(C) The chat room is a good resource to use inside and outside of the classroom. By utilizing a chat room you can talk with lots of different people all at once. These people can be from all over the world, or even your next-door neighbor. The chat room can also be used as a learning environment outside the classroom. They allow members of a class to discuss and share ideas on their own time.
As with most online processes, security can be a concern with chat rooms. However, A lot of classes have the ability to set up private chat rooms, that only enrolled members can access. This sort of security device ensures that unwanted visitors cannot access the room.
(D) The purpose of canines in police forces is to provide an alternative to excessive or deadly force. Though there have been rare cases of dog bites or deaths, it has been concluded that canine units are not considered deadly force. A clear example of dogs being suitable in crime prevention is the campus of UCLA. Off campus housing around UCLA had been experiencing a rising amount of gang activity during the the 1970's. The police force implemented canine units and successfully eliminated the problem; without use of force.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Cohesive Exercise
"This exercise was intended to help our class understand the elements of writing cohesion. I didn't really feel that this exercise was very helpful. I think the main reason for this is that the instructions were a little too vague and the purpose was not thoroughly explained."
In an excerpt from her book, The Fat Girl’s Guide to Life, Wendy Shanker presents her philosophies on living in our society as an overweight woman. She clearly defines her ethos as a “woman on a mission”. *This attitude is not one that has a feeling of duty or honor; rather it is more of a [Rambo-esque mentality. @This ethos] almost lends an air of emotionally blocked logic to the piece; [the author plays strongly on personal opinion. @The author also explicitly states that she is not educated in any field of medicine], just [a woman with “a chip on my shoulder”.@ This in and of itself] kills any credibility the article might have had by directly displaying ignorance towards any intellectual findings on the subject of obesity.
In their articles, Reilly and Achenbach are both argue against swearing. *However, [their reasons and approaches to this issue are slightly different. @{Achenbach feels we should] limit the use of the "F word" to special occasions; that it has become to widespread. @[He argues} that if we are not careful, it will begin to lose its profane meaning; not that it is actually "bad". @Achenbach says] that we should reserve this "special" word for adults and certain situations. [Reilly argues mainly against public swearing, specifically at sporting events (he is a writer for Sports Illustrated). @He feels] that swearing has become to publicly offensive and widespread. Both writers support less swearing as a general practice; Achenbach for social usage reasons, Reilly because swearing is “bad”. I definitely buy into Achenbach’s argument much more. I feel that the occasional use of the “F-word” is perfectly acceptable; however, one does need to limit this usage or it will lose its desired effects.
In an excerpt from her book, The Fat Girl’s Guide to Life, Wendy Shanker presents her philosophies on living in our society as an overweight woman. She clearly defines her ethos as a “woman on a mission”. *This attitude is not one that has a feeling of duty or honor; rather it is more of a [Rambo-esque mentality. @This ethos] almost lends an air of emotionally blocked logic to the piece; [the author plays strongly on personal opinion. @The author also explicitly states that she is not educated in any field of medicine], just [a woman with “a chip on my shoulder”.@ This in and of itself] kills any credibility the article might have had by directly displaying ignorance towards any intellectual findings on the subject of obesity.
In their articles, Reilly and Achenbach are both argue against swearing. *However, [their reasons and approaches to this issue are slightly different. @{Achenbach feels we should] limit the use of the "F word" to special occasions; that it has become to widespread. @[He argues} that if we are not careful, it will begin to lose its profane meaning; not that it is actually "bad". @Achenbach says] that we should reserve this "special" word for adults and certain situations. [Reilly argues mainly against public swearing, specifically at sporting events (he is a writer for Sports Illustrated). @He feels] that swearing has become to publicly offensive and widespread. Both writers support less swearing as a general practice; Achenbach for social usage reasons, Reilly because swearing is “bad”. I definitely buy into Achenbach’s argument much more. I feel that the occasional use of the “F-word” is perfectly acceptable; however, one does need to limit this usage or it will lose its desired effects.
Tiger Burning
I believe that cancelling the tiger burning this year may be a little too much of a politically correct move by the university; however, they have decided to do so out of respect for the victims of the tragedies at the beach house. I would say it could definitely be too soon for some of those directly effected to have something that could bring up issues they had in wake of the accident. In light of this, I think the university has taken the right direction on cancelling the tiger burning.
Having been raised an actual Carolina (UNC Chapel Hill) fan all my life, I am not deeply concerned about the USC vs. Clemson rivalry. Also, you could say I've slightly lost interest in our football season as of late. The performance of our team lately has not exactly been desirable, and at this point in the semester, I have bigger things to worry about than a burning desire for tradition on our campus.
Having been raised an actual Carolina (UNC Chapel Hill) fan all my life, I am not deeply concerned about the USC vs. Clemson rivalry. Also, you could say I've slightly lost interest in our football season as of late. The performance of our team lately has not exactly been desirable, and at this point in the semester, I have bigger things to worry about than a burning desire for tradition on our campus.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Global Warming
Kluger's and Lindzen's essays make opposite arguments about the effects of global warming. Kluger is of the persuasion that global warming is the cause for such disasters as stronger hurricanes or melting polar ice caps. Lindzen feels that global warming is a natural process that we should not be alarmed about. Also, Lindzen states that global warming is actually creating less tropical storms. The one common ground the two arguments have is referring to CO2. Kluger proposes that the sharply rising levels in our atmosphere are trapping heat and causing more severe natural disasters. Lindzen argues that these rising CO2 levels are actually causing less tropical storms and such. I found Kluger's article much more convincing. He employed many more statistical proofs of his view point than Lindzen.
