Barf Blog Review

Criteria:

-Current Events 

-Activity (posting consistently)

- Humor 

- Visuals (not boring or tiring to the eyes)

- Engaging voice 

- Easy navigation 

-Language

- Relevance (can we relate to) 

- Evidence (facts, statistics, something to back up)

- Deeper Insight 

BarfBlog Review:

Of our living necessities as a human being food tends to be the one that plagues our mind the most whether it’s the gross school lunch, a nice home cook meal, a snack before a game, or even hundreds of miles away wondering when your next meal will be. Whether you’re craving it or hiding from it, food will continue to stalk us through the endless advertisements, the grocery store and even in confront of our own home.  The Barfblog, managed by Douglas Powell, Ben Chapman and Amy Hubbell reports many food-related incidents, exposing the mendacious food industries’ shocking and disgusting secrets.

On a superficial level the Barfblog is appealing enough to catch one’s attention without having to actually read the post. The overall layout of the site is pretty simple. With the search bar, archive and category options one can easily navigate through the posts and choose a topic of their interest or find a post several months back. The pictures along with the lengthy but intriguing titles also gravitates the audience in. Who wouldn’t be interested in “elephant poop beer” or “sex cereal” or a picture of a dog cleaning up its own feces?

The contents of the post don’t fall short of our expectations either. Powell uses humor to keep the audience interested in the issues of food safety that have already been overplayed. The balance of jokes and information is enough to get the readers to continue. His opinions are also backed up by facts and statistics making it more than a ranting page. Each post comes from a recent story seen in the media and news. His discussion on the E. coli, the FDA budget cuts and salmonella relate back to his audience and provides further insight on the food industry. Barfblog’s ability to stay up to date and active in its posting shows the author’s commitment on this issue. Along with their credentials it gives the reader the sense that what they are reading is accurate or at least more accurate than what the corporations report or don’t report. Although it is biased in only reporting the evils of the food industry, it’s engaging enough for all audiences.

We all view food as the fuel to live, but is it really? Food has done a lot more damage than it should. People have suffered from food poisoning and died in more serious cases of contamination.  Next time your shopping for food be sure to stop by the barfblog.

Revision

拌面 and 扁肉. Those were my favorite foods as a child. Living in China, not a day went by when I didn’t get my share. Although my grandmother would laugh at my obsession she’d still comply. My childhood recollection is blurred, but I can still remember the peanut buttery taste.

This is my daily meal. Breakfast: nothing. Lunch: salad. Dinner: steamed broccoli. Not interesting but healthy, I believe. Sometimes it changes when my mother cooks. The amount of Chinese food I consume has decreased significantly since entering elementary school.

My grandmother often comments on how I’ve changed since moving to America. She tells me that I used to dance everyday. Currently, dancing is something I would never do. Food is what she remembers the most. “You don’t eat as much anymore, especially meat. You used to love eating meat!” During elementary school, on vacations I’d visit her in New York and each time she’d cook lots and lots.

Primary school. It’s the one stage that I wish didn’t remember.  Upon my arrival, my English was limited. Being the only Asian in class it was always awkward. Right after nap time, was snack time. The other kids would take out their cookies, animal shaped crackers, and chips all carefully packed into zip lock bag by their parents. From my bag I withdrew a red bag of small shrimp tailed chips. My snack was different.

“Where’s your snack?” I hated that question. When I stopped partaking in the ritual of snacking, my teacher began to give me hers. Although it was American and I would no longer be asked “what is that” I wasn’t satisfied.

Around middle school my grandmother began to predict the future. She’d still cook a lot during my stay but not as much. “Does it taste good? You’re American now. Would you rather eat pizza?”  I repeatedly told her that it was fine, but she didn’t seem to believe me. “When you get older you’re going to get sick and tired of coming here.” I immediately denied that claim. Thinking about it was enough to make me cry.

Since I started high school I have visited her about two or three times.

 My grandmother would call me a several times a month with my health dominating the conversations. “Did you eat yet? You have to eat properly. Make sure you don’t starve.” My answers were either a “yes” or “okay”. I’d say more, but I don’t know how.

Now, I only receive calls from my father asking when I get out of school.

I studied Chinese for two years, but have yet to use it at home. My attempts are always halted by the image of my accent and pronunciation being teased.

A couple months ago my mother asked me what my favorite food was. I told her I didn’t know because I don’t. But whenever she makes 拌面 I never reject it. A part of me still craves the peanut buttery taste from thirteen years ago.

What kind of marriage is this?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Clement, the problem

is if we are totally for the States' decision that there

is a marriage between two people, for the Federal

Government then to come in to say no joint return, no

marital deduction, no Social Security benefits; your

spouse is very sick but you can't get leave; people -­

if that set of attributes, one might well ask, what kind

of marriage is this?

We people marry it’s for various reasons and it’s assumed that they’re hoping to benefit from the marriage. With the DOMA same-sex couples married in one state may moved to another state and no longer be recognized as married, losing the federal benefits granted to them. Justice Ginsburg makes a good argument by pointing out what we value in a marriage and questioning the moral of it.

Here, Justice Ginsburg to speaking to Mr.Clement, but her real audience goes far beyond the physical courtroom.  Justice Ginsburg is also speaking to those in the nation that care enough about DOMA to read/listen to it. When considering her very wide audience, not everyone will understand the abstruse way of the court, the jargon, or many of the other cases that are constantly being referred to.

When Justice Ginsburg makes her argument or raises her point, she starts out with the big picture moving down the smaller picture. She goes into the specifics as she mentions joint return, marital deduction and social security benefits, which is useful because most of the audience will understand what they are and their importance to marriage.  Keeping the audience in mind, the question is straight to the point. By using simple diction it avoids confusion in addition to making the question stand out.

What allows Justice Ginsburg’s argument to work is that we, as humans have feelings and certain values. When she questions what kind of marriage has ”no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits” she’s basing this on the assumption that we as people value these factors in a marriage. Aside from the marriage status and having your love for another legally recognized, it’s safe to say that the federal benefits granted in marriage is what makes it so appealing. It can be argued that loving one another is enough for a marriage but when “your spouse is very sick” and “you can't get leave” those benefits be a lot more vital. The warrants for her claims are valid as well leading the audience to admit that such a marriage isn’t much of a marriage.

The tone is professional but also personal towards the end where it hits home. She uses examples that the audience can easily relate to that really raises the importance of the question. Most of the arguments against DOMA are that it’s unconstitutional and unfair for the reason that a couple may be married but receive nothing from it.  This question also challenges the defenders of the DOMA on what they believe marriage is. If they believe that it’s the federal benefits that are really the foundation for marriage then to deny them to a same-sex couples that is already married is really questionable  to whether or not it’s constitutional.