Paragraph Coherence

C)
Chat rooms have also become a great source of communication. By utilizing a chat room you can talk with lots of different people all at once. In addition, the chat room can provide a learning experience outside of the classroom. Chat rooms have even allowed me to converse with members of my biology class. Obviously the chat room is a good resource to use inside and outside of the classroom.
D)
Dogs served as the preferred alternative to excessive force around housing developments off campus for students attending The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). The purpose of canines in the police force is to provide an alternative to excessive and deadly force. Although suspects have claimed to be badly bitten, these cases are extremely rare compared to the many documented good deeds performed by police canines. 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” (Savage para. 12).

Draft numero doso

Doug Pavlowsky
English 101, Section 056
October 30, 2007
Exploratory Essay
Marriage, Union, or None of the Above
“I Do.” Those two tiny words consisting of only three letters between them are causing some of today’s greatest political debates. The relatively new issue of exactly who should be able to speak those words and what exactly they will mean is stronger than ever. Gay marriage will be one of the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential election in 2008. There are three main arguments when it comes to the controversial issue of same sex marriage. The first argument asks why the government feels the need to prevent two people from being married if they are in love. The second argument agrees that homosexuals should have the same rights as far as the perks of marriage go, but marriage is simply not the right word for it. The final argument states that gay marriage is simply not right, and that it should be completely disallowed in our country. Now, each of these viewpoints has its strengths and weaknesses, some certainly more strength than others.
The classic argument in this raging debate is that gay marriage, unions, anything, is just downright wrong. This point holds that if we allow gays to marry, and adopt or have children through other means think of how the children will turn out! Two daddies would clearly destroy a child’s social networking ability. In fact they would probably all turn out with intense gender identity issues, or as serial killers. That’s what this argument states at least. Just recently a judge in Vermont settled a case that does argue strongly for this viewpoint. A lesbian couple, who were officially in a civil union, broke up in 2003. Unfortunately they had a daughter, who has been caught in limbo for the past four years, because of the custody battle for her. The baby was finally awarded to her biological mother, with visitation rights for the estranged ex-life partner (Penn 1). While it is good that the issue is finally resolved, the time that this took is simply horrifying. To have a little girl caught parentless for four years because no courts know what to do with a case that is so rare is simply unacceptable. This is the kind of thing that will really effect the long term development of a child.
In San Diego, the mayor has recently embraced same sex marriages for the first time. Unfortunately it was not because he thinks that gay marriage is the best thing for our country. His daughter came out of the closet publicly and only then did he embrace the idea of gay marriage. The mayor previously embraced civil unions, but now he believes that those civil unions are less than equal (Wockner 1). This is an argument against gay marriage in the fact that it weakens the claim of the gay marriage advocate on the count of their exigence. It shows that many people who are pro same sex marriage are so for the wrong reasons.
This brings to mind the following question: What right does the state have to determine who is allowed to marry who? This is a valid question. As a civil rights issue, it is not an issue. Obviously everyone should have the right to marry whomever they please. To disallow that would be, from a civil rights standpoint, unconstitutional (Walters 3). Truthfully, this is one of very few issues involving tolerance and equality that the United States is not at the forefront of. Several other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and South Africa allow same sex couples to marry, and even Israel will recognize same sex marriages as long as the ceremony was performed outside of the country (Walters 2). That is not necessarily to say that Spain and company are correct, but certainly are more pointed toward equality. The main point of this argument is simply this: If a man who loves a woman can marry her, where does the government fit in to say that a man who loves a man cannot marry him?
The argument in defense of gay marriage gains strength with some impressive economical statistics, as released by the Congressional Budget Office of the Williams Institute. If gay marriage were legalized nationwide, couples would marry, and therefore move into a higher tax bracket, increasing federal revenue by four hundred million dollars to seven hundred million dollars. In addition to tax bracket shifts, many of these new, higher income households would get cut from Medicaid, saving the federal government fifty million to two hundred million dollars. In addition, uninsured gays would often begin to fall under their new spouse’s insurance, getting them out from under the government protection, and therefore saving the government about one hundred ninety million dollars. By far the largest economic effect that would be seen is an approximate two billion dollar explosion in the wedding industry. Total these numbers up and you’re looking at anywhere from $2.6 billion to $3.1 billion (Scott 1). This presents a strong argument for same sex marriage without even touching the moral aspect of the argument.
The same sex advocates recently gained the trump card as far as family values and morals go. The Disney Corporation recently decided to offer their “Fairy Tale Wedding Package” to same sex couples as well as the traditional heterosexual market. This is clearly a big deal, not only because of the what, but the why. Disney was not pressured by the government. In fact, the government, in general terms, is quite adverse to the idea of homosexual marriage. Disney was also not pressured by interest groups. No big political machine ran into Disney and said “Here’s how this is going to go.” No, Disney decided that they were going to allow same sex couples to marry because a same sex couple asked them, and they said yes. Not a high power political figure, not a fashion tycoon, just a homosexual couple. So Disney sat down with their executives and came to the conclusion that there was more to gain by allowing gays to marry there than to shut them out. This may not seem like a big deal, but it is! It’s a huge deal because the big business (don’t forget we live in a capitalist society) took a step around the government and jumped to the lead on this ever so progressive issue (Walker 1).
The next big viewpoint is the thought that gays should be able to obtain the same status and perks that married couples have, but it just wouldn’t be called marriage. This view is fostered by the dictionary definition of marriage. According to dictionary.com, marriage means “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” This clearly removes a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman out of the question. If that were to happen it would not be marriage, it is a literal impossibility. In New Jersey the law agrees with this idea. In 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey officially decided that homosexuals must have the same rights as a straight couple as far as marriage goes. New Jersey was then faced with the problem of finding out how to accommodate homosexual couples, while still protecting the English language. They chose to grant same sex couples the right to have official “legal unions” if they could not have marriages. These legal, or “civil” unions grant all the same rights as marriage, without calling it marriage. These so strongly sought after rights include family leave, adoption rights, changing a name without petition, worker’s compensation, and protection of pensions (Hausknecht 1).
The Archbishops of Canterbury, as well as 150 Episcopalian Bishops recently met to discuss the issue of same sex marriages. The final decision stands that the Episcopalian Church will “exercise restraint” in consecrating gay or lesbian bishops. This decision also led to the decision to not authorize the blessing of same sex unions, but still allows priests to “maintain a breadth of private response.” So basically, this powerful religious organization is still not authorizing gay marriage, but is certainly not completely against it, and will take it on a case by case basis (Phillips 1). This is important because it shows a large amount of weakening in the once powerful “religious right.”
This is an argument that has not been around for long, but seemingly will be around for quite some time before it is truly resolved. While different candidates have different opinions, it seems that it would take a lot to create a solution that would last to this problem. It is a very attainable goal, it will just take time. Every argument has it’s points, civil rights, definitions, and development, respectively. Each argument also has its weaknesses, certainly less clear cut. One argument is not necessarily stronger than the other, as it is a matter of belief, and opinion. One unique thing about this issue is that everyone has something to say about it. No matter how politically inactive or disinterested, everyone has an opinion. This is something that can be solved and can be solved properly, it just takes some critical thinking. Hopefully a solution is on the horizon.

