C and D

C

Online chat rooms have also become a great source of communication. Chat rooms provide a break from the school environment, a stress relase, and allow a space to meet new people. 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. Pivate chats can even be set up if a user decides that they want to talk to a specific person in the room alone.

D

Clearly dogs are a more suitable and effective alternative to weapons. Dogs served as the preferred alternative to excissive force around housing developments off campus for students attending UCLA. At UCLA, canines were first introduced in 1979 to aid University Officers in protecting the safety of students from nearby gangs. The gangs relocated due to the use of canins. The purpose of canines in the police force is to provide an alternative to excessive and deadly force. It has been concluded by the 6th Circuit Court that, "since deaths are rare in police dog cases, deploying dogs cannot be condemned as deadly force."

Cohesion

*Moore argues that Nuclear energy is the only safe answer to the energy problems. He @[argues] that Wind and Solar power are unpredictable and couldn't be relied on as our main energy source. Fossil Fuels are already expensive and the price will only increase, therefore, they could not be used as a @[primary energy source]. Hydroelectric power sources are already built to capacity, and can't be used as our @[primary energy source]. The only @[power source] left is nuclear energy. He also dispels myths about @[nuclear energy], saying that it is cheap and safe, nuclear waste will not be dangerous for thousands of years, and that nuclear reactors are less vulnerable to a terrorist attack than existing natural gas and chemical plants. @[He] also says that the fact that nuclear fuel could be used to make nuclear weapons shouldn't be used to argue against nuclear energy. A @[bomb] could be made out of diesel oil, fertilizer, and cars, yet none of those things have been outlawed. @[He] also demonstrates how a switch to nuclear energy from coal, could reduces CO2 emissions by 2/3.
This exercise wasn't really very useful for me.

Cancelled the burn

I'm very unhappy with the fact that they cancelled the tiger burn. I don't even understand why they did. I understand their logic behind it, but I don't agree with it. The kids dying in the house fire was a tragic event, but its really no reason to cancel the tiger burn. If we were starting the event this year it would be different, but this is an old school tradition. The kids that died in the fire would have probably atteneded this event if they were still alive (except for maybe the Clemson student, but that's what Clemson's mock cocky funeral was for, which has now also been cancelled), and now that they have passed on they would have wanted us to still be able to enjoy it.
I suppose this next statement may seem a little harsh, but I'll say it anyways. I'm also really angry at the fact that my freshman year I have to miss out on the tiger burn just because a bunch of rich white kids don't know when to put the solo cup down. Yes, I am white, and no, I'm not poor.

Environmental Issues

Kitman makes an argument against the effectiveness of Hybrid cars. He doesn't dismiss them completely, he's basically just saying that they are overrated. He says that people in America automatically assume that, because a car is a hybrid, it will get better gas mileage. This isn't necassarily the case. If you do a lot of interstate driving a hybrid will be worthless for you. It will likely get gas mileage that is much worse than a traditionally built, non-hybrid car. A Hybrid SUV will also not be able to match the gas mileage of a lighter, more compact car. Hybrid batteries can also harm the environment if they aren't disposed of properly.

Kitman also makes an argument against incentives for people that drive a hybrid car just because it's a hybrid. They may not be getting gas mileage thats as good as somebody else that drives a traditional car, but they still get the benefits that are meant for people who are helping save the environment.

Moore argues that Nuclear energy is the only safe answer to the energy problems. He argues that Wind and Solar power are unpredicatable and couldn't be relied on as our main energy source. Fossil Fuels are already expensive and the price will only increase, therefore, they could not be used as a primary energy source. Hydroelectric power sources are already built to capacity, and can't be used as our primary energy source. All thats left is nulear energy. He also dispells myths about nuclear enerfy, asying that it is cheap and safe, nulear waste will not be dangerous for thousands of years, and that nuclear reactors are less vulnerable to a terrorist attack than existing natural gas and chemical plants. He also says that the fact that nuclear fuel could be used to make nuclear weapons shouldn't be used to argue against nuclear energy. A bomb could be made out of deisel oil, fertilizer, and cars, yet none of those things have been outlawed. He also demonstrates how a switch to nuclear energy from coal, could redues CO2 emmisions by 2/3.

The fact that Kitman is a car specialist gives him more credibility, because he seems like he actually knows what he's talking about. Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace. This gives the reader assurance that he really cares about the environment and makes him more persuasive.

Global Warming.