Paper Proposal
In my paper, I will be arguing in favor of same-sex marriages. I will use the issue of human rights to show that all people are entitled to the practice of marriage; not just heterosexuals. Secondly, I will show that there is no difference between the contributions of straight and gay couples to society. Lastly, I will propose how our society would benefit from equality in marriage. I feel comfortable with the research I have gathered for this paper; however I will conduct more in the case of a deficiency.
IV.
I. First View: Gay marriage is a completely unacceptable concept, and would be detrimental to society.
Second View: Marriage is a human right and gays should not be discriminated from this practice.
Third View: There must be a compromise between the two sides, such as civil unions.
Currently, the first view is not exactly the majority; but supported by current laws.
II. I believe that the second view should be dominant. It is illogical and immoral to base discrimination on sexual orientation. This can be equated to segregation, women being refused suffrage, or even the holocaust; each finds its base in discrimination and stereotyping. We, as a nation, should not support such discrimination and bigotry.
III. The second view could be enforced as legislation by passing an amendment allowing all gay U.S. citizens the right to marry.
Second View: Marriage is a human right and gays should not be discriminated from this practice.
Third View: There must be a compromise between the two sides, such as civil unions.
Currently, the first view is not exactly the majority; but supported by current laws.
II. I believe that the second view should be dominant. It is illogical and immoral to base discrimination on sexual orientation. This can be equated to segregation, women being refused suffrage, or even the holocaust; each finds its base in discrimination and stereotyping. We, as a nation, should not support such discrimination and bigotry.
III. The second view could be enforced as legislation by passing an amendment allowing all gay U.S. citizens the right to marry.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Policy Change
The main policy on campus that I have a problem with is the policy on skateboarding. This could be because I've already been to Student Judicial once, and have another appointment on the 16th, but there is also a larger problem. As it stands now, skateboards may only be used as transportation. This means if I want to do a couple of no-complys(a what?), treflips(hmm?), or maybe just ollie over some cracks in the side walk on the way to class I'm going to get in some serious trouble. I use a little "jargon" to illustrate how skateboarding is typically not understood by the "powers that be". The first argument made against skateboarding is that it damages property. I've tried to explain, multiple times, that my skateboard is not going to damage any property by going up in the air and coming back down; its simple logic. Which is harder: concrete, asphalt, and brick; or urethane, a type of plastic? I would say that this is a fairly easy question to answer, apparently not for our administration. The justification I always hear from the USCPD is "I know you don't have anywhere to go, but you can't skate here". Now, though this does sound like just a poor excuse for a policy(it is) it is also a window for solution. Give us somewhere to go! There is a bench near the Horseshoe that my friends and I always skate, just give us that bench. Problem solved. We'll skate that bench to our heart's content and won't bother with anything else on campus. The second argument against skating on campus is that its "dangerous". Yes, possibly dangerous to those of us actually on board. I know for a fact that everyone who rides a skateboard is aware of the calculated risk in doing so. We do not pose a "dangerous" threat to anyone else, we take into consideration other people's space etc. If there is policy against skateboarding because its dangerous to other people, what about bikes? Overall, I feel that the policy on skateboarding should be revised to only include rules against skating on handrails and stairs. This would solve the damage problem for the school and let me skateboard how I want.
Not only is skateboarding dangerous, it also damages public property and is a liability to the university. Skateboarding can cause falls resulting in broken limbs or other serious injury, also it can involve other people. If someone runs into someone, both people could be seriously injured. The university cannot afford the liability of skateboarding and skateboard related injuries. Skateboarding also tears up our walkways, stairs, hand railings, benches, and other surfaces. This gives the university a very undesirable appearance. No one wants to attend a school with wax on ledges or traces of paint on benches. There is also strong information linking skateboarders with the crack-cocaine drug ring in Columbia. Skateboarding is an unacceptable practice on campus.
Not only is skateboarding dangerous, it also damages public property and is a liability to the university. Skateboarding can cause falls resulting in broken limbs or other serious injury, also it can involve other people. If someone runs into someone, both people could be seriously injured. The university cannot afford the liability of skateboarding and skateboard related injuries. Skateboarding also tears up our walkways, stairs, hand railings, benches, and other surfaces. This gives the university a very undesirable appearance. No one wants to attend a school with wax on ledges or traces of paint on benches. There is also strong information linking skateboarders with the crack-cocaine drug ring in Columbia. Skateboarding is an unacceptable practice on campus.
Free Write
I. I think my first encounter I had that really changed my view on something was on a tenth grade mission trip to St. Petersburg, Florida. One night, our service event was going to a soup kitchen to fix and serve dinner. After we fixed the meal, we actually sat down with the people there and ate with them. Before this time, I had never actually sat down and talked with someone who was homeless; or of a lot lower economic class than myself. I learned a lot of really interesting things about different people; and heard some really great stories. The main realization that I had is that homeless people are just that: people. This occasion really changed how I look at homelessness, and how I treat other people that may not be as fortunate as myself.