Cohesive devices

"*Through civil unions we can have equal rights across sexualities, while still maintaining the definition of the word marriage. I will @[also] point out that while many people believe that gay parents can cause detrimental effects on the development of their children; there is simply no statistical backing for this. @[The fact is] that while there are secluded cases that could prove nearly any stance you tried to argue, it is simply no more common for straight couples to raise a serial killer than gay couples. @[A third point] I will argue is that while it is argued that civil unions versus marriage is a new age case of separate but equal, this is simply not the case. Marriage is not a tangible thing, it is an idea. An idea cannot be diluted by prejudiced people, because you cannot create a weaker bond, it is within the person, and within the law. It is not something that a person can physically take away from.

We have a policy that needs changing. *Yes, I'm still talking about my SSN, because even though I have no idea how an ID thief uses my SSN, I know that if they have it their work is pretty much done. We need to change how easily our SSNs are attainable. @[Now], as far as the reasoning behind this goes, I'm sure that it was simply a lack of thought put in to it. Anyone who had thought twice about the topic certainly would have said "hmm, maybe there's a better way to do this." Why doesn't USC, like most other schools, assign a randomly generated ID number to all students? Would that be so hard. I have a basic, half semester high school web design class under my belt, and I could design a program that could do it. And if that is even too much work for you, you can at absolute least use the same 3 digits of your SSN to post anything. It's a lot easier to guess 1 number than 6, in the right order.

*Using SSNs as student ID's is that much cheaper, also, at this point it would be impractical to begin to change every student's ID number. @[Also], the amount of effort needed to steal your identity (There's three whole steps involved! Read last five digits off someone's test, read first three in russel house, guess at number #4, ok. Back to devil's advocate now) is just too much to make it worth an identity thief's while. @[Not to mention], it could take as many as 10 guesses to get the number right, not to mention the necessity to test all 10 of those guesses. Wow. That is a lot of work!"

This was certainly an interesting exercise. I didn't find it very helpful, but I think that it would have been very helpful had I brought in the work I've done on my policy paper. So all in all I think it is a good exercise, as long as it is done for a paper in progress, and not just the sake of doing it.

Burning Tigers

Ok, so were not going to burn the tiger this year. Political correctness, you win again. But the truth is, this is vastly unnecessary. There is definitely such a thing as being over politically correct. Sure, Clemson and USC student both died in that beach house fire, and because it was a fire, and because there were students from each school represented, that obviously means that thats what we're representing. This is wrong. By burning a tiger we're not disrespecting the Clemson student who lost her life in that fire, were simply having a pep rally to get everyone excited about a football game. Sure, now were destroying that silly tiger with a tractor (maybe two, I'm unsure) but there is simply nothing that will get a student more pumped up than burning something hated. I have nothing against the utmost respect for those who perished that night in the fire, but to cancel something completely unrelated for the reason of political correctness is just downright incorrect.

7-5

Moore and Kitman both make strong arguments against the common belief. Moore argues that nuclear power is the most important way to clean up the enviornment, and I would be very skeptical of his argument if he wasn't a co-founder of GreenPeace. This leads me to believe that he really knows his stuff. He sets up each argument or counterargument in a bulleted list and explains it, or cuts it down, depending on the situation. Kitman argues that hybrids aren't always the most energy efficient vehicles. Again, I would be much more skeptical if she wasn't a professional car tester. She goes through and explains with statistics that some cars simply aren't as fuel effiecient, hybrid or not, and also explains why.

7-4

Kluger and Lindzen's essays are opposite in claim. They claim that global warming causes different things. While Kluger claims that global warming is melting the ice caps and causing the sea levels to rise among other problems. Lindzen claims that global warming is causing the lack of tropical storms. A key difference in each argument was the effect of carbon dioxide levels in the enviornment. Lindzen claims that CO2 will contribute to future warming, but does not make global warming the fault of humans. Kluger claims that CO2 will prove very dangerous to our future, and cites data, such as the fact that during the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180ppm, then in they rose to a comfortable 280ppm, but are now a dangerous 381ppm. This traps the heat in, and heats up our atmosphere. Kluger's argument is much more convincing because of the fact that he cites many more statistics and facts, such as the previously mentioned statistic.

Policy Paper Proposal

I will be writing a paper arguing the point that gay marriage should not be allowed, but that civil unions should. I will point out that through civil unions we can have equal rights across sexualities, while still maintaining the definition of the word marriage. I will also point out that while many people believe that gay parents can cause detrimental effects on the development of their children, there is simply no statistical backing for this. The fact is that while there are secluded cases that could prove nearly any stance you tried to argue, it is simply no more common for straight couples to raise a serial killer than gay couples. A third point I will argue is that while it is argued that civil unions versus marriage is a new age case of seperate but equal, this is simply not the case. Marriage is not a tangible thing, it is an idea. An idea cannot be diluted by prejudiced people, because you cannot create a weaker bond, it is within the person, and within the law. It is not something that a person can physically take away from.

I have a solid base for my paper as far as research goes. I will write my first draft of this paper, and if it doesn't seem to be sufficient, I will do more research.

Point IV

1. First Perspective: Civil Unions should be implemented to give gays equal rights under the law, without destroying the definition of the word marriage (dominant)
Second Perspective: Marriage is the only way true equality can be reached, civil unions are "seperate but equal" and therefore bad
Third Perspective: No form of unions between homosexual couples is acceptable, allowing them to marry will destroy our culture
2. The perspective allowing for civil unions needs to be dominant, as it is, but it needs to be more dominant, as well as widely implimented
3. Civil unions simply need to be respected in all states, and given equal financial and civil rights.

Issues, again

We have a policy that needs changing. Yes, I'm still talking about my SSN, because even though I have no idea how an ID thief uses my SSN, I know that if they have it their work is pretty much done. We need to change how easily our SSNs are attainable. Now, as far as teh reasoning behind this goes, I'm sure that it was simply a lack of thought put in to it. Anyone who had thought twice about the topic certainly would have said "hmm, maybe there's a better way to do this." Why doesn't USC, like most other schools, assign a randomly generated ID number to all students? Would that be so hard. I have a basic, half semester high school web design class under my belt, and I could design a program that could do it. And if that is even too much work for you, you can at absolute least use the same 3 digits of your SSN to post anything. It's a lot easier to guess 1 number than 6, in the right order.

Now I'm going to go devil's advocate on myself.

