Reading Response: Revising your rough draft

Chapter 5 in The Curious Researcher contains a very well thought out scheme of exercises that should be considered while “revising” your rough draft. My favorite of these 4 exercises was exercise 5.2 “Dissecting the Fish.” Three simple steps including: “writing down your thesis, listing at least three questions your thesis raises, and rewriting a new thesis at least three times playing with the language, arrangement, information, or getting more specific about what you are saying” (Belanger 227). This exercise will get you ready for the next exercises by reintroducing you to your main thesis and how you can make it better. It will also refresh your memory on your topic and may raise new ideas you feel important to include in your final draft. Revising your draft is the most important part of writing any academic paper. It is the time when you take all of the information you have gathered and you present it in a more formal and understandable way. One way of revising your draft is by asking for help. “Ask a friend” to read your rough draft and get his or her opinion on your topic and the information you provide. This is very critical in helping ‘you’ see your paper’s faults and the things that make your paper the strongest (229). The “cut-and-paste” exercise is also a very useful strategy to use while beginning your revision. It involves printing an extra copy of your first draft, cutting “paragraph by paragraph,” shuffling the stack, taking out the “core paragraph,” and rearranging the paragraphs, getting rid of irrelevant ones, so all that remains is your main point and the “relevant” information you have to support your point (231). The author Bruce Ballenger suggested using “Verbal gestures” while revising your paper. I think it is a good idea because verbal can “provide background” or “signal analysis” even “signify speculation” or “indicate alignment.” Providing background helps people understand what you already said. Signaling analysis examines or criticizes something someone said. Signifying speculation is important in helping the “writer” think clearer. Indicating alignment involves making your analysis and research match the side you are taking. If you follow these simple steps described in this chapter you should have know trouble ending with a well written, well educated academic paper, deserving an A (232).

Reading Response to Curious Researcher p.121-140

I liked the analogy Ballenger used about how a first draft is like a relationship that has run it's course, it was good but hard to let go of.  I can imagine this as a problem for me, I get attached to an idea and don't want to destroy the flow I've created.
The exercise of exploring the source to analysis ratio was helpfull.  Using this technique you can start to see where the weaknesses in your draft are.  I didn't see the usefullness in the "Dissecting the Fish" exercise, I feel like if my thesis statement was at all veiled in my first draft then I would have seen the problem during those first workshops.  A weak or unclear thesis is usually the first thing a reader will point out to you.
The point Ballenger makes about getting someone to read your first draft and give feedback is critical.  I've always tried to use people whom I respect as thinkers for this purpose.  Most of my "editors" are not trained writers but they do have good ideas about what should be said.  The focus questions might be helpful when looking for specific feedback but I would want them to also give me their own reactions so I can get an honest look at how my audience will react to the paper.
The cut and paste exercise will be done in class as a workshop and I look forward to seeing how the two stacks of paragraphs will compare to each other.  Within the paragraphs I might just bring a big black marker to cut out irrelevant sentences.  Having the rejected pile handy might help me understand which points missed the mark and how I might redirect those smaller ideas to better fit the paper and tie everything back to my thesis.
I like that I will get to go back and further research the finer points on these papers, there were some details that were pretty interesting that got left out because they were discovered at the last minute or after the draft was completed that I would love to include.
The tip about http://www.refdesk.com/ was nice, I can see where the smaller but important factoids might get left off a first draft in favor of meatier research.  Not to mention, some of those little facts can be hard to find, I spent a good hour the other day trying to find out when and where Jimmy Hendrix said one of his famous qoutes and still didn't find it. Being able to find those facts on the fly so you don't leave your own questions unanswered is pretty important.
My largest concern during revision is losing the snap of my own voice in favor of a polished and contrived paper.  I've been told one of my biggest strengths as a writer is my word choice and phrasing.  I don't want to lose that in revision, it's happened to me before and it makes for a boring paper.  Ballenger says that the author's voice can take away from the authority of the paper, making it sound unscholarly.  I can see what he means with the surfer colloquialism paragraph he uses as an example, however, I don't want to sound like a text book.  It would be uninteresting and the point is lost because the reader would stop paying attention.

