Intro How do would you feel if your brother and you do did same bad thing but only you will bewere punished? If only your brother is allowed to do things which you are not allowed to, what would you say? You will would probably say, ‘why only me? How come he doesn’t get punished? Why I cannotWhy can I not do this? It’s not fair!’ ‘People are equal,’ you say, but even though we know we should be, it still is not easy to treat people equally in reality.
Thesis whaling is one of the biggest international debates. Norway, Iceland, and Japan are famous for being pro-whaling countrycountries. Japan, however, is the only target of the thundering criticism, while International Whaling Commission (IWC) officially allows Japan to do whaling for research. The criticism which anti-whaling countries such as America argue offer sounds very racial and political. racially and politically.(You either need nouns here, like “racial and political”, or you could say “racially and politically motivated”). Thus Japan does not have to stop whaling, as Japan follows the necessary procedures.
History Whaling for subsistence dates to prehistoric times. The early people of Norway began whaling at least 4,000 years ago. Various peoples of the north western North American coast and the Arctic have a long tradition of whaling. Whaling, done from canoes or skin boats, often when migrating pods of whales passed nearby, was a very dangerous undertaking.
Norway The hunting of whales is thought to have been pursued by the Basques from land as early as the 10th century and in Newfoundland waters by the 14th century. It is not until the middle of the 16th century, however, that the appearance of Basques in those waters is established by record. Whaling on a large scale was first organized at Spitsbergen at the beginning of the 17th century, largely by the Dutch who, with the Basques, apparently developed methods of flensing and boiling. The Dutch were at first in competition with the English Muscovy Company of London and they established the port of Smeerenberg. Large profits continued only until 1640, when the scarcity of whales forced the Dutch farther out into the northern waters in search of them. (Excellent, Take)
America By the middle of the 17th century whaling from the land was established in America. The earliest type, called drift whaling, consisted of harvesting whales that had washed up on the shore, mainly after storms. Drift whaling became economically important in Colonial America, and the first laws regarding it were written at Southampton, Long Island, in the 1640s. This practice was followed by shore whaling, in which whales swimming close to shore were hunted. With the capture of a sperm whale by a Nantucket whaler, the superior qualities of sperm oil were discovered, and American whalers began fishing farther south in search of the sperm whale, which superseded the right whale in value.
American fisheries were set back by the American Revolution, but in 1791 the first Americans rounded Cape Horn to hunt in the S Pacific. Another, but temporary, temporary setback occurred in the War of 1812, but the outcome spelled the complete defeat of British whaling. From 1815 until shortly before the Civil War, the period widely known as the golden age of U.S. whaling, Americans sailed the Pacific from south to north, on voyages often lasting as long as three or four years, in search of whales. The advent of the Civil War, a decrease in the demand for sperm oil and in the number of whales, and the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania brought on the decline of the industry.
Modern The invention (1856), by the Norwegian Sven Foyn, of a harpoon containing an explosive head may be said to have inaugurated modern whaling. Besides insuring the whale's immediate death this type of harpoon was subsequently modified to shoot compressed air into the whale so that it will not sink before it can be secured. The development of the factory ship, equipped to take on board and completely process whales caught by smaller chaser boats, increased safety and enhanced the ability to catch the larger blue whale. It also allowed for the use of all parts of the whale; formerly only the blubber and head could be procured, and the job of flensing from the side of the ship was a hazardous one.
Attempts at Regulation and Protection
In 1932-33, partly in response to the collapse of the whale-oil market, the first attempts were made to regulate and restrict the catch by international agreement. After World War II the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was formed in Washington, D.C., by 17 nations. The commission, which regulates most of the world's whaling activity, began in the 1960s to limit the number and species of whales that could be hunted.
In the subsequent years, environmental activist groups, notably Greenpeace, became extremely involved in the attempt to stop whaling, and in 1982 the IWC voted a moratorium on commercial whaling. Exceptions to the moratorium generally have been made for native peoples, such as the Makah, who traditionally had hunted whales and used their meat as a major part of their diet. These regulations are not adhered to by all nations, including some members of the commission, and whales continue to be hunted by Norway and Iceland and, for research purposes, by Japan. (The killing of whales for research, while permitted under IWC regulations, is opposed by many as unnecessary, and opponents of whaling believe it has been abused and should be abolished.)
Anti-whaling As whales should be protected from extinction, there are also several reasons that anti-whaling countries support. They believe that no animal should suffer and die for the benefit of humans and also that the hunting and the killing animals likely sharing many social and intellectual abilities with humans are immoral. Whales are so special; they are exceptionally intelligent and social beings, able to communicate fluently with each other. In addition, they insist that whaling is inherently cruel. Before the whale is harpooned, it is usually exhausted by a long and stressful chase. Because whales are moving targets, a makrsman can achieve a direct hit only with great difficulty. The explosive-tipped harpoon wounds many whales, who often survive for some time before finally being killed by rifle shots or by additional harpoons. Even when a direct hit is scored, the explosive often fails to detonate.
Counterargument in general whaling
Though these claims, morally and emotionally, make us feel whaling should be banned, these claims do not have strong evidences to convince pro-whaling countries effectively. First of all, though whales have a special intelligence compared to other animal, whales also should be treated in the same way as other animals, as a resource to be used for food and other products. In addition, scientific research revealed the intelligence of dolphin, not whales; these studies, however, cannot measure intelligence in any useful way. Also considering chicken, pork, cow, lamb and other animals we eat, the anti-whaling countries, mainly western countries, cannot say that no animal should suffer and die for the benefit of humans. If their claim is true, those animals which we eat in our daily life also should not be sold as a food.
