Can you send the second article?
I can't seem to find it online.
I don't spend a lot of time with homosexuals, chain-smokers, feminists, porn-buyers, atheists, vegetarians, or problem drinkers—but when the issues get legal, I am with them. I am pro-choice.
I think adults should have options.
I want options. I want my Marriott room to have a Gideon Bible and porn movies. Let me decide if I want to buckle my seat-belt, or drive to 11:00 Mass, or swing out to the dog-track. Let me send my kids to public school or to Holiness Tabernacle Academy. I may invite Jews and blacks to join my private club, but don't tell me I have to accept orientals or women or somebody's cousin. It's my club.
I don't like people with oppressive theories. They come around telling everybody what to do. Local 7–11's shouldn't sell Playboy. Poor women can't have abortions. Nancy Cruzan should stay hooked to that machine for another seven years. Consenting adults must go into their bedrooms and behave sensibly. Who needs this crap?
I want to make choices, even dumb ones. If I buy my Big Mac with the large order of fries (and extra salt), that's OK. If I don't buckle my seat-belt, so what? If I smoke a pack or two a day, leave me alone! I've got my rights. And among them is the right to take the consequences of what I do. Man, it's my life!
Also, let me believe what I want to. You're hearing from a man who subscribes to the National Enquirer and the Sun. So the evidence is shaky about UFOs and the Shroud of Turin and vitamin E and the Kennedy assassination? So what? If I want to believe dramatic theories, that's fine. (Tomorrow I may send off $15.95 for a talisman containing Lourdes water.) And you're free to believe your theories. If you want to think Elvis is dead, that's your business.
All this freedom is for adults who can take care of themselves. With people who can't, OK, let's pass laws. I don't mind rules that protect kids and AIDS victims and neurotics and wheelchair people and the homeless. I want laws in areas where we're all helpless—those protecting the environment and the purity of foods. I can live with traffic regulations and some antigun laws. I want ex-cons and psychopaths to have trouble buying a gun, but don't tell me I can't buy one.
Summing it up, I don't like meddling people. Spare me from censors and pro-lifers and gay-baiters and temperance advocates and anti-smoking Nazis and anybody who would enforce prayer or “political correctness” in the schools.
But don't get me wrong—I'm not some antagonistic nut. I love a lot of things—babies, Heineken beer, golden retrievers, XXXXX XXXXX, my wife, the Atlanta Braves (with all their faults), and the Roman Catholic Church (with all its faults). And if you want to be Baptist or agnostic or gay or vegetarian, great! If you turn on to All My Children or Guns N’ Roses, hey, that's fine with me. It's a big world, friend. Enjoy yourself.
Just stay off my back.
how can I see the answer once you finish?
I will post it here
oh ok thank you very much. Do you think it will be ready by tomorrow in the afternoon?
It's actually almost done. I can get it over in another 30 mins
oh ok great thanks
1. I feel that Brown is addressing me in his article “Restoring Perspective: $1000 for Prom is Immoral”. The article is written in first person, thus while reading it, I feel as though Brown is directly speaking to me. Brown’s tone is serious but not overly formal, as such readers are easily pulled into the “conversation” with Brown. He uses everyday examples and personal anecdotes which people can easily relate to. For example, Brown mentioned “booze cruises” and “drug/sex/alcohol bash”. These are examples of activities which youngsters participate in that I have personally witnessed. Brown also attempts to persuade readers by appropriating quoting Hoagland’s views on extravagant proms. These are views which are sound and which I can nod my head in agreement to. In addition, Brown attempts to interact with the readers by making references to “you” in the article. I particularly like the last sentence of the article when Brown asks “How about you?” This question got me thinking about my views on the issue.
2. I do not think that Farnum is addressing me in his article. First, Farnum sounds like someone who is ranting irrationally rather than speaking to or persuading me. He starts off his sentences with “I”s. This makes Farnum appears to be so self-centered that I have no particular interest to read, digest or analyze his views. In addition, Farnum’s tone is overly informal and comes off as disrespectful. For example, Farnum uses phrases like “Who needs this crap?” and “Just stay off my back”. These are rude phrases which I would expect to come out of the mouths of defiant children. Farnum does not seem to me making any attempt to persuade his audience. He does not provide any evidence to support his views. Instead, he just makes exclamations of what he wants or do not want. To me, Farnum’s article is more like a soliloquy where he is ranting his views to please himself rather than to reach out to any group of audience.
Let me know if there are any issues with the answers so that I can make the necessary changes. Otherwise, please help to leave a positive rating, thank you. :)
everything looks great thank you very much