Issues Paper Reflection

Man, I am SOOOOOO GLAD that we're done with the issues paper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Research papers are BY FAR my weakness when it comes to writing and I just can't tell you how much I hate them. I could only stand to work on my paper for short periods at a time and the progress just wasn't very quick. I probably spent a total of about a billion hours on this stupid thing and it's still terrible. I just cannot write issues papers! I spent more time on this than any of the other papers and I'm certain this will be my worst grade of them all. So....it's good that we're done now because I'd probably get violent soon if I had to keep working on this. I think we were taught well, though. My less-than-ideal is totally due to lack of skill, not because of the way it was taught or the way we were told to do it. So in short, the process was miserable, nothing went well, the whole thing didn't go well, and the program couldn't have done a whole lot better but I definitely have improvements to make. The end. Now I'm going to go have the laziest weekend of my life to recover from the strain of the stupid issues paper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I had the post done before class, but I just realized something that I HAD to tell you guys about. You know how it was going to rain tomorrow and there was going to be awesome lightning and thunder and dangerous stuff? THEY CHANGED THE WEATHER FORCAST!!!!!!!!! There's no more lightning, or even rain!!!!!!!!!! :'( My weekend totally just died. Now that I've depressed ya'll, I'm going to go. Oh, and I'll probably never post on here again so....adios!!

IP Organization

So I kind of took bits and pieces of all three different groups so...here's how I organized my essay:
1) Intro: I basically catch the reader's attention and make them subconsciously know that technological communication is destroying our society's social skills.
2) Statement and discussion of topic: Here is where I really introduce my issue and begin to develop my argument and clearly state my opinion about the subject.
3) Statement of facts: Now I throw some facts at the reader. I found many studies and experiments showing the results of too much electronic social communication. They can't argue with the facts!
4) Procatalepsis: Here is where I acknowledge other arguments and give them credit, then throw it back in their face with more facts and evidence showing why they are wrong and I'm right.
5) Conclusion: Here is where I finish up by telling them to stop being stupid (not really, but you know what I mean) and to act and inhibit change. Then I finish strong, leaving them no room to argue back because I'm right and they'll know that they were wrong.

The end.

I can't think of any more creative titles. Bleh.

I think I've been losing my mind lately so don't criticize me for lame titles. Anyway, guess what? I just had my Bishop's interview for my mission call!! Do you know what that means? I'll have my stake presidency interview in a week and get my call in a few weeks! It's about time! My birthday isn't til July 21, meaning I can't even submit my papers until March 23. That's the consequences of being young. I'm SO impatient, I just want to know NOW where I'll be living for the next two years!! We'll see what happens. I'm excited though :) I feel bad for all those girls who want to serve missions because they see all these guys their age leaving right now and they can't! They still have to stay here and kill themselves in school while we get a two year break. It's awesome for us and awful for them. Anyway, that's what's been on my mind recently and I'm going to explode if I don't get my call soon! So if I"m not in class on Monday, you now know why...but hopefully I'll be okay. I will survive! Well...that's all for now. Here's a great picture that ya'll should enjoy :)

Research lab...not worth my time.

So once upon a time I walked into the writing and research lab. I go in and there's nobody at the front desk so I awkwardly look into all the rooms until somebody finally comes to help me. Well, it was the guy who explained everything to us when we were in the library as a class, so that made it kind of weird. Then I told him I was there for the class but I didn't know what I was doing, and he said that unless I have specific questions that he can't really help me. Well, I didn't have any questions because 1) I was only in there because I was required to go and 2) I had no idea what the lab even was and why I was going there. So eventually I left without really getting any help. Honestly, I don't think I would have had much help anyway because Google is amazing and can find just about anything. Okay, that might be a slight exaggeration, but I really do have lots of information already so I don't feel like I need any help researching right now anyway. But for people that do need help, I think the research lab might be helpful, it just wasn't for me. The end.

Remarkable References...

I don't really have anything to say about this, so we'll just jump to the point:

"Retired police officer reinvents self as etiquette school owner"

News article

"Still waiting for your email"

News article

"The Straight and Narrow"

Another news article

"Social Networking Sites can Limit Interpersonal Skills and Physical Activity"

Professional document (as in, a document written by an expert)

Here's an issue for you...it's called a thesis statement.

Man, I HATE doing thesis statements before I start my actual essay! But here ya go:


Although it may sometimes make conversation more convenient, electronic communication has greatly reduced our society's social skills because people spend more time conversing technologically than verbally.


Uh...the wording sounds awkward to me. Any suggestions???

Problems...eh, I mean issues....

