Illegal immigration law in Arizona starts to affect the rest of the country

The piece I choose to do an analysis of for the Denver Rhetor blog was from the opinion section of Denver Post. The piece was “ Leave immigrant law in desert” by the editorialist at the Denver Post. This piece was written because there is anger over the lack of immigration enforcement. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass common-sense immigration reform. As well as Washington In general hasn’t worked hard enough to seal the border. The people of our society who are frustrated with the current immigration situation are hoping Washington will find a solution that will work.

In hopes of creating a solution to our immigration issue, a bill is possibly going to be introduced this month. The bill introduced by senators Angela Giron and Michael Johnston will propose that students who are in the country illegally, but have graduated from Colorado high schools be able to pay in-state tuition when they go to college. The authors of the editorial offer insight on the issue of immigration and their opinion on what the solution should be. Furthermore, the authors question how the bill going to benefit our state and how will affect our society.

This leads them to the conclusion that treating the children of illegal immigrants as state residents is the right thing to do both morally and economically. The piece justifies this conclusion because rewarding lawbreakers is not in our best interest, but children should not suffer for the actions of their parents. Secondly, the piece justifies this conclusion because they believe that it makes sense to create incentives to finish school. Next, the piece justifies this conclusion by arguing that we have already invested in their education up until now because the U.S Supreme Court requires it, so why not continue it. Lastly, the piece justifies this conclusion by arguing that in-state tuition would mount to a relatively small expense and would pay off, in the long run by producing a productive member of society. The piece justifies this conclusion because rewarding lawbreakers is not in our best interest, but children should not suffer for the actions of their parents. Secondly, the piece justifies this conclusion because they believe that it makes sense to create incentives to finish school. Next, the piece justifies this conclusion by arguing that we have already invested in their education up until now because the U.S Supreme Court requires it, so why not continue it. Lastly, the piece justifies this conclusion by arguing that in-state tuition would mount to a relatively small expense and would pay off, in the long run by producing a productive member of society.

The editorialist of this opinion piece convince their audience that their conclusion is right through the important analytical details. The article not only uses important facts, but also hits at the hearts of the American population by appealing to their pathos. It also ties the facts into the audience’s emotions by appealing to their kairos.

This article uses pathos to its advantage by bringing up the feeling of sympathy within the audience for the child. By stirring this feeling within the audience, it encourages the audience to take action against the issue. The audience takes action because they feel guilty for not doing anything to help the poor, helpless child. They want to help the child because they are led to believe through the article that the parents are incapable of taking care of them and therefore it is the right thing to do, both morally and economically. This causes the audience to feel anger towards the parents of the children, and to blame the parents for all the issues the kids are facing in the current situation. This leads the author to use an appeal to kairos to connect with the audience on a deeper level. The author takes the background information on the issue of illegal immigration and uses kairos to show that it is the opportune moment to help the situation. He does this by bringing light to the issue of illegal immigration and the unfair treatment they receive. He shows his audience that this issue is prevalent and important in today’s society. His ultimate goal is to try and convince the skeptics of his article that his arguments are solid because they can be backed up by facts. In order to create an article that connects to all types of people, he had to appeal to pathos, but could not have a solid argument without using kairos. Therefore, without both appeals he could not create an article worth reading.

In the end the author’s goal was to bring attention to a serious issue surrounding illegal immigration. He did this by giving us his opinion and showing us the facts about the issue. He then connected to his audience on a personal level by appealing to the audience’s pathos and karios. He wanted to try and persuade the skeptics or the indifferent people in his audience that the issue was something to pay attention too. Personally, I was skeptical at first about the issue and the opinions that surrounded it. After reading the article though, it changed my mind completely, as I hope it did the other readers.

Denver Post author reels readers from far and near with talk of Christmas cheer

Almost everyone in America appreciates a good laugh. When people face uncomfortable or serious situations, people always try to make a joke to relax everyone. There are many sayings that prove how much laughter can help people. After analyzing a plethora of articles written by John Andrews, it is easy to see his approach to rhetorical writing and how he approaches his topics. Although he often writes about politics and the Colorado government, his articles are filled with humor and creativity. As a former president of the Colorado Senate, he has an awful lot to say about the way Colorado runs it’s state and who has power where.

