1. I believe that we live in a society where we do judge a book by it’s cover.  Just the natural characteristics of a person atomatically sets off in our heads that “well that person is obviously a slacker, or that person is a Jew, or that person is obviously smart.” I know in my profession working with children I do that on a daily basis about the child or the child’s parents.  Now, in my head I know that this is not really acceptable but it still triggers those thought’s.  When  potential tours come into the school we see the parents walk in with our without their child and we start sayin “these people are going to be anal, or these parents are going to be a nightmare.” 

3. When my grandparents come down here from Ohio everywhere they go they are cautious of the Mexican race that we have here in Texas.  Even when we go to restaurants if the person looks anything other than a white male or female, my grandmother immediately starts judging. I know it’s because of the generation that she grew up in and how she was raised. Once that happens my mother and I immediately have to bring her back down to a reality check and kind of have her lower her voice and the conversation and change the subject.

4. I have a part of my family that is somewhat racist and stereotypical and very cautious of who does stuff for them like their car work, telephone repair, or any other little thing that needs fixing.  And again they feel that African Americans or any other person that looks like they belong to any other race other than white they don’t trust. I have had many encounters with this problem,unfortunately, too many to count. 

I felt that what these three friends expirenced is something that is happening all the time.  As you grow up you do grow apart from most of the people thay you grew up with.  A lot of times that has to do with moving or relocating to another part of town.   I like the phrase “move into to seperate worlds”  as you get older you tend to notice more and more things about your friends, the color of their skin, the way they talk, the way they act and you begin to feel that  maybe their company isn’t where you need to be.  It’s a growing fad I believe in a high schoolers world, it may not exactly be the right one but everyday when you walk the halls of any American high school your going to see the segregation of all groups.  I admire these girls for sticking together when the rest of society was telling them not to.

What is the argument the author makes in the essay? 

I find that Monroe Anderson’s article isn’t exactly argumentative, more or less informing the reader about the losing the battle against marijuana. 
Anderson’s comment “marijuana prohibition today is working as well as alcohol prohibition did in the Roaring 20’s.”  This one statement says it all; just as we jailed people for making bath tub gin and moonshine just about eighty years later we are doing the same thing with marijuana.   

 Is this argument clear? Does it make the point?  

Though not very argumentative,
Anderson’s facts do make a point.  He gives the reader a clear picture of what is going on with our nation’s war on drugs and how we are quickly loosing that battle.  The most interesting facts that
Anderson brings to the readers attention is how much money our government is loosing to house individuals that are caught with marijuana.  Just think of the money we could save if we made this drug legal. Which side of the issue does the author take? Does he enforce his opinion? 

 Reading Anderson’s article leaves the reader thinking that he if for legalizing marijuana.   His last statement “we could license and tax marijuana.  Instead we blow billions on busting and jailing peaceful citizens from whom we could collect millions in tax revenue.”  If this is not an outright, in your face enforcement of his opinion then I don’t know what is.    What facts does the author use to support the argument? What references does the author use to support their argument? How does this factor into the author’s ethos? Do these facts support the author’s logos? How? If not, what should be done to aid in supporting the author’s logos and, therefore, improving his own ethos? 

Many of the facts that
Anderson brings to the table are very credible.  His use of statistics and comparison of marijuana and alcohol; I would have never thought to compare the two.  His references to federal statistics, J. Edgar Hoover, and Harry J. Anslinger promote support to his article and the information in it.  I wouldn’t exactly say that his facts support his ethos.  If we were to ask
Anderson for information on writing an article then I would say he was a credible source.  I see
Anderson as more of a logo’s. 
Anderson’s article is to provide facts to the reader, to inform us on how marijuana is seen right now and how it could potentially help our nation by a tax.  How does the author use pathos to aid in his persuasion? If the author has not used pathos, what could be done to improve upon this appeal? 
Anderson’s pathos is found through out the whole article.  His content is meant to appeal to the people that smoke.  His use of terminology and an appearance to be on the side of “yes, legalize weed!”  That gets the attention of someone looking through the newspaper or magazine to stop and read what this reporter has to say.

For your personal response:

Does the article evoke an emotion in you as a reader? What, specifically, in the article evokes this response? How could the author have done a better job at making you believe the issue was important and/or in need of immediate action?

