possible factual information amongst the plethora of Pathos loses any impact to the appeal it might have had, casting doubt on the validity of the information presented. Soliciting our mistrust of government is a useful, if not somewhat powerful, approach to capturing the audience’s intensely negative feelings towards perceived government corruption
In “Last Child in the Woods” the author Richard Louv argues how americans are being separated from nature and why we should stay more involved in nature. He uses several rhetorical strategies to prove his point using imagery and rhetorical questions to convey his message.
According to the information, Arizona has voted Republican for the past 4 years and years past. From the polls taken this year, Trump has more support but has not gained majority. According to the current real politics poll results, the margin of error could go either way for three out of four polls. Out of nine representatives, five are Republican, their two senators are both republican, and their state governor, is republican. In the graph of racial/ethnic breakdown of state population, over 50% of Arizona’s population is white alone. Trump has been offensive to others, so we can conclude that the 44.2% of the population will most likely not vote for Trump. But, this is still leaving a majority of the population who may vote for Trump. For
The Republican Party considers conservation to be a conservative value as long as it is properly balanced with economics. They consider human health and safety to be the first and most important issue in environmental concerns, as humans is our country’s most valuable resource. Their energy policy is simple: government by big oil, of big oil, and for big oil. This Administration let oil industry lobbyists and executives write our nation’s energy policy in secret. They even went to the Supreme Court to stop the public from learning what they were doing. This President’s approach to energy policy leaves America shackled to foreign oil, dependent, vulnerable, and
With today’s broad spectrum of opposing political ideals, climate change is one of the most polarizing and argued points. In an article entitled “Why Some Conservatives Can’t Accept That Climate Change Is Real” by Carolyn Gregoire, we are presented the supposed thought process and biases held by modern conservatives. The author, Carolyn Gregoire, serves as a senior science and health writer at The Huffington Post. Though challenging competency is a common attack used on both sides of the political isle, this piece sidesteps petty mudslinging and instead takes root in the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Inherently, as a political piece, this article criticizes the conservative thought camp. In doing so, this article (like a majority of articles on the Huffington Post) is written towards a sympathetic, liberal audience. Pertaining mainly to psychology, there is no doubt logos is the appeal used by the author. Furthermore, with logos often comes strong, inductive reasoning. As we delve deeper into this article, we also will examine and explore several fallacies implemented by the author. Also
1. Carson is asking a rhetorical question (p.376), not making an argument. The rhetorical question is a device intended to encourage thought, in this case about the proper apportionment of power in our society. The use of DDT and other insecticides has outcomes that go far beyond the immediate desired effect of the user, yet there is no specific cost attached to these externalities. Carson recognizes that such decisions are often made by small groups of people with narrow interests, and simply wants the reader to question whether such a system of stewardship for the world is ideal. Given that the audience is the majority of people who are not party to such decisions, the question is a fair one to ask, since it engages the audience to think about their role as complicit bystanders in actions such as the use of DDT.
In conclusion all of this culminates together to make it obvious that neither side, the People-First Critics or the Environmentalists, made the attempt to research, gain ground, or develop their arguments. Wilson satirizes the language of these two groups and it able to make clear issues with their arguments that before may not have been clear. Wilson also is able to mock the groups in a way that shows them how childish they are. All in all this is a great way to compare the two sides with similar