Blog 10--issues topic

My topic for my issues paper is the D.A.R.E. program and whether or not is should be discontinued. On both sides of the issue, studies have shown that the other side’s research is flawed. Those for the program say that it is successful in building drug awareness, as well as building a relationship between police, kids, and parents; those against it say that it is a waste of money because it doesn’t, and it actually makes parents more likely to not teach children about drug use. I will probably argue for the program, because I believe that anything to help inform children about drug abuse and avoiding peer pressure is always something to be encouraged. The opposite view believes that police officers are ineffective as teachers, the program is too standardized for use in a classroom, the knowledge obtained in the program is stated too much throughout the students educational experience, the effects of the program eventually wear off, and the popularity of the program hide the fact the program does no good. Supporters maintain that it is effective—research has proven this—and that it is implemented (I think that is the right word) at the time that kids are most likely to receive and understand it. Personally, I have never been in the program; I participated in N.O.V.A., which replaced D.A.R.E. in my elementary school when I was in sixth grade. But the basic idea was the same. And I would argue that such a system works—to this day some of the activities, lectures, and object lessons are still in my mind. And that was well over seven years ago. At least two of my siblings went through D.A.R.E. in Idaho, and they certainly were influenced by it. I’m pretty sure they remember the lessons they learned there too. The funny thing about all this? I don’t remember being taught in the home about drug abuse as a family unless one of us kids brought it up. But when we did, the conversation still went pretty in depth. I could tell my parents were against it. I didn’t need them to lecture me on it to know that.    

Reflection on Rhetorical Analysis

This paper was difficult for me, at least more so than the narrative. I have problems analyzing. But going to the Writing Center helped. The tutor that I visited was incredibly helpful with giving me ideas on how to expand the paper to the required length. And I got constructive feedback.

Rhetorical Analysis topic and progress

I chose to focus my paper on the way that Margaret Sanger used an emotional appeal in her speech The Morality of Birth Control. I’ve identified the different tools she uses to build her appeal, but I’ve been unable to find any background information to see how effective the speech was.


Now, to write the rough draft...

Letter from Birmingham Jail

King uses all three types of appeals in his ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail.’ But he definitely uses one more often than others. Due to the fact his audience is other ministers, but of the different race, he uses pathos more often.

Logos is only used a few times. First, he attempts to use the logic approach to prove that the actions of the African-Americans are a last resort by bringing up the list of things to use to try to change laws and social norms. A couple of paragraphs later, he uses logic to back up the morality of the sit-ins and marches—all the peaceful protests. He says that the reason the African-Americans did the protests when they did was related to making the most economical crisis in order to call attention to their plight and point of view.

He uses ethos in the second paragraph, where he uses his tie as the president of a Christian leadership gathering. This would have elevated his status—his right to be trusted—in the eyes of his audience. Latter in the letter, he explains that he understands that the African-Americans have been breaking the laws. He also advocates not doing so—seeming to contradict what one would expect from a man in jail.

The majority of King’s letter, however, appeals mainly with pathos. His continual references to Christ and the prophets are intended to build religious connections between him and his audience, as well as stir up feelings of devotion from them. Even when he discusses breaking the law, he finds a Biblical example to back him up: Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refusing to bow to an idol. By comparing the African-American activists to martyred prophets, he created a sense of pity and ethnicity for his side of the argument.

He also uses pathos by drawing on fairly recent events in Europe to prove that just because something wasn’t legal didn’t mean it wasn’t right. And just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is morally correct. He brings up Hitler, and the fact that everything he did was legal.

Analytical Response: Prose

C.S. Lewis uses rhetoric in his essay “What Christians Believe” in order to try to persuade people to believe, or at least tolerate Christian beliefs. Everything he says is to show this side of the argument to his audience, those who don’t understand Christianity—Catholic or Protestant.