Using SSNs as student ID's is that much cheaper, also, at this point it would be impractical to begin to change every student's ID number. Also, the amount of effort needed to steal your identity (There's three whole steps involved! Read last five digits off someone's test, read first three in russel house, guess at number #4, ok. Back to devil's advocate now) is just too much to make it worth an identity thief's while. Not to mention, it could take as many as 10 guesses to get the number right, not to mention the necessity to test all 10 of those guesses. Wow. That is a lot of work!

The F-Word

Reilly and Achenbach both have very similar claims in these two essays. They both claim that the F-word is over used. This is obviously true, it's barely even a matter of opinion at this point in time. The arguments differ in their reasoning. Reilly cites examples such as sporting events, where the student section roars curse words to try to rattle the other team, attempting to use these words' effects to gain an advantage. Achenbach argues that when people use this word they don't even mean it. I'm not going to say that one of these arguments is true and one is not. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say that they're both true. When I'm in my dorm room and one of my buddies walks into my room and I say "Dude, what the f's going on with Sam and Angie?" that's where im "Achenbaching" if you will. When I'm playing basketball one on one with the same friend, and I steal the ball and say "Yeah get the f' out of my house" I'm going Reilly style. In neither situation am I actually trying to be rude to my friend, or even use the word negatively, one I'm trying to get in someone's head, and the other I'm just adding an intensifier into my question.

Trasketball

As a kid I always loved team sports. If it wasn't football, basketball, maybe soccer, I probably wasn't interested. Then my sophomore year my basketball coach asked what I was doing in the spring, I told him nothing, because I didn't have a sport for the spring. He then informed me that I would be on the track team. This scared me. I had never participated in an individual sport before. It was a scary thought, that everyone would know exactly what I contributed or didn't contribute to the team. On a basketball court, sure they can tell you the number of points you scored, how many rebounds you got, steals, assists, even shooting percentages, but they can't measure your good off the ball defense, or how your post threat opens up your shooting guard for a three pointer. It was this sheild of uncertainty, the "yeah I only scored six points last game, but it was the intangibles that I really contributed to the team" that I could hide behind in team sports. Track you got up, threw your implement (a discus in my case) and they gave you a number as to how far it went. There was no defense. Nothing you couldn't measure. It was all numerical. Success was measured. Thats it. By the end of my senior year track was my favorite sport. I was the captain of the throwing team, and had finally mastered those pesky numbers that haunted me all throughout my basketball career. Never had I thought I would play an individual sport, much less track. I never thought I would say this (I wasn't particularly fond of my basketball coach) but here goes: Thank you coach Lipp.

SWA13 (extra credit)

Chapter Six Carolina Reader: Questions Six and Seven
1. Wendy Shanker attempts to portray herself as a fat girl that doesn’t care that she’s fat. What she really comes across as is someone who is trying to portray herself as a fat girl that doesn’t care that she’s fat. I mean sure, it’s great to not be worried about being fat. It’s different to brag about how much you don’t care. The use of the word “girl” instead of “woman” just reminds me of how childish this idea really is (She says it’s to portray that “girl power” idea). Now, I’m not trying to say that we should all be ridiculously weight conscious, but no one should be content with being fat. It’s unhealthy both physically and mentally. No one should compromise what their ideal self is, especially in areas that are really so attainable as weight. The target audience is other fat people, and I’m sure she reached them with her “rah-rah” attitude and all that enthusiasm, but I hope, for the audience’s sake, that she didn’t break through, I hope that they are still looking out for themselves, and not letting themselves get overweight because some fat lady told them it was ok.
2. Eleanor Randolph’s proposals are very impressive in theory. Some of her ideas are good all around, as well as very executable. The stopping of junk food ads is certainly possible, at least those pointed towards children. Proselytizing healthy eating is ambiguous enough to be possible, you certainly wouldn’t be able to convert anywhere near everyone, but it couldn’t hurt. Banning junk food in schools is a great goal. School is a place where junk food is unnecessary, and even detrimental to the learning environment. Upgrading the school snack is a great idea. In theory. To actually accomplish this goal is just far too expensive of a goal to attempt to accomplish. A sin tax on fatty foods would simply find too much opposition to be an attainable goal. Stop subsidizing corn. This goal was almost offensive to me. Farmers support America. Period. Sure, they are helping o create the evil high fructose corn syrup, but to stop subsidizing corn is ridiculous, and would kill our country. Start subsidizing healthy food for poor people. Come on. Didn’t we just try to stop doing that with the corn? Labeling fast food would be a good goal. If it wasn’t already in effect. Go to McDonalds and ask for nutrition facts. They’ll give them to you. Just because it isn’t on the fry box doesn’t mean it isn’t available. If you want it, you can have it. A little initiative is all you need. Educate parents and teachers. This one is another expensive but attainable goal, it could certainly work if implemented properly. Increasing the presence of organized athletics in school is good, increasing required class time for gym is better. Organized sports are easy to get into if you’re willing to try. It’s all those kids that aren’t that need that increased gym class.

Questions for my peer reviewer

Does my paper make sense? I feel like there's an argument that I stretched a bit for, so let me know if you can't follow everything.

How does my grammar look? I've always struggled with that...

Is my paper unbalanced? One or more of my points may have significantly more or less support than the others.

Should I look for more evidence to support my points?

Cold Turkey

Ok, so since the time we wrote about body image this has been in the back of my mind. Everyone has an excuse. Achieving something through will power is just straight old fashioned. Wanna lose weight? I can offer you a thousand self help books, two hundred hypnotists, even several services that will send you ALL your meals for a week, then you can drop hundreds of dollars for these services and then when you don't lose any weight because you ahve no will power, at least you can bitch about doing everything you can and still not being able to succeed. Of course weight loss is a played out example of this, but its a really good one. I don't know, maybe I'm just blessed with exceptional will power, but when I grew up, 4'11" tall, 150 lbs in the eighth grade, I just decided one day that I wasn't going to be fat anymore. So I stopped overeating. I stopped snacking. Honestly it wasn't that hard. Wanna quit smoking? Don't go out and buy all the patches and gums and self help books you can. Just chuck the cigs and don't buy any more. And then when your like "Damn. I could really use a smoke." Don't go buy some, don't bum one off someone. Just don't smoke. Theres a novel idea huh?