Kluger and Lindzen have two different opinions about global warming. Kluger feels as though humans are causing global warming and that we need to work to stop it. He argues that increases in temerature are caused by an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. He says that the polar ice caps are melting as a result of this warming, whoch could have another affect on temperature. The incerase in freshwater could throw off the gulf stream and cause climate changes around the atlantic area. The decrease in Glaciers on land could expose land thats been covered in Ice for thousands of years. This could increase CO2 and methane in the air and cause a greater temperature change. Lindzen says that its no big deal. He presents facts that don't agree with what was said in Klugers article as far as number go (amount of CO2 in the air, that sort of thing). He also argue that the increase in Humidity in the air could decrease the number of big storms rather than increase it like Kluger said. I found Lindzen's article to be more persuasive, but that might just be because I agree with him. One thing that made Kluger's article less persuasive was that he kept say "the last ice age." This suggests that there have been multiple ice ages, which suggests that there have always been climate changes on earth. This debunks the claim that humans should have to do anything.

Topic proposal

This paper could really go two different ways for me. I haven't decided yet. I'm hoping to write a paper about how violent games aren't harmful and might even be helpful. The one problem with this is that its very difficult for me to find research to back up this claim. I'm going to work to find sources to support my beleifs, but if I can't find them it will basically be impossible for me to write a paper that follows my beleifs. If this paper turns out to be impossible to write, then I will write a paper arguing against violent games. I already have plenty of research to back up this claim, beacause research against violent games is abundant.

IV second time around

I can honestly say that I have no idea what we're supposed to do for this post. It looks like we're just supposed to put exactly what we did last time...so thats what I'm doing...

1. a. Violent games create violent people.
b. Violent games only affect certain groups of people.
c. Violent games don't affect anyone.

2. Right now the dominant perspective is that Violent games create voilent people. This is because the people who believe that violent games are ok aren't vocal about it. The people like Jack Thompson that want violent games to be taken care of are very vocal about it. They take every opportunity to get their opinion out there.

3. I think the view that violent games don't affect anyone should be the main view. If violent games created violent people, I would have already gone on like 20 killing sprees. Jack Thompson uses the fact that school shooters play violent games to justify his claims. This might be convincing if only like 1% of teenage guys played violent games. I think the chances of a non-gamer shooting up a school aren't very good simply because there are less teenage guys that don't play games than there are teenage guys that do. Plus, the people that shoot up schools aren't really very popular to start with. Since they don't have friends to hang out with what else are they going to do? You should be thinking something along the lines of "I guess they'll play video games."

4. There doesn't really need to be a policy to support my views. Really a lack of policy is what I'm calling for here.

I don't know what to call this post

1. a. Violent games create violent people.
b. Violent games only affect certain groups of people.
c. Violent games don't affect anyone.

2. Right now the dominant perspective is that Violent games create voilent people. This is because the people who believe that violent games are ok aren't vocal about it. The people like Jack Thompson that want violent games to be taken care of are very vocal about it. They take every opportunity to get their opinion out there.

3. I think the view that violent games don't affect anyone should be the main view. If violent games created violent people, I would have already gone on like 20 killing sprees. Jack Thompson uses the fact that school shooters play violent games to justify his claims. This might be convincing if only like 1% of teenage guys played violent games. I think the chances of a non-gamer shooting up a school aren't very good simply because there are less teenage guys that don't play games than there are teenage guys that do. Plus, the people that shoot up schools aren't really very popular to start with. Since they don't have friends to hang out with what else are they going to do? You should be thinking something along the lines of "I guess they'll play video games."

4. There doesn't really need to be a policy to support my views. Really a lack of policy is what I'm calling for here.

Campus policy

The parking policies on campus are absurd. Why is it that the lots behind the colliseum don't allow overnighht parking? They are the biggest lots on campus and we can only park there during the day. The University claims that they did it to open up parking for commuters. That doesn't make any sense. If a resident can't find a place to keep there car elsewhere, they are going to move there car back to those lots in the morning before they go to class. This would happen before the commuters even get to campus. So essentially what the University has accomplished is to decrease parking for residents, without opening up anything for commuters. So why would the University do this? I also heard of them telling people about a security issue, but its really not very safe for everyone to be moving there cars around all the time. Once again, nothing accomplished. So what could the University be accomploshing by doing this? I can tell you exactly what they've accomplished. They managed to sell every last one of their garage spaces, and still have people wanting to buy them. The only way to get a guarunteed space is to pay the university another $300 plus for a space in the garage.

