Revisions

The chat room is a good resource to use inside and outside of the classroom. By utilizing a chat room you can talk with lots of different people all at once. The chat room can provide a learning environment outside of the classroom. A lot of classes around campus have the chat rooms set up privately for only the students registered in that class. This is a security device that makes sure people who do not belong to that particular class do not gain access to them. Chat rooms provide a break from the school environment, a stress release, and allow a space to meet new people.


The purpose of canines in the police force is to provide an alternative to excessive and deadly force and they are clearly a more suitable and effective alternative to weapons. In Los Angeles the use of dogs in the police force has been rejected, and the use of weapons is preferred. Dogs at one point served as the preferred alternative to excessive force around housing developments off campus for students attending the University of California Los Angeles. Although suspects have claimed to be badly bitten, these cases are extremely rare compared to the many documented good deeds and rescues involving human lives performed by police canines.

Saving the World

This is how arguments should be made. People that know what they are talking about expressing their opinions in a logical and precise way. Moore just so happens to be a co-founder of Greenpeace and he supports nuclear power. If that doesn't give him credibility I dont know what will. He brings up each and every alternative viewpoint or contradicting statement and manages to shoot them all down with ease. He explains how other methods are unreliable, other targets are more vulnerable to attack, and other materials are just as dangerous. This man knows what he is talking about and gives a great argument. Kitman didnt really do it for me. Maybe because he cant really stand in comparison to talking about power sources to what kind of car to drive. Dont get me wrong, being environmentally friendly is great and all, but finding a new power source to fuel the world seems to be a little more important. And while Kitman may be quite knowledgable about cars, his title isnt nearly as impressive. Either way, he has a great argument about hybrid cars not being exactly what they claim to be, which is just another example of people getting caught up in a good idea. But thats the beauty of capitalism right? being able to be sold anything. Anyway, this Kitman guy points out a bunch of flaws, but doesnt exactly point out how to resolve this issue with an alternative method. But I guess he is doing his part just by informing the public. Overall, these two really new what they were talking about and were quite convincing in the argument of it.

Global Warming

While both Kluger and Lindzen discuss global warming in their articles, they have a very different way of going about it. Kluger seems to think that man is the sole reason for global warming through production of CO2 and all aspects of global warming dangerous derive from that. Basically he thinks that the end of the world will be natural disasters caused by mankind's CO2 production. Lindzen seems to think that the whole idea is overplayed, but then again he seems to have a biased opinion. His work got shot down and now he seems to think that global warming is some big scam and people make it into a bigger deal that it is. To his credit, he does give CO2 some responsibility for environmental damage. I think that Lindzen is just whining and his paper is ineffective because the language and lack of evidence give it less credibility than Kluger gives lots of facts and treats the issue in a more respectful way.

Topic Proposal

Science is moving at an exponential rate. The achievements being made all the time are completely incomparable to those made only a decade ago. But while advancement is always approved of, why has no one stopped to ask if society can handle it? With war and conflict all over the world and politics in shambles it seems as though technology should slow down and wait for people to catch up. Cloning will mean such a huge leap forward and will put so much responsibility in everyone's hands that I dont think we as a people are even close to reaching that goal.

To put this policy into effect, there primarily needs to be legislation banning any and all forms of cloning. Is should also be fed into the media of how cloning is bad. While the majority of people dont like cloning, very few voice their opinion and that could be our downfall. People need to be educated about this before it can be fought. I have plenty of resources that can show this.

Perspective

The three different sides to cloning are that cloning is bad all around, some cloning is acceptable, and cloning as a whole should be accepted. As of now, none of the perspectives are dominant because I tried to keep it unbiased. The one I plan on making dominant is that cloning should be stopped as a whole because science cannot keep continuing at this pace with the world as unstable as it is. The possibility of catastrophe is high. With the right legislation and social acceptance it will eventually work out for the better.

Campus Issues

I think campus issues are extremely small in the scheme of things and I cant think of a topic that actually interests me. But I will stick with parking, for arguements sake. The situation is ridiculous, blah blah blah. There are far too many students that need parking and not enough spaces. There are constantly cars in circulation loosing their spots because so many people need a place to park. It has even come to drastic measures and people are parking in commerical lots off campus such as Food Lion and making the walk. The campus needs to create far more parking spaces and open up some that they have.