Killing whales certainly takes a long time and seems to be cruel. Other animals, however, are treated much more cruelly. Whales will be hunted after they live freely in the ocean, on the other hand, other animals are not allowed to live like whales; they born and live to be a ‘good’ meat from the beginning and spend their whole life in a cage. The process of killing whales might take longer than other animals because of its size, but the process of killing other animals is not different from killing whales. People do not know how other animals are killed to be a meat, while they know how whales are killed because mass media put so much emphasis on whaling.
Whales should not be hunted to extinction, but if their numbers are healthy, then hunting them should be permitted. Whale populations are healthy, particularly those of minke whales, which now number over a million. A resumption of hunting under regulation will not adversely affect their survival. The IWC did not impose the ban on whaling for moral reasons but to prevent extinction. Numbers have now greatly increased; the ban has served its original purpose. This, however, causes another problem. Whales damage the fish stocks on which many people depend for their food and livelihood. Culling whales will reduce the decline in fish stocks. That might not affect most of western countries, but countries such as Japan where people enjoy eating fish daily are affected.
Anti-whaling countries support their moral reasons toward whaling, but those moral reasons will hardly affect pro-whaling countries because of its necessity in whaling culture.
As we have looked through debates in general, Japan is the only country which has been strongly criticized on their whaling for research purpose while Norway and Iceland are allowed to do whaling for commercial because of their tradition. There are thousands of articles or images against Japan, while only a few of them against Norway and Iceland. Why do these anti-whaling countries attack only Japan? This might have something with race. How do anti-whaling countries with moral reasons blame Japan racially?
In fact, whaling in Japan has a long history; it started at least 3 century BC (3rd century AD? 3rd Century BC? 3 Centuries ago?). Whale meat were was eaten or used as a special gift through centuries, not only using whale oil. A number of recipes or traditional souvenirs using whale in Japan describes how important whaling is in Japan. Japan used a traditional way of whaling until America came to Japan and introduced modern whaling in late 19th century. Interestingly, the important reason America first visited Japan relates to whaling. America wanted to use Japan as a relay point of for their whaling in order to get good quality of whale oil. Whale oil was relatively important before it was substituted for oil or vegetable oil. In addition, America strongly supported whaling or and Japanese eating whalesthe consumption of whales by the Japanese after world war two because of its high protein to improve Japanese food situationwhales are high in protein and could improve Japan’s food situation. Thus whaling is strongly related Japanese culture as well as Norway.
Japan does not have any permission of whaling for commercialfor commercial whaling, although IWC accepts whaling for commercial for those countries where whaling is their tradition. Japanese food culture or and traditional souvenirs are certainly damaged by the ban of whaling. Thus ban on whaling Therefore, while the ban on whaling protects whales, but at the same time it also declines destroys one part of Japanese culture. Even though we have seen how important whaling is in Japan, it will be very difficult for Japan to have permission for commercial whaling.
Not only does anti-whaling affects Japanese food culture or and tradition, non government organization or and anti whaling groups such as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd also physically attack Japanese boats and prevent whaling radically. For example, Sea the shipShepherd’s ship crews (which ship??) pursued and delivered 10 bottles of rotten butter and 15 bottles of a methyl cellulose and indelible dye mixture to Japanese ship on February, 2008.(who was it delivered to?). They also crashed Japanese research ships several times to interrupt whaling, even though there was no serious damage to either ship. In addition, two Sea Shepherd activists boarded a Japanese whaling vessel without permission. These pirate actions terrify Japanese fishermen and researchers. On TV Yyou may see sometimes on TVsometimes see Japanese ships flashing splashing water toward these activists, but it results in protectingthis is to protect themselves from these pirate actions. and massMass media only shows the this part to support anti-whaling. These Japanese ships always cannotcan never finish their missions without having any damage or threat. Humans should not be harmed with for any reason to protect whales. If these activity would be acceptedIf you claimed that this was acceptable, you would have to doubt what is morally wrong; to harm human beings in order to keep whaling or to killing whales to use as a resource for human beings.
Notably, any other whaling countries do not likelyno other whaling countries get interrupted like Japan does, while their Japan’s commercial whaling is for commercial which havehas been prohibited. Even though Japan also has a whaling history, as it has been mentioned earlier, IWC has not permitted Japanese traditional whaling. Also Japanese whaling is under scientific research with IWC permission, but the criticism is bigger than that against Norway started commercial whaling in 1993 and Iceland did commercial whaling in 2007.
Whaling is not a simple issue. Considering these unfair treatments, this has something related to nation or politicsto do with specific nations and politics. One of the anti-whaling countries, Britain, cannot take a serious action to Norway, which who is their important business countryan important trading partner. Also America is against whalingAmerica is also against whaling, even though America is one of the whaling countriesstill practices whaling. Since Japan depends on imported food, Japan imports a lot of meat from America. While America supported whaling middle 19th century to improve Japanese food situation, if it happened now, Japan might be able to get whale meat to increase their self-sufficiency and the rate of dependency of imported food might drop off as a result. Then it would have an influence on trade market between America and Japan. In addition, there are several countries which have never done whaling in IWC. Those countries participate in IWC to raise the number of anti-whaling countries so that they can take part a majority in IWC.
Conclusion
Norway and Iceland is the countryare places where people kill whales inherently, and so doesthe same as Japan. These countries are allowed to kill whales under because of their tradition. Then why Japanese cannotcan Japanese not kill whales to preserve their food and traditional cultures as well as they do?. Those who think whaling is morally wrong prevent whaling with through immoral waymeans, as we saw in this paper. Thus Japan can continue their whaling for scientific research without being criticized and having any interruption.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/03/2131274.htm 1st pic
"whaling." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. 28 Feb. 2009 .
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=7516&pst=958791　canon
http://www.hhcc.com/?cat=32 chicken

