Revised Barf Blog: A Humorous Insight into the Food Industry

Barf Blog is successful in neatly displaying information written for both the average person and the highly respected doctor. That being said, some of the blogs and blog categories appear to be off topic from the subject of food safety. Those blogs that are focused succeed in letting the everyday person know what scary things might be lurking in the deep depths of their freezer. In today’s world, big food companies are hesitant to release recalls on their products unless they are absolutely sure—with the purpose of preventing panic. Barf Blog is not a big company. Instead, the creators of this blog have created an easy way for the people to find out what’s really going on their pantry.

The public tends to be attracted to a visually appealing website. Barf Blog succeeds in doing this. Yes, the name seems at first a little gross, but the clean layout and earthy color pallet convinces the reader otherwise.  Once the layout draws the reader in, the relatable blogs on the very first tab will hold his attention. Whether you become paranoid about the frozen berries you had in your smoothie this morning or are drawn in by the research that says picking your noise might be good for you, you’ll want to read more.  Once a reader has entered the blog section of the website, she can explore a world of topics—and I literally mean a world. One can read about steak tartare (complete with a Mr. Bean video) and then read the blog entitled “Poop Doggy Dog Part II,” regarding Salmonella found in dog food. Have a question on food or where it comes from? Chances are you can find a blog or Infosheet. The doctors who write the blogs present the information in a humorous manner--hence the "Poop Doggy" title. This widens the audience to young people who may not be initially interested in food or diseases like E. Coli. 

At first glance, it may seem like the blogs are written by normal people with an interest in food safety. One blog written by Doug Powell starts off with how he had to explain what sequestration was to his mother—not exactly how a typical medical paper starts off. When reading this blog, I could picture myself having to explain the exact same thing to my own mother. We all have those moments. If you still have any doubt regarding the credibility of the blogs, the 'About Us' tab explains the qualifications of the doctors that post—they constantly argue with each other and make sure that they are all on the very top of their game in regards to keeping facts straight and not misleading the public. Knowing that the information comes from doctors and not just random people blogging in their free time gives the reader a sense of security in the information given. Listen people, these doctors actually know what they’re talking about.

Despite the credibility and wide variety of information on food, a few of the categories are, for lack of a better phrase, wacky and weird. One of these sections is in fact called the “Wacky and Weird” category, in which there is a selection of both war and biting soccer player articles. I will give the website credit for the name of this category, for it is indeed wacky and weird. I do appreciate the attempt to gain an audience through different interests, but I believe the same result could have been achieved through the other blogs about food related topics. These random blogs caused confusion, and although still written by doctors, detracted from the overall credibility. Despite the few arbitrary posts, Barf Blog exposes the inner workings of the food industry. It can help us all think twice about eating whatever food ends up on our plate or about eating the frozen tator tots or the questionable food in the plastic casing. This blog can help us stay safe in whatever food endeavors we choose. 

Barf Blog: A Humorous Insight into the Food Industry

Criteria: Relevant blogs that have to do with “safe food from farm to fork” Relatable language and situations discussed in the blogs—seems like it was written to be read by normal people not extremely smart doctors A page to establish credibility and explain purpose Information available to a wide audience, not just written Barf Blog is successful in neatly displaying information written for both the average person and the highly respected doctor. That being said, some of the blogs and blog categories appear to be off topic from the subject of food safety. The public tends to be attracted to a visually appealing website. Barf Blog succeeds in doing this. Yes, the name seems at first a little gross, but the clean layout and earthy color pallet convinces the reader otherwise.  Once the layout draws the reader in, the relatable blogs on the very first tab will most likely hold his attention. Once a reader has entered the blog section of the website, she can explore a world—and I literally mean a world. One can read about steak tartare (complete with a Mr. Bean video) and then read the blog entitled “Poop Doggy Dog Part II,” regarding Salmonella found in dog food. Have a question on food or where it comes from? Chances are you can find a blog or Infosheet. The doctors who write the blogs present the information in a humorous manner--hence the "Poop Doggy" title. This widens the audience to teenagers who may not be initially interested in food or diseases like E. Coli.  At first glance, it may seem like the blogs are written by normal people with an interest in food safety. One blog written by Doug Powell starts off with how he had to explain what sequestration was to his mother—not exactly how a typical medical paper starts off. This is a key feature that attracts readers. The 'About Us' tab explains the qualifications of the doctors that post. Knowing that the information comes from doctors and not just random people blogging in their free time gives the reader a sense of security in the information given. Despite the credibility and wide variety of information on food, some of the categories seem slightly irrelevant. There is a “Wacky and Weird” section in which there is a selection of both war and biting soccer player articles. I will give the website credit for the name of this category, for it is indeed wacky and weird. I do appreciate the attempt to gain an audience through different interests, but I believe the same result could have been achieved through the other blogs about food related topics. These random blogs caused confusion, and although still written by doctors, detracted from the overall credibility. Despite the few arbitrary posts, Barf Blog exposes the inner workings of the food industry.