II. In their articles, Reilly and Achenbach are both argue against swearing. However, their reasons and approaches to this issue are slightly different. Achenbach feels we should limit the use of the "F word" to special occasions; that it has become to widespread. He argues that if we are not careful, it will begin to lose its profane meaning; not that it is actually "bad". Achenbach says that we should reserve this "special" word for adults and certain situations. Reilly argues mainly against public swearing, specifically at sporting events(he is a writer for Sports Illustrated). He feels that swearing has become to publicly offensive and widespread.
II. In their articles, Reilly and Achenbach are both argue against swearing. However, their reasons and approaches to this issue are slightly different. Achenbach feels we should limit the use of the "F word" to special occasions; that it has become to widespread. He argues that if we are not careful, it will begin to lose its profane meaning; not that it is actually "bad". Achenbach says that we should reserve this "special" word for adults and certain situations. Reilly argues mainly against public swearing, specifically at sporting events(he is a writer for Sports Illustrated). He feels that swearing has become to publicly offensive and widespread.
Extra SWA
Shanker
In an excerpt from her book, The Fat Girl’s Guide to Life, Wendy Shanker presents her philosophies on living in our society as an overweight woman. She clearly defines her ethos as a “woman on a mission”. This attitude is not one that has a feeling of duty or honor; rather it is more of a Rambo-esque mentality. This ethos almost lends an air of emotionally blocked logic to the piece; the author plays strongly on personal opinion. The author also explicitly states that she is not educated in any field of medicine, just a woman with “a chip on my shoulder”. This in and of itself kills any credibility the article might have had by directly displaying ignorance towards any intellectual findings on the subject of obesity. Though this attitude is most likely appealing to people who share her sentiments, it discourages others from understanding her argument. This being said, her target audience is obviously other obese woman who are tired of being looked down upon for their physical stature. The author writes to the members of this group to give them a support platform; a strong voice in their favor to stand behind. Other than her fellow overweight Americans, the article also aims itself at those of us who do look down upon obese members of society; there are multiple references and attacks towards this group. Shanker uses these attacks in an attempt to explain why it’s okay to be fat, and wrong to criticize people who are obese.
Randolph
Randolph presents her argument by first outlining the issue she is concerned with: overweight children. She presents different statistical data to support the claim that child obesity is a severe crisis in the United States. Randolph illustrates how businesses have addressed this growing (no pun intended) trend in our society. The clothing industry has begun to adopt politically correct phrases to apply to overweight kids; such as “plus-sized”. She then presents how this trend will affect our nation, from life span to health care costs. The real focus of Randolph’s article is given in ten solutions she feels will help solve this issue. For the most part Randolph does a decent job of explaining each of her reasons and how to begin implementing change. For instance, her first reason “Stop bombarding children with junk food ads” clearly identifies a problem and its effect. She then gives a clear and probable solution to this aspect; however, too many of her explanations of the ten reasons focus on the stalemate of the issue. In “Ban the junk food in schools”, she acknowledges that junk food has been almost completely removed from elementary and middle schools; but not high schools. Rather than giving an additional or more productive solution, she simply ends the section on this note. With this taken into account, Randolph’s article could have been much more effective if more complete solutions were given.
In an excerpt from her book, The Fat Girl’s Guide to Life, Wendy Shanker presents her philosophies on living in our society as an overweight woman. She clearly defines her ethos as a “woman on a mission”. This attitude is not one that has a feeling of duty or honor; rather it is more of a Rambo-esque mentality. This ethos almost lends an air of emotionally blocked logic to the piece; the author plays strongly on personal opinion. The author also explicitly states that she is not educated in any field of medicine, just a woman with “a chip on my shoulder”. This in and of itself kills any credibility the article might have had by directly displaying ignorance towards any intellectual findings on the subject of obesity. Though this attitude is most likely appealing to people who share her sentiments, it discourages others from understanding her argument. This being said, her target audience is obviously other obese woman who are tired of being looked down upon for their physical stature. The author writes to the members of this group to give them a support platform; a strong voice in their favor to stand behind. Other than her fellow overweight Americans, the article also aims itself at those of us who do look down upon obese members of society; there are multiple references and attacks towards this group. Shanker uses these attacks in an attempt to explain why it’s okay to be fat, and wrong to criticize people who are obese.
Randolph
Randolph presents her argument by first outlining the issue she is concerned with: overweight children. She presents different statistical data to support the claim that child obesity is a severe crisis in the United States. Randolph illustrates how businesses have addressed this growing (no pun intended) trend in our society. The clothing industry has begun to adopt politically correct phrases to apply to overweight kids; such as “plus-sized”. She then presents how this trend will affect our nation, from life span to health care costs. The real focus of Randolph’s article is given in ten solutions she feels will help solve this issue. For the most part Randolph does a decent job of explaining each of her reasons and how to begin implementing change. For instance, her first reason “Stop bombarding children with junk food ads” clearly identifies a problem and its effect. She then gives a clear and probable solution to this aspect; however, too many of her explanations of the ten reasons focus on the stalemate of the issue. In “Ban the junk food in schools”, she acknowledges that junk food has been almost completely removed from elementary and middle schools; but not high schools. Rather than giving an additional or more productive solution, she simply ends the section on this note. With this taken into account, Randolph’s article could have been much more effective if more complete solutions were given.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Questions for the Reviewer
- What needs more explanation?
- What thoughts need to be rearranged?
- Are there any sentences that I could phrase better?