Same Sex Marriage First Draft

“I Do.” Those two tiny words consisting of only three letters between them are causing some of today’s greatest political debates. The relatively new issue of exactly who should be able to speak those words and what exactly they will mean is stronger than ever. Gay marriage will be one of the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential election in 2008. There are three main arguments when it comes to the controversial issue of same sex marriage. The first argument asks why the government feels the need to prevent two people from being married if they are in love. The second argument agrees that homosexuals should have the same rights as far as the perks of marriage go, but marriage is simply not the right word for it. The final argument states that gay marriage is simply not right, and that it should be completely disallowed in our country. Now, each of these viewpoints has its strengths and weaknesses, some certainly more strength than others.
What right does the state have to determine who is allowed to marry who? This is a valid point. As a civil rights issue, it is not an issue. Obviously everyone should have the right to marry whomever they please. To disallow that would be, from a civil rights standpoint, unconstitutional (Walters 3). The argument in defense of gay marriage also holds some impressive economical statistics, as released by the Congressional Budget Office of the Williams Institute. If gay marriage were legalized nationwide, couples would marry, and therefore move into a higher tax bracket, increasing federal revenue by four hundred million dollars to seven hundred million dollars. In addition to tax bracket shifts, many of these new, higher income households would get cut from Medicaid, saving the federal government fifty million to two hundred million dollars. In addition, uninsured gays would often begin to fall under their new spouse’s insurance, getting them out from under the government protection, and therefore saving the government about one hundred ninety million dollars. By far the largest economic effect that would be seen is an approximate two billion dollar explosion in the wedding industry. Total these numbers up and you’re looking at anywhere from $2.6 billion to $3.1 billion (Scott 1). This presents a strong argument for same sex marriage without even touching the moral aspect of the argument.
The same sex advocates recently gained the trump card as far as family values and morals go. The Disney Corporation recently decided to offer their “Fairy Tale Wedding Package” to same sex couples as well as the traditional heterosexual market. This is clearly a big deal, not only because of the what, but the why. Disney was not pressured by the government. In fact, the government, in general terms, is quite adverse to the idea of homosexual marriage. Disney was also not pressured by interest groups. No big political machine ran into Disney and said “Here’s how this is going to go.” No, Disney decided that they were going to allow same sex couples to marry because a same sex couple asked them, and they said yes. Not a high power political figure, not a fashion tycoon, just a homosexual couple. So Disney sat down with their executives and came to the conclusion that there was more to gain by allowing gays to marry there than to shut them out. This may not seem like a big deal, but it is! It’s a huge deal because the big business (don’t forget we live in a capitalist society) took a step around the government and jumped to the lead on this ever so progressive issue (Walker 1).
This is one of very few issues involving tolerance and equality that the United States is not at the forefront of. Several other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and South Africa allow same sex couples to marry, and even Israel will recognize same sex marriages as long as the ceremony was performed outside of the country (Walters 2). That is not necessarily to say that Spain and company are correct, but certainly are more pointed toward equality. The main point of this argument is simply this: If a man who loves a woman can marry her, where does the government fit in to say that a man who loves a man cannot marry him?
The next big viewpoint is the thought that gays should be able to obtain the same status and perks that married couples have, but it just wouldn’t be called marriage. This view is fostered by the dictionary definition of marriage. According to dictionary.com, marriage means “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” This clearly removes a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman out of the question. If that were to happen it would not be marriage, it is a literal impossibility. In New Jersey the law agrees with this idea. In 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey officially decided that homosexuals must have the same rights as a straight couple as far as marriage goes. New Jersey was then faced with the problem of finding out how to accommodate homosexual couples, while still protecting the English language. They chose to grant same sex couples the right to have official “legal unions” if they could not have marriages. These legal, or “civil” unions grant all the same rights as marriage, without calling it marriage. These so strongly sought after rights include family leave, adoption rights, changing a name without petition, worker’s compensation, and protection of pensions (Hausknecht 1).
The Archbishops of Canterbury, as well as 150 Episcopalian Bishops recently met to discuss the issue of same sex marriages. The final decision stands that the Episcopalian Church will “exercise restraint” in consecrating gay or lesbian bishops. This decision also led to the decision to not authorize the blessing of same sex unions, but still allows priests to “maintain a breadth of private response.” So basically, this powerful religious organization is still not authorizing gay marriage, but is certainly not completely against it, and will take it on a case by case basis (Phillips 1). This is important because it shows a large amount of weakening in the once powerful “religious right.”
The final big argument in this raging debate is that gay marriage, unions, anything, is just downright wrong. This point holds that if we allow gays to marry, and adopt or have children through other means, think of how the children will turn out! Two daddies would clearly destroy a child’s social networking ability. In fact they would probably all turn out with intense gender identity issues, or as serial killers. That’s what this argument states at least. Just recently a judge in Vermont settled a case that does argue strongly for this viewpoint. A lesbian couple, who were officially in a civil union, broke up in 2003. Unfortunately they had a daughter, who has been caught in limbo for the past four years, because of the custody battle for her. The baby was finally awarded to her biological mother, with visitation rights for the estranged ex-life partner (Penn 1). While it is good that the issue is finally resolved, the time that this took is simply horrifying. To have a little girl caught parentless for four years because no courts know what to do with an oh so rare case as this is simply unacceptable. This is the kind of thing that will really effect the long term development of a child.
In San Diego, the mayor has recently embraced same sex marriages for the first time. Unfortunately it was not because he thinks that gay marriage is the best thing for our country. His daughter came out of the closet publicly and only then did he embrace the idea of gay marriage. The mayor previously embraced civil unions, but now he believes that those civil unions are less than equal (Wockner 1). This is an argument against gay marriage in the fact that it weakens the claim of the gay marriage advocate on the count of their exigence. It shows that many people who are pro same sex marriage are so for the wrong reasons.
This is an argument that has not been around for long, but seemingly will be around for quite some time before it is truly resolved. While different candidates have different opinions, it seems that it would take a lot to create a solution that would last to this problem. It is a very attainable goal, it will just take time. Every argument has it’s points, civil rights, definitions, and development, respectively. Each argument also has its weaknesses, certainly less clear cut. One argument is not necessarily stronger than the other, as it is a matter of belief, and opinion. One unique thing about this issue is that everyone has something to say about it. No matter how politically inactive or disinterested, everyone has an opinion. This is something that can be solved and can be solved properly, it just takes some critical thinking. Hopefully a solution is on the horizon.

SWA12

Doug Pavlowsky
English 101, Section 056
October 22, 2007
Short Writing Assignment #12
Essentials of Argument pp 85-86 1-5
1. My current writing process involves finding out what I have to say as I write my first draft. After I have all of my ideas down I will often move paragraphs around, and tailor them to fit where they best belong, as well as tweaking the content of the paper.
2. An outline will organize your ideas, eliminate writer’s block, and tell you what to write about next.
3. One strategy is to look at your draft as a whole. This way you are reading it in a different format than when you wrote it originally. This will allow you to look more deeply into transitions and the clarity of your ideas. Another strategy is asking yourself revision questions. This will help to collect your thoughts and revise with a purpose rather than just reading over it and saying it looks good. The last strategy is check for final errors add the title, etcetera. This is just a final touch up on fine details of your paper to make sure everything is perfect before handing it in.
4. The exploratory paper defines all the possible viewpoints and selects one. From that you can further develop your chosen viewpoint and decide what needs to be done.
5. Possible peer review strategies include going through a checklist of sorts and looking at parts of the paper or just looking at the paper as a whole and talking about it. A peer review is good because someone on the same intellectual level as you is looking at the paper, but is still an outsider without the same preconceived notions as you.