I also think that all university parking meters should be canned. This could open up a lot in front of capstone and the lot in front of the BA building. I can see why they might want to make that particular lot a teacher's lot, but they could make one of the existing teacher lots a student lot. I think that visitor parking should be left up to city parking meters. Another thing is that most of the people I see parked in the Capstone parking meters are people that have USC parking passes.

Cursing

Achenbach and Reilly have two different perspectives. They both argue against cursing, but in two different ways. Achenbach argues that curse words are oversused. He says that the F-word can be used for almost anything, and that its used way to often. He wants us to slow down a little bit and preserve the word. The word has already lost a lot of its shock factor, and will only continue to do so as its used more and more. Achenbach says that, "we have to conserve it, si that oiur chuildren and our children's children can use it when we're gone." He takes a humorous approach to decreasing cursing. Reilly is strongly against cursing. He is even taking classes to reduce the amount of foul language in his vocabulary. He mainly uses fans at sporting events to prove his point. He presents foul-mouthed fans in a negative light. He makes them look stupid so that the reader won't want to be like them. I have to agree with Achenbach on this one. I like to curse on that "rare" occasion. There's even a guy on my floor that i've deemed "f-ing brain" and I call him that on a regular basis.

changing perspectives

You know, this may sound strange but thats just thew way it is. I honestly can't remember the last time I changed my mind about an important issue. I'm a pretty consistant person. I feel the same way about abortion as I did 4 years ago. I feel the same way about gay marriage as I always have. I feel the same way about Bush being president as I did when I was 10. It's kinda funny that I called it way back then isn't it? The closest thing I can think of to changing my opinion on an important issue was my opinions on the legalization of marijuana. Back in the day in elementary school they brain washed us with the whole "Drugs are bad mmmkay" type speeches. I don't smoke, but I know people that do. Many of them are really cool people. Many of them aren't so cool. Now that I'm old enough to form my own opinion about it I think it should be legalized. I just don't see how an addictive thing like cigarettes can be legal and something non-addictive like marijuana isn't. Of course there wouold be restrictions placed on it like no driving while high, no weed for little kids, things of that nature. I don't exactly consider that to be a change in my opinoin though because being a little kid I just beleived what was told to me, so I really just had somebody elses opinion

Focus

Basically just focus on everything after the second paragraph. I know thats the weakest part of my paper. Let me know what other info you'd like to see in there and things of that nature.

I don't get it

I don't understand why everyone has to care so much about everything. I'm an extremely laid back person. I tend to take the same approach to political issues. I make an opinion on an issue most times just because I don't see why I should care. Let me explain. Take gay marriage for example. I''m in favor of it. I'm not gay and I don't really have a lot of gay friends or anything. I really have nothing to tie me to this issue, so I'm not biased about it. The reason I don't care, is that I don't see how two gay guys getting married is going to make my life so terrible. Maybe if there was a decent arguement against it I would change my mind. "It says in the bible etc." I don't care what it says in the bible. Well I do care because I'm a chrsitian, but I'm not going to let that sway me on this issue. Seperation of church and state kids. You can't use what it says in the bible to make legislation. "The dictionary definition says that marriage is between a man and a woman." So now Webster gets a say in what legal in this country? Can't we change the definition? "Think of the kids." I know that there are plenty of heterosexual parents that should never have had a kid. Maybe we should start giving out child licences to verify who's qualified to be a parent. I don't know that we've seen enough children with homosexual parents to know how they will be effected.

Body Image

Our culture has a huge focus on our physical appearance. One of the primary concerns in todays culture is weight. Everyone is concerned with how much they weigh, which is odd because we are the fattest country in the world. They're calling it an obesity epidemic. I love the way one comedian talked about it. He said that a convorstation between our generation and our grandkids would go something like:

child: "Wow granda the obesity epidemic, how did you survive?"

grandpa: "I dunno Jimmy it was tough, there was cheesecake and porkchops everywhere"

I'm sure I didn't get the exact wording on that, but it was something along those lines. Everyone wants to be skinny but most people just don't have the self control to eat right and exercise. Some people say that the increase in weight could decrease our average lifespan by five years. This is the only thing that could be affected by our weight though. Studies have shown that the way we look can have a huge impact on our jobs. One study found that", for women, a 1% increase in body mass as measured by the body mas index results in a 0.6 pertentage point decrease in family income" (Armour 257). You're job is affected by other aspects of your appearance too. Darlene Jesperson was actually fired from Harrah's for not wearing makeup. Another study found that CEOs are, on average, 3 inches taller than the average man.

