Daniel Brigham’s article challenges the new snow shoveling policy in Boulder. Brigham proposes the social benefits that come out of shoveling. The new policy gives homeowners in Boulder twenty-four hours after the snow has stopped instead of just until noon. In the middle of winter with plenty of storms to come this is the perfect time to discuss the change in policy. Brigham looks at the issue from a social standpoint. Generally, people get so absorbed in their day to day schedule that they do not get to know their neighbors or stay in touch with them. This article establishes the negative effects of the new policy which will further hinder our social lives and decrease neighbor relations.
Brigham questions whether having to shovel before noon is really worth talking about, and his answer is that there is more to this policy than what meets the eye. His opinion is that in today’s society there are few bonds that bring neighbors together. According to Brigham “Tragedies get us out of our wired cocoons and crossing the street to talk to each other” (Brigham). This statement seems very morbid, but holds to be very true. This appeals to the audience’s pathos because no one wants to think about how they come up short in the time that they spend with those around them, but in the high paced life we live, it’s reality. People think of shoveling as hassle and not an opportunity to catch up with their neighbors and do something thoughtful. Brigham does not blame people for living busy lives and getting caught up in them, instead he proposes a way that people can improve their neighborhood involvement with a small amount of time and effort.
Brigham appeals to ethos and pathos in his quote defining the reason to shovel, “You shovel for those around you. For the always-in-a-hurry delivery men, for moms pushing strollers, for people late to the bus stop, for basset hounds and other low-rider canines who need a good walk.” (Brigham). Colorado is such an outdoor state, we live healthy lives and take advantage of the mountains that we have at our disposal, these outdoorsy people often take their dogs with them to enjoy the outdoors. By using dogs as a reason to shovel many of his dog loving readers will be more inclined to climb out of bed a little earlier to clear a path for them. Brigham uses the new policy as a leg-in to poke at the bad neighbor who doesn’t uphold their section of the sidewalk. His argument doesn’t focus on them shoveling but more their good neighbors pitching in to initiate the trend.
Brigham did not do a very good supporting his thought on why the policy has changed, and how it gives law enforcement more time to write out tickets and warnings. By developing this part of his argument he would be able to support his ideas that people do not need more time to shovel their driveways, that it is just easier on officials and that is what caused the change in the policy not the bad apple neighbors wants being met. By further explaining why a time extension would give officials more time to write tickets and issue warnings seems opposite to the logical because then people have more time to finish shoveling before they are issued tickets. If this point was further explained it could highlight how the officials are under strict time limits to enforce the policy and without change they will be expected to perform under unfair conditions and the general public would be more supportive of the new policy. This however would go against the stance of the writer and although the point would support the opposite side it would give the writer more credibility for acknowledging the other side of the argument.
Brigham’s article on the new shoveling policy displays the issue in a different light by referencing the social opportunity that is being taken away by the new policy. Through appealing to the pathos of the readers through the commonplace that everyone wants to be a good neighbor and the reason why we shovel his point is made quite convincingly. The lack of background on the reason for the change in policy weakens his argument. The argument made throughout the paper is very interesting due to its opposite stance from most everyone. Hardly anyone would rather wake up and worry about something so trivial but Brigham turns it into a social criticism that appeals to his audience because of its call for social improvement.
No comments:
Post a Comment