“I wish it were a diamond.”
Rareness is a big deal to human beings. People, especially women, love jewelry such as diamond rings because they are beautiful and rare (few people can afford to buy them). If a woman wears a glass ring, few will feel jealous of her. Even though a glass ring was once seen as valuable, no one cares much about such rings these days. The reason for this is pretty simple -- glass is no longer rare. When you lose your glass ring, you can easily get a new one. People will not likely pay much attention to things that are painlessly replaced.
The most famous coffee chain shop in the world, Starbucks, is well-known for aggressive growth, opening some stores only a few city blocks away from others. People like to go to Starbucks because of its brand value even though their products cost more than other coffee stores. Having a cup of coffee at Starbucks gives is sort of like wearing a diamond ring. However, as a result of their aggressive growth, Starbucks is becoming more accessible. Sometimes someone can even be sitting in a Starbucks and see another across the street. As the diamond ring changes into a glass ring, Starbucks will lose its value.
This cartoon drawn by Jeff Darcy on July 2nd 2008 shows that people do not care about Starbucks closing stores in the same way that people do not care about losing a glass ring. The cartoon describes Starbucks in a weird place, Mars, and shows WALL-E, a garbage-collecting robot cleaning up the store.
On the left of this cartoon, Starbucks is described on Mars, which cannot be possible at all in reality. This typical Starbucks store hangs a sign board on their window which says “this store closing” in a dark back ground. Looking at the Starbucks symbol mark on top, you will recognize the symbol is different from what you see every day; she looks very miserable. Nearby the Starbucks WALL-E is activated (You see his path) to complete his work of collecting and compressing garbage, saying “WELL THEY DID OVER EXPAND” in the center of this cartoon. Great, Take. すごい。。高校生のように書いたぜ
By describing a Starbucks store on Mars, Jeff suggests that Starbucks opens too many stores, especially in weird places. No one can go and get a cup of coffee at Starbucks on Mars. It is completely useless. This cartoon also implies something about their aggressive growth on Earth— too many stores on Earth in too many ridiculous places. Though Starbucks spread its business to Mars in the hope of attracting new customers, the operation did not go well and led in the end to store closure. The sign board gives us a clear reason why the symbol looks so miserable. After all, the store becomes part of WALL-E’s garbage because of Starbucks’ careless growth.
WALL-E, a robot from a famous Disney movie, plays an important role to emphasize their poor operation by saying “WELL THEY DID OVER EXPAND.” In the movie, WALL-E is a main character and is designed to clean up a polluted Earth far in the future as a result of people throwing away too much garbage. Considering this, Starbucks on Mars is clearly defined as garbage and undoubtedly emphasizes the uselessness of the store. Also, ‘WELL THEY DID OVER EXPAND’ briefly explains the reason why Starbucks is forced to close the store. Starbucks opening too many stores to manage well, some of them are in unreasonable places, led to its store closings. Drawing WALL-E in this cartoon emphasizes that store closings are the fault of Starbucks’ poor business plan.
Analyzing the context of this cartoon, one can (avoid using I, we, our, me, my, etc. in papers) notice that it puts much more emphasis on Starbucks’ over expansion than on its closing stores. While closing stores typically draws the most attention, here the focus is the reason behind these closings. First this cartoon uses logos to illustrate why closing the store is Starbucks’ fault. Starbucks on Mars emphasizes Starbucks’ aggressive and careless growth. Another logos is the relation between the location on Mars and the sign board. People cannot exist on Mars so that the store should not be opened for business.
We can also see another rhetorical appeal, pathos. The sign board and the symbol mark cause us to feel pity for the closing store. WALL-E and his comment, however, contradict the feeling of pity and make us feel more strongly that closing stores is Starbucks’s own fault.
Most importantly, Jeff uses ethos to illustrate peoples’ lack of concern through this cartoon. He intentionally chooses Mars which is far from Earth and WALL-E who is an animated character. In addition, Jeff does not draw any human being or other real thing besides Starbucks. Therefore, this cartoon expresses that this event, like watching animation, has no actual impact on customers.
Does Starbucks’ closing stores cause any larger social problems? Considering only customers, the answer is ‘No’. In fact, customers will not be affected so badly; most will hardly pay attention to the fact. Some of them might need to walk or drive a longer distance to get a cup of coffee at Starbucks, but they still can get it. Others may not even notice that one Starbucks on their block is closed.
By looking at this cartoon, one can realize how badly Starbucks overexpanded their business. What could Starbucks have done instead of store closure? Starbucks has to find ideal locations with more careful planning. They should put their stores at least 10 miles distance each other so that one store in that area will be more valuable.
Starbucks’ products have a great brand value, but they may lose their value because of overly aggressive growth. While Starbucks expands its business, it must be careful to maintain its value and not become like a glass ring.
Darcy, Jeff. "So Long Starbucks." Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonists Index. 3 Feb. 2009 .


