Blog #13--college ramblings/complaints

Man, is it a relief to have that blasted issues paper out of the way! I literally felt happier today knowing it was gone. I probably shouldn’t say that knowing Professor Elliott will most likely read this blog, but still, I can be relieved, can’t I?

I may get to go to General Conference this year, and I mean REALLY go. I am still unsure, since my dad has yet to tell me if the tickets are still available, but if they are, I get to go!!! Well, if they don’t get lost in the mail, that is. There are definitely perks to having a father who is the stake clerk, let me tell ya. Though I am unsure why this opportunity didn’t come up in October. That doesn’t make sense to me. But maybe those tickets got snatched up faster than they did this time.

My brain hurts. I had to read over half of one of my sociology books last night, and write a critique on it this morning. I wanted to die. First I had the issues paper and a geology application paper to have done on Monday, and then I had to read that book and write that paper within the intervening twenty-four hours. I wanted to scream—still do, since I have at least one more paper due this week (another geology application paper) and I am so no happy. I think I’ve spent close to five dollars just for printing this semester, if not more. Plus, I’ve written more papers this semester alone than my father did his whole college career—and he got a masters in Math here at BYU. I seriously think my teachers are trying to kill me, or at least kill my fingers and the brain cells in charge of writing.

Had a wonderful visit at the nursing home, though. Totally uplifted my spirits to talk to my assigned “grandparent.” (And Word Perfect hates my sentence fragments.) Back to the nursing home. It was a tad sad, though, since she is leaving on Thursday. But that means that I get a new grandparent to visit!

update on issues paper

I am having a hard time finding anything BUT journal articles about the D.A.R.E. program. And even the ‘book’ sources that I found turned out to not exist, at least not at the Hubble. Not that the library’s catalogue knows that. Frustration is the feeling prevalent with me since yesterday.

Blog #11--sorry it's late!!!!

I have done little with my issues paper. I am a procrastinator to the bone, and I decided to relax this last weekend instead of researching. (The fact I had just bought a movie I haven’t seen in months definitely didn’t help, but that was more of a late night thing anyway.) While I have done little more than choose my controversial issue, I have noticed that articles about it were last published in 2009, for the most part. Little worried there, but I’m hoping it is still relevant enough for me to write on. I know the issue of dropping the D.A.R.E. program was a bit of an issue in Idaho Falls the last few years, but I don’t remember much else—heck, I don’t even know if the school district still sponsors it or if it has been done away with. I have never paid much attention to what goes on around me when it comes to policies—unless it affects me to some extent, or it affects my sisters, who are incredibly vocal when they are objecting to such things.

I also have the issue that I have never been through the D.A.R.E. program myself—I was part of the trial group for a program called N.O.V.A. Since I went through a different program with similar goals, I don’t know if I have an altered view on the issue. I know that the program I went through was effective for me—I still remember the object lessons and the principles of the class. But I don’t know if that would have happened in the D.A.R.E program. I also don’t know if I can actually take a solid stand on the issue. But then, I’m not sure I could for any issue. I have this frustrating ability to be able to see and understand both sides of an issue, and I could argue for both, while making compensation for the other side. I’ve been told this means I’d make a good politician. Pity I am scared of speaking in front of people. Otherwise I’d run for President—NOT!!!!!!!     

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.