Why is appearance so important in our culture? It puts a huge stress on people, especially women. Shouldn't we have better things to worry about than what we look like?

annotated bib

Gentile, Douglas and Craig Anderson. Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. . 16 Oct. 2003 New York: Oxford University Press. 15 Oct. 2007 This is a great 22 page PDF document on the negative aspects of violent gaming. There is a very wide range of information. The document contains everything for how much time children spend playing games, to how much of these games are violent, to how these games affect those that play them. The document also contains some interesting charts and graphs. There is a lot of information in this document and I could probably write an entire paper using just this one document.
Dill, Karen and Craig Anderson. Violent Video Games Can Increase Aggression. 15 Oct. 2007 This is a shorter article that describes the way violent games affect behavior. The article discusses specific ways in which the increase in aggressive behavior has been identified. The article also discusses why a video game may be more harmful than a television show or another form of media. I can us this article to support the argument that violent behavior in games translates to violent behavior in real life.
Craig Anderson. Violent Video Games: Facts, Myths, and Unanswered Questions. 15 Oct. 2007 This article debunks myths about the research process of the affects of violent video games on behavior. The article presents arguments against the research one by one and disproves them. The article also manages to go into some of the affects of violent games and who the games have an effect on. The article is useful in multiple ways. I can use it to validate research and present more facts on the effects of games.
McLean, Bethany and Doris Burke. Sex, Lies, and Videogames. 22 Aug. 2005 Fortune. 15 Oct. 2007 This article focuses on a game company called Take Two. This company owns the infamous franchise called Grand Theft Auto. The article discusses some of the “bad” things you do in the game, and why the company has had such a struggle with the game. The article also talks about some of the legal problems the company has had in real life, which includes lawsuits and tax evasion. I can use this article to show the gaming industry in a negative light, and show what kinds of terrible things kids are doing in today’s games.
Entertainment Software Rating Board. ESRB Game Ratings. 15 Oct. 2007 This is the official sight of the ESRB. The ESRB gives games ratings and decides how old you should be before you can buy a specific game. I can use this sight to give details on anything related to how games are rated, and what happens once they receive a certain rating.
Vance, Patricia. Pro & Con. Oct. 24, 2007 Congressional Digest. February, 2005 <> This article was written by the president of ESRB. It gives her take on why games are rated the way they are. It gives a more personal perspective than the ESRB website does. This article can be used to justify the way games are rated. It can also be used to shed light on exactly how many really bad games there really are.
Jenkinson, Michael. Bloodshed, butchery, and video games. United Western Communication LTD. Oct. 24, 2007 <> This article expresses the affects of violent video games on those that play them. It talks about some of the grotesque images seen in some games. It also mentions that some kids are actually becoming addicted to video games, and that these addictions will only increase with technological advances. The article also says that improved graphics make it harder to distinguish fantasy from reality. This article can be used to show that kids are in essence, becoming addicted to violence.
Walsh, David. Video Game Violence and Public Policy. Oct. 24, 2007. This article gives more support for the argument that video games increase violent behavior. It gives logical arguments are to why video games would cause more violent tendencies than television or movies would. Negative behaviors, such as a decrease in the tendency to help someone, are also listed in the article. This article can be used to show why games are such a threat and why we should be worried about them for more reasons than just violent behavior.

SWA #8

The youth of today obsesses over video games. Kids spend hours online discussing them, researching them, and even playing them. Violence is a huge part of these games and it greatly affects the minds of these young kids. It increases aggressive tendencies and in the cases of some games, encourages sex and drug use. Video games are corrupting the youth of today and must be stopped.
The topic of violent video games is something I feel very passionately about. The words you read above don’t express my opinion on the issue. I actually believe that video games are somewhat healthy and aren’t in the least bit harmful, aside from the fact that they probably play a part in the growing waistbands of my generation. Instead of writing a paper on my viewpoint, I plan to write a paper exploring the opposing views. My paper will show how violent games such as Grand Theft Auto and Doom have corrupted the youth of today.
My audience will be all those that play violent video games. I will show them that they need to stop playing these games while they still can, before they act on the violent urges they get by playing them.