Andrews is not a regular contributor to the Denver Post, but he has a lot to say and says it very eloquently. You can tell from his writing that he knows a lot, but is also very sarcastically harsh and has very dry humor. Something one can definitely appreciate about Andrews is the fact that he won’t talk about something unless he actually has knowledge about the topic. He does not try to fake his way through an article by giving the reader useless words, but rather invigorates them with his personal experiences and thoughts.

In Andrews article “A modern Christmas Carol” he tells a fictional story of seeing ghosts of Christmas past after he gets in a car accident when he is distracted by an Obama bumper sticker. He writes of the visuals he sees when an old elementary school teacher leads him through defining moments in his childhood like “Stopping at several homes, she showed him classmates he'd looked down on. Peeking into a church, he saw two brothers ridiculing a less affluent family's Christmas attire”, after seeing this his teacher asks him, in not so many words if he always practices what he preaches. The article continues on like this, going through the city on a pretend helicopter ride pointing out homeless shelters and places where inner-city kids can go to be mentored. Through the article, we see Andrews mocking his “Republican” lifestyle with his large SUV and ignorance towards helping others. Although it may seem like fellow republicans would be offended by Andrews satire, appreciation for this humor can go two ways. Democrats can laugh at it because they agree with the Republican stereotype, while Republicans can find it funny because he is making fun of them, but also making fun of himself.

In this article, Andrews is focusing his writing towards voters of almost any age and people that are aware of the political happenings locally and nationally. All of his articles focus on different topics so depending on the day; his focus audience could be different. Sometimes he focuses on the problems within the school district, and for those articles his audience could be more parents of students who are in the public school system and also students who are interested in what could be happening to their education.

Because of Andrews focus on politics and government, it would be hard for an uneducated person to follow his articles. Although he talks about issues that a lot of people can relate to, sometimes it is hard to follow along while trying to understand the humor and his opinion about the situation. I had to read his writings over a couple of times to fully grasp what points he was trying to make because I was so focused on the intervals of humor.

Andrews also uses commonplaces to pull people into his articles. By theming one of his articles on the spirit of Christmas and goodwill during the holiday season, he is talking about something a lot of people can relate to and also a happy time of year when people focus on their families and often lose track of politics. By integrating policy, Christmas and humor into one article, Andrews energizes his readers to recall the idea of goodwill during the holiday season but also gets his opinion about Colorado policy into the readers mind. Every person who reads the Denver Post is probably affected by Christmas in some way, whether they celebrate it, do more business because of it, or have to resort to Chinese take-out and a movie because of it. By bringing it up in an opinion article, it gets the reader’s attention and gives them a way to relate to the author.

Negative rhetoric has an outcome.

I chose to analyze a piece of writing in the Denver Post written by Fred Brown titled “The other columns stink. Read this one”. The macro message in this article is about rhetorical tactics used by political figures. Brown argues that the constant use of negative tactics by politicians to discredit opponents is responsible for harming their overall image and in the long run devaluing their worth in society. Brown uses simple examples to start his argument to show how harmless certain rhetorical tactics might have all seemed 40 to 50 years ago but then quickly moves into how some tactics have taken a turn for the worse.

Overall, the underlying tone of Browns argument is one of concern. He tries to push awareness to his audience by asking very persuasive questions such as, “What do negative tactics do to society’s perspective in the long run?” and “Do we fully understand what the consequence is or is the media fueled by only playing the watchdog role and finding problems instead of giving attention to the problem-solvers or attempts at solutions?” Brown points out in one sentence, “Rarely does anyone offer a reason to hope for improvement” suggesting that if this type of negative play continues, we’re all as good as doomed.

The simple examples used at the beginning of the article help to point out how harmless some rhetoric might have been, like Pepsi ridiculing Coke drinkers or advertisements for Visa that implied American Express users were hopelessly behind the times. I like how Brown used these examples to present a simple principle of his argument. Then to strengthen this principle, he eludes to the alternative in his next statement, “This tactic of insulting your competition instead of proving superiority by your own performance has become such a toxic environment, which for most has seemingly become accepted and smart”. I think he clearly presented the argument and followed through with his stance before presenting any examples of how this relates to society in a more current environment.

To introduce pathos, Brown uses strong, dramatic and descriptive wording in this article such as “evil” and “doomed”, like in this sentence that reads, “They’re not just wrong, they’re evil, or at best totally incompetent” when describing politicians that engage in discrediting or demoralizing opponents for the purpose of winning elections. I like his dramatic word selection because it lets the audience consider the urgency of the matter. As if to say, that if realization doesn’t come quickly we might be faced with bigger issues later and left to wonder how we got to this extreme point.