* Well the campus is in a city so space is definitely limited to where they can just throw up a random parking garage or lot. And these things take time. The students this year want one overnight and it just cant happen like that. Arent they already building new garages? I am pretty sure they are. Then why is everyone still complaining?

Swearing, The Language of Love

While Achenbach and Reilly have esentially the same message that swear words are becoming too widespread, Reilly is a little girl about it and says we should try and take them out all together while Achenbach says we should preserve the power of the F bomb so that it can be used to its full potential. Achenbach definitely has the right idea. Swear words have power for a reason and we cant just throw them away. If we did, what obsenities would we scream during moments of extreme pain?

Dead People, Again

This may be morbid, but its the only thing I can think about when you say "change perspective." My grandpa died a few months ago. I had always been so conforming in my views on death such as "we need to mourn at the funeral" and "I wish they didnt have to go because I didnt want them to" which is pretty much the mindset of the majority of people. This was until I saw grandpa die. He had a brain tumor and the whole family was at the hospital and everyone was freaking out even though he was definitely old enough to be dying. Then as I watched his body squirm and flail around while he was gasping for air, I realized he looked just like a fish out of water. After he died and I had to go through the funeral proceedings and all the other issues that synonomously come with death, I realized that it is all over done. I mean, what the heck. People die, lets get over it. Every time someone dies its like "I never saw it coming." Of course you saw it coming, you see it every day in the news all the time. Death is in our lives every second and yet people still cant get over it. We need to let the dead be dead.

Review

I already realize that my main goal isnt very specific in the intro paragraph and I could really use more citations throughout the body, so we can skip that. I might not have used enough facts and information either. It might be because there is just so much to say and not enough room to say it.

Dead People

This is going to be touchy, but I dont care anymore. I am tired of people dying and then instantly being put into some throne of glory because they are dead. Just because someone dies it doesnt immediately make them the nicest person ever with the greatest ambitions anyone ever had. For instance, reading the biographies about the six fire victims it said that at least three of them had the biggest heart and was the nicest person, while another combination of three had an amazing life ahead of them. Thats another thing, now that they arent around we can assume their life would have been perfect to ease the minds of others. How do you know? They could have ended up to be homeless or worse, but it doesnt matter, they must have been pretty freaking amazing since they died, right? Dont get me wrong, I think we should say nice stuff about people to help them be remembered, but how about real stuff for a change? I dont want to hear the same vague facts about every single dead person, I want to hear the little trivial facts that made them stand out and hopefully made them a good person. Lets try to liven up the dead.

Image

The number one thing contructing the people's view of image is the media. As cliche as it sounds, it will really be the death of us to sit back and let the unknown "they" tell us how to look, while at the same time destroy us. First off, the main goal is to sell, which is again severely over-said. The television tells people that they are ugly and need product X to be more socially acceptable. Everyone sees product X and decides they need to 1-up each other, so everyone buys it. Then at the same exact time, everyone is told how delicious product Y is. Without the taste explosion of product Y how can one ever live a full and complete life? And all this talk about how unacceptable one is, is just enough to make one crave that product Y to feel good. Then down the road after product Y has done its damage because of the vast assortment of vile ingredients in it such as unknown compounds and enough calories to feed a third world country, one will realize yet again how socially unacceptable they are and go back to product X in one of its many forms. And the convenience is what will really be the death of mankind. In our modern day society it is easier than every to kill oneself without even realizing it. Exercise is becoming a long forgotten practice and food is more important than ever. To think of the chemicals flowing through the bodies of the masses that have been pumped into them by the massive entity known as "commericalized production." But what does it matter if we are systematically killing ourselves off right? The television says we arent happy anyway.

Annotations

“CLONING Some are put off by the notion of 'Frankenstein science” Sunday Tasmanian (Australia), August 20, 2006 Sunday, Pg. 25
This article gives a broad overview to the definition of cloning and the two different types of it. There are many important events listed in the development of cloning and legislation being passed. While therapeutic cloning is predominately discussed because of its greater appearance in current issues, the author seems to be neutral on the subject. The basic definitions and the obvious good and bad that could come with cloning are a good foundation for my research.