Page 260 Question 4

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that in past centuries when people hunted, gathered, or even cooked their own food (rather than having the line chef at McD's do it for them) it was considered a symbol of status to be not just hefty, but even fat. Looking into the past when "eating like a king" was a literal expression, because if you were a king, you could afford to eat big meals, and for the most part, no one else could afford it. The king was fat, everyone else was skinny. Only the rich could afford to be fat. In other words, fat was hard, skinny was easy. Nowadays its basically a 180. Fat is easy, skinny is hard. So in the past everyone wanted to be fat, now everyone wants to be skinny.

As stated in "Eat This Now!" there is enough food produced daily for every American to consume 3,900 calories every day. 3,900. Ok. Now go look at the "nutrition facts" on the back of any food you can find. If you'll notice it all says "based on a 2,000 calorie a day diet" to maintain a healthy weight, 2,000 calories a day is ideal. 3,900 is not. Now clearly not all people consume their entire 3,900 calories, but as Ms. Brink and Ms. Querna stated, if the food didn't get consumed we wouldn't be producing that much. So basically, if one day I don't step up to the 3,900 calorie plate (plate both literally and figuratively), and only eat 3,500, that means that on average, someone else is going above and beyond the call of duty and eat 4,300 calories. What a ridiculous thought.

In the olden days of fat kings and skinny peasants, three meals a day was a farfetched dream. Nearly unnatainable for 99% of the population. Average Americans today eat five. The culture has changed. People want to be skinny, they really do. Unfortunately most of america (about 2/3s according to Mr. Rosenwald) has decided that instant gratification and comfort are more appealing than their desire to be skinny.

I'm going to close this in a semi-rant, directed at everyone who says the marketing geniuses in the world make it an unfair uphill battle, and that once you are fat it is simply not possible, because "I just get so hungry." I'm calling you out right now. You see that perfectly placed candy bar at the grocery store? So do I. Do you think that us skinny people don't like candy? I know I do. But I don't buy it. I get hungry, that's a function of life. Everyone gets hungry. Deal with it. In the end if you're overweight, thats fine with me, just don't complain about how you're trying to lose weight but you just can't do it because there's too much money going into advertising food. It's a cop out. Take control of your life. If that was a fair argument you could say "But officer, there's so much money going into advertising alcohol, it's not my fault that I'm hammered, send Annheiser Busch that DUI ticket, it's their fault. I just get so thirsty"

annotative bibliography... not formated correctly... thanks blogger

Hausknecht, Murray. "Gay Marriage: the Third Option." Dissent 52 (2007): 9-10. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.

This article talks about New Jersey’s ruling on civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage. This states that homosexual couples should be treated like married couples in all ways. They can adopt children, get tax breaks, get workmen’s compensation, they can even change their name without a petition. I will use this as an example that I think the rest of the country should follow. That way it protects the “sacred institution of marriage” and still gives homosexuals equal rights and protection.

"Massachusetts May Vote on Gay Marriage in 2008." Contemporary Sexuality Mar. 2007: 16. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.

This short article talks about the possible vote on gay marriage in Massachusetts. It says that polls show that 62% of Massachusetts’ voters are against an anti-gay marriage amendment. If that’s the case, then all of the already married same-sex couples from Massachusetts will stay married. I will use this to show that there is a substantial amount of support for gay marriage, but I will make sure to be wary of the fact that it may just be people’s unwillingness to change, and not their belief that gay marriage is right.

Penn, Denise. "Judge Dissolves Civil Union & Awards Visitation to Lesbian." Lesbian News Jul. 2007: 11. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.

This article looks at a case where same sex marriage ended badly. It wasn’t a marriage, but rather a civil union, broken up after a year. Three years later custody was still up in the air, and the civil union was not officially dissolved. I will use this source to show that it will take much more thought and effort until our society is ready to legalize same sex marriage.

Philips, Matthew. "Anglican Angst." Newsweek 150 (2007): 12. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.

This Newsweek article looks at a recent meeting of the heads of the Episcopal Church. The meeting was to determine an official stance on gay marriage. The result of the meeting was not much. According to the author, there were moves made to “exercise constraint” when consecrating homosexual bishops, and the Church decided not to bless homosexual marriage. They did, however, leave a fair amount of discretion to the individual priest as to whether or not they would bless the union. This source will be used to show that the once strong religious stronghold against gay marriage might just be deterioration. This shows the weakness in the point of view of the “Religious Right” and helps to strengthen the point of view against gay marriage, but for civil unions

Scott, Cameron. "The Gay Marriage Stimulus Package." Mother Jones Mar.-Apr. 2007. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.

This piece gives statistics as to what we would stand to gain as a country economically by legalizing gay marriage. It shows how much more money the federal government would be bringing in annually via taxes, cuts in Medicaid, insurance savings, and even the effects on the wedding industry. I will use this source to show what good can come of legalizing same sex marriage, and how much it can increase our economy.

Walker, Jesse. "Disney Legalizes Same Sex Unions." Reason June 2007: 61-67. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.

This article was particularly interesting to me. It states that Disney Land, Disney World, and even Disney Cruises are now giving same sex couples the same fairy tale weddings they always offered to heterosexual couples. This shows that the country is really coming into a new era of feelings toward gay marriage. When such a big corporation takes it upon themselves to do what they believe is right is really a huge step. Disney surpassed the state and decided that they would do it themselves. I will use this source to emphasize the rising tolerance for gay marriage.

Walters, Suzanna Danuta. "Threat Level Lavender: the Truthiness of Gay Marriage." Chronicle of Higher Education 19 Jan. 2007: b12-b14. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.

This piece shows rising support for gay marriage throughout our country, as well as the world as a whole. It states that Massachusetts and New Jersey both have some form of legal union, as well as stating South Africa, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada. The author states the conflict very well, as being between “the brave warriors of the Christian Right” and our brand new “Hero of civil rights.” The author also clearly states that as a civil rights issue, gay marriage is not an issue. To deny the union of two people based on sexual orientation is ridiculous. I will use this source to reinforce several of my own ideas, such as the one mentioned in the previous two sentences.

Wockner, Rex. "Republican San Diego Mayor Announces His Daughter is a Lesbian, Embraces Same-Sex Marriage." Lesbian News Oct. 2007: 10. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.

This article from the “Lesbian News” will tells the story of the Mayor of San Diego, whose daughter came out, and he immediately embraced gay marriage for the first time. This is interesting because it shows that emotion has much to do with this decision, rather than personal beliefs of the policy maker himself. Sure he embraces the idea of gay marriage now, but only because of a strong personal tie, not because he feels that it is right in itself. What the mayor is doing here is simply trying to justify his daughter’s actions, not necessarily make a decision for the good of the people.