Pieces of the Puzzle

Food has always been there. From late night study sessions to early morning ice hockey practices, food was the singular thing that was always there. It was always the one thing that was held constant throughout my chaotic life. My diet helped me to fit into the puzzle of my community. Food was part of my culture—my culture as an athlete. My whole life was never all about sports; at least that’s what I thought. Never did I think my life was all about food either. Food and sports were both things I took for granted. It is only in hindsight that I realized my whole lifestyle and diet was sports oriented.

What makes a team great isn’t always the talent. It’s the chemistry. It’s the pregame pasta parties, the constant intake of energy bars and protein shakes, and the celebratory dinners. When you’re burning thousands of calories a day, food is fuel, not something to fear. My entire life, I have always been able to eat whatever I liked without having to worry. I never sweated the extra cupcake or the three bowls of pasta because I knew that as an athlete, I would burn it off.  I always used to pride myself in being the one to always eat the most amongst my school friends. I would secretly indulge in the pleasure of being able to eat all the junk food and carbs I wanted without compromising my health.

This all changed when I lost everything I had taken for granted. I went from being “Nicole, the hockey star” to “Nicole, the gimpy girl in the sling.” I never could have imagined that my dislocated shoulder would mark the start of my battle with food. Food was my friend, now turned enemy. There was nothing better than enjoying all my favorite foods, knowing I would be exercising later. I no longer have that luxury. These days, food is all I can think about. Food was my addiction, and now I’m facing the side effects. It is not that I crave eating large amounts, but I do crave the freedom of not worrying about my weight.

            My injury has caused my body to change, but the culture I’ve always known has not. The people around me have not changed. It kills me having to go to a pasta party and watch the rest of my team eat bowls and bowls of pasta in preparation for the game—the game I will not be playing in.  It is unreasonable for me expect my peers and teammates to adjust to my new lifestyle, yet, deep down, I still hope that they will. It is a selfish desire, I know, but change is hard. I am the piece that no longer fits to the rest of their puzzle. Food is no longer the constant in which I can rely on. Instead, it is time to strike a new balance in my life. It is time to restructure my puzzle piece. 

DOMA Rhetorical Analysis

MR. CLEMENT: With respect, Justice Kennedy, that's not right. No State loses any benefits by recognizing same-sex marriage. Things stay the same. What they don't do is they don't sort of open up an additional class of beneficiaries under their State law for — that get additional Federal benefits. But things stay the same. And that's why in this sense -­-

JUSTICE GINSBURG: They're not — they're not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it's pervasive. It's not as though, well, there's this little Federal sphere and it's only a tax question. It's — it's — as Justice Kennedy said, 1100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the State has said is marriage. You're saying, no, State said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.

The Supreme Court is filled with rhetoric—usually used with the intent to persuade. Mr. Clement and Justice Ginsburg are known to have different points of views on the constitutionality of DOMA, which makes the rhetoric between these two even more intriguing. Mr. Clement is making his case for the constitutionality of DOMA, while Justice Ginsburg—clearly on the liberal side—gives perspective for the other side of the argument. In this piece of argument, Justice Ginsburg is successful in using rhetorical devices to make her point regarding the unfair aspects of DOMA, while Mr. Clement’s argument falls slightly short.

Mr. Clement’s main argument throughout the court case revolves around the idea of uniformity among the states. This argument can be classified as a scare tactic logical fallacy in the sense that Clement is implying that without uniformity in marriage, we would be entering a frightening period of “unknown.” Similarly, this passage also reveals another logical fallacy on the part of Clement. Clement argues “no State loses any benefits by recognizing same-sex marriage.” This is indeed technically true, but Clement's argument has no backing. It is true, that under DOMA states are not penalized for recognizing same-sex marriage. However, this implies that all individuals engaged in these “recognized” same-sex marriages have the same federal benefits as a heterosexual couple. This is ironic because under DOMA (federal law), these individuals hardly receive any federal benefits. Therefore, there really are not any “benefits” for the states to lose in terms of these same-sex marriages. On the surface, Mr. Clement’s argument may seem plausible, but when examined closely, the logic is not there. His reliance on the idea of uniformity on the federal level, but choice on the state level just does not make sense. If federal law will take precedence at the end of the day, state law will not make much of a difference when it comes to benefits for same-sex couples.

Justice Ginsburg counters Clement with a hard-hitting and an almost humorous tone. She quickly points out that the argument has nothing to do with additional benefits for the states, and then uses an interesting mix of pathos and logos to strengthen her upcoming, sound-bite worthy metaphor. She makes the ideas being discussed personal in saying, “Your partner is sick.” But, then she quickly follows that brief hypothetical with the mention of the 1100 statutes. This mix of pathos and logos creates a persuasive argument that gives the feeling of sympathy, but leaves room for logic. Justice Ginsburg then uses “skim milk” as a metaphor for the way same-sex marriages are being treated. This metaphor gives the implication that same-sex marriages have something lacking, which she implies are the benefits given to a traditional married couple. The use of the skim milk metaphor helps to portray her overall disapproval of the current federal policies regarding same-sex marriage. With a simple comparison of same-sex marriage to skim milk, Justice Ginsburg was successful providing a strong counterargument to Clement, and establishing her own position among her fellow Supreme Court Justices.