Brown does a good job warming me up to the issue even though in this case, I already had a strong opinion in favor of his main argument. He has reassured my ethos on the issue by putting my mind in a commonplace. I also think starting the article with the simple examples of Pepsi vs Coke or Visa vs American Express was very persuasive for those who do not agree or are unaware of the issue directly. He has taken something that doesn’t directly relate and made the principle of his argument relate to the overall argument that this kind of behavior has some damaging effects whether we can see where this leads us or not. I see this as a very cleaver tactic to broadening his audience.

Once in a commonplace, Brown transitions the focus to a devastating recent event to weigh whether certain rhetorical tactics played a part. By bringing his argument to the present he allows the audience to add their newly formed emotions of the situation to the situation. I think by doing this he is leading his entire audience to a commonplace whether or not they agreed with him at this point. Brown uses the recent Arizona shooting to be persuasive when asking, “Is this widespread disrespect for the political and legislative process to blame for what happened outside a Safeway” He suggest that it is “at least partially, because when politicians are repeatedly presented as less than worthy, an inferior subspecies, it’s not hard to make the stretch that their lives are somehow less important”. This suggests to me that the tactics politicians choose to deploy during elections are negatively impacting the image of politicians and positioning them as less than worthy of life.

In conclusion of this article, Brown decides to use the topic of global warming, a rather long-winded debate to illustrate how we might not always consider the consequences of our actions because we do not realize the affect in a short enough timeframe to be measured. As in the case of global warming, not all people have fully committed to one side or the other and even if there was indisputable evidence of our involvement, doing something that encourages change is very hard to accomplish if the possible outcome is nearly impossible to predict. By using this example, Browns argument is strengthen by suggesting that even though he cannot conclude what the outcome might be on society, its still a great idea to start paying attention to what’s being said and consider the consequences that may follow.

Overall I think this is a great piece of writing because it clearly introduces a very compiling argument around a subject that most people will get behind. For me, I would love to see much less of a negative approached to get my vote. I want to know why I should vote for someone because of the good values they hold, not listen to the negative accusations made of their opponent.

Denver Post editorial claims Big Air event not beginning of commercialization trend for city parks

The Denver Post editorial “Share Civic Center for Big Air event? You bet” (January 25th, 2011) strives to alleviate the public’s concern that steep ticket prices for the outdoor ski competition serves as an indicator that our public parks are falling victim to over-commercialization. The editor asserts that the elaborate freestyle ski event, made popular by similar events held in cities such as New York and San Francisco, is not a sign of bad things to come for Denver’s parks. The author achieves his purpose by utilizing the persuasive devices of recognizing the controversy, easy to follow deductive reasoning, and rhetorical examples that compel the audience to have a stake in the issue.

From the very beginning, the Post recognizes that not everyone is happy with the fact that a paid event is being hosted in a city park. The editor writes, “City parks are for the public. We get that.” In doing so, the editor effectively sympathizes with the public’s concern over whom the city parks really belong to. This establishes good will and cleverly serves to earn readers’ trust by simply regurgitating a contemporary maxim of sorts and conveying unwavering support for it. Such a strategy is useful in rhetoric such as this because it goes a longs ways in terms of drawing the opposition into the debate. Park advocates’ passionate disgust for the event being held in Civic Center Park is diffused at least temporarily by the editor’s willingness to throw something into the debate in which common ground can be found. This pays dividends in that most readers react positively early on in the editorial and therefore, are more likely to read the rest of the piece with interest and a greater sense of open-mindedness. This sets the stage for the Post’s elaboration on their theory that the Big Air event is not a sign of bad things to come for the city’s public parks.

The editorial continues with the inclusion of logical, deductive reasoning that solidifies the paper’s opinion. Essentially, the editor’s reasoning can be summarized like this: The ramp the skiers and boarders use is “breathtaking” and expensive. The public is fascinated by the event. Therefore, the ticket prices are justified by the sheer awe the event creates.
The deductive reasoning is straightforward for readers to follow and meticulously crafted with the inclusion of indisputable fact. The editor expresses the scope of the event by grasping readers’ attention with the rhetorical question “Have you actually seen the 106-foot-tall ramp on which snowboarders and skiers descend?” Besides using the proven technique of incorporating rhetorical questions into the piece (which inherently draws readers into the debate), the editor strengthens this strategy by going a step further and including a fact that later serves to justify the high cost of the event. The editor continues by elaborating on the 106-foot-tall ramp, its synthetic materials and man-made snow. This all cumulates into the $800k cost, the editor says. By this point in the editorial, the editor has persuaded some readers that the cost of the tickets are indicative of the great expense that goes into creating the spectacular event while emphasizing that no tax dollars are being spent.