Surprise, that’s what I felt reading this article.  It’s not every day that you read an article promoting the legalization of marijuana backed by very good information and comparisons.  I think that the author did an extremely good job of making a person believe that this topic should be considered for immediate action.  Again, I would have never of thought to compare prohibition with weed.  That is what instantly got my attention and kept it till the end.  I think this topic should be taken into consideration by our government; taxing marijuana might even help our country out of debt.  Did you have an opinion on the topic before reading this article? Has that opinion been changed or reinforced through reading the article? If you were ambivalent to the topic before, how has this changed? If your opinion has not changed, what could the author have done to change your mind?

At first glance of the title I thought that this was going to be another article about medicinally legalizing marijuana in
Illinois.  After reading the article once and then reading it over again my thoughts and feeling completely changed.  This was the first time that I had read an article where the author was supporting marijuana and had a plausible argument for legalizing it.  Again, his comparisons to prohibition and those we have been wasting billions and billions a year jailing people completely changed my perception.  If you were writing this article, what would you have done differently in order to persuade the audience?

I don’t think that I would have changed this article very much at all.  This article opens up a ton of discussion that makes the reader think that legalizing marijuana could be a reality.  I would have constructed a bar graph to show the reader how many people were incarcerated for possession or intent to sell and how much money it took to keep them there.  I think that if the American people saw how much of their tax dollars was wasted to keep these minor offenders in jail would make them think maybe legalizing and taxing weed might be a good thing.   

What is the argument the author makes in the essay?

I find that Monroe Anderson’s article isn’t exactly argumentative, more or less informing the reader about the losing the battle against marijuana.  Anderson’s comment “marijuana prohibition today is working as well as alcohol prohibition did in the Roaring 20’s.”  This one statement says it all; just as we jailed people for making bath tub gin and moonshine just about eighty years later we are doing the same thing with marijuana.     

Is this argument clear? Does it make the point?  

Though not very argumentative, Anderson’s facts do make a point.  He gives the reader a clear picture of what is going on with our nation’s war on drugs and how we are quickly loosing that battle.  The most interesting facts that Anderson brings to the readers attention is how much money our government is loosing to house individuals that are caught with marijuana.  Just think of the money we could save if we made this drug legal. 

Which side of the issue does the author take?                                                                                                                                      Reading Anderson’s article leaves the reader thinking that he if for legalizing marijuana.   His last statement “we could license and tax marijuana.  Instead we blow billions on busting and jailing peaceful citizens from whom we could collect millions in tax revenue.”  If this is not an outright, in your face enforcement of his opinion then I don’t know what is.    What facts does the author use to support the argument? What references does the author use to support their argument? How does this factor into the author’s ethos? Do these facts support the author’s logos? How? If not, what should be done to aid in supporting the author’s logos and, therefore, improving his own ethos?

Many of the facts that Anderson brings to the table are very credible.  His use of statistics and comparison of marijuana and alcohol; I would have never thought to compare the two.  His references to federal statistics, J. Edgar Hoover, and Harry J. Anslinger promote support to his article and the information in it.  I wouldn’t exactly say that his facts support his ethos.  If we were to ask
Anderson for information on writing an article then I would say he was a credible source.  I see
Anderson as more of a logo’s. 
Anderson’s article is to provide facts to the reader, to inform us on how marijuana is seen right now and how it could potentially help our nation by a tax.  

How does the author use pathos to aid in his persuasion? If the author has not used pathos, what could be done to improve upon this appeal? 
Anderson’s pathos is found through out the whole article.  His content is meant to appeal to the people that smoke.  His use of terminology and an appearance to be on the side of “yes, legalize weed!”  That gets the attention of someone looking through the newspaper or magazine to stop and read what this reporter has to say. For your personal response:

Does the article evoke an emotion in you as a reader? What, specifically, in the article evokes this response? How could the author have done a better job at making you believe the issue was important and/or in need of immediate action?

Surprise, that’s what I felt reading this article.  It’s not every day that you read an article promoting the legalization of marijuana backed by very good information and comparisons.  I think that the author did an extremely good job of making a person believe that this topic should be considered for immediate action.  Again, I would have never of thought to compare prohibition with weed.  That is what instantly got my attention and kept it till the end.  I think this topic should be taken into consideration by our government; taxing marijuana might even help our country out of debt. 

Did you have an opinion on the topic before reading this article? Has that opinion been changed or reinforced through reading the article? If you were ambivalent to the topic before, how has this changed? If your opinion has not changed, what could the author have done to change your mind?

At first glance of the title I thought that this was going to be another article about medicinally legalizing marijuana in
Illinois.  After reading the article once and then reading it over again my thoughts and feeling completely changed.  This was the first time that I had read an article where the author was supporting marijuana and had a plausible argument for legalizing it.  Again, his comparisons to prohibition and those we have been wasting billions and billions a year jailing people completely changed my perception. 