Abbott, Jillian “Meanings blurred in science's mad rush to clone” Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) August 25, 2006 Friday, Pg. 13
Abbott just straight up says that no cloning can be good cloning. She believes that any type of cloning will essentially lead to the same thing and therefore no types should be allowed. The author seems to attack one specific scientist and his motives, without giving much if any facts or statistics to back anything up. The vocabulary used is unconventional and not made for a formal piece of writing. The targeted audience is obviously a more radical group of people that already don’t believe in cloning. But while this article is completely biased, it brings up a good point. There is a fine line between what exactly cloning is, and no one seems to be comfortable enough to actually define what is what.

Burke, Nicolette “Cloning a 'slippery slope to disaster” The Daily Telegraph (Australia), September 5, 2006 Tuesday, Pg. 13
This article also discusses how therapeutic cloning is only one step away from reproductive cloning, but instead of an emotional tirade, it gives evidence to back its claims up. It says that using embryos could easily turn into cloning children. So while there were a slew of scientists trying to reject therapeutic cloning, one man was given millions to work on adult stem cell research. I assume this is an attempt to shift research from embryos to another source to not have to worry about the cloning issue. This is more professionally written and definitely gives a more educated and information source.

Lamb, Gregory M. “How Cloning Stacks Up” Christian Science Monitor, July 13, 2006, Thursday, Pg. 13
Lamb talks about how controversial cloning as a whole is and how extremely unlikely it’s success will ever be. He also discusses the huge battle over therapeutic cloning and how it doesn’t really seem to be making headway one way or the other. The best part about this source is the detailed list of chronological events that have affected cloning over the years. The author seems very neutral and the piece is extremely informative. The dates, quotes, and facts will be priceless to my paper.

Niall, Hugh “Cloning: Why We Need It” The Age (Melbourne, Australia), December 21, 2005 Wednesday, Pg. 15
Though the title of this article seems to differ from my point, it actually brings up all of the opposing arguments of its own side and therefore lays out all the answers. Niall attempts to explain all the advantages cloning could have in curing diseases, but ends up spending most of his time explaining what people have problems with, and not seeming to defend his side in any way. This article gives concrete reasoning behind the downside of cloning and shows many examples of legislation and political acts that are attempting to fight it.

Kerridge, Ian; Schofield, Peter; Skene, Loane “Five myths of therapeutic cloning” Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), November 27, 2006 Monday, Pg. 9
Kerridge shows that yet again success can lie within the opposition thorough his use of setting up the “Five myths of cloning” and stammering through the answers without giving any facts or even good reasoning to back it up. The inability to defend the counterexample is showing great fault in the logic behind it, and helping my argument in ways I could only have hoped for. And again, this article seems to be unprofessionally written and not exactly made for a high class newspaper. The intended audience would have to be people that know only so much about cloning and don’t care enough to read about facts and evidence when they can hear someone rant.

McDowell, Doctor Melaine “Double trouble; Put aside the myths and take a real look at clones” The Advertiser (Australia), July 29, 2006 Saturday, Pg. W02
This article has nothing but facts. It starts at a very basic level explaining the definition of the types of cloning and how each is done and then gives scientific descriptions of them. The facts are so concrete and yet unbiased that it gives a great basis for what cloning really is. And it tells it like it is, giving the examples of how cloning has been used to heal and help in the medical field, but has been vastly unsuccessful as far as reproduction. The best part about this article is the facts it gives that I have yet to see anywhere else, and that it is completely unbiased by politics, not even mentioning the popular opinion on this matter.

Caulfield, Timothy “Ten years after Dolly: the lessons” The Globe and Mail (Canada), February 21, 2007 Wednesday, Pg. A21
Caulfield really tries to show all of the controversy behind cloning. Though not really taking a side on the issue, he does show that cloning has been unfairly attacked in the media because people don’t understand and don’t know how to react. And while he does state recent events in cloning legislature, it comes down to the fact that nothing has really happened yet. Not much progress has been made. This article doesn’t give many facts, but does attempt to show the fighting. It is geared toward anyone who wants to know about current events in general, as it doesn’t focus on the science behind it.