The editor strengthens his argument by using rhetorical examples that serve to draw outsiders of the event into the unique atmosphere that the event brings to the neighborhoods surrounding Civic Center. The author discusses the aura that the undertaking of the event creates for those who live and work near the park. The author writes, “The spectacle has been worth witnessing even if you had no intention of buying a ticket to watch it.” This implies that the general public receives a unique kind of value out of the public park while the event is going on. This is important due to the very purpose of a park – and that purpose is to serve everyone. At the same time, the editorial makes it clear that the Big Air event is not the beginning of any type of commercialization trend for the city’s parks. In fact, the editor states that he is adamantly opposed to fencing off public parks for events such as this on a regular basis. Nevertheless, the editor encourages readers to appreciate the “breathtaking” event while it lasts.

Editorial: Should airlines pay us for those long delays? by Cailiu Xu

At the beginning of January, I was flight from China back to the U.S..When I arrived in the U.S. I have to transfer from San Francisco to Denver. The flight from SF was delay for about 2 hours. It made me crazy because I was too tired and I can not go anywhere to have rest. Therefore, I was just seat in the airport and wait. Also, because of the flight was canceled, my friend’s schedule also have to change. This is why after I read the article’s title that was so interested me. “Should airlines pay us for those long delays”? The first response out of my mind is: of course have to pay us!

The whole editorial was state about U.S. airlines should pay their customers for those long delays. There is no rules for flight delay or cancel, therefore the customer is not protected. Also, this is why the flight always delay or cancel without notice. When the flight canceled, people’s schedule need to changed. If the air company tell the customer before one or two hours, maybe the schedule can changed more easily. We know that time is very treasure, therefore waste is equal to waste money. The airline waste their customer’s money, so they have to pay back to their customer.

The common place for this editorial is about the customer service. People pay money to make things more convenient and relax. If the customer service do not care about their customer, why people need to pay that much money to them? The author provide some data to show that how bad the U.S. flight is not online and canceled. “More than 7,100 departing flights were canceled Dec. 26-29 at 30 major U.S. airports and another 8,600 flights were delayed more than 44 minutes”. Flight canceled can due to many reasons. However, the customer service need to help their customer to solve those problems. Why people have to wait in the airport? Can the customer service do something for their customers? The author wrote that “If airlines were on the hook of these delays and had to reimburse passengers for hotels and meals, an already rickety business model would be pushed to deal with the new high cost of regulations”. The customer need to be take care when their flights were delay or canceled.

The article’s title is “should airlines pay us for those long delays”? The author use “us” in this title. It makes the reader feel that the author is facing this problem and he/she really want to find a way to fix it. Therefore, the author has more standpoint to talk about it. The author first state an incident in European Union. This incident first let the reader think about their country’s flight. Are the flights always delay or canceled? When it happened, what was the airline’s response? Also, the author gave an example of a horror story. Because of the waiting time, the passenger turned to prisoners. After I saw this story, it remind me when I get stuck in the airplane and can’t go out. At that time, I feel so angry and feel like I am in prison, because I can’t do anything and can’t go out. This is an example of how the author use ethos in his editorial.

In this editorial, firstly the author mentioned about the European Union’s incident, and then the author talked about the mother nature’s fault. Then the author told us a story of the passengers who stuck in the airplane that can not get out. Later, the author gave an evidence to show that how horrible the airplane delay and cancel issue was. The author use data as his/her evidence. He also mentioned about maybe the government can do something for it. At the end, the author point out his/her opinion, which is the airline should reimburse their passengers for delay or cancel the flight.