1. Texting - Is texting negatively impacting society? Are the youth of today really lacking in social skills because of texting?

2. Teacher salaries - Are teachers being paid enough for their efforts?

3. Obesity - Is obesity really a growing concern, and why? What does and does not cause/affect obesity and what can be changed to prevent it, especially in children?

4. Dolphins - Is it, or is it not ethical to eat dolphins? Should restrictions be placed upon the consuming of dolphins because of their cuteness?


That's right, I did four options. I think that deserves extra credit!

True Defiance

In today’s society, could it be possible that people are becoming less confident and less capable of standing up for their personal beliefs? David Brooks, a New York Times columnist, believes that this is an increasing problem in the world today, as he states in his article “How to Fight the Man.” In this article, Brooks suggests that in today’s society, people are not raised with the necessary skill of defending their position in the face of opposition. “How to Fight the Man” is an effective argument to convince United States citizens to defy authority and stand up for their beliefs because it uses sophisticated word choice, authoritative tone, and allusions and relevant examples to create feelings of individuality and confidence.

David Brooks uses specific, sophisticated word choice to make himself sound intelligent enough for the reader to want to listen to him. For example, at one point in his article he says that Jefferson Bethke “responded in a way that was humble, earnest and gracious, and that generally spoke well of his character.” Words such as “earnest” and “gracious” are not usually used in casual, every day conversation, making it sound much more formal. However, Brooks then finishes his thought by saying, “He also basically folded,” bringing in a new, casual feel to contrast with the prior formal voice. By doing so, Brooks sets the readers up then catches them by surprise. This makes the reading more enjoyable and makes the reader want to continue to pay attention to Brooks. Therefore, such specific word choice gives Brooks’ argument more validity and strength in the mind of the reader, making the reader feel like Brooks is intelligent enough to form an accurate opinion worthy of consideration.

“How to Fight the Man” also conveys an authoritative tone; a tone implying intelligence, insight, and understanding. Word choice shows that the writer has an exceptional level of intelligence, creating a more sophisticated and authoritative tone to entice the reader to concur and respond positively. For example, he says, “Bethke’s passionate polemic and subsequent retreat are symptomatic of a lot of the protest cries we hear these days.” Within this excerpt Brooks shows his intelligence and sophistication. This increases his validity and shows the reader that Brooks knows what he is talking about and should be trusted.

Another prime example of Brooks’ tone is when he states, “The old leftists had dialectical materialism and the Marxist view of history. Libertarians have Hayek and von Mises. Various spiritual movements have drawn from Transcendentalism, Stoicism, Gnosticism, Thomism, Augustine, Tolstoy, or the Catholic social teaching that inspired Dorothy Day.” This sets an authoritative tone because it shows increased intelligence and knowledge. The reader is willing to open his/her mind and listen to Brooks because of his sense of authority and exceedingly great intelligence. People will not be willing to listen to somebody if they do not feel he knows what he’s talking about. By showing his extensive knowledge, Brooks gives his readers a valid reason to pay attention to him and consider his opinions.

In “How to Fight the Man,” Brooks also uses multiple examples to prove his point that people need to learn to defend themselves. For example, Brooks opens his piece with the example of a man named Jefferson Bethke. Bethke had created a video called “Why I Hate Religion, ButLove Jesus” in which he explains that religion is not required to be close to God; in fact, he feels religion limits the relationship between man and God. A comment had later been made on this video disagreeing with Bethke’s opinion, and stating that Jesus himself promoted religion while on this Earth. Rather than defending his position, however, Bethke stated, “I wanted to say I really appreciate your article man, it hit me hard. I’ll even be honest and say I agree 100 percent.” Brooks uses this example to show how easily people tend to give in when they are opposed, rather than defending their own beliefs. He argues that in our society today, people are not properly educated with a variety of different views, therefore making them unprepared to create and defend their own opinions. This example perfectly demonstrates and supports his point and by using such an example, Brooks shows the reader that his opinion is valid and worth considering.

Brooks also utilizes the allusion technique in support of his argument. For example, he explains to the reader that in order to stand up and defy authority, it is necessary to gain a great knowledge of many different aspects, rather than just focusing on his/her own opinions. If not, “You’ll lack the arguments, convictions and the coherent view of reality that you’ll need when challenged by a self-confident opposition.” In support of his argument, he alludes to a philosopher from the 19th century (Wicks):

My own theory revolves around a single bad idea. For generations people have been told: Think for yourself; come up with your own independent worldview. Unless your name is Nietzsche, that’s probably a bad idea. Very few people have the genius or time to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous worldview. If you go out there armed only with your own observations and sentiments, you will surely find yourself on very weak ground.