College Population Flux

Kids these days have so much to deal with that it’s no wonder they are changing. The transition from little or no religion, liberals, or dropouts in a college environment to an overwhelming amount of them has been an astounding change. The reasons for these changes seem to be pretty clear-cut.
Alan Finder describes all of the different clubs, organizations, and classes that have sprung up within the realm of college religion. In his article, “Matters of Faith Find a New Prominence on Campus” he talks about he huge increase of students that pray, believe in God, and even major in religion. One of the theories behind this is that a generation that didn’t have a choice gave their children the right to choose religion.
In “Schools Divide Thought: The Liberal-Conservative Divide on College Campuses” it is said that this generation is far more liberal than any before it. Richard Just states that college kids are more liberal in the way they vote and organizations they join. Also, these groups are more extreme than ever, and the term ‘moderate’ is now an insult for those who aren’t active enough in there beliefs. The reasoning behind this is unclear, with the exception of the generation before them passing it on.
Money is becoming an increasing problem in college life, as David Leonhart tries to explain in “The College Dropout Boom.” The reason behind the fact that so many more kids are dropping out rather than making it through college is because the cost is too great. The price of college is continually rising and students of low income families just cant pay it off. Also, with class barriers and no breaks for those that need it, college can be rough. Modern expenses weren’t made for lower class citizens.
The world seems to be shifting. While the majority of youth seems to be turning towards open-mindedness in areas of religion and politics, there is one inevitable truth: money will always be equated to power and without it, it doesn’t matter how open-minded people are if they cant even get into college.

Sources for Proposal

1. http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.17266308207072834&bhcp=1

2.http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T2267586073&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29
_T2267586083&cisb=22_T2267586082&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=138620&docNo=5

3.http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T2267586073&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29
_T2267586083&cisb=22_T2267586082&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=314237&docNo=6

4.http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T2267586073&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29
_T2267586083&cisb=22_T2267586082&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=227171&docNo=10

5.http://find.galegroup.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/ips/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C7%29cloning%3AAnd%3ALQE%3D%28LU%2CNone%2C17%29%22Cloning%7Ccloning%22%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=BasicSearchForm&tabID
=T003&prodId=IPS&searchId=R4&currentPosition=1&userGroupName=usclibs&docId=A168962
298&docType=IAC&contentSet=IAC-Documents

Topic Proposal: Cloning

It is a common scene in the science fiction movie genre of the possibility of clones. There are a handful of modern movies that deal with this issue in some form or another, but it is treated as a far-off fantasy concept. The truth of the matter is that many advances in cloning are taking place now and people may have already lost the luxury of letting another generation deal with it. The issue forcing itself into society no matter how hard people try not to think about it. The reason for this is the controversy behind it that rivals any problem that ethics have ever faced. While scientific advantages are numerous, religious or even ethics will fight to the death against it. Such an issue is extreme enough to be an “end-all, be-all” concept.
I intend to show that cloning can never be used. While there are a handful of advantages to it, such as having an unlimited supply of human organs and blood for medical use and medical advances, the faults are too great to ignore. The most prominent problem would be that we live in a religious world and cloning is not acceptable in many if any religious beliefs. But even outside of this, the amount of people in the world is steadily increasing as is, and cloning would only add to this. It could potentially be used as a WMD as far as cloning on a mass scale. Armies could be made from scratch.
This will be read by my classmates, who will hopefully enjoy my paper and possibly understand how cloning is not and will never be a possibility.

Smoking Ban "Brain Storming"

Cancer
allergies
asthma
second-hand smoke
public decency
its gross
pollutes public air
birth defects

constitutional rights
economy
loss of industry

My Message

I actually made four PostSecret cards, but my favorite one deals with a relationship. I was sent a picture in the mail from a girl that simply shows "I love you" written in the sand on the beach. It was from someone that I had a deep relationship with, or so she thought. On it I wrote, "I lied, there was a running bet to see how long we would be together." I used a picture directly from her because it felt a lot more real, and I enjoy how it shows the vulnerability of 'love'. The message I was trying to convey would be that anyone can fake a relationship if need be, and one better be sure the feelings are mutual. I dont think my classmates got it. They all made their's up and I felt like they were uncomfortable with my honesty. They didnt really say anything and we just kind of skipped over it. Whatever. Its the truth, I didnt like her.