SWA11

Carolina Reader Chapter 2, Question 5
The first essay, “Matters of Faith Find a New Prominence on Campus,” made the claim that religion is growing on campus. The first cause stated was that the religious right is growing, and therefore making religion a more acceptable place to go for students. Another cause mention was that baby boomers have decided not to press religion on their kids like their parents did them. This in turn makes kids more receptive to trying to discover it for themselves come college.
The second essay, “Schools of Thought: The Liberal-Conservative Divide on College Campuses,” claimed that conservative beliefs are rising in college campuses. Liberalism is still stronger, but the divide is shrinking. This is because conservatives have several strong organizations that feed young republicans into good organizations after college. Another causal statement was that liberal groups are often very radical, which can scare people away, as well as very narrow and specific. This causes a split in the liberals as a whole, hurting their strength, while conservatives are more, well, conservative with their demands.
“The College Dropout Boom” claimed that college dropout rates are increasingly high among lower income families. This is because many colleges have limited resources allocated toward need based scholarships. Another cause of this is what is known as the “factory work ethic” where it is looked down upon to “waste your time” in college. It is instead thought of as better in some low income industrial towns to get right to work after high school, or even sooner. A final cause is that once you drop out, or even just “take a break,” it’s not easy to go back.

Sources for Gay Marriage

ok... none of these links work anymore... i guess i shouldnt be surprised... but it looks like ill be finding entirely new sources.

1. http://wf2dnvr5.webfeat.org/pdahI1187/url=http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085701
2. http://wf2dnvr4.webfeat.org/RXZhI1565/url=http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141528
3. http://wf2dnvr5.webfeat.org/pdahI1349/url=http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=120&sid=eccfd20e-8b9b-427f-997a-36726b1b60a0%40sessionmgr109
4. http://wf2dnvr5.webfeat.org/pdahI1364/url=http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf19_22/pdf/2007/NCR/23Mar07/24593152.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=24593152&EbscoContent=dGJyMMvl7ESep7M4zdnyOLCmrk%2beqLBSrqm4SbWWxWXSAAAA&ContentCustomer=&S=R&D=aph
5. http://wf2dnvr3.webfeat.org/

Topic proposal: Gay marriage

Marriage is defined by Dictionary.com as “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, and etcetera.” This definition excludes the possibility of two men or two women becoming “married.” The real question is whether or not this is right. Of course, everyone’s viewpoint and reasoning on this topic is a little bit different.
One common viewpoint is that everyone has the right to marry whomever they please. The main points behind this argument are as follows. Why should a man marrying a man be any different from a man marrying a woman? There is a common argument posing the question “why worry about it if it isn’t even going to affect you?” Another argument for this side is that it is unfair for gay couples, because they cannot get the same financial benefits of marriage that straight couples can get. This argument is centered on equal rights to all people and allowing people to express their love for each other however they please.
Both of the other two mainstream arguments are against gay marriage. The more moderate of the two is against gay “marriage” because marriage is commonly thought of as a religious bond, and every mainstream religion is staunchly against homosexuality. This view does, however, entertain the idea of homosexual “civil unions.” In this scenario the couple would not be officially “married” but instead they would be granted the financial and civil rights of a married couple, including tax breaks and other perks.
The final view is much more extreme and comes from mostly a “far right,” oftentimes religious standpoint. It says that homosexuality is wrong, and that that gays should not be allowed to be married or granted civil unions, simply because it is wrong. This idea also argues that if gay couples are allowed to adopt children, or have children through any type of artificial insemination, the children’s development will be severely affected by this, and it will be detrimental to their mental health and maturation process.

Smoking Bans

What are the affects of the bans on smoking?
Restaraunt revenues
Do humans have the right to decide if they smoke or not?
Is second hand smoke as detrimental to human health as first hand smoking?
Cloud of smoke outside of bars/restaraunts
Are cigarette companies being cheated?
Where did the ban originate?
Where is smoking allowed?
What is the main impetus for banning smoking?
What are some key arguments for allowing smoking?
What are some key arguments for stricter smoking bans?

SWA9

Post Secret
I created a post secret card about the “Take Your Professor to Lunch” program that we have here at USC. My University 101 class requires me to take a professor to lunch through this program, but if it did not, I certainly would not have done it on my own. My message was explicitly stated, and that is that “I don’t care about my professor,” and that “I have to do this for U101.” The background of my card was the information sheet for the take your professor to lunch program. I used this because it shows that I am going to participate in this program, even though I don’t care to. The people in my group seemed to catch my message, which was expected since there wasn’t a whole lot to read in to. No one seemed to look beyond what I was trying to say, everyone seemed to understand my card in full.

SWA8

Post Secret
The Post Secret Card I chose to analyze is the one that reads “I am a well respected spiritual medium. I have never seen or spoken to a ghost in my life. Neither have the other ‘mediums’ I’ve met. We’re all liars!” This one intrigued me the most because it was something that not only told a secret about the author, but also people in the same profession as the author. The text is obviously the message in the card. The explicit claim is that all mediums are liars. The implicit claim is possibly that Ouija boards are also scams, as that is the picture in the background of this Post Secret Card. The author is a medium, which is explicitly stated. This lends credibility to the statement, because a medium is the only one that can truly tell you whether or not a medium is a liar. The audience for this card is the same as the audience for anyone on this site, and that is anyone that visits this site. This is apparent based simply on the purpose of the site, which is to vent. The visual component of this card just displays an Ouija board, which I suppose is a method that mediums use when speaking with ghosts. This is just one example of how mediums are liars.

Advertisement

I found an advertisement located on the back page of the zipsheet, a coupon/advertisement type newspaper handed out on campus. It is an ad for the Wingzone, a delivery food business that serves wings and other "bar type" foods.

The intended audience is clearly the college student, as it is handed out on a college campus. This audience works well, not only because the average college student (particularly male) loves chicken wings, but also because of the fact that it is handed out for free on a college campus. Two facts make this advertisement especially well aimed. One is that college students are the only demographic that take things that are handed to them on the street, be it fliers or coupons or even the Bibles that were handed out this past week. The other important fact to consider is that college students are stingy. Money is always going to be tight when your out from under your parents financial umbrella (even if only a little bit) for the first time.

The claim is simple, but not stated, and that is that you can get good chicken wings delivered cheaply.

