Jon Stewart Response

As a John Stewart fan myself, I found the excerpt very entertaining. Like always, Jon brings to light numerous fallacies among politics. One fallacy that was discussed in the excerpt was hasty generalization. This fallacy was included as they talked of illness such as leprosy being brought into the country through illegal immigrants (Mexicans). The argument stated that because one Mexican may have brought the disease into the states, then they all will bring it in as well. Another fallacy included was the slippery slope fallacy. this fallacy was included as the "expert" stated that as leprosy is at a certain number now, it will grow to mass numbers in the future as Mexican immigration continues and grows. Another fallacy used to support the "experts" argument was that of appealing to authority. He used this fallacy as he showed many excerpts of respected TV hosts or politicians making the same fallacious remarks as himself, hoping to strengthen his argument by showing that respected figures shared the belief. A last fallacy used was the appeal to ignorance fallacy. This was used as the guest had a lack of evidence if any at all and used it to create an expanded argument that was taken much further than the original small piece of evidence (that a Mexican immigrant may have had leprosy). All in all the clip was rather entertaining as Jon never fails to point out the logistical imperfections in politics, and does so with witty sarcasm.

link 1 - http://kenjoh.wrytestuff.com/swa79624.htm

This source is my first choice because it is the most in detail and elaborate of all sources I have found. This site does not dub itself pro or anti music downloading.  Instead it is very factual and unbiased rather than opinionated, which is good as I create a more solid opinion of my own. One thing I especially liked about the source is that among being very expansive it also covers the history of the topic, explaining its origin.  As it covers any branch of the topic I may need to use, this site will provide a solid foundation for my paper.

link 2 - http://www.duke.edu/~lab36/finalproject%5B1%5D.html

This source appears that it was the product of another college students homework assignment (Duke student to be exact). This may make the article more helpful than others in that the author has the same intent as I and therefore, I can relate. Also, The author remains unbiased like the previous source (except for a concluding few paragraphs). Rather than include his/her own opinion, the author includes the opinions of members of each side of the argument. The article includes many views and opinions and will provide a good source for arguments of either side. One downfall may be that the article is not easy on the eyes as it uses a black backdrop.

link 3 - http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001112

This source remains very unique as it gives detailed insight towards the 'for downloading' side of the argument.  Everything about the article remains unique as at the end there are numerous comments made by readers (thoughtful and respectable comments, not like those usually seen on the Internet). Also, it includes responses made by the author. This source provides the opinions of many and provides a written argument of all opinions that I may use in my paper. This source will be very helpful as it gives me insight to the views of the slim party that is for downloading music.

link 4 - http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_details_online

This source will be very helpful as it comes from the association fore-fronting the anti music downloading battle, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).  It does a great job of  providing a who/what/why argument and gives a thorough explanation of why music downloading is wrong and how it is harmful throughout the process. It also provides related excerpts from various pieces of news and gives multiple tabs to view different parts of the argument. It does this all while maintaining the most professional stance of all the sources. The site shares opinions with me and will remain useful as I establish my opinion throughout the paper.

Very good argumemts made by both sides. both were very educated of there own biased and had multiple supporting facts while each was also knowledgable on the oppositional arguments being made and had sufficient responses to fire back with

Tim O'Brien Response

Tim O'Briens work is captivating in that he tries to capture the audience through stories that are raw and hold no bull shit. He makes sure to keep all that is fake and untrue out, all which is the expected effort of other authors. an Effort to bring about some deeper meaning and morality, and bring it through fairytale untruths. He talks of war and actual events. He writes about the truths; not about deep thoughts that try to conclude the reader with some deeper meaning that was never there to begin with. As with his war stories he writes of what is real, of soldiers who are scared. Soldiers who are not looking for answers but soldiers who only want to be home free. He speaks of war stories to the exact contrary that civilization expects from them. There is no moral in war; no happy endings that leave you uplifted. He makes sure the audience knows that it is exactly the opposite and if you have been left with any of these thoughts then the story that put them in your head was a lie. One excerpt in the article explains that they would lay on recon, motionless in bushes for days. The quiet and inactivity would get to there heads and they would hear parties occurring down field. The noise heard by the soldiers is concluded only with men becoming more and more crazy. Tim O'Brirns excerpt was a great read in that it exposed to me that good writing must contain truth. It cannot beat around the actual facts to try and create a false conclusion that leaves the reader happy. The excerpt is a reminder to practice truthful writing, writing that engages readers senses; doing so through truth. Thus creating a more real and impactual conclusion for the reader. Don't write fake, write RAW.