Barf Blog?

Barfblog has a self proclaimed criteria. In the "about us" tab on Barf blog it states that their posts are and must be:
- evidence based opinions
- backed with reliable and relevant sources
- related to food safety issues
- edited by fellow barfblog bloggers

The goal of the sites infosheets is claimed to be:
- surprising and compelling messages;
- putting actions and their consequence in context;
- generating discussion within the target audiences’ environments; and
- using verbal narrative, or storytelling, as a message delivery device.

Doug Powell writes a humorously titled blog, "Chicks still making people sick in other states" on an outbreak of Salmonellosis in Minnesota. Powell is Professor of food safety at Kansas State University and one of the publishers of Barfblog.

Powell successfully meets the criteria of Barfblog in this short but succinct blog. He cites the Minnesota Department of Health and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as sources for his data. These sources are reliable and dependable but Powell fails to produce a link or footnote to a website or pdf proving the validity of his citation. The blog reads a bit like a news article rather than a blog, as it lacks a sense of personality or opinion. It is almost as if the author vomited (or barfed, rather) factual statements all over the screen. This is a major problem as the website states that this blog is meant for evidence based opinions. If this is truly a goal of the website's bloggers, then it should be the priority of the author of any blog on said website to make their agenda clear and not to assume its inferred. Powell doesn't even attempt to take the data from the blog, and make some sort of statement with it. I guess you could argue that the title of his blog could be some sort of comical quasi-argument but it is hardly so.

I'll give it to Powell that the blog is relevant in that it is related to food safety, but that’s hardly enough. The reason people use blogs as a new source is because they have a degree of bias to them that makes them interesting. It is a lot more entertaining to hear a story or report from someone who isn't being paid to appear neutral or isn't implicitly inferring their opinions in an underhanded fashion. Many people prefer the bluntness of blogs to the monotonous tone of  newscasts. If the writer of such a blog does not include a personal opinion or insight, like Powell has done, then the blog is stale and not differentiable from other news sources. Neutrality takes the very essence away that makes blogs unique. 

Swedish Chef part 2

In my household, the men cook. This is how it has been in my paternal family for generations. Not only is a household duty for the men in our family, but it has become a hobby and a passion for some of us.
Throughout my life, i have known my father's greatest creative outlet to be cooking. Although he is an artist, he makes money off of commissions and has little time for free composition. Cooking is an art that doesn't require too much time and has allowed my father to experiment with new ideas or concepts. He will always try new recipes and play around with new ways of cooking old ones. 
The only other chefs alive in my paternal family are my father, my grandfather Sune and my uncle Jens (yes he is also named Jens). My grandfather and uncle are both also artists. My Grandfather worked with artistic carpentry all his life and my uncle is a painting and photography professor. When not in a kitchen, these men might be found quarrelling and tearing open old wounds from childhood in vicious arguements. When preparing a dish together, however, all ill will is forgotten. Cooking is therapeutic for the men of the Salander family. The three of them work cooperatively and move around the kitchen like a team of professional dancers who seem incredibly focused on the task at hand despite the jokes, old stories and general warm-heartedness that accompany these sessions.
My grandfather displays his patriarchy at the stove as he lectures my father and uncle on their cookery like a teacher to a pair of schoolboys. The two middle aged men listen to their father, taking mental notes, then right their mistakes and continue their work. This knowledge allows him to restore his fatherly role and provide wisdom to men who are already well into life. The two brothers listen to him without protest and follow his instructions carefully. "Sune is the Master" says uncle Jens.
 I, being the third generation of cook, am an amateur. I still have much to learn from the Swedish chefs. That is not to say I am particularly unskilled, just unpractised. I thoroughly enjoy cooking, especially alongside my Grandfather when visiting him. My poor Swedish and his poor English create a barrier between the two of us that is seemingly broken when I am helping him prepare Schnitzel or Cordon Bleu. He'll display his inherit silly nature, a mirror image of my father's, by interrupting my dicing of vegetables with a Frisbee toss of a flat-bread circle. I have learned more about my grandfather and what I hold in common with him from the fun we've had in the kitchen together than the broken conversations we've had. I've learned that my Grandfather is a dedicated and focused man who is also a charismatic goof and exhibitionist almost to a fault. Sune is truly the master of the kitchen.
 Past the threshold of this room, Sune loses his aura of authority and we are once again reminded of his feebleness and growing age. In the kitchen he is king and unlike his eyesight and sense of balance, his prestige as a chef can never fade.
Sune is 92 and is currently in the hospital in Gavle , Sweden as we speak and is fading fast. His health has been deteriorating at an increased rate in the last month or two. My father believes he will pass away before our annual visit in August. Even if this is not so, I don't think he will be able to fill the  role he had because his vertigo, frailty and loss of eyesight will live him practically bedridden. My grandfather's connection to his sons through food and the art of cooking are the adhesives that hold my paternal family together. I don't know what the absence of this will mean for my father or his relationship with his brother.
For me, this is truly devastating because although my grandfather and I have shared some truly intimate moments the language barrier still separates the two of us. I have not heard his fantastic tales nor recounted old memories with him. It is painful to listen to him speak so eloquently and watch the rest of my family be completely enthralled in his oratory when I can only understand a few phrases. Of course, my father retells them to me in English but I am reminded "they're just not the same, I can't do it like Sune can" or "its better in Swedish" I feel guilty and left out of a grand experience. But I am reminded that any time I wanted to view my grandfather, the glue of my paternal family, In his fully glory all I need do is go to the kitchen and watch him work.

MR. CLEMENT: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

The issue of same-sex marriage certainly implicates profound and deeply held views on both sides of the issue, but the legal question on the merits before this Court is actually quite narrow. On the assumption that States have the constitutional option either to define marriage in traditional terms or to recognize same-sex marriages or to adopt a compromise like civil unions, does the Federal Government have the same flexibility or must the Federal Government simply borrow the terms in State law? I would submit the basic principles of federalism suggest that as long as the Federal Government defines those terms solely for purposes of Federal law, that the Federal Government has the choice to adopt a constitutionally permissible definition or to borrow the terms of the statute.

This is Clement's opening statement for his argument. It leads into his point quite well and provides a clear foundation for the rest of his argument. Mr. Clement is trying to argue that despite the differing morals that play into the argument over what marriage's role are, the state should be primarily concerned with what is within their legal reach. He argues that the Federal government does not have the jurisdiction to overstep the authority of the states and must leave the decision up to them.

Clement uses a solid tactic and provides a small variety of rhetorical devices in his statement. Most notable, Clement employs a sort of flip tactic through his rhetorical question. He turns his point around to the judgesby asking, " does the Federal Government have the same flexibility or must the Federal Government simply borrow the terms in State law?" he is keeping the judges on their toes and drawing them in knowing full well that a judge's duty is to the law and nothing else.

Clement is playing to his audience both with his rhetorical question and with his use of logos. He acknowledges the true role of the Federal government in the affairs of states and challenges the justices to disprove his argument that any attempt made by the Federal government on this issue would be in direct violation of the law the justices have sworn to uphold.

Clement also makes a nice attempt at avoiding a bias by avoiding speculation on the effect of gay marriage on society. He gives neither side criticism but instead tries to convince that he is primarily concerned with what is law and what isn't.
Overall, Clement provides a pretty logical argument that is well targeted and well constructed.