SWA7

Larry Gordon and Louis Sahagun wrote “Gen Y’s Ego Trip Takes a Bad Turn” to say that what Alex Williams wrote about is completely wrong. The claim in this paper is that the new generation is completely in love with themselves and hungry for nothing but success. We don’t want to help people, we just want to do things for our own benefit. The claim is backed up by a large scale study that shows a steady increase in narcissism since 1982. The claim is also backed up by quotes from high ranking pundits in the college scene, such as professors, researchers, and authors, whose opinions you must hold in high regard in order to understand the claim.
The opposing viewpoints are laid out very strategically in this essay. The authors acknowledged the fact that there was an opposing viewpoint, and pretended to display someone with that viewpoint when they quoted Marc Flacks as saying that narcissism is too harsh of a word, and that this me first attitude was necessary. Flacks wasn’t disagreeing with their claim. He was just saying that it was necessary.

SWA6

In “Realistic Idealists” by Alex Williams, the author goes through different reasons why the new generation may be doing so much community service. It is Mr. Williams’ claim that the children of baby boomers are doing community service, not necessarily for good college applications, or to meet graduation requirements, but instead because they actually want to help people. Williams provides the example of Greg Becker and Michael Swirnow, who met their high school graduation requirement of 40 hours twelve and a half times, by doing 500 hours of community service.
Mr. Williams’ main warrants are simply that you must understand that no one would spend 500 hours doing community service just to look good. Even if it gets you into the college of your choice, wouldn’t two or three hundred hours have the same effect? The biggest problem I had with this essay is the lack of opposing viewpoints. Williams barely touched on anything other than his own point of view, and when he did it wasn’t refuted with any kind of detail.

Ugly, The American central claim

James Poniewozik's central claim states,
"On ABC's hit comedy-soap Ugly Betty, she's a fashion magaizne assistant who is distinctly unfashionable- chunky sweaters, frizzy hair, bear-trap braces- but succeeds through good old Yankee values like perseverence, optimism, and hard work" Page 154

My central claim reads,
"This paper is written from a definitive argument style, where Mr. Poniewozik breaks down the key terms, such as American and immigrant, and defines them. He then uses these definitions, in combination with examples to prove his point" Page 1

My revised central claim is,
The author uses a claim of definition in this argument, where he defines the words "American" and "Immigrant" and shows how Ugly Betty reflects each of these.

My conclusion says,
"America is a melting pot. It was these beliefs that the United States were founded on, and Poniewozik believes that these are the beliefs that should continue to shine through our culture" Page 3

Ugly, the American

The piece I decided to do my literary analysis on was "Ugly, the American," by James Poniewozik

I. Logos- The deduction method is used here- Author has the idea that people like Betty, and then deduces why "It is easier to hate a straw man- or a straw mexican- than a person"
II. Ethos- The author is a Media and television critic by profession
III. Pathos- This piece was written to show that everyone doesn't hate immigrants themselves, and that a lot of people hate the idea of immigrants more than the immigrants themselves

The piece that I read and decided not to analyze was "Eat This Now!" by Susan Brink and Elizabeth Querna

I decided it was not the most fitting piece mainly because I personally disagree with many of the key points, as well as the fact that multiple authors, without information on either of them would not make the author segments easy to establish.

SWA5

Making a Killing
Mike White’s “Making a Killing,” portrayed all the elements of rhetoric quite nicely. The most prominent element, in my opinion was exigence. This, however, is rather obvious being that every essay in this chapter is spawned from the Virginia Tech shootings.
The text element is a rather simple one. The essay is written for the New York Times, shortly after the incident occurred, in order to give weary defense to the violent film industry. White stated that while most of his childhood sleepovers surrounded the watching of unnecessarily violent films, “nobody ever got shot in the face in my backyard.” After establishing that point however he later moves on to ask the violent film industry to stop and think before cashing those big checks. While White’s paper does come across as wishy-washy, there are clear supporting details to all of his arguments.
The targeted audience is the New York Times readers, obviously. More importantly, White intended to reach those people who were trying to blame the violent film industry for the killings. White was quick in notifying his audience that the industry was aware of its possible role in the 32 deaths at Virginia Tech. He did want to make it known that the film industry was not entirely to blame for this madness. While he admits that the statement “movies don’t kill people, lunatics kill people,” gives a, possibly exaggerated, sense of freedom to the screenwriters, he implicitly states that it is not the movies that cause people how to act the way they do. Not in such an extreme way at least.
The author is a key part of this piece, more so than most. The fact that Mike White is himself a screenwriter gives much more credit to his standing up and saying that these movies, while not killing anyone of their own accord, may be immoral. It is a lot easier to call out someone else or their profession than it is to stand up and say that you are wrong. If White was more definitive with his argument it would lend even more credit than it currently does.
The last sentence of the essay outlines one of the major constraints in this essay. White is reluctant to call out his own profession, for obvious reasons. After all, you would be fairly reluctant to agree with someone who claimed that teaching English to college students was detrimental to society. Of course that is a ridiculous statement, but portrays a similar situation. Another main constraint that White has is his forum. The New York Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world. With political correctness being a huge issue in such a widely read paper, coupled with how fresh the events were in everyone’s mind, White had to be very careful not to step on any toes while writing this essay.
Lastly the exigence: on the surface this was written as a response to the terrible events of Virginia Tech. When you read further, you will see that the true motivation is to gently scold the violent film industry, citing current events as evidence. This argument has been played over and over again, and will continue to be so every time something catastrophic happens such as these shootings. Unfortunately, until someone comes up with a new argument, or a new angle to work, it really has all been said.

SWA2

Reflection on Seeking Balance in an Either or World by Kathleen Parker
Ms. Parker wrote what I believe to be an incredibly profound and incredibly astute essay, which if nothing else, voices my political beliefs perfectly. When I was reading Ms. Parker’s essay, it was was almost a sense of déjà vu. I could feel my rising frustration with people who claim that uhh being moderate is hypocritical or even yellow-bellied. I firmly believe that picking and choosing your beliefs by issues is infinitely more honest and daring than just choosing a political party and following whatever they say you should follow.
The abortion segment of Ms. Parker’s essay was very interesting to me, as it was a notion that I was, to this point, unfamiliar with. I had always seen abortion as a black or white, legal or illegal issue, not a ‘legal but discouraged’ situation. Ms. Parker really opened my eyes to the fact that we could have something legal, and still discourage, or at least educate against it. If we could place more emphasis on safe sex education and absenense, then we can lower the amount of abortions necessary. Legalizing abortion would satisfy those “what if she was raped?” or “what if the condom broke?” questions. This is just one way to take a very moderate approach to a question that is traditionally very black and white.
I also love the reference to John P. Avlon’s thoughts that being “on the fence” is the most patriotic thing we can do. Cutting everything down to the skin and bones, liberals want to change things in the constitution easily and as soon as it is deemed necessary. Conservatives, however, want to keep everything in the constitution just the way it is. Well I must say, since I first learned what the constitution was in second grade, I was taught that the American government was, and still is, so powerful because it was founded on a “living document.” This means that the constitution can be changed to fit the times, while still maintaining its identity entirely. That sounds pretty fifty-fifty to me.
So as I said, reading this essay felt like deja vu. I felt the same before I read it as a do now, I was just seeking that reinforcement to my beliefs. I guess when it comes down to it, Matt Miller was right. Persuasion just may be dead.