In this quote, Brooks alludes to Friedrich Nietzsche in an almost satirical sense. Nietzsche’s views provided a basis and foundation for Nazism, which (though in a negative aspect) definitely changed the world. By referring to Nietzsche in this way, Brooks supports his point that most people’s opinions will not be able to change the world so significantly; therefore, he believes it is crucial that people familiarize themselves with many different views in order to create a more educated view for themselves. By so doing, they will be more prepared to “defy authority” and defend their opinions and world views.

“How to Fight the Man” is a very effective argument. Using various techniques, David Brooks proves to his audience that many people do not know how to properly defend their opinions in the face of opposition. Using word choice, tone, and examples/allusions, he leads the reader to recognize the need for change, and creates a desire for them to learn to “defy authority.”

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus

Works Cited

Wicks, Robert, "Friedrich Nietzsche", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/nietzsche/

I should just start numbering these blog posts....

Don't you guys just LOVE rhetorical analyses? Well I don't. I'll admit that I didn't dislike it, though. I thought this was much easier to write than the OpEd. I did like how the OpEd was my own view and opinions, but for some reason it was more difficult for me to write. The rhetorical analysis seemed much more straight-forward and simple to write, in my opinion. First of all, I'm a very indecisive person; therefore, creating a solid opinion of my own is very difficult for me, making the OpEd difficult to write. The rhetorical analysis, on the other hand, was somebody else's paper and all I had to do was analyze the different styles and types of rhetoric they used to write it. Opinion isn't a big factor in the RA, and having somebody else's article to read gave me something easy and more concrete to write about. This isn't to say I hated the OpEd, but compared to the RA.....yeah, I liked the RA a bit more. The end.

Peer Reviews

Peer reviews are quite an interesting topic. Actually, no, they're really not. I'm not a fan of OpEd peer reviews. I thought the RA peer review was actually pretty helpful, but the OpEd...eh, not so much. I don't know why exactly, but for some reason it just didn't seem like I got much help on my OpEd. That could possibly be because it was my own opinions and people are afraid to comment on others' opinions, but it just wasn't very helpful. I did find the RA peer review helpful, though. My group was very good about telling me what I needed to work on and change and it will greatly improve my final paper. So basically, the OpEd review was pointless, and the RA one was great. The end.

Idiotic drivers!!!

I am SO glad this is a free-write blog today because I'm ticked at the moment. Alright, so here's the situation: I live in the New Heritage building on 900 East. That's a pretty nice building, right? I agree. I love it here. The problem is the idiotic people who DON'T live here! For some reason people think that they can come drive through between the buildings on the SIDEWALK when I'm walking there! Is this acceptable? No! It's a sidewalk, implying that it's a place outside the road limits where people can walk. This means NO CARS; yet somehow people think they are cool enough that they can drive through when I'm walking there so I have to move for THEM. Grrrr, it's soooo irritating! I can't tell you how many times I've stepped out of my building on my way to class and almost been run over. There are even signs that say "NO CARS ALLOWED" or something like that in front of the sidewalk entrances, so why the heck do people still do it?! Maybe they're just too stupid to read the signs? (in which case they shouldn't be driving anyway) Or maybe they're just arrogant and think they're cooler than the rest of us? Or maybe they just don't think at all? No matter what the reason, it's annoying. In case you can't tell, I'm fed-up with it. I think next time someone does that when I'm walking there I'm going to just sit in the middle until they back-up and go back the way they came. Anyway, there's my random ranting and venting for the day. Oh, and I've got a nice little video here for you to watch, too. I'm sorry for all females who watch this; I'm not against women driving, this video is just funny. Enjoy!!!

Women Drivers

Happy Friday everyone!!

Language...figuratively.

Well it looks like there are a few different forms of figurative language in David Brooks' "How to Fight the Man." So here they are:

Tone:
Brooks' tone is very formal (and I'm too lazy to find the best examples, so these will have to do):
"This seems to be a moment of fervent protest movements that are ultimately vague and ineffectual."
"The paradox of reform movements is that, if you want to defy authority, you probably shouldn’t think entirely for yourself."


Rhetorical Questions (or suggestions, I guess?):
Using questions makes the reader think for themselves before the writer presents the solution clearly for them:
"Maybe people today are simply too deferential. Raised to get college recommendations, maybe they lack the oppositional mentality necessary for revolt. Maybe people are too distracted."


Allusion:
"A blogger named Kevin DeYoung pointed out, for example, that it is biblically inaccurate to say that Jesus hated religion. In fact, Jesus preached a religious doctrine, prescribed rituals and worshiped in a temple."

