My Tastebuds

The article “River Plan Too Fishy For My Tastebuds” by Bill McEwen shows how the River Restoration Project is flawed in so many ways. McEwen proves to be more credible because he has worked for the Fresno Bee for 35 years and that shows he is very professional. This article was published by the Fresno Bee. The Fresno Bee receives an average of 8.6 million pageviews a month. The article was propagated in the six-county region of Fresno, Fresno is one of the fastest growing regions in California. There typical readers are farmers and poor people. The Fresno Bee cares more about the environment and the people. I disagree with the River Restoration Project because it isn’t worth the costs. It isn’t worth the costs because it is a project that will take many years to get started and it will worsen California's drought problem. This article by McEwen captures his take on ethos, pathos and logo by stating that several experts and .
McEwen shows his take on pathos literature which is emotions by mixing in emotions into his article. Pathos is the use of emotions in an author's writing. McEwen demonstrates the use of pathos when he states “The reality is, our federal and
state governments will spend hundreds of millions- if not billions - of billions in coming years on a program that will yield a salmon exhibit instead of a sustainable fishery”(McEwen9). By stating this he portrays an emotional meaning. McEwen is saying that the government is going to waste money for little to no results. I agree with this because I do not think the salmon rate will even rise. Another Pathos example is when he states “And it’s coming at a time when water shortages already are killing the Valley’s west-side, farm-based economy” (24). This represents Pathos because it puts fear into the reader's mind. Fear is a type of emotion. I agree with this because the farm-based economy is starting to weaken. Pathos in McEwens article was clearly more professionally done than Weintraub’s article. Ethos was used many times in his article making it more professional because ethos is credibility.
McEwen states “Costa and Cardoza are Democrats, and the river’s restoration was pushed by California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats and both in the hip pocket of environments”(13). This shows Ethos writing because he is showing ethics. I agree with this because Democrats care about the environment so they are going to be against the River Restoration Project. When he states “such as Jim Costa of Fresno and Dennis Cardoza of Merced”(11). McEwen uses Ethos here to show his credibility by naming two well-known authors. I agree with the way he uses Ethos because it improves his credibility. McEwens use of Ethos writing made him seem more credible and therefore superior to
Weintraub.
McEwens use of Logos or statistics was essential in an article like this because you have to add an abundance of facts. He states “$88 million in the first go-around to put thousands of Valley people out of work and to force an overdraft of our ground aquifer by water-thirsty farmers”(23). This statement shows statistic proof that the Restoration Project is a bad idea. It is a bad idea because it's only going to make the economy worse and will put many people out of work. He also states “Scientific evidence suggests that California’s salmon problems have been caused in a large part by oceanic conditions and the environment mess that is the San-Joaquin Sacramento Delta”(8). McEwen is saying that the salmon problems were caused naturally so what makes people think nature can’t mess it up again. I agree with this because nature can never truly be controlled so there isn't a way to fix nature's mistakes.
The SJRP in the last six years has become a huge waste of money. The project has been estimated to cost $1 billion, but was said to only cost $380-390 million. So the money was incredibly wasteful and not well spent. The project has been successful for the most part with 40% of salmon successfully migrating 150 miles to another river bringing the amount of salmon being produced up. We should not be doing these kinds of things to just get more salmon, that is not a good use of money at all. The project ended up worsening the California drought. I did not in the slightest change my viewpoint after looking through research because it still was a huge waste of money. The San Joaquin River Project will in fact be a major mistake for many more years to come with the a couple salmon popping up here and there.