Campus Policy.
Lately, my friends and I have been having a discussion about the policy on campus for skateboarding. My roommate and I have both been ticketed already for skating through, or around, campus. I have already attended Student Judicial for this incident; my roommate's appointment is in a few days. I felt that it was totally unnecessary to have to take time for this meeting; the graduate student I met with felt the same way. My friends and I cannot understand what harm we are doing by riding a skateboard; but apparently we are causing some sort of damage. I don't think any of us are going to stop skating, we will just be a little more watchful in the future.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Response to Carolina Reader p.260, Question 4
The construction of cultural body-image is managed by many different factors. These factors may range from family members to complete strangers, everyone can have some effect on body-image. Your personal body image can be altered bye a simple comment from a friend, but also by something as widespread as a magazine advertisement. As for a broad cultural body-image, this is usually defined by the mass media in developed countries. Television shows, ads, and other media pieces tend to portray desired body-image. In undeveloped countries, body image is defined by forces such as custom and heritage. Body-image can have profound effects on a society, especially negative body-image. Those in a society who feel they do not meet the standard body-image can develop low self esteem, eating disorders, and other psychological ailments.
Least Favorite Annotation
Benne, Robert, and Gerald McDermott. "Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage." Christianity Today os 48.9 (2004): 51-52. Academic Search Premier. 24 Oct. 2007.
This article is heavlily biased by religious and conservative thinking. The authors are mainly attempting to appeal to other conservative thinkers. Also, the authors are attempting to show gay marriage supporters where they are using faulty logic. The authors' main point is that there are no good reasons to support gay marriage. I did not agree with the authors' wiewpoints. I felt as though the authors themselves used some faulty thinking. I will use this source in my paper to help illustrate the conservative viewpoint on gay marriage.
This article is heavlily biased by religious and conservative thinking. The authors are mainly attempting to appeal to other conservative thinkers. Also, the authors are attempting to show gay marriage supporters where they are using faulty logic. The authors' main point is that there are no good reasons to support gay marriage. I did not agree with the authors' wiewpoints. I felt as though the authors themselves used some faulty thinking. I will use this source in my paper to help illustrate the conservative viewpoint on gay marriage.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Topic Proposal
Homosexuals’ Civil Rights
The rights of same-sex couples have, within the past few years, become a major political debating point. There are many different rights involved in these disputes. One of the most important rights involved is marriage. As it stands now, same-sex couples are only allowed to marry in Virginia; all other states do not legally acknowledge same-sex unions. The Gay Community feels that the preventive policies in place are in direct violation of their innate civil rights.
My paper will argue the point that homosexual couples should be entitled to the same civil rights as all other citizens of the United States. Currently same-sex couples are denied many common rights that we in the heterosexual community might take for granted. To support my thesis I will include excerpts from the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. I will also research statistics that address the financial success, and other practical arenas, of same-sex couples. I also intend to research the effects on children’s development in same-sex environments. I will use these sources to show situations in which homosexuals are discriminated, and how their rights have been violated. My audience will include anyone who is concerned about gay rights; whether they are for or against them. My intention for this paper is to examine the issue through a fair, moral lens.
The rights of same-sex couples have, within the past few years, become a major political debating point. There are many different rights involved in these disputes. One of the most important rights involved is marriage. As it stands now, same-sex couples are only allowed to marry in Virginia; all other states do not legally acknowledge same-sex unions. The Gay Community feels that the preventive policies in place are in direct violation of their innate civil rights.
My paper will argue the point that homosexual couples should be entitled to the same civil rights as all other citizens of the United States. Currently same-sex couples are denied many common rights that we in the heterosexual community might take for granted. To support my thesis I will include excerpts from the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. I will also research statistics that address the financial success, and other practical arenas, of same-sex couples. I also intend to research the effects on children’s development in same-sex environments. I will use these sources to show situations in which homosexuals are discriminated, and how their rights have been violated. My audience will include anyone who is concerned about gay rights; whether they are for or against them. My intention for this paper is to examine the issue through a fair, moral lens.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Smoking Ban Brainstorm
Civil Rights
Health Issues
Legislation Enacted
Supporting Groups
Opposing Groups
Politics
Pros and Cons
Environmental Concerns
Health Issues
Legislation Enacted
Supporting Groups
Opposing Groups
Politics
Pros and Cons
Environmental Concerns
Monday, October 8, 2007
Personal Post Secret
I used my old name tag from the University Bookstore to create my Post Secret card. I emblazoned the name tag with the phrase "No, I can't help you". This message was in response to the shirts we had to wear while working. The shirts were bright red with the message "Yes, I can help you!" on the front. When I worked at the bookstore, I did not receive any training; so I thought that shirt was a little misleading. I figured my name tag was the best way to represent this idea because it clearly identified the subject of my statement. I'm fairly certain that my classmates understood the message; I don't think anyone had any deeper insights to it either. I did not receive any unexpected reactions to my card. I think this is because most people identified with my sentiments.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Post Secret
The explicit claim on the Lockout Receipt is that the person locked their self out on purpose. The implicit claim is that they did this because it would cause the safety officer to come to their room; and they are attracted to the safety officer. The author appears to be a college student. The audience is any fellow student who understands the author’s point of view. The main visual component of this particular card is that it was made on the Lockout Receipt from the situation that is referred to. This gives a sense of validation for the claim.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Response to Poniewozik (154)
In the article "Ugly, the American" James Poniewozik claims that diversity is what makes America such a wonderful country. Poniewozik uses many examples from today's pop culture to support his claim. He states that reality television, extremely popular in America, is purely import. On the note of reality television being so popular, Poniewozik states that this is because it embodies the American spirit.