Post Secret

This person tells it like it is. The author could really be anyone that likes Star Wars, which pretains to a large group of people. His audience is anyone that knows about Star Wars and also the tsunami victims. Its a pretty vague audience I know, but I dont see any specifics. The picture simply shows some stars in space, in reference to his preference of the two mentioned things. As for the claim itself, Joseph Stalin once said one thing I will never forget: "The death of one man is a tragedy, of millions a statistic." No matter if the people in question are fictional or not, this statement holds true. The media seems to forget the concept of death and will turn a single dying person into a hero and masses of corpses as nothing but a number. The evidence behind the authors claim can be found within any newspaper.

The Worst Commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yGJVnOwxz0

Its commercials like this that perpetuate stereotypes of gender roles and subliminal sexual messages. The obvious audience is the male population, which are portrayed as super-masculine with their leather jackets, tatoos, and sports teams. The dissapointing news is that these videos do work for their intended audience because its expected for them to work. Its a never-ending cycle. The claim is that beer makes you cool and women will do provocative things around you when you drink it. There is absolutely no evidence to support that, but its still true. Why? Because facts dont make something true, the public opinion does.

Claims

Larry Gordon and Louis Sahagun say in "Gen Y's Ego Trip Takes a Bad Turn" that my generation is narcissistic, for lack of a better word, and it is partially the fault of how we were raised. Their point is that in order to bring low self esteem to a halt, our generation has been raised to think that we are amazing. The only problem is that it worked, and now we have a group of people that act as if they are better than everyone. Their claim has at least some evidence to back it up. A handful of surveys and studies are mentioned that give ambiguously non-conclusive data on the topic, and there are a few people with some background on the issue that give their opinion.
It seems like this article was created because from the perspective of an older generation looking down upon a new one. The authors seem to blame these arrogant teens for their behavior even though it is previously stated that it isn’t entirely their fault. It also seems to give no advice on how to correct this situation but simply ends the article with a personal attack on my generation based of the beliefs of a few.

Kim McLarin seems to think that the world revolves around racial issues. In her article, “Race Wasn’t an Issue to Him, Which Was an Issue to Me,” she tells the tragic story of lack of love in her life and how she essentially destroyed her best chance at it because she thought race needed to be an issue. Her position is that race is an important part of her life because she thinks society is racist, and that others need to see her point of view or else.
Her claims go completely unverified in her article, most likely because the entire issue is based off of opinion and a very controversial issue. The only thing she has to back her beliefs on is her own personal story that gives an instance or two that she thinks was unfair because of her race. But what is really unfair is that she doesn’t seem to give the other side a chance, at least not in what she says. The two men in question try to tell her that race doesn’t have to be an issue. In the end, as logical and nice as her potential lover tries to be, she pulls the race card and basically says that she cant be with him because he is white. Wait, who was the racist supposed to be?

Rhetorical Analysis

Essay "Ugly, the American" p.154
Central Claim:
"That while borders need to be protected, new blood is what makes this country the maddening, fantastic free-for-all that it is." p.155
My Central Claim:
I dont think I really stated a central claim.
My Revised Claim:
"This argument forces the reader to see that maybe the stereotypical view of 'send them back across the border' isnt always right"
My Conclusion:
"As cliche as it sounds, our culture really is a melting pot of civilization and without people like the illegal immigrants to alter our demographics, we would never be that fluctuating mass of people that has made us so unique in the first place."

Ethos, Logos, and Pathos

I have yet to decide between "Ugly, the American" by James Poniewozik or "My Amendment" by George Saunders for my Rhetorical Analysis paper. They both have amazing arugments and show all of the aspects of ethos, logos, and pathos very well. They both come from credible authors that are passionate about the topics they discuss. Not to mention, "My Amendment" is a complete satire; who doesn't love that?