Take, great paper. If I’m the first person to edit this, then I’m really amazed at your English skills. Make sure to double space your citation at the bottom here. Put it on a Separate page, with the title of the page being “Works Cited”.

If you have any questions about the changes I made feel free to give me a call or email Sorry about rock climbing Friday, I just did not want to throw up on the climbing wall.

Next time we do conversation table I can try to explain the difference between , and ;

If you can’t think of anything else to say to get to 1500 words, look up some more sources about starbucks itself. Find out how they got to be so big. Where did they originate from? Give some company history.

Jya ne.

About conference

As for our graphic aids, our group considered what we have learned from “Visual Display.” We tried to make the graphic aids simple like our pie chart. Also we tried not to put too much information on our slides. We decided to show the whole list of Amethyst initiative to impress others with its numbers. Each time we created Power Point Slides, we discussed how we could impress audience or how the slide would look as we had to apply the theory we learned.
We also talked about how we deliver our speech. We decided to start from general idea, what is Amethyst initiative. As we discussed, we talked about our purpose to get audience in our discussion.
In our conference, Ben made a competition letter and flyer but I liked how we discussed these. We talked about the alignment, letter size and the contents. We used the grand style to make our letter more formal.

What is your method of note taking?

First, I start from headings and write details as a professor talk. I leave a line when I write so that I can add things or thought what I have later. If a professor emphasizes phrases or I think it will be important, I will underline or put a star in front of the sentence. I also write what it is similar to or familiar with, and what I think and feel about so that I remember more than just writing the sentences. Actually, I do not read my note again later so that I have to think really clear when I first write my note in order to put these ideas in my brain for a long. I am not a good drawer, but if I need I will draw a picture. It is very important to put visual images which I imagine. It makes my thought more clear.
The way I take notes like this is I like organize things. Some people can take notes like really artistic and it looks very beautiful, but for me, it is very important organize my thought in my note and clearly see what I was or am thinking.