Poniewozik has several warrants that can be drawn from the article. The author feels that America is a diverse nation, and that this is positive. He also believes that other people feel the same way about people, that the love of diversity is a common virtue. I do not think that Poniewozik does a good job of arguing his position. His approach involves too much sentimental appeal. Rather than use hard facts to persuade, Poniewozik relies too hard on appealing to America's sense of patriotism
Poniewozik has several warrants that can be drawn from the article. The author feels that America is a diverse nation, and that this is positive. He also believes that other people feel the same way about people, that the love of diversity is a common virtue. I do not think that Poniewozik does a good job of arguing his position. His approach involves too much sentimental appeal. Rather than use hard facts to persuade, Poniewozik relies too hard on appealing to America's sense of patriotism
Response to Williams(58)
In his article "Realistic Idealists" Alex Williams claims that our generation is much more philanthropic than previous generations. He starts the presentation of this idea with an example of a family. The mother of the family comes from a long line of philanthrapists and is perfectly used to the idea. However, her oldest daughter was raised when social service was no more than a requirement at private schools. The mother states that now, things have completely turned around. Her younger daughter has already completed her own service project and participated in many others. Williams then presents September 11 as the cause for this spurt in social activism. He feels that experiencing such a great tragedy has caused our generation to feel a sense of philanthropic duty.
The author of the article has many different warrants. He feels that social service is important in today's culture. He also thinks that today's youth are participating in social service activities out of good will. Williams does an excelent job of making a case for his claim. His use of examples and stories from our generation really help to convey his message.
The author of the article has many different warrants. He feels that social service is important in today's culture. He also thinks that today's youth are participating in social service activities out of good will. Williams does an excelent job of making a case for his claim. His use of examples and stories from our generation really help to convey his message.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Rhetorical Analysis
"The Rap Against Rockism" by Kelefa Sanneh
Central Claim: "The problem with rockism is that it seems increasingly far removed from the way most people actually listen to music." (pg. 355)
My Central Claim: "The author presents his argument with strong examples and opinions, but fails to make a solid and convincing argument." (pg. 1)
My Revised Claim: "Senneh's use of strong opinions, and lack of solid facts, decreases the effectiveness of his article."
My Conclusion: "...Senneh does not follow through on his strong examples and opinions with sufficient supporting detail." (pg. 3)
Central Claim: "The problem with rockism is that it seems increasingly far removed from the way most people actually listen to music." (pg. 355)
My Central Claim: "The author presents his argument with strong examples and opinions, but fails to make a solid and convincing argument." (pg. 1)
My Revised Claim: "Senneh's use of strong opinions, and lack of solid facts, decreases the effectiveness of his article."
My Conclusion: "...Senneh does not follow through on his strong examples and opinions with sufficient supporting detail." (pg. 3)
Monday, September 17, 2007
Prep for Rhetoricla Analysis
John Mohrmann
English 101:056
September 18, 2007
Rhetorical Analysis Reflection
The first article I chose to read was “Gen Y’s Ego Trip Takes a Bad Turn”, by Larry Gordon and Louis Sahagun. The article covers the problems associated with the emphasis on self esteem over the past few decades. The authors provide evidence to back the argument that Generation Y’s self absorbed attitude will be detrimental to their success in life.
The second article I chose to consider was “The Rap against Rockism” by Kelefa Sanneh. In the article, Sanneh criticizes Rockists’ for having a prejudiced view of music today. He complains that they are too conservative and want all music to fit into the rock category.
I chose to write my rhetorical analysis on “The Rap against Rockism”. I chose this article because I think it will be an interesting learning experience to analyze an article I completely disagree with.
Outline:
P1: Introduction
P2: What type of text is the article?
P3: Who is the author writing to? A: Rockists B: Popists
P4: What qualifies the author to make this argument, and is it working?
P5: How do the author’s and reader’s constraints affect the effectiveness of the article
P6: Why does the author see Rockism as an important social issue? Is it?
P7: Conclusion
English 101:056
September 18, 2007
Rhetorical Analysis Reflection
The first article I chose to read was “Gen Y’s Ego Trip Takes a Bad Turn”, by Larry Gordon and Louis Sahagun. The article covers the problems associated with the emphasis on self esteem over the past few decades. The authors provide evidence to back the argument that Generation Y’s self absorbed attitude will be detrimental to their success in life.
The second article I chose to consider was “The Rap against Rockism” by Kelefa Sanneh. In the article, Sanneh criticizes Rockists’ for having a prejudiced view of music today. He complains that they are too conservative and want all music to fit into the rock category.
I chose to write my rhetorical analysis on “The Rap against Rockism”. I chose this article because I think it will be an interesting learning experience to analyze an article I completely disagree with.
Outline:
P1: Introduction
P2: What type of text is the article?
P3: Who is the author writing to? A: Rockists B: Popists
P4: What qualifies the author to make this argument, and is it working?
P5: How do the author’s and reader’s constraints affect the effectiveness of the article
P6: Why does the author see Rockism as an important social issue? Is it?