Gentile, Douglas and Craig Anderson. Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. . 16 Oct. 2003 New York: Oxford University Press. 15 Oct. 2007
Dill, Karen and Craig Anderson. Violent Video Games Can Increase Aggression. 15 Oct. 2007
Craig Anderson. Violent Video Games: Facts, Myths, and Unanswered Questions. 15 Oct. 2007
McLean, Bethany and Doris Burke. Sex, Lies, and Videogames. 22 Aug. 2005 Fortune. 15 Oct. 2007
Entertainment Software Rating Board. ESRB Game Ratings. 15 Oct. 2007

Smoking Bans

How have bans affected health?
How do bans differ from county to county?
How have bans affected businesses?
What exactly does the ban say?
Can people smoke outside of buildings or is there a certain distance they must maintain?
Are provisions made for Hooka bars and smoking lounges?
Are provisions made for bars?
Have the bans had any affect on tabacco sales?

My Card

I made a card that read "I'd rather play Guitar Hero than learn the real thing"

I made it on a notecard and drew a picture of a guitar hero guitar.

I know I'm not the only person like this. I wasn't really trying to make a point though. I guess if you really looked into it you could try to pull out an unsaid meaning but I didn't have one.

I cried for Anakin Skywalker at the end of Star Wars Episode III...but not for the tsunami victims.

I can relate to this postcard. I didn't actually cry for either party. but I still felt a stronger emotional connection to what happened to Anakin than I did the Tsunami victims. I know where the author is coming from. The text obviously states that the person cried for Anakin but not for the Tsunami victims. There are implicit claims as well. I think that there in an implication that the person feels bad about this. They are also making a claim about the human race in general. I beleive the person knows that they are not alone. I felt kinda bad after reading this, but I know why it happens. The Tsunami victims are just another face on the news. We actually know Anakin's story though. Its the difference between a friend and somebody that you see around the halls once in a while but you don't know there name.

Visa Ad

I find this ad to be pretty interesting. Its an ad from a magazine for Visa. It features a city made entirely of buildings. In other words, they probably just took New York and superimposed electronics over the builidings. There's everything for a portable DVD player to a surge protector. I'm a bit of a tech geek myself so this ad kinda jumped out at me. The top of the ad has the words "No matter what you want to do in life, life takes VISA." At the bottom of the ad it says, "Never in sleep mode. 24/7, electronics have become an essential part of modern living. For the latests trends and discounts, visit lifetakesvisa.com/electronics." Essentially the ad is trying to send the message, "A city is built on electronics, and VISA is the best way to buy them." I think the ad is pretty effective. You see all these nice, new, shiny electronics and you think "it would be nice to have all of that." Then the ad tells you that Visa is able to give it to you.

The Race Issue

Kim Mclarin's article "Race Wasn't an Issue to Him, Which Was an Issue to Me," explains Mclarin's reasons for grappling with race. She is a middle aged black woman who has taken race by the horns all her life. I feel as though her argument is terrible. She has so much useless information that I could probably condense her entire article down to one paragraph if I wanted to. There is too much detail in her mundaine convorsation with Jerry. I think she might just be trying to draw attention away from the fact that she has almost nothing to actually support what she is saying other than the fact that she is a black woman dealing with white men. Her only decent support for her entire article is when her mother received a lesser quality of medical care than her white ex's sister did, but even this has holes in it. She doesn't say whether or not they were in the same hospital, what their medical probelms were, or even exactly why she considered her mother's treatment to be worse than her ex's sister.
She says at one point in her article that her ex felt as though she was "looking for race." I feel as though her ex nailed it on the head. She mentions an incident when, "a white woman reached up, uninvited, and petted [her] locks like she was petting a dog." What if the woman had been black? What were the circumstances? Would it be different if the woman had been patting a white woman's head, and how do we know she doesn't do that on a regular basis, regardless of race? I feel as though this sort of "looking for race" situation occurs far to often in todays society. I know this is coming from your average, middle class white guy but why can't we jsut let it go?