He works off the assumption that his audience might not understand the different details of what Christians believe about the universe, God, and Christ himself. But he does it in almost a scientific way—using logic. While Lewis will occasionally use emotional persuasive tactics, he mainly uses logical ones. The reason for this is both implied and stated—he understands his audience’s world view because he himself was once an atheist. Attempts to persuade his audience by using religious ties intended to invoke an emotional response would not have been as effective. He knew this, and the fact that he would first explain the other views made him even more credible and trustable.

However, Lewis does work off the world view that his audience does know what Christians are. Because of this, he never explains that Christians believe in Christ. He believes that everyone who will read his paper knows about Christians, that they have heard of them. It was right after World War II, so it was a fairly safe assumption. The beliefs surrounding good and evil were so skewed by Hitler’s regime, that it was necessary to reinforce the basics of Christianity for the world. Circumstances—time, place, audience—made Lewis’s writings rhetorically appropriate.     

His purpose in all this is to show people what Christianity is about—and that it isn’t just an escape for people desperate for a purpose in life. Lewis wants to show that Christianity makes sense logically, at least to some extent. His central message is a similar. He wants people to at least consider Christianity completely, because to not do so would make void at least some of what people who only believe part of it completely believe. And that it is the only way to view the world without contradicting yourself.

Analytical Snapshot: Veil of Fears

1.      “Veil of Fears” is in the genre of persuasive analytical—I think. There’s no description of how to determine genre, is there?

2.      The Purpose “Veil of Fears” is to show the western world that there is more to the argument about Muslim women and their rights then we have been led to believe by the press.

3.      The Central Message of “Veil of Fears” is that Muslim women are not necessarily imprisoned by their veils but it is a sign of reverence and respect to the families they come from.

4.      Stanley Kurtz ‘world view’ in “Veil of Fears” is that Western cultures, feminist America in particular, may have been too hasty in deciding that the veil Muslim women wear is a prison forced upon them. The assumption that backs him is that the majority of women in Islamic countries wear the veil by choice: as a sign of respect for their families and tribes.

5.      The tools and evidence that Kurtz uses are: making the topic a question of whether forcing western culture on the Muslim women is right, therefore making it urgent to the reader; answering the issue question he brought up by asserting that it might not be the best or wisest thing to force our culture on them; giving sufficient, typical, accurate, and relevant reasons why this assertion is right. The evidence he uses are by drawing on examples of other conquered countries, and whether forcing domestic changes there helped improve the culture as a whole, how the Taliban’s code of behavior was directed more at the cities, where women were outside their families and tribes more, than it was in the rural areas, and how women, even before, were choosing to wear the veil in public. He also shows that he recognizes where his opponents are coming by referencing back to them and showing that occasionally they have a somewhat valid point—some women are being suppressed—which gave credibility to what himself as a writer.

Blog #4--Narrative reflection

The narrative was a bit of an odd experience for me. I usually have a time period, or type of story assigned to me. To have to choose a story that affected me was a huge emotional risk, adding to the stress of having to remember a time that affected me in a strong way.  Finally, I took a different perspective. I chose an event that I was still trying to recover from. Writing about it, not the event itself but one that started the healing process a few weeks later, actually helped me. I buried the emotions associated with the passing of my great grandma—I had no choice. I had to take finals that week, and since burying it seemed easier then bringing it up to deal with it, I buried it. Now, I feel more at peace, since I have at least begun to tell people that it happened, and my feelings surrounding it.

I still am not sure if I would do the narrative again. But I was shown how I could improve my writing by putting myself through the process. Did I enjoy it? No. Will I ever, maybe. It sort of depends on if this growth helps me get better grades in all my classes. I hope so and honestly I’m looking forward to analytical writing only for that reason. I want to write better, but I didn’t want to lower my defenses enough to put my own voice into it. This assignment showed that I could, but I have to think about it. I have to be willing to put myself into the piece. Usually I can’t let my barriers down. I enjoy my safety measures too much. But maybe now I will be ready to slowly dismantle those walls that I have placed around myself. I hate criticism towards my writing; I see it as an attack on myself. Now I can somewhat see that it is merely there to help me write better. Now, if I can just keep that kind of attitude, I just might make it through this class.