There ya go. Have fun!

RA Thesis

David Brooks' article "How to Fight the Man" is an effective argument to convince the reader to defy authority and stand up for their beliefs because it uses sophisticated word choice, authoritative tone, and relevant examples to create feelings of importance and individuality.

A Few Options...

I'm a few minutes late because I was on a date, so hopefully that's a valid excuse. If not...here's my blog post anyway. So, I've found  a couple interesting articles, but I want to keep looking so I'm not for sure if I'll use any of these. But here's what I've got:

1) This article is about people who feel close to God, but they feel that declaring a specific religion limits them.

2) This article is about the hacker group Anonymous eavesdropping on an FBI phone call and posting it on the internet via Twitter.

3) This article is about the economy and the hopes that America is finally recovering.

Those are the most interesting things I've found so far, but we'll see what else I can come up with.

Last OpEd Post!!

Well, I guess I'm just supposed to tell ya'll about how I feel about writing my OpEd, right? Well, I hope that's right because that's what I'm going to do.

So once upon a time I was told to write this thing called an opinion editorial. First off, I was supposed to brainstorm some ideas. I came up with some ideas that I thought were fairly decent, but I didn't really know which one I wanted to write about. Finally I decided that the one that would be easiest to write about was whether or not BYU professors should be LDS; however, the real problem with that was: I didn't actually have an opinion on the subject! So I decided to just pretend to take a stance on the subject for the essay's sake, and the stance I took was that professors SHOULD be LDS in order to teach at BYU.

The next item of business was to write my first draft. Do you have any idea how annoying it is to write an essay about something you don't actually care about?? Well, let me tell you that it is pretty dang annoying. But I eventually finished a decent first draft and forgot about it for a week until the next draft was due.

I finished my "polished draft" and added the new things Professor Husberg told us about in class. I changed some things so I could better appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos and also added more counter-arguments and support. Then I turned this in and forgot about it again until the night before the final draft.

The class before the final draft was due, I realized that I hadn't gone to the writing center to get my paper checked yet.  Luckily (or rather, unluckily) I had a valid excuse (aka: family emergency) so I got an extra 12 hours to get it done. It was still annoying, but I did get it done and posted my essay a whopping 2 minutes before it was due.

So, the moral of this story: I did not enjoy writing my opinion editorial. I think it's good for me to know how to do it, and I'm glad I can write one if I ever need to; however, this doesn't mean I have to enjoy it. Well, I think that's about it. So...I'm going to end this now. If you made it this far without falling asleep, congratulations!! If not...I hope you had a great nap!

Teaching With The Spirit

In a religious institution such as Brigham Young University, should a professor be allowed to teach who does not share the same religious views they are required to teach? On occasion there have been professors at BYU who are not actually members of the Church of JesusChrist of Latter-Day Saints. I do not believe this should be allowed. I believe all professors at BYU should be members of the LDS church. BYU professors are required to apply their subject of teaching to the Gospel and a testimony is required to do so.

The curriculum for BYU’s professors requires that all professors teach how their subject relates to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. According to the BYU History website, in the early history of BYU (when it was still Brigham Young Academy), Brigham Young stated to President Karl G. Maeser: "Brother Maeser, I don't want you to try to teach even the multiplication table without the Spirit and influence of the power of God." As Brigham Young was an LDS Prophet, I believe this statement to Karl Maeser (the president of Brigham Young Academy at the time) shows the importance of integrating the principles of the Gospel within all subjects taught at BYU. Therefore, since BYU is an LDS-regulated university, the professors should be LDS.

            

Though I believe all professors at BYU should be members of the LDS church, I recognize that there are many non-members who live righteous lives and are close to their Father in Heaven. I am not discriminating against these people, as many of them are some of the greatest people in terms of righteousness. However, I still believe professors should be required to be LDS members in order to teach at BYU. Though these people are great people and very knowledgeable and close to their God, I believe that if they truly know and believe the Gospel principles well enough to teach them at BYU, they should have a strong enough testimony to have joined the church. I do not mean to discriminate against anyone; however, I believe professors should have a strong testimony of their own in order to preach the Gospel principles within their area of teaching.

            

General authorities of the Church have also emphasized the necessity of having a testimony of, and faith in, the Church and its principles. A prime example of this is when Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a current apostle of the Church, was called to be the new president of BYU in 1971. In Elder Oaks’ inaugural address, he stated the following concerning BYU:

…Our reason for being a university is to encourage and prepare young men and women to rise to their full potential as sons and daughters of God….What makes us unique is the spiritual dimension we provide. By spiritual dimension I mean our faith in God the Eternal Father and his Son Jesus Christ, our devotion to the principles of the restored gospel, our concern with personal behavior, and our commitment to the essential harmony of secular learning and the spiritual values that embody all truth.