Zombies

We as the human race are devolving. We are reverting back to some primal state. But even worse than simplistic stupidity, people are becoming increasingly more disgusting and violent. Peggy Noonan is right is saying that children now fear for their lives. They see what they will grow into, if they even think they will last that long, and they are scared. But they don’t have much choice do they? They just follow in their parents footsteps and do what they are told like good kids.
Noonan chooses the best writing style for what she is trying to accomplish. She uses basic, straightforward, but intelligent language to get her idea across to her audience. Her message is aiming to reach the vast majority of people. It affects everyone from high school kids to grandparents and she writes to all of them. She is writing to the majority of the world, whether she thinks they will read it or not. It is a message for all people. While she never actually mentions her kids, she talks about them from first hand experiences, meaning she feels for them and worries about how they will turn out. She blames politics and money predominately, meaning she most likely has not much of either in her life. In fact, she says the rich are the only safe ones, and she still fears.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. I don’t understand why more is not written on this subject because it is most obviously a big deal. There really is nowhere to hide from this sin-fest that is the media. The populous, and most importantly the children, are suffering from this more than they realize. It is now the norm for children to love violence and be on drugs. It may be masked as “just video-games and movies” and “medicine to help them,” but regardless, we are suffering.
I literally just heard on the television a joke on the Daily Show about Jesus being crucified and the entire audience loved it. We have become some creature, some monster. We are the boogeyman, the monster under the bed, and that thing that lurks in the dark. Lets just hope for the best and call it a day.

Internet

I’m not going to lie, I have at times felt slightly left out from the rest of the world because of my definitive position on social networking. Call it what you will, non-conforming or simply trying to keep some dignity, but I have never been one to have a Myspace or Facebook or anything of that sort. It seems like a lost cause to me. What is the point in spending hours of ones day trying to connect with people through the computer when it could just as easily be done face to face. I have heard that it is an amazing way to meet new people, but why would one want electronic friends in the first place? I have heard also that it is a great tool for communicating en masse, but those which would be interacted with solely through the use of this tool would be second-class friends regardless and therefore need not be talked to at all.
Blogging, on the other hand, seems to be useful. Though the name may be less than something one would call adequate, it is a way for individuals to transfer ideas and thoughts to any other person in the world with the slightest of ease. Unlike social networking, the premise behind blogging has little or nothing to do with the aspect of the individual, but his or her beliefs. In this aspect, the uselessness of knowing some far off strangers entire life story and gaining nothing from it is gone, and what remains is concepts that may spark the thought of the reader and be of some value. Blogging is essentially what the Internet was created for: the transference of ideas.
Take for example the given blog, David Friedman’s “IDEAS.” First off, and most importantly for his goal, the only information given about himself is his name and a brief background on credentials. He writes in the style of some informal essay. Knowing he is not attempting to impress, he simply uses the vocabulary he is used to, while still keeping it at a level of professionalism. He refrains from using slang, because instead of basic communication he is basically trying to sell his argument. He wants to come off as a credible individual with a valid point that people should hear. Of course, as with any persons ideas, it is the opinion of the individual, but that that shouldn’t make it any less worthwhile to read.
At the other end of the spectrum is a Facebook from a Mandy Nivens. The very first noticeable thing is explosion of different sections she has on her page. Personal information, a detailed chronological list of everything she has done on Facebook, all her friends, a message board, and at least twelve other individual applications that do things from showing her “purity rating” to telling what level pirate she is. It is simply astonishing that anyone could find any use out of it. What the point of it seems to be is to define her as an individual. Aside from all of her personal information, it shows the vast array of “networks” she is involved in and many different definitions of her as specified by different programs. The only potential use from this page is the only place where writing actually takes place. The message board is full of slang and broken sentences because the people communicating simply don’t care. The author is some high school girl. The only thoughts on this page are strictly and directly personal and of no use to the outside reader.
Plain and simple: Ideas can be transferred through the internet, not people.

Argument

When argument has incorporated itself into ones life as fluidly as breathing, the last argument had will not necessarily be that of great social tact or intellectual importance. In fact, I spent the majority of the hour long trip back into Columbia persuading my driver that Jeffrey Dahmer had just a right as any American to the pursuit of happiness, and who were we to judge him? I mean sure, he may have broke a vast amount of laws and morals, but he was pursuing his own happiness and society just hadn’t found a way to compensate his will. Not that I condone mass murders or necrophilia in any way, but every person should have equal opportunity. Is that not what our constitution was founded on? While this may seem a ridiculous concept, be assured that it was a valid point.
The point of it was, this conforming, macho, Christian boy needed to have his eyes opened to the fact that there is more to life than he thought. Luckily for me, my usual style of persuasion, that of being adamant and aggressive in my outrageous opinions, seemed to work wonders. And while he didn’t exactly succumb to my way of thinking, in the end he seemed to have given some thought to the issue and met me halfway. Why is it that I use such a direct approach to my arguing? I feel that people will listen a lot less if they feel like they can walk all over someone. But I am not ridiculous, I realize that one needs to be fair in conversation and that others need their say in a matter and I cannot deny them of it. I just wanted to clarify so I don’t get thrown into the group of people that shove their ideas down others throats without letting a word in edge-wise. So my style is showing that I firmly believe in what I am saying, and I don’t let my thoughts quaver.
By far the biggest influence in my life that has created whatever I have become would be my mother. At an early age I was taught to question what I was I told and come to decisions on my own. And through a consecutive slew of events that eventually steered me into becoming a devout radical, nearly always in search of the profound, I have turned arguing into nothing less than an art form. I like the fact that if nothing else, I am consistent. I treat every person the same, no matter what their standing or title. Besides, why should I give an unfair advantage? Everyone has the same opportunity when arguing with me. I don’t have anything to change about that. I approach topics with a clear and logical goal and make sure I reach it. That’s all one could ask for.