Haley Argues For Equality In Education by Lauren Rice

In his article, Plight of Jailed Mom, Dan Haley, a columnist from the Denver Post, has only one page to convince his audience that parents should be allowed to choose what school their child attends. With only one page, Haley uses many strategies, making every word count, to create a convincing argument to those who disagree, a reassuring article to those who agree, and raise awareness to those who do not know of the issue. For those unaware, a woman was jailed for falsifying records and deceiving public school administrators so her child could attend a better school than the one in district in which they lived. Haley explains that while the nation is thinking about education reform, something to think about is allowing parents to have the choice of which school their children receive an education. In order to present a worthwhile argument, Dan Haley first establishes personal credibility, and then provides the reader with logical and pathetic proof within his article The Plight of Jailed Mom to reach out to America for education reform.

A writer’s first job must be to establish ethos. After all, why should any reader listen to just some random person, respect the argument and give validation to the opinion? Once a writer has established credibility and a good reputation, an audience immediately and inherently respects the article itself. To establish an invented ethos, rhetors must create a persona within their writings. While contemporary rhetors are not as blatant about ethos as ancient writers, there are still clues within the pieces, which lend themselves to establishing credibility. Dan Haley, a columnist, beside the fact that he has been writing for the Denver Post, a well-known and credible paper for a while, his articles are well written and sound intelligent. It is obvious that Haley does his homework and pays attention to details in a ways that shows the reader he knows what he is talking about. In his article The Plight of Jailed Mom, Haley shows his academic credibility by speaking intelligently and correctly about the President Obama’s stance on wanting to focus policy on education in the State of the Union Address. Haley also explains current policies in the state of Colorado regarding education. Currently, Colorado houses an open-enrollment law, which allows parents to pick the school their child attends, no matter what district, as long as there are openings. With this, Haley informs readers of the current state laws, as well as establishing credibility and trust with his readers.

Another way Haley establishes his ethos is by securing the goodwill of his audience. In this article, Haley does a few strategic and subtle things to connect with his readers further. Haley creates in intimate distance between himself and the reader to establish a closer identification and to add to the possibility of persuasion. He does this in a few ways. The first is with the use of first and second person. In this article, Haley writes, “This should have been the moment we demanded dramatic change”. By using “we”, Haley makes a connection with the audience and creates an identity of being a part of the public in which writes to. Attitude and personality in this article, as well as small conversational words and qualifiers, helps to close the gap of formality, allowing for a connection with the reader. After explaining the situation where a mother was put in jail for trying to get her kids into a better school, Haley writes, “Yeah, go ahead and read that again”. This not only gives emphasis on the fact that a mother was jailed for trying to better her kids education, but it also shows Haley’s personality. Another, subtle yet affective way this article makes a further connection with the reader is with the use of qualifiers. When Haley writes, “Jailed Mom’s darkest day, I’m guessing, came earlier this month…” the article becomes more conversational, bridging a gap between a college lecture piece and a coffee shop exchange with a friend. By establishing a connection with the audience, the rhetor can be trusted by the public.

However, a rhetor’s ethos is just one piece of the puzzle. While a rhetor must establish ethos, a good reputation goes nowhere with an audience without a solid, logical piece to accompany the ethos. While Haley’s argument is important, the Presidential State of the Union Address gave his argument more context. While education reform in America has been an ongoing concern, Haley used kairos as a way to enhance the urgency of his argument. As the president reintroduced this issue into the minds of America, Haley attached to this to further challenge the American public on education while it was fresh on their minds. With the nation talking about education reform again, it gives people a reason to care about what Haley has to say in this article.

As the basis of his argument, Haley builds off of the foundation that this nation believes that all children deserve a quality education. From this commonplace, Haley can start with his readers all on the same page, in which he can launch his argument. From this commonplace, Haley uses inductive reasoning to carry his readers through his logic. Starting with the specific example of the “jailed mom” having to take drastic measures to ensure her child has a quality education, then extending it to the nation’s educational problems as a whole and what should be done about them. Starting with the major premise that everyone deserves a quality education, Haley then begins to string together a few minor premises that parents feel responsible for the education of their children, and not all students are receiving a good education. This all leads to his conclusion that parents should have the choice of which school their child attends, not being confined by district borders. Worried that the reader may focus on the wrong thing, Haley even pulls the reader away from a the thought that the mother did commit the crime of deceiving public officials, so that he could combat any flaw with his own premise and argument. Haley says, “You can question whether she deserved a felony conviction or not, but to me the bottom line is you shouldn’t have to break the law to get your kid into a better school”. With this, Haley insures that readers do not get stuck on a flaw with the Haley’s reasoning by acknowledging and drawing attention away from a debatable issue and focusing his readers on the problems with education.