Visual mapping

When I first came up with the idea, whaling, I did not have many ideas to write about. I put whaling center and wrote ideas what I think about as Japanese. I know other countries are against whaling and I wrote the reasons why they are against. Then I thought about why Japan is a pro-whaling country. I found out the history of whaling in Japan and food culture. When I focused on the history, I found out that other countries also have whaling tradition. I have got a question; why is only Japan criticized? Also I looked for other ideas from food culture such as Japanese food situation.

At a Glance
1. Am I interested in this topic?
I am the one who use cell phone a lot, I am interested in finding facts to surprise those who are addicted to cell phone. Finding these facts, I want to warn people the disadvantages of using high technology.
2. Can I argue position on this topic?
First, summarize benefits of using cell phone. Communication problems, accidents triggered by cell phone, and biological problems will be raised. Then talk about how bad using cell phone is on human body.
3. Will I be able to find enough research material on this topic?
Paper that argues cell phone usage / Article and Journal/ Statistics (accidents) /
4. Does this sort of research appeal to me?

Topic: Cell phone

Audience questions:
Everyone uses a cell phone. Tons of new versions come out with new features every day. You can browse web pages, download music and take a picture. Lots of car accidents are happened because of using cell phone during driving. The style of communication is also changing. Manner and morals of using cell phone becomes a big problem.

Purpose questions:
I can bring new perspectives of using cell phone to the audience or inform a surprising fact to the audience. Some researches show the disadvantages of using cell phone so I can research those resources. This will bring me the new perspective as I am the one who uses cell phone a lot. I will surprise the audience who also owns and uses cell phone a lot by showing incredible fact or case happened by using cell phone and let the audience think again about their use of cell phone.

Context questions:
I may have difficulty with writing if focus on only one feature. I will use several findings and put them together to give great impacts on audience thoughts. Using cell phone has something to do with society, communication, advertisement and so on. Thus this will be complex enough for this assignment. While cell phone gives us high technology, cell phone is changing the style of communication or morals and trigger lots of accidents. Even Barack Obama was blamed on his use of blackberry.

First of all, it was very hard to write ‘Visual Rhetoric Analysis.’ I described and analyzed the cartoon but I did not know how to start this paper. Also I could not withdraw any larger social issue or impact from the cartoon so I could not reach my conclusion. I have to consider the argument in the cartoon very carefully and have to lead to a good conclusion.
I shared my paper and I got a feedback from others, though I did not want to do so. He told me that my description and analysis are clear and good, but also told me that my thesis is little confused. I need a good strong thesis to start my argument.
Also I noticed several things after I read others’ work. One student mentioned about colors and shapes which I had not think of. Now I can describe why the cartoonist uses that color and how it affects the cartoons. I, however, have to think of the hidden intention more cautiously as others touched in their work.
In addition to this, I want to learn how to get attention with good introduction. Others wrote ‘to see visual images are stronger than to read actual fact.’ I agree that point but I want to start a sentence in a different way to draw attention.
I will start observing the cartoon more and thinking more deeply so that I can get ideas from different ways and I try to write nearly 1500 words.

Writing down your observations.
As we have watched a movie, ‘WALL-E’, this robot collects garbage which expanded in land and makes it small. Now the robot tries to press the Starbucks, which did over expand. To support the over expanding, the Starbucks is described on the Mars. This means the Starbucks has no place to open new store in the earth. This also explains that the Starbucks expand their business where no one comes.

A preliminary thesis statement
This cartoon focuses on the fact that the Starbucks expanded and now forces to close some of their branches.

Refining argument
How? Describing the Starbucks on the Mars
To what effect? Describing the garbage-collecting robot/ The Mars where the Starbucks find new place to open a store because of too many shops in the Earth and where no human being exists

Revising the preliminary thesis
The cartoon focuses on the reduction of the Starbucks by showing it on the Mars by using WALL-E, the garbage-collecting robot, which shows us that there are too many Starbucks in the Earth and also their poor business plan which opening a store at the place where nobody comes.

Further Polishing thesis
What do you find interesting about this observation?
Closing stores describes a poor business plan.
How does it tap into larger or social cultural issued?
Closing stores should have a big impact to consumers but this shows us that the over expending seems to be obvious and also seems to be so natural to close stores.

So what?
This cartoon shows Starbucks poor business plan by showing a store on the Mars which imply not only there are too many stores on the Earth but also Starbucks opens stores where no customer comes, by using WALL-E, the garbage-collecting robot, to emphasize the fact that they are forced to close stores.