Digital Fashion

Mmoma Ejiofor, a columnist for Sify.com, projects that by 2016 Coco Chanel will be replaced with mp3 players and remote controls in the world of haute couture.
Cisco Technologies is working on developing "smart clothing." This new fashion doesn't just consist of neon colors and lycra, but will literally be wearable technology. Rather than simply owning a pair of jeans, we will have jeans that have special coils to keep our legs warm, using the same concepts as those used for producing ski wear. MIT students have already been experimenting with hoodies that come equipped with an mp3 player.
Not only will the technology IN our clothing improve, but the technology that produces clothing is also being updated. Bodymetrics, a London based company, makes the "Perfect Fit" jean, using a scanner to survey the subject's body type, literally producing their "perfect" fit of jeans. But, apparently you CAN put a price on perfection - the jeans go for about $530 a pop as of now.

In "Evan's Two Moms" Anna Quindlen makes a claim that gay people deserve the same rights as others. Quindlen appeals to pathos by discussing love. She states that the two women fell in love, just as others do and that they were capable of love and genuine commintment.Quindlen states in unfair and immoral for the governement to reward the commitments of some and not others. Quindlen also appeals to pathos by discussing interacial marriages. She uses the Loving v. Virginia case to back up her claim.

I found this youtube video that I thought related in that it was making the same type of argument as Quindlen. The video portrays the idea that a child can have a normal life with two moms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy3Fb51GfdE

Pathos in Commercial.

I think that the following commercial uses pathos to convince viewers that speeding is wrong. The commercial presents a scenario in which a driver who is speeding causes numerous deaths. The argument that speeding is wrong is presented in a very dramatic way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kabPKfoJf8k

A "Podcar" City?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/13/ithaca-aims-to-be-america_n_134352.html

So it's not an article about "Evan's Two Moms," but I came across this interesting piece yesterday and thought I'd share. It relates to the topic I wrote about for paper #1. It discusses Ithaca's desire to become a "podcar" city. The most basic definition of the podcar as given by the article is "a driverless, computer-guided car." The aim would be to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and still offer the privacy American's are used to with transportation. They say the technology is pretty much perfected at this point, but the most difficult barriers are the social or cultural ones.

Though it's hard to imagine moving so radically, it will be very interesting to see if anything happens in Ithaca's case. It could signal the move for other cities. In Sweden, according to the article, several cities have already decided they will use podcars, because they have committed to eliminating their dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. Why aren't we as progressive? Shouldn't we be? Or are we just too attached to our cars?

I'd have a hard time parting with my car, but this made me think. It's an idea I've personally thought about since I was a little kid, and it's incredible to see that the technology exists. This would eliminate both pollutions and the majority of auto accidents. Imagine, getting in your car after a night of drinking, knowing you'll make it home without a problem--because the computer is taking you there. That would be an incredible world to live in, in a lot of ways, and it's something we should consider.

Evan's Moms

In this piece, Quindlen uses various rhetorical strategies as well as strong emotional appeals to make her claims and arguments. Throughout the piece there is a central focus on gay marriage as an attempt for same-sex couples to start a family, they just want to be able to love each other-nothing else. This gives you an image of two loving parents, their children, their dog Spot, etc. However, Quindlen goes on to talk about the benefits that come along with a family such as tax breaks, insurance benefits, etc. These are all things that one would not normally think of in relation to family, and I think it kind of weakens her argument. Quindlen also seems to jump back and forth which almost seems contradictory to some of her possible stronger arguments. She attempts to appeal to pathos by arguing that your family should be with you in your dying days, but then she goes on and interrelates AIDS as a more prevalent thing amongst same-sex couples. She continues to do the same thing, jumping back and forth from love to tax breaks which kind of makes her lose credibility. Then to conclude, her attempt to use the court case - Loving v Virginia as an appeal to logos and pathos is completely ineffective. We don't really relate race and same-sex marriages as the same thing. What the argument here is how we define marriage- man and woman, which what was going on in that case. I think Quindlen shouldve probably picked a better court case to cite, something that related to something extremely unjust amongst same-sex couples. That would have definitely been more effective. All in all, I think her central arguments should be supported more with more factual evidence and her first defining element of family - love and support.