P7: Conclusion
SWA #5
John Mohrmann
English 101:056
September 13, 2007
SWA
The article “Virginia Tech and Our Impoverished Language for Evil”, by Gregg Easterbrook, was written for The New Republic. The main idea of the article is about the problems with using politically correct terms to describe the massacre at Virginia Tech. The author stresses that the descriptive phrases used by the media were too light. The article is a good form for stating an opinion logically, and in a succinct fashion.
Easterbrook’s audience is mainly the subscribers of the newspaper the article appeared in. More specifically, the author is writing to those who might not have considered the view that the events a Virginia Tech were taken too lightly. I feel, as I’m sure that Easterbrook felt, that this article does a very good job a making a convincing argument. Most people that read this article would, at least, seriously consider this viewpoint; if not be in completely convinced. I myself cannot identify with that crowd. I share much common ground with the author on this situation. I already feel that the media beats around the bush a little too much.
The author of the article is Gregg Easterbrook. He is contributing editor at The New Republic. The fact that he works as an editor for a newspaper shows that he is a fairly adapt writer. The author is also a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. The point shows that he is a well educated individual. Easterbrook present a well organized argument. He maintains his passion about the subject yet it does not interfere with his conveyance of ideas. Easterbrook’s main motivation in writing this article is the belief that there needs to be a bold reform in today’s media.
The main constraint involved with this article is political correctness. The author feels that today’s media is too politically correct in the terminology they use. He thinks that the media need to be more direct and call it like it is. Easterbrook points out that the Virginia Tech murders were just that, murder. The media, in its reporting, simply referred to it as a “tragedy” and the killer as merely the “shooter”. Easterbrook feels the media should have used the term murder and killer more frequently, solely because that’s exactly what happened. On the opposite end, some readers might feel that the media was justified in using the terms.
The argument presented was caused by the murders at Virginia Tech. The author’s main argument against soft media terms is that it does not completely identify the issue. Easterbrook uses a wonderful George Orwell quote to distinguish the problem. “Unless we call a thing what it is, we can neither think about it clearly nor oppose it.” This is a recurring problem in today’s media. How are we supposed to fight a problem if the country cannot fully identify and understand it? This is exactly the reason Easterbrook wrote this article: to get the people thinking about how to accurately define a problem.
English 101:056
September 13, 2007
SWA
The article “Virginia Tech and Our Impoverished Language for Evil”, by Gregg Easterbrook, was written for The New Republic. The main idea of the article is about the problems with using politically correct terms to describe the massacre at Virginia Tech. The author stresses that the descriptive phrases used by the media were too light. The article is a good form for stating an opinion logically, and in a succinct fashion.
Easterbrook’s audience is mainly the subscribers of the newspaper the article appeared in. More specifically, the author is writing to those who might not have considered the view that the events a Virginia Tech were taken too lightly. I feel, as I’m sure that Easterbrook felt, that this article does a very good job a making a convincing argument. Most people that read this article would, at least, seriously consider this viewpoint; if not be in completely convinced. I myself cannot identify with that crowd. I share much common ground with the author on this situation. I already feel that the media beats around the bush a little too much.
The author of the article is Gregg Easterbrook. He is contributing editor at The New Republic. The fact that he works as an editor for a newspaper shows that he is a fairly adapt writer. The author is also a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. The point shows that he is a well educated individual. Easterbrook present a well organized argument. He maintains his passion about the subject yet it does not interfere with his conveyance of ideas. Easterbrook’s main motivation in writing this article is the belief that there needs to be a bold reform in today’s media.
The main constraint involved with this article is political correctness. The author feels that today’s media is too politically correct in the terminology they use. He thinks that the media need to be more direct and call it like it is. Easterbrook points out that the Virginia Tech murders were just that, murder. The media, in its reporting, simply referred to it as a “tragedy” and the killer as merely the “shooter”. Easterbrook feels the media should have used the term murder and killer more frequently, solely because that’s exactly what happened. On the opposite end, some readers might feel that the media was justified in using the terms.
The argument presented was caused by the murders at Virginia Tech. The author’s main argument against soft media terms is that it does not completely identify the issue. Easterbrook uses a wonderful George Orwell quote to distinguish the problem. “Unless we call a thing what it is, we can neither think about it clearly nor oppose it.” This is a recurring problem in today’s media. How are we supposed to fight a problem if the country cannot fully identify and understand it? This is exactly the reason Easterbrook wrote this article: to get the people thinking about how to accurately define a problem.
Monday, September 10, 2007
SWA #4
John Mohrmann
English 101:056
September 11, 2007
SWA #4
“Ideas” and my friend’s MySpace are both internet blog sites. Blogs are able to easily reach large amounts of people. Blogs provide an easy, free, way to convey your personal ideas and feelings. The “Ideas” blog is a page about different ideas or concepts a professor is pondering. He gives a short summary of an idea, and leaves it open for discussion to other bloggers. My friend’s MySpace, on the other hand, is more of just an online journal. He shares different thoughts, but mostly just rights about his life in general.
In “Ideas”, the target audience is anyone who is interested in the topics and has a valid contribution to make. The very nature of the blog is for people to present their own ideas about a situation. On each issue presented, several people have relevant solutions or additions to the issue. Most of the people who respond to the blog are exactly the type of people the author was aiming for. The author is a professor, and most of the responders are well educated individuals. I believe this is his preferred target audience. This also means that they have a common interest and ground, but do not necessarily agree. These circumstances provide for wonderful discussion. On the other hand, my friend’s MySpace is merely a place for him to discuss his personal views. This is the main difference between the two blogs.
