Not My Cup of "Vomit"

I am not an avid news watcher, article reader, or blog scroller. In fact, typing and blog posts this year is the closest I’ve ever come blogs. So when I stumbled upon the “Barf Blog,” by Doug Powell, I didn’t really know what to make of it at first for a blog can have many of its own rules, but I knew what interested me and disinterested me.

The Barf Blog, for the most part, disinterested me.

The Barf Blog is intended to inform the reader about “safe food from farm to fork.” Throughout this blog Doug Powell explores food and it’s corrupt effects on society through labeling, disease, over pricing, nutrition, and cleanliness of food. At the same time, Powell also divulges into his personal life with his daughter and wife, and his many food related adventures in Canada, Kansas, New York, and Australia. Each day he makes around five to ten posts, each around two to ten short paragraphs long. Quantitatively the Barf Blog discusses many aspects of the food industry in just one day. Qualitatively Doug Powell barely shares a personal opinion or deeper thinking.    

Powell gives a short, and many times, repetitive scope of the corrupt food industry. Whether it be “3 sick; SD Salmonella outbreak associated with baby chicks” (4/20/13) or “34 sick, 2009-11; Salmonella and duck eggs in Ireland, outbreak summary“ (4/19/13) or “First, you growl: when your dog’s food is recalled for Salmonella“ (4/16/13) without any personal insight, Powell posts small random outbreaks of Salmonella almost daily. Although, yes, it is morally disturbing to hear people are dying from food, to read a very minor outbreak everyday is repetitive. Even then, it isn’t very shocking to read because very few people die and it’s affecting people from all around the world, like Irish duck eggs containing Salmonella getting 34 sick, or German sandwiches containing rat poison getting 25 sick.

Holistically what interested me most was finding out Powell’s opinion on monkey nuts, and elephant poop beer. He used humor, and let out his real persona in these posts, which is why I found it most interesting. Not only that, but he supplied interesting pictures and videos for both posts.

The most disappointing thing about this blog was when Powell would share an interesting argument, but wouldn’t support it. In “Duh: Consumers finally figure out organic is an excuse to charge more“ he argues that organic food isn’t necessarily healthier and that “microbial food safety should be marketed at retail so consumers can choose.” However for the rest of the article he goes into how “Americans need to learn this for themselves” and states several pointless statistics. I was more interested in learning how organic food could be unhealthy and how his retail strategy works. He does this again in “CSPI, Ramsey race to the gutter of food gimmicks.” In this he denounces food shows, which he doesn’t even watch, to be the same as they were ten years ago in that they were “nothing but hackdom.” I understand this is a personal blog where Powell has the freedom to voice his opinions, but considering he is a professor at the University of Kansas, Powell should qualify his claims.

Besides his bits of humor, I don’t think I would willingly read this blog on a daily basis. I suppose this blog is not my cup of "vomit."

http://barfblog.com/

An Opener To a Freer Future

GENERAL VERRILLI: Mr. Chief Justice, and

may it please the Court:
The equal protection analysis in this case

should focus on two fundamental points: First, what

does Section 3 do; and second, to whom does Section 3 do

it?

What Section 3 does is exclude from an array

of Federal benefits lawfully married couples. That

means that the spouse of a soldier killed in the line of

duty cannot receive the dignity and solace of an

official notification of next of kin.

(80:15-25: General Verrilli's opening argument)

On Wednesday morning, March 27, 2013, was a pivotal day for judicial history, for General Verrilli was representing the liberals' postion in United States v. Windsor. This was a court case that could change the future for Gay Marriage through potentially amending the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). In General Verrilli’s opening argument he both responds to Mr. Clement’s argument, while maintaining a qualified and informative opening in a very effective way.

Firstly, he responds to Mr. Clement’s argument by integrating the moral consequences of DOMA. By responding to Mr. Clement at the beginning of his argument, General Verrilli can show the contrasting flaws in Mr. Clement’s claims. Mr. Clement focused primarily on the federal and state law, and was claiming that federal law should stay out of state policy. During his turn, he discussed with the justices the various policies like the Definition Act, and the boundaries of the Federal Government. To directly counter argue Mr. Clement, General Verrilli appealed to the justices morals through ethical and nationalistic biases. By referencing both the military, and DOMA’s heart wrenching policy that the spouse of a soldier “cannot receive the dignity and solace of an official notification,”  he shows the ethical injustices of DOMA’s Section 3. General Verrilli thereby counters Mr. Clement’s logistics with his ethical reasoning.

Through the use of rhetorical devices, General Verrilli effectively gets the attention of both his intended audience, the Supreme Court Justices, but also the news reporters and American citizens listening in on this court case.  He first leads in with his first paragraph by asking a question with the intent of sounding enlightening, yet also to focus on his thesis: that DOMA discriminates against homosexuals. Obviously the justices, and Mr. Clement knows DOMA through and through prior to the court case, but announcing this rhetorical question boosts his appeal from his unintended audience. Then, in his second paragraph, he uses words like “dignity and solace” to emphasise the nationalistic appeal to the American Military. Although the court justices instantly dismissed his pathos to move onto his main argument, adding in these rhetorical devices at least made his position clear and persuasive.

General Verrilli was also very careful and qualified in how he constructed his opening statement. He was able to appeal with both his diction and structure. Besides the procedural “Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,” General Verrilli appears qualified through saying words such as “Fundamental” and “Formal Notification.” These words show that he is superior to Mr. Clement’s logistics through him simplifying DOMA to its bare ethics. Sequentially, this is a clever strategy for an opening statement because it shows that both General Verrilli can be factual, and he can set up his ethical analysis of DOMA, for later in his argument. Staying broad in idea, yet specific in fact is what makes this opening statement clear and concise.

For an opening statement, General Verrilli must have put a lot of time into it. It was strategic for it set up his later argument. He was quick and effective without ever pausing or stumbling. He also appealed to his unintended audience through his rhetorical devices and clarity. Hopefully with his argument, the Supreme Court will side with being Pro Same-sex Marriage.