Ego Trip

Larry Gordon and Louis Sahagun make the claim that Generation Y is more egotistical and self-absorbed than previous generations. I feel that the article is incomplete and the argument isn't well supported. The opening sentence of the article says, "No wonder Youtube is so popular." I understand the claim that this sentence is trying to make but when you think about it, the claim doesn't really make sense. The claim is that Youtube is popular beause Generation Y wants to broadcast itself. If this were true then why would Generation Y be watching videos on Youtube? Youtube is popular because we want to see what's out there. Many of the videos on Youtube offer the poster no self gratification because they are video's of a new game trailer that just came out or a famous singer falling on stage. The article also makes reference to a study that found that "two-thirds of recent college students had narcissism scores that were above the average 1982 score." There are some things left unanswered here. How much higher are the scores? I feel like the stats are being twisted to make an attempt at swaying me one way. The article also claims that self esteem programs in elementary schools have helped promote MySpace and Youtube. I fail to see the connection. MySpace isn't meant solely to broadcast yourself, its a networking tool. You are able to communicate with people across the globe and see whats going on in a friends life who lives hours away. I don't see the connection to self absorption here. Keith Campbell, a psycology at UGA, claims that reality TV contributes to this so called "heightened self-regard." Once again, I fail to see a connection between watching other peoples lives and being obsessed with your own.
I feel like this article didn't touch on a few things. There is a huge difference in what is demanded of the youth of today as oppsed to the youth of yesterday. I was learning things my freshman year of highschool that my parents didn't learn until they were in college. Don't we have to be more self absorbed? The likelyhood of you getting a good job without going to college isn't very good. The likelyhood of you getting into college without caring about how well you do in school isn't very good. Competition for admittance into colleges is higher than ever. Wouldn't I be an idiot not to care a little more about me?

Rhetorical Analysis

Essay "An Apology for Rockism"

Central Claim:
"Sanneh's blind and enthusiastic endorsement of commercialized, over-produced, pop music is socially irresponsible" (p.358)

My central claim:
I'm not entirely sure that I have a central claim in my analyis.

My revised claim:
"He presents very good logical and emotional argument...As far as credibility goes, he doesn't so much make himself look credible as he does discredit Sanneh"

My conclusion
"Ellwanger's argument is very effective"

I'm not really sure what to call this

"Earth without Humans"
Bob Holmes

This article was an interesting read. This doesn't make it a very good article for a rhetorical analysis. I felt that it was really more informational article than an argumentative one. The author discusses what would happen if humans dissapeared tommorow. I don't think he's trying to argue whether or not its a good idea to get rid of all the humans on the planet though. I'd have trouble writing an analysis of this article.

Dropping the F-Bomb
Joel Achenbach

I enjoyed this article. As someone who probably overuses "the F-word" I am able to relate to what the article is about. The whole idea of the article seems a little humorous but it does make a pretty good argument for what the F-word is all about. It would be good to write an analysis on because it makes a very clear argument. Logos, ethos. and pathos are all identifiable.

"An Apology for Rockism"
Adam Ellwanger

This is article fits my opinion on music to a tee. I love it. It presents an argument that is very clear, easy to follow, and is very easy for me to relate to. It would be really easy for me to write a rhetorical analysis on this article.

SWA #5

Gregg Easterbrook’s article “Virginia Tech and Our Impoverished Language for Evil” is about the way the language used to describe what happened at VT was “cleaned up” down essentially to be more politically correct.
The Author is addressing a large group of people. He is talking to anyone in America who watches the news. These are the people that are affected by what is said in the news. He uses specifically the VT coverage to prove his point but what he says about VT can be applied to almost any news story. The author is afraid that those who watched the VT coverage did not fully grasp the magnitude of this tragedy. He wants everyone to understand how awful it really was. He is likely also trying to send a message to the media, who are responsible for trying to make these tragedies seem less horrific.
The author of this work is Gregg Easterbrook. He believes that the media doing things like merely calling the mass murderer involved in the VT massacre a shooter doesn’t do the situation justice. He believes that by calling Cho a shooter we are working around the problem instead of facing the true situation. The author is trying to send a message to Americans and to the media that this is not acceptable.
There is one major constraint involved in this article. The author or the reader may have a deeper connection with the VT murders than just seeing them on the news. A friend or relative could have been one of the people killed, the reader may go to VT, and the author may have gone to VT. Any of these things would give the author or the reader a prejudice against Cho. A reader may also have some connection to the media that gives them a bias towards the media’s side of why it’s called a shooting and not a murder. A reader may have children that they don’t want to expose to the horrors of what really happened. Any of these things could create a bias.
The exigence of this article is the way in which the media handled the killings at VT. The author felt that after such a tragedy, the media should tell the story for what it is and not try to work around the bad parts to make it sound nicer.