The author of the “Ideas” blog is a professor at a law school in California. He teaches economy courses. I believe his motivation for writing is for stimulating educational intercourse. The author of my friend’s MySpace is obviously my friend. He goes to Winthrop, at home, in Rock Hill. He is the same age as I am, eighteen, and has many of my same interests. His main motivation for writing, as he has related to me, is merely another creative outlet to express his ideas.
The author of “Ideas” is constrained by the belief that all of his readers are well educated individuals, as he is. He also is constrained by the belief that his readers are as passionate about the subject matter as he is. On the contrary, my friend is constrained only by the fact that he thinks he is always right. He is usually not open to criticism.
The cause for most of the arguments in the “Ideas” blog is propositions that have been brought up by the author. He presents an idea, and then he opens it to discussion for solutions. Most arguments that arise in my friend’s blogs come from readers disagreeing with his particular views.
English 101:056
September 11, 2007
SWA #4
“Ideas” and my friend’s MySpace are both internet blog sites. Blogs are able to easily reach large amounts of people. Blogs provide an easy, free, way to convey your personal ideas and feelings. The “Ideas” blog is a page about different ideas or concepts a professor is pondering. He gives a short summary of an idea, and leaves it open for discussion to other bloggers. My friend’s MySpace, on the other hand, is more of just an online journal. He shares different thoughts, but mostly just rights about his life in general.
In “Ideas”, the target audience is anyone who is interested in the topics and has a valid contribution to make. The very nature of the blog is for people to present their own ideas about a situation. On each issue presented, several people have relevant solutions or additions to the issue. Most of the people who respond to the blog are exactly the type of people the author was aiming for. The author is a professor, and most of the responders are well educated individuals. I believe this is his preferred target audience. This also means that they have a common interest and ground, but do not necessarily agree. These circumstances provide for wonderful discussion. On the other hand, my friend’s MySpace is merely a place for him to discuss his personal views. This is the main difference between the two blogs.
The author of the “Ideas” blog is a professor at a law school in California. He teaches economy courses. I believe his motivation for writing is for stimulating educational intercourse. The author of my friend’s MySpace is obviously my friend. He goes to Winthrop, at home, in Rock Hill. He is the same age as I am, eighteen, and has many of my same interests. His main motivation for writing, as he has related to me, is merely another creative outlet to express his ideas.
The author of “Ideas” is constrained by the belief that all of his readers are well educated individuals, as he is. He also is constrained by the belief that his readers are as passionate about the subject matter as he is. On the contrary, my friend is constrained only by the fact that he thinks he is always right. He is usually not open to criticism.
The cause for most of the arguments in the “Ideas” blog is propositions that have been brought up by the author. He presents an idea, and then he opens it to discussion for solutions. Most arguments that arise in my friend’s blogs come from readers disagreeing with his particular views.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
SWA #3
John Mohrmann
English 101-056
September 4, 2007
SWA #3
Out of the options given, I definitely picture myself as a professor leading a class discussion. This may be in part because I plan on teaching. But for the most part it’s because I would just feel most comfortable in this position. As far as my personal arguing style, I lean towards a consensual style. Although I like to be direct and open, I prefer cooperation. A discussion is much more effective when the parties involved are willing to be honest, and at the same time, civilized. I am generally nonaggressive, I disdain fighting, and I always attempt to see an issue from multiple angles. I think close mindedness is the reason most discussions turn into fights. The people involved are not willing to step back and consider other options than the ones they have prevented. This approach prevents any agreement or compromise. Taking these factors into consideration, I would say that I am more of a consensual arguer.
English 101-056
September 4, 2007
SWA #3
Out of the options given, I definitely picture myself as a professor leading a class discussion. This may be in part because I plan on teaching. But for the most part it’s because I would just feel most comfortable in this position. As far as my personal arguing style, I lean towards a consensual style. Although I like to be direct and open, I prefer cooperation. A discussion is much more effective when the parties involved are willing to be honest, and at the same time, civilized. I am generally nonaggressive, I disdain fighting, and I always attempt to see an issue from multiple angles. I think close mindedness is the reason most discussions turn into fights. The people involved are not willing to step back and consider other options than the ones they have prevented. This approach prevents any agreement or compromise. Taking these factors into consideration, I would say that I am more of a consensual arguer.
SWA #2
John Mohrmann
English 101,056
August 30, 2007
Short Writing Assignment #2
In “Is Persuasion Dead?” Matt Miller questions whether America as a whole is still open to suggestions. Miller first presents the question of the possibility of convincing someone of something they do not already believe to be true. The author makes a wonderful point of the fact that ninety percent of political “debates” today turn into dead-locked arguments. This does not do any good because, this only appeals to their supporters. Miller puts forth that, in politics, persuasion is dead. Miller sees politics as having become all about money, fame, etc. In conclusion, Miller gives a good rousing go-get-them charge.
