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.