The topic that the article, “River Plan Too Fishy for my Taste Buds” by Bill McEwen shows a lot of credibility by proving the plan of going on with the river rights project should not be allowed and I chose this because McEwen convinced me throughout his article. He showed me his credibility and he can be trusted with all the experience he has. His article can be trusted because it was published in the Fresno Bee, March 26,2009. He publics this because he believes the project is unhelpful or meaningful.
The city of Fresno is hard working not that wealthy. It is also one of the fastest growing population country with a usual weather of high temperature. On the other side the other article was published in The Sacramento Bee, April 26,2009. Meanwhile Fresno is not that wealthy Sacramento is political and environmental. McEwen is a journalist and has been in the Fresno Bee for 35 years. He has dedicated ad made time in four decades of his life to his community. In addition, he is also a graduate of majoring journalism in 1972 at Fresno High School.
Mc. Ewen explains to us how the task will hurt and impact the city in a bad move by using Ethos, Pathos, and Logos to prove this. This is why I agree with McEwen because of his expertness that shows with the facts he provides us with. McEwen will determine Ethos to prove that we make sure we know clearly what he is talking about and what he is trying to talk us into and persuade. Ethos is the honest claim which means to satisfy the public of the author’s credibility or aspect.
The article by the strong is utilizing Ethos to explain. For example, “We need more efforts to capture water – not to divert it. ” This is a clear statement that an expert said which he is interpreting that we need plenty water to live and if that project decides to get approved then we will not have a lot of water. This will waste a great amount of water and he says we need a gain of water not the water to get wasted. In addition, “Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats and both in the hip pocket of environmentalists. Those two people are democrats that have studied and are known as experts because they care about a lot of things.
They are against this because they are well known with environment, global warming, and animals for farmers that all involves what the main project is about and they know exactly what is convincing and what is not. Additionally to McEwen, using Ethos, he also uses Pathos. Pathos is the emotional claim which has the purpose to persuade the crowd by tempting to their feelings or emotions. This is something the author will experience beyond their feelings during the article.
For example, “Such a plan could’ve worked on the San Joaquin, as well” is stated in the article, “River Plan Too Fishy for my Taste Buds” to show something that the author feels. This is saying that he feels like the plan should not be allowed he knows that it will be an enormous amount of money to be spent. McEwen is saying that all the money that will be spent with this project is a waste, not only because it is money being wasted for a project that will not work because it is an exaggerated amount of money.
Another example on how the author feels or acts to this project is, “The reality is, our federal and state governments will spend hundreds of millions – if not billions – of dollars in coming years on a program that will yield a salmon exhibit instead of a sustainable fishery” by stating this he is saying that we will not get benefited over this right now and it will start getting worse by years. This project is a waste of money that will not really help anyone it is going to have poor results over time.
This project will only benefit the salmon not anything else with no positive outcomes. As said above, those examples just show that The project will cause a big emotional impact. Lastly, McEwen also includes Logos, to show logic and knowledge he knows about the project. Logos is mainly anything that is said, or in other words the means of seduction by demonstration of logical reasoning. McEwen gives us an example of logos in his article,”$88 million in the first go-around to put thousands of valley people out to work and force an overdraft of our ground aquifer by water-thirsty farmers”.
He states that because he knows that the project is a big one and is a lot of money to be spent. Besides all the money that is going to be spent this job will be a lot of work for people to take care of the water and maintain perfect and that will also be a big cost to pay all the workers. The $88 million spent will only be for one round that will soon add up to a lot. Although a lot of people that have farms enjoy the water they will not come out and possibly work. Another example is,”…
California’s salmon problems have been caused in large part by oceanic conditions and the environmental mess that is the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta”. McEwen provides us with that statement for us to understand that the project is proved wrong or a bad thing. This explains that the Delta has wrong habitats, such as the salmon, which is bad for California. McEwen has provided us with many examples to show the bad outcomes of the project and it will not have any success.
In conclusion, McEwen provided us with all his knowledge and research about the project with great examples using, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. According to the second article it says that throughout all the good and bad outcomes all the trouble and money spent it is not clear on if the project was a success or failure. It has good and bad moments that people maybe never knew or saw therefore they can not calculate what is resulted in being. The drought is going to make the maintenance of the project be more money to be spent and taken care of.
As said in article three the project is to cost $892 million dollars it will also be added $188 million for the improvements that have to be made. After all the studies, statistics, facts etc. I still believe the project will not have a good outlook or positive outcome through any circumstances it will just be a waste of money and time. If this project does not come out good then it will be a serious waste of money and farmers will be highly impacted. Therefore that means this will impact California in a serious and bad way because of so much money and time wasted for nothing.