SWA #4

“Ideas” is a blog written by David Friedman. Friedman’s strategy in his argument is to leave the opinion up to the reader. He doesn’t really assert that his idea is correct. More than anything else, he offers his idea up to the reader as something to think about. His argument is very short and to the point, and he speaks as though he is talking directly to the reader.
The target audience for his argument is people who live on their own and have to pay their own bills. This makes the most sense because people who aren’t paying an AC bill probably aren’t too concerned with how the house is kept cold as long as it gets done. I would be a part of the group that just wants the house to be kept cold. Even so, I’m not an idiot and I can think intelligently about what Friedman is saying. I think his argument makes a lot of sense. He has me convinced, even though at this time I don’t really care that much about how much it costs to keep the house cold.
David Friedman is the author of this blog. It’s difficult for me to write about him as I know almost nothing about him other than what is provided on his page. He claims to be an academic economist living in San Jose, CA. It is difficult to say that he has any qualification for giving advice on how to cool your home, and the idea that an economist would come up with an innovative way to air condition your home is a little strange to me.
I don’t see what constraints you could find in Friedman’s argument. It’s all pretty straightforward. I think the only people that could have any basis for an objection to his idea are architects. Architects would have a good idea of what it would take to set up a system like what Friedman is suggesting and I would trust an architect to determine its effectiveness.
The exigence of this argument is rising energy costs. Friedman is looking for a more efficient way to cool a house in order to use less energy and save money.
My friend Kotab has a note on his Facebook account about not procrastinating. I’d say that his text is in essence a short blog. He offers up his personal experience with procrastination in an attempt to deter the reader from making his mistakes.
His target is his peers. He wouldn’t write a blog about waiting till the last minute to do a paper for somebody who is already out of school. I’m definitely a part of his target audience and as I sit here writing this I wish I had taken his advice.
I know the author pretty well. I graduated with him. He’s a pretty credible source for this kind of thing. Overall he’s a fairly smart guy and an ok student. He’s a really slow worker though so it takes him a long time to complete assignments. I’m sure this on exacerbates his procrastination problem.
There are a few different constraints that could factor into this argument. Somebody who’s sitting up at almost 1 AM writing a short writing assignment on TRACE could feel like Kotab is really onto something here. Somebody who works best under pressure and really enjoys working at the last minute might not agree with him.
The exigence of this argument is that Kotab went to a concert on Saturday night. Sunday he was dead tired from Church but still had a three page paper to write. With time running out he was feeling pressured and unhappy with his decisions. He chose to waste more of his time by writing a note on Facebook in order to warn others of what can happen if you procrastinate.

SWA #3

My argument style is extremely adversarial. I really like to argue. I tend to be pretty good at proving my point and I like to do it as often as possible. I typically approach my arguments more with logic than emotion. I think more about the individual than the community. For example, why should we keep gay people from getting married or keep women from getting abortions just so that the uptight Christians can feel good about themselves and how our country works when, based on their religion, they are just as bad as gays. Don’t get me wrong, I’m myself am Christian, I just hate it when people throw their religion in everyone’s face whether the other person believes in it or not. That’s not how this country is supposed to work. When I argue I’m not trying to wrap my brain around what I believe such that my argument comes out as though I’m almost trying to convince myself at the same time. When I argue I know what I believe, and I know why you’re an idiot for not agreeing with me. I respect other’s opinions and I try to understand why people feel the way they do, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m right and you’re not. That’s not to say that when I’m proven wrong I don’t know it, but I generally keep arguing as long as possible just because I don’t like to accept defeat. I’m a very competitive person, and I like to win.

I think I see myself as a journalist writing an argument. As much as I hate English class and detest writing I find that it’s a lot easier for me to collect my thoughts and formulate good arguments when I’m writing them down. If I’m writing about something that I feel passionate about or something that makes me angry I think I can make a pretty good case for what I believe. I tend to get pretty into arguments. If I’m arguing in person I raise my voice a little and get a little agitated. Writing an argument I word what I’m saying more strongly. I tend to use a lot of sarcasm when I argue too. I do this partially because it’s an easy way to get your point across and partially because it can either make the other person feel dumb or intimidate them. It’s generally harder for the other person to argue back to sarcasm. It makes them think more than if you just straight up say what you think, so it takes them longer to make a comeback to it. I guess I’m pretty cut throat when I argue. Losing just isn’t really an option for me. I go into an argument expecting to win and I do what I can to make sure I win it.

SWA #2

Matt Miller’s article “Is Persuasion Dead?” discusses how persuasion in order to change minds seems to be almost non-existent in today’s world. Miller asks “Is it possible in America today to convince anyone of anything he doesn’t already believe?” He discusses the way in which politicians no longer use persuasion to gain votes and the way in which political discussion is no longer persuasive. He also touches on the way in which the media has affected this trend.