SWA4

Ideas and Facebook
David Friedman’s blog “Ideas” is very different from my facebook. The differences mainly come in the area of the text. The purpose of my, or most other facebooks is mainly social, while Mr. Friedman’s blog is a forum to discuss new ideas and strategies, such as the idea of an automated window opening system based on the external and internal temperatures of a house. There are, however, differences and similarities in all five TRACE fields
The text has the most obvious differences. As previously stated, the purpose is completely different. A facebook page has information about the author of the page, as well as a list of “friends,” and the world renowned wall. The blog “Ideas” did have a small section about the author, with a link to more information, but that was not a main component of the page. The bulk of the page was a post by the Mr. Friedman, and the reader responses. Similarities were few and far between, but the main one I saw was the reader comments alongside of the wall. While the former is more structured and purposed, and the latter more random and social, both contain comments by the readers of the blog, and normally without author interference, at least not on the same page.
The audience category holds the main amount of similarity between my facebook and Mr. Friedman’s blog. In this particular post on Mr. Friedman’s blog the audience seems very in tune with the lingo, therefore making it a discourse community. Likewise, the audience for my facebook is made up of people who I either live with currently on campus, or have spent a fair amount of time with previously, and thereby also constitute a discourse community. The differences only come into effect when you look at the nature of the discourse communities. Friedman’s blog is made up of people, who probably do not know each other discussing ideas in order to accomplish a purpose or task. In retrospect, my facebook is made up of people, most of which know each other, and are simply discussing things for the sake of discussing them and to experience socialization with others in the same discourse group.
The author section obviously holds great differences, but there were some similarities. The motivation of Mr. Friedman is to spread his ideas to a broad base of people, while my motive when creating a facebook was to communicate with people that I already know, or am soon going to know. Certain similarities did surface in the credentials of both authors, as stated in the “About me” section of Friedman’s blog, he has not taken a course for credit in either of the fields that he most commonly practices. So officially his credentials while writing the blog are about the same as mine for my facebook. The difference is that no one expects someone to have certain training or knowledge before trusting something on their facebook, while a blog with technical ideas is more likely to be trusted and it would be expected that the author was trustworthy.
There are several similarities when it comes to the constraints of both the blog and my facebook. These similarities come into play in the “wall” or “comments” area. The basic constraint is the author’s lack of response within the page. While the author may respond directly to the comments of readers, it is not usually located directly on the page, and is handled separately, and sometimes privately. The one difference I see in the constraints is that author’s don’t respond for different reasons. On facebook you don’t respond because writing on your own wall is socially unacceptable, and you should instead create a new post on the reader’s own wall. On Mr. Friedman’s blog he does not respond most likely because he wants to allow his readers to debate among themselves without his interference, in order to get a more non-biased opinion of his ideas.
Exigence is an interesting category in this argument, mainly because most facebooks, at least mine, do not address a specific argument. Mr. Friedman’s blog was caused by a search for a cheap way to cool a house. The only thing close to an argument that my facebook displays is the problem of communication, which it solves very well. So while maybe not in perfect definition, exigence is still a factor between the two to an extent.
So while the differences clearly outweigh the similarities in the two types of forums discussed here, there are some distinct similarities. Most importantly both are a means of networking and communicating. While the internet is often associated with the evils of scamming, impulse buying, and hundreds of other things, part of it is still good, and these good things will continue to fuel the advocates of a more social, internet based world that can accommodate both progressive thinking and socialization.

SWA3

Adversarial Argument
My personal argument style is adversarial. I can picture myself as a lawyer arguing a point to the bitter end, no matter how unwilling to believe my audience is. I do, however, have a small amount of consensual traits, mainly in the fact that I will not take up a point that I do not believe in fully. In the case of being uncertain on a case I am happy to take up a dialectic method, and try to figure out what is the most sensible answer to the issue in front of me.
My adversarial qualities vastly outweigh all other types of argument that I exercise. Most issues that I come upon I can find a point in that I believe in firmly, and I will happily argue that point as long as someone is willing to oppose me. I do not like to fight with anyone, but I do like to try to convince people of things, and to make my viewpoints very well known. I will not hesitate to share my viewpoint on a topic with anyone, even if I know that they are opposed to those viewpoints.
The consensual segment of my arguing style comes in to play in a few areas as well though. I am not afraid to admit when I have lost an argument, but I still defend certain areas where I do not believe that I was incorrect. Also, I am not afraid to announce weaknesses in my arguments. For instance: I will argue until I am blue in the face that stricter gun control could only help our country. I will however admit that there is no way to illegalize guns while also getting all currently existing guns off the streets. Gun control is still important to me, and I believe that if we can figure out the one flaw in my argument, than we can successfully control guns. So I am willing to admit weakness, while still being very opinionated on my topic.
I think that my style of argument is the best, because it is necessary to have an opinion that you are willing to argue in order to get anywhere in society. It is, however, important to know where your argument has holes, because if you cannot recognize the holes in your argument you will never be able to fill them with strategy and fact. If you feel strongly about a view that you have, and can defend it in an argument, than you should never give it up. If you find that your argument has too many holes in it to successfully argue to any extent, it could be a sign that your current position is not the one that you should be arguing.

SWA1

Professor Skube wrote the essay “Writing off Reading” to make the point that high school graduates and college students alike do not have the same appreciation for the English language, whether it be reading, writing, or just vocabulary, that they should based on their level of education. Skube claims that he can use words such as “impetus,” “advocate,” or “brevity,” and baffle a group of college students at “our better private universities and flagship state schools.” I simply do not believe that this is the case.
Allow me to clarify: I understand fully that kids simply are not reading. To assign a novel to be read in class is more than most high school seniors are willing to put up with, and several will get the Spark Notes version and still only skim that. That being said I do think that Skube is a bit exaggerated in his claims. The word “lucid” is just not going to stump many students attending highly respected colleges. Even kids that didn’t make it all the way to the college level of education understand the meaning of the word novel, in both senses of the word. I do, however, believe that college students as a whole do most likely stumble over a very select group of words.
Professor Hagstette’s idea of aggressive reading is certainly an interesting one. If a student can get excited and willing enough to learn the subject matter, it would be one of the best possible ways to do that; and once a student begins to read more aggressively it will certainly increase their vocabulary, along with their understanding of the subject matter. If a student cannot get interested enough to commit themselves to reading an item multiple times, that is simply an example of the student’s lack of appreciation for the language. It is an endless cycle that a student can only get out of by commitment. Distractions need to be minimal, and focus high, but if a young scholar is truly committed to success, aggressive reading is, in my opinion, the best way to not just get a grade, but to get a little something more out of the subject matter.