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.