 If you were writing this article, what would you have done differently in order to persuade the audience?

I don’t think that I would have changed this article very much at all.  This article opens up a ton of discussion that makes the reader think that legalizing marijuana could be a reality.  I would have constructed a bar graph to show the reader how many people were incarcerated for possession or intent to sell and how much money it took to keep them there.  I think that if the American people saw how much of their tax dollars was wasted to keep these minor offenders in jail would make them think maybe legalizing and taxing weed might be a good thing.   

What is the argument the author makes in the essay?I find that Monroe Anderson’s article isn’t exactly argumentative, more or less informing the reader about the losing the battle against marijuana. 
Anderson’s comment “marijuana prohibition today is working as well as alcohol prohibition did in the Roaring 20’s.”  This one statement says it all; just as we jailed people for making bath tub gin and moonshine just about eighty years later we are doing the same thing with marijuana.   

 Is this argument clear? Does it make the point?Though not very argumentative,
Anderson’s facts do make a point.  He gives the reader a clear picture of what is going on with our nation’s war on drugs and how we are quickly loosing that battle.  The most interesting facts that
Anderson brings to the readers attention is how much money our government is loosing to house individuals that are caught with marijuana.  Just think of the money we could save if we made this drug legal. 

Which side of the issue does the author take? Does he enforce his opinion?Reading Anderson’s article leaves the reader thinking that he if for legalizing marijuana.   His last statement “we could license and tax marijuana.  Instead we blow billions on busting and jailing peaceful citizens from whom we could collect millions in tax revenue.”  If this is not an outright, in your face enforcement of his opinion then I don’t know what is.   

What facts does the author use to support the argument? What references does the author use to support their argument? How does this factor into the author’s ethos? Do these facts support the author’s logos? How? If not, what should be done to aid in supporting the author’s logos and, therefore, improving his own ethos?Many of the facts that
Anderson brings to the table are very credible.  His use of statistics and comparison of marijuana and alcohol; I would have never thought to compare the two.  His references to federal statistics, J. Edgar Hoover, and Harry J. Anslinger promote support to his article and the information in it.  I wouldn’t exactly say that his facts support his ethos.  If we were to ask
Anderson for information on writing an article then I would say he was a credible source.  I see
Anderson as more of a logo’s. 
Anderson’s article is to provide facts to the reader, to inform us on how marijuana is seen right now and how it could potentially help our nation by a tax.  

How does the author use pathos to aid in his persuasion? If the author has not used pathos, what could be done to improve upon this appeal? 
Anderson’s pathos is found through out the whole article.  His content is meant to appeal to the people that smoke.  His use of terminology and an appearance to be on the side of “yes, legalize weed!”  That gets the attention of someone looking through the newspaper or magazine to stop and read what this reporter has to say.For your personal response:Does the article evoke an emotion in you as a reader? What, specifically, in the article evokes this response? How could the author have done a better job at making you believe the issue was important and/or in need of immediate action?Surprise, that’s what I felt reading this article.  It’s not every day that you read an article promoting the legalization of marijuana backed by very good information and comparisons.  I think that the author did an extremely good job of making a person believe that this topic should be considered for immediate action.  Again, I would have never of thought to compare prohibition with weed.  That is what instantly got my attention and kept it till the end.  I think this topic should be taken into consideration by our government; taxing marijuana might even help our country out of debt. 

Did you have an opinion on the topic before reading this article? Has that opinion been changed or reinforced through reading the article? If you were ambivalent to the topic before, how has this changed? If your opinion has not changed, what could the author have done to change your mind?At first glance of the title I thought that this was going to be another article about medicinally legalizing marijuana in
Illinois.  After reading the article once and then reading it over again my thoughts and feeling completely changed.  This was the first time that I had read an article where the author was supporting marijuana and had a plausible argument for legalizing it.  Again, his comparisons to prohibition and those we have been wasting billions and billions a year jailing people completely changed my perception.  

If you were writing this article, what would you have done differently in order to persuade the audience?

I don’t think that I would have changed this article very much at all.  This article opens up a ton of discussion that makes the reader think that legalizing marijuana could be a reality.  I would have constructed a bar graph to show the reader how many people were incarcerated for possession or intent to sell and how much money it took to keep them there.  I think that if the American people saw how much of their tax dollars was wasted to keep these minor offenders in jail would make them think maybe legalizing and taxing weed might be a good thing.