Persuasion

Matt Miller has an absolutely ridiculous view on persuasion. In his passage “Is Persuasion Dead?” he has the notion that the swaying of someone’s opinion through a well thought out, logical argument is a dead art, and that any such examples that may exist in the modern world are those done solely for the purpose to win. My problem with this is that the entire basis of persuasion is founded on the goal of winning. Of course people want to win, that’s how manipulation was first invented. And I don’t see how it can even be called dead in the first place. The vast majority of people will use persuasion multiple times a day in their everyday lives for an assortment of things. Whether it be to get someone to pass them the chips, or as important as a business proposal. Persuasion comes in a wide variety of ways and is put into effect by everything from body language to how sentences are formed. To say that it is dead is borderline blasphemy.
But if Mr. Miller is in fact referring to the issue of the only form of persuasion left in society is “not to persuade but to win,” then this is equally ridiculous. What other purpose would an ability like changing how a person views something other than to convert them to a certain belief. What sense would it make to defer people from your viewpoints? Of course persuasion is about winning, because that is what life is about. People have only come this far because of coming out on top; survival of the fittest. It all comes down to the fact that if one doesn’t play to win, one will lose.
As for Kathleen Parker and her “Seeking Balance in an Either-Or World,” I think that she might be on to something. While I am in absolute full support of a person being completely aware in what their beliefs are and why they believe them, I do not see why that can’t be somewhere in the middle of two extremes. That is exactly why they are called extremes in the first place, because they are too strong on one side to base beliefs off of. She brings up a great point in the fact that people in this day and age will condemn anyone that falls within the middle of two sides of an argument. Each side of a party will refuse any sort of compromise because it makes them look wrong in their beliefs. The problem with this is that people will join a side, be it in politics, religion, or even war, and not know why they are in that position or even the reason they joined in the first place. People can get caught up in the moment of an idea and never actually determine what they really believe in. I find it hard to believe that we can have so many people adamant to the death about their extreme view on politics. It would be insane to think that so many people were seriously that extreme. I think it should become more socially acceptable to believe in different parts of two sides, at which point everyone might do it. Compromise might just be the answer to so many of the problems the world has.

Reading

Professor Michael Skube is worried that today‘s generation of college kids are not fully grasping, or even using, the English language to its full potential. In fact, the rapidly growing trend is far from this. As with so many things modern, language has been simplified to a bare minimum. A great number of college kids speak and read on a level that should be years below their level. Why go the extra mile to learn more when one can survive off what they have? And it isn’t so much the young adults of the this generation’s fault, it spawns from society. It is not a necessity, or even useful, in a college kid’s social life to spend free time reading or even to know of authors. It’s an epidemic Why? Because its not “cool” to read. And while aggressive reading may be a useful skill to any reader, the keyword is reader. I am not sure how much use this skill would be to someone that doesn’t even believe in reading. The biggest step we as a nation would need to take is to re-enforce a learning environment in which people want to read. Of course, this may all boil down to long lost dreams, but the ideal way to handle such a problem would be to take social power from the pop culture social icons, and give it to the scholars and brilliant minds of the world.
I am not saying that reading is a dead skill, because I know that a small percentage of the population will still grab a book anytime they get the chance, but I think that for such things as “aggressive reading” to be of any use to the students in the classroom, they have to actually want to read.