Miller says that ninety-percent of political conversation is merely what he calls “talking points.” Politicians and political analysts no longer attempt to persuade anyone. They merely have arguments throwing their points back and forth with no real attempt to change anyone’s mind. Even best-selling books only say what the people reading them already believed. Politics have become more and more about telling people how you feel and not about proving to them that the way you feel is right. Politicians have realized that they don’t need to change anyone’s mind to get votes, so they no longer try to. This bleeds over into the act of leading as well. Miller believes that in order to be a good leader, you must influence the way people think, which requires persuasion. Since politicians are elected into office without the ability to persuade anyone, they are less effective as leaders.

The media has also played a part in the downfall of persuasion. Persuasion isn’t as effective in gaining attention; therefore, the media don’t have a need for it, and don’t present it. Even if a politician wants to change minds, the media makes it extremely difficult. The media cares more about things such as poll numbers and give politicians a very small amount of time to make their point. They feel that this is the only way to make debate entertaining, and naturally the media cares more about their ratings than anything else.

I don’t have a whole lot of experience with this topic myself. Most of the debates I’m involved in are somehow video game related in a forum on Myspace, and I don’t really watch a whole lot of political debates though. From what I’ve seen online I’d say that persuasion is pretty much pointless. As a whole Americans today seem to be very unwilling to listen to reason or consider positions other than their own. As an example: you might hear something like “Homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to get married.” There’s no real legal basis for why but people argue it anyways. They have no real legal way of proving their point, but they are so set in with what they believe that they refuse to change their minds and give way no matter what. If something disagrees with what they believe they ignore it and push it to the side, or merely start spewing out there beliefs with no real way to back them up. Miller is probably right. For now, persuasion is dead.

SWA #1

Skube is concerned because he finds that students don’t have a grasp of the English language. He finds that he has to explain words that he finds to be basic to students who graduated high school with GPAs 3.5 or higher. Even college seniors preparing to graduate from some of the better colleges in the US don’t seem to have a very good grasp of the language. He thinks that this in large part due to the fact that students today don’t like to read. Without reading students aren’t able to expand their vocabulary and completely understand all aspects of our language. I find that the fact that students don’t read is true, not only from my observations in the classroom but from my own experience as a student. I detest reading. In my elementary school years I loved to read. Middle school somehow managed to destroy my enjoyment for reading and I haven’t read many books that weren’t required for school since. Sure I’ve worked in The Lord of the Rings and a select few other books, but I’d say since I got out of elementary school I’ve read less than ten books outside of school. That’s not a whole lot, especially when compared to the number of different movies I’ve seen, the number of different video games I’ve played, etc. In my case his correlation between not reading and not knowing a lot about the English language is true. I would be lying if I told that I excelled in English or that I had an exceptional vocabulary, and my spelling and grammar checker doesn’t exactly have it easy right now. I find that most people I know don’t usually say “read” when asked what they like to do and it’s been a while since I’ve discussed any books with somebody I know. When I walk into the majority of my friend’s rooms there isn’t a bookcase in sight. It’s just not that popular these days. At the same time I don’t think that all of these people would fall in line with Skube’s argument. Most of them are a lot better in English than I am. I don’t think that the amount a person reads is really the best way to tell if they are going to excel in English or not. I’d argue that the language you hear plays a large part in your grasp of the language too. If neither of your parents graduated from high school and you hang out with a group of people who use a lot of slang and poor grammar you aren’t likely to be the next Shakespeare. If your parents graduated from Harvard and your friends make fun of each other when you say “good” instead of “well” you have a good chance of being able to write well. I’m not trying to say that Skube’s opinion is entirely wrong; he just doesn’t factor in all the possible variables.

If the students Skube is concerned with follow Hagstette’s idea of “aggressive reading,” they will get more out of what they read. Hagstette mentions several new ways of approaching reading. One problem he brings up is daydreams. There have been many times that I’ve been reading a book and suddenly realized that I have no idea what’s going on. I have a very active imagination. Hagstette has a very obvious solution to this, which is just to go back to the last place you remember reading and start from there. Many of the students Skube is concerned with would likely just keep reading even though they weren’t really sure what was going on because since they don’t like to read, they wouldn’t bother to make more work for themselves. Hagstette also says that repetition is important. In his opinion, you should need to read some forms of writing at least 10 times before you fully understand them. Once is never enough. Reading things multiple times would help students notice more things about the language and perhaps pick up on the meanings of more words that they hadn’t picked up on the first run through. The whole idea behind Hagstette’s “aggressive reading” is to get as much out of the reading as possible. The more language that Skube’s students are able to draw from the reading the closer they will come to meeting his standards.