This article however, would not be complete without the use of pathos. With such a hot topic issue regarding the children of this nation, Haley tries to pull on the emotions of his readers. Haley reaches parents who all just want the best for their kids. Asking his readers to think about what they would do if their children were in a failing school. While some are concerned about the “tiger mom” who is obsessive about their children earning top marks at school, Haley shows this same desire for her children to succeed as the mom who was jailed. By taking matters into their own hands, should a parent be jailed trying to combat inequality in opportunity? Haley uses this as a way to confront his readers to think about this subject as the nation moves forward with education reform.

David Harsanyi Criticizes Obama's Cold War Comparisons, by Adam Pettyes

The “cold war” is a very memorable and significant period in our nation and world’s history. This period marks the race between primarily the Soviet Union and the United States. The “cold war” was very different than most wars because it did not involve direct military contact. Instead, this war was more of an economical, political and scientific race. One of the major accomplishments of this period was the creation of the world’s first artificial satellite by the Soviet Union. Denver Post Columnist David Harsanyi wrote an Op-Ed article on Friday, January 28, 2011 about how President Obama’s State of the Union address sounded much like the messages sent to the American people during the “cold war”.

This article was very sarcastic toward President Obama’s speech and expressed many skeptical ideas and flaws in Obama’s argument. Along with skepticism toward the State of the Union address, Harsanyi also expressed his skeptical opinion on Sputnik. He believed that the Soviet’s effort to out-do the United States resulted in unnecessary spending which had negative effects on the already stagnant, dying economy.

The audience for this article is easily identified. Harsanyi is speaking to the citizens of Denver. Harsanyi begins his argument by describing the situation and identifies exactly what it is that he is analyzing. This post has a very apparent kairos. The State of the Union address is a very important speech made every year by the president of the United States. This speech had just been given days before Harsanyi posted this piece in the Denver Post. The issue is very relevant to Harsanyi’s audience. Citizens of the United States have at least somewhat of an interest in the State of the Union address because it most often pertains to them directly. Harsanyi uses this kairotic moment to convey his opinion on the topic.

Harsanyi begins his post by commenting on Obama’s reference to the “good jobs” when people would show up “at a nearby factory or a business downtown.” Harsanyi thought this was ridiculous. He went on to use a partly logistic, but also a pathetic appeal by sarcastically stating all of the positive aspects of slaving in a plant for 30 years with minimal promotions. This tactic is harsh and to the point. Though he does not always come right out and state his opinion, the sarcasm is so strong that it is possibly more effective than stating his position directly.

The next argument that Harsanyi makes is that Obama’s idea of winning the “19th century back” as Harsanyi put it, is ridiculous and expensive. Obama said in his speech that more railroads should be built for transportation purposes. Harsanyi says, “this fixation with building an extraordinarily expensive, outdated and tax-funded rail system is a great example of why central planning undermines progress”. This counter argument is logical and is something that many citizens can believe to be true. Harsanyi also says, “someone already invented airplanes and cars, which, unlike trains, can be pointed in any direction we want, whenever we want, as often as we want”. This statement lists all the reasons why trains are logically less efficient and more expensive than cars and planes.

Though all of these arguments have a descent amount of evidence and rhetorical appeal, there is no correlation to the title of his column “Who are we in ‘Sputnik moment’?”. This was something that I found to be ineffective in his column. He did not mention anything about sputnik until the last two paragraphs. Bringing up Sputnik was a way for him to connect past events to the events that are happening today. Harsanyi believes that what Obama proposed in his State of the Union address may be similar to the actions made by the soviets in the “cold war”. He says, “The Soviet’s intense effort to erect a façade of accomplishment was achieved by investing in an unnecessary, costly, symbolic, ideology-driven project that did nothing for the aspirations of its citizens or its stagnant, dying economy”. This is a very harsh sentence that uses rhetorical appeal to convince the audience that this is not what anyone wants to happen. This may be effective, but it can also be a bit over the top. The style of Harsanyi’s writing can be fun to read, however, this style can become overbearing. Sarcasm can only go so far. I found this column to be too loaded with sarcasm. I found myself disliking his arguments because of how harsh and sarcastic each issue was. This took away from his message and caused me personally to become less interested in his opinion. He had some solid points, but the way he conveyed his opinion could’ve been more effective.