The body of Miller’s article starts in with a lot of questions about persuasion in America, and some personal reflections. Miller then moves on to showing that the signals for persuasion are not looking good. He feels that most people are stuck down in their personal, political ruts. The author paints a mental picture of politics being little groups of troublesome gnomes. I feel that Miller is coming from to extreme of a Democrat view of the political world. For instance, he says nothing about politicians today who are doing good. Take, for example, John McCain. He may not be liberal enough for Mr. Miller, but this does not make him evil.
Miller does make a good point in stating that politicians have realized that don’t need to change minds to get votes. This can be clearly seen in a political campaign today. Any ad you watch is not concerned with actually imparting information, but bolstering the politician’s platform. I feel the author made a very good point on the topic. Miller makes another good point about human error in persuasion. He shows, using Ken Pollack’s book, how someone very convincing can also be very wrong. This is another severe problem in America. There are too many people who allow themselves to be spoon fed information. The author’s ideology is to think things through, even if they fail in the end. I believe this is an extremely sound practice for today’s world. Miller’s article, though at times whiney, makes several sound points about the state of good persuasion in America. To fully solve this issue, Americans most learn how to logically form their opinions and argue the articulately.
English 101,056
August 30, 2007
Short Writing Assignment #2
In “Is Persuasion Dead?” Matt Miller questions whether America as a whole is still open to suggestions. Miller first presents the question of the possibility of convincing someone of something they do not already believe to be true. The author makes a wonderful point of the fact that ninety percent of political “debates” today turn into dead-locked arguments. This does not do any good because, this only appeals to their supporters. Miller puts forth that, in politics, persuasion is dead. Miller sees politics as having become all about money, fame, etc. In conclusion, Miller gives a good rousing go-get-them charge.
The body of Miller’s article starts in with a lot of questions about persuasion in America, and some personal reflections. Miller then moves on to showing that the signals for persuasion are not looking good. He feels that most people are stuck down in their personal, political ruts. The author paints a mental picture of politics being little groups of troublesome gnomes. I feel that Miller is coming from to extreme of a Democrat view of the political world. For instance, he says nothing about politicians today who are doing good. Take, for example, John McCain. He may not be liberal enough for Mr. Miller, but this does not make him evil.
Miller does make a good point in stating that politicians have realized that don’t need to change minds to get votes. This can be clearly seen in a political campaign today. Any ad you watch is not concerned with actually imparting information, but bolstering the politician’s platform. I feel the author made a very good point on the topic. Miller makes another good point about human error in persuasion. He shows, using Ken Pollack’s book, how someone very convincing can also be very wrong. This is another severe problem in America. There are too many people who allow themselves to be spoon fed information. The author’s ideology is to think things through, even if they fail in the end. I believe this is an extremely sound practice for today’s world. Miller’s article, though at times whiney, makes several sound points about the state of good persuasion in America. To fully solve this issue, Americans most learn how to logically form their opinions and argue the articulately.
SWA #1
Mohrmann, John
English 101 056
August 28, 2007
Carolina Reader: Chapter 1, Question 3
In his article, Skube expresses a severe concern about college freshmen’s vocabularies. He feels
that high schools are not giving reading and writing skills adequate emphasis. He is readily disappointed
whenever he encounters a student who does not know the meaning of a certain word. Skube believes
these words should be in common usage for college freshman. He credits this problem to teenagers not
reading enough literature. He clearly demonstrates this problem with an example from his class. He
inquired to his students as to whom their favorite author was. Everyone was silent in response. One
person offered Dan Brown as a response. The only problem is that this was the only answer anyone
could come up with. This was a strong representation as too the level of his students reading. In my
experience, Skube’s feelings are fairly accurate. I have been in plenty of English classes where everyone
around me failed vocabulary quizzes. This was probably because most of them abhorred reading books
of any sort. I usually found this to be quite entertaining.
Hagstette’s concept of “aggressive reading” would be extremely beneficial to the students
mentioned in Skube’s article. Reading in general would most likely be progressive for these students.
Thoroughly involving yourself in a literary work really helps the content sink through all of the other
stored information in your brain. This way, vocabulary and other knowledge gained from the reading will
actually be retained for use. If the average student could realize the joy and privilege of reading, and
focus on it so, both writers complaints would be solved.
English 101 056
August 28, 2007
Carolina Reader: Chapter 1, Question 3
In his article, Skube expresses a severe concern about college freshmen’s vocabularies. He feels
that high schools are not giving reading and writing skills adequate emphasis. He is readily disappointed
whenever he encounters a student who does not know the meaning of a certain word. Skube believes
these words should be in common usage for college freshman. He credits this problem to teenagers not
reading enough literature. He clearly demonstrates this problem with an example from his class. He
inquired to his students as to whom their favorite author was. Everyone was silent in response. One
person offered Dan Brown as a response. The only problem is that this was the only answer anyone
could come up with. This was a strong representation as too the level of his students reading. In my
experience, Skube’s feelings are fairly accurate. I have been in plenty of English classes where everyone
around me failed vocabulary quizzes. This was probably because most of them abhorred reading books
of any sort. I usually found this to be quite entertaining.
Hagstette’s concept of “aggressive reading” would be extremely beneficial to the students
mentioned in Skube’s article. Reading in general would most likely be progressive for these students.
Thoroughly involving yourself in a literary work really helps the content sink through all of the other
stored information in your brain. This way, vocabulary and other knowledge gained from the reading will
actually be retained for use. If the average student could realize the joy and privilege of reading, and
focus on it so, both writers complaints would be solved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)