 According to President Oaks, it is the Spirit that makes BYU so unique; the beliefs, views, and unity associated with the Gospel set this university apart from others. How can a professor who is not a member possibly create such a spirit within the students if they do not believe in the Church themselves? If a professor does not have a testimony, they will not be nearly as effective as one with a testimony in providing a spiritual environment for the students to excel.

           

If general authorities of the Church, as messengers of God, emphasize so strongly the need for students to be immersed in the Spirit, why do they allow professors to teach who do not have a true testimony? How does BYU expect its students to learn and progress in the Gospel if they are not being educated by those who truly believe in the Church themselves? They cannot; it simply is not logical. I propose that the administration should no longer higher non-members. I recognize that there are multiple non-member professors currently, and it would be unreasonable for them to be required to leave; this is not what I am proposing; however, I think they should no longer higher professors who are non-members, unless extreme circumstances require otherwise. Interviewing professors should meet with one of the administration or authorities of the church, and be required to show a current temple recommend. If there is critical demand for a professor, exceptions should be made and the Board should use their discretion to find the most well-qualified professor, regardless of their beliefs so long as they agree to abide by the Honor Code. By doing so, BYU will ensure that students are being taught and edified by those who will be able to help them benefit most at this university.

           

Having been raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I know the principles of the Gospel well. I made the decision to attend BYU because I knew it would help me grow and develop even more in the Gospel; I came here knowing I would be taught both academically and spiritually. I knew BYU would help my testimony grow more than anything else at this point in my life. Because of this, I believe I should be taught by professors who truly know and believe what they teach. I do not believe someone can adequately teach with the Spirit if they have not obtained a testimony of their own; therefore, for the students’ sake, they should not be allowed to do so.

The Most Boring Blog Post You'll Ever Read in Your Life....

I'm not a very creative person, so if you're actually reading this you should probably consider stopping. Anyway, I think I'll write about my feelings on writing. Once upon a time, I was a little child and had to write my very first report!! It had to be a whole paragraph long!! I couldn't believe I was really supposed to write a WHOLE PARAGRAPH!! Anyway, I spent hours working. I just couldn't get it to sound quite right. I tried and tried and just didn't feel satisfied. I was so frustrated and couldn't figure out why. Well, then a light went on in my head and I realized something: I hate writing!! The problem wasn't that it was good; the problem was that I hated it!!! So thus it began: my hatred for writing. I learned an important lesson that day: I learned that writing is not for me, and I will never write an essay, report, short story, etc. unless it is absolutely required of me. The end.

P.S. (just as a side note, somehow I kind of enjoy this class....not gonna lie, I wasn't excited for it. I still hate writing, but this class is quite enjoyable :) good job Professor Husberg, you've made it possible to enjoy something awful! Mission accomplished)

OpEd Rhetoric Components

This isn't very refined; it needs a lot of work. But here's what I've got:
Logos:
As members of the church, it just makes sense to us that the best way to learn is by the Spirit. Therefore, it's perfectly logical that a teacher should be LDS and have a testimony in order to teach at BYU.
Pathos:
I apply to pathos using my own personal experience in the church and how it is much more effective for me to learn and progress if I'm taught by someone who is a member and has a testimony of their own.
Ethos:
My whole essay is very direct and straightforward. I state my points clearly and with a very authoritative voice. I've also included quotes from people of high status, such as Brigham Young, to support my points.

The Analysis of an Argument

I'm not sure if I totally understand all this, but here's what I've got:

Claim:

• BYU professors should be LDS

Reasons:

• BYU requires professors to implement LDS principles into their subject
• BYU students come here with the understanding that they will be taught Gospel principles, and the best way for this is to be taught by those with the Spirit, who truly believe what they are teaching.

Assumptions:

• Someone who truly believes what they are teaching (in other words, has a testimony) will teach much better than someone who is only teaching something because they are required to.
• Those who truly believe and teach with the Spirit will help the students the most.

OpEd Thesis...oh joy...

Well, here's what I've got:

I believe all professors at BYU should be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as they are required to apply their subject of teaching to the Gospel and a testimony is required to do so.

OpEd Brainstorm

-Why boys shouldn't have a girlfriend before their mission

-Why girls shouldn't agree to wait for a missionary

-Why professors at BYU should be required to be LDS (need to have a testimony in order to teach their topic along with the gospel)

-Oreos are better than Chips-Ahoy

-The proper way to eat an Oreo