Juveniles and the Reality of False Confession

Many investigators, both in the past and present of this day’s society, have wound up focusing on a juvenile as the main suspect of a homicide. In these not so rare cases, an interrogator is usually advised to take special care in questioning the suspect. In many places throughout the country a juvenile’s interviews and interrogations all have to be recorded in some way or another, usually by tape recorder, sometimes a video recorder; but not in all places. When Miranda rights are presented to a juvenile they must be explained efficiently and thoroughly in a way this specific child will understand. If a child doesn’t understand his or her rights you may as well not even waste your breath asking them questions. This goes hand in hand with the fact a parent or attorney unquestionably should be present during interrogation. Sometimes, especially when a parent or attorney isn’t present, things can get a little out of hand during interrogation. An example of such ignorance was printed by a threesome of people Bill Moushey, Elizabeth Perry and Cynthia Levy, part of The Innocence Institute of Point Park University, who researched juvenile confessions and came up with the article Fear and Loathing Without Representation Leads To Admissions they now contest. “Paul Riggettz,” interrogated without a lawyer, confessed and “reenacted” the “murders of his wife and two children, and the next day recanted saying he confessed only after police held a gun to his head.” However ten months later seventeen-year-old “John Moss,” also interrogated without a parent or attorney, “accused police of beating a confession out of him in the same homicides, causing Mr. Reggettz to walk free and him to be sent away for Page 2 life.” The police admit the juvenile confessed without a parent or attorney, but deny using “physical coercion.” What should happen is a parent or attorney should inarguably be notified even without the child’s consent. A juvenile is too young to vote. How is someone not responsible enough to choose a candidate supposed be responsible enough to make the decision to waive his or her rights? Rebecca Diloreto described several incidents where a juvenile was wrongfully interrogated in the Supreme Court document, Juvenile Confessions/Right Against Self-incrimination. One of these is the case Woods v. Clusen where a 16 ½ year old murder suspect “who had no prior criminal record and no serious previous contact with criminal justice system confessed involuntarily; suspect was awakened early one morning by police officers hovering in his bedroom, was handcuffed and led away from home ostensibly for theft of chain saw, was stripped of his clothes, given institutional garb, but no shoes upon arrival at police station, and was fingerprinted and photographed and led to interrogation room where he was confronted with graphic pictures of murder scene and subjected to interrogation.” If this was an adult, do you think this would have gone differently? An adult knows when the law is wrongfully mistreating them, for the most part. Well, unless the adult has the same mental capacity as a teenager. On the other hand children are subject to do as they are told as long as it is an adult who is asking them to do it. They are taught consequences come from disobeying elders. This is an indisputable reason why a parent/guardian or an attorney should be present for the benefit of the child. The way an interrogator talks to the interrogated is tricky to say the least. They use special strategies (mostly lying) to get adults to confess to crime they commit, when it Page 3 comes to juveniles, on the other hand, most of the time all you have to do is make them believe they can go home when they are done. Cara A. Gardner, the head of the North Carolina Law Review Association, published in September of 2008, a recent development on Failing to serve and protect: A Proposal for an Amendment to a Juveniles Right to a Parent, Guardian, or Custodian During a Police Interrogation* announced, “One of the most common reasons cited by teenage false confessors is that by confessing, they would be able to go home.” The statement you, can go home when we are done is, of course, usually proven to be anything but true. Police and investigators will stop at nothing to solve a homicide, even if it means putting an innocent teenager’s life on the line. When it comes to the case as a whole, most of the time it will be thrown out of court if a child is wrongfully treated or denied his rights during interrogation, and rightfully so. If the “totality of the circumstances test,” described by Ann Gergen in her article on Constitutional Issues in Juvenile Interrogation, is carefully considered, when interrogating a child the evidence will undoubtedly hold up better in court. Outside of the “totalality of the circumstances test,” having a parent or attorney present is by far the most important thing to consider before interrogating a child of any age. Even though it would be most parents’ decision to be called in while his or her child is being interrogated, it’s not a law in any state. But it should be. The rate of juvenile false confession will not improve, unless we improve our juvenile interrogation procedure first. I’m telling you, making a parent or attorney’s presence mandatory to every juvenile interrogation would make all the difference.

Response to Justin's oped

You could certainly use a few sources to back up what you are trying to say here, even throwing in a few statistics of how many students drop out anyway or how many professors are hired by the university even though they don't have the credentials to actually teach their subject.  I don't agree with your paper yet, you have way more convincing to do.  I know this is more of a satirical paper but it would have more punch if it was organized like a real oped and then had the twist at the end. 
I felt like your voice was very much lost in this, in order to convince your audience it helps to believe in what you are writing, make me believe that you really think this. 

Response to Ella's oped

I thought your citations and facts were dead on.  Your paper had punch and was full of ethos, pathos and logos.  Your tone was heartfelt but logical and made your point very effectively.  Your organization was very good, bringing in the example of the 16 year old was a stroke of genius.  Only things I would take a look at would be a greater attention to grammar, you seem to be missing some "the"s here and there, it makes the paper feel more like a stream of thought than something to be read.  I wouldn't change a thing short of doing a grammar check and perhaps a nod toward the opposition's stance of why they would want to interrogate a minor.  Excellent work.

Responses to Stan's oped by Teslin

You need to site where you are getting your statistics on the suicide rate of soldiers.  It would also be nice to see where you found out the number of standing psychiatrists in the Army (they usually hold personnel strength numbers pretty close to the vest as a matter of information security). 
The tone you take is good, full of ethos and quite passionate but your approach would be more effective if you did a little more research into some of the proposed solutions that others have posited.  Being a vet myself I can tell you that the system has improved as far as access to care is concerned, the real problem lies in the psychological guilt of leaving one's comrades to fight without you.  I got out at the end of February after nearly six years of thinking nothing but "How am I gonna survive this?" only to turn on the news and see that a lot of my friends aren't making it back, this is the cross today's veterans are to bare.  A wounded soldier is still a soldier, you still feel bad that you can't go back, even if you are too scared mentally or physically to return.  This mentality is propogated and encouraged even by the warrior ethos which is drilled into soldiers these days by command because they can't afford to lose even one of us.  Like you said our Army only has 500,000 members, might sound like a lot but if you consider that we are fighting a war on two fronts and that not all of those soldiers are battle ready you will realize how desperate the military is to keep those people it's trained. 
As a result, the only way to ensure better care and prevent future losses of veterans is to get us out of this war that has ground down our numbers for the past 6 years or institute the draft again and bring in new people to replace those we've lost.  Freedom is not free, we can't expect the wounded to rise from their hospital beds and go back to war but that is what's happening.
Your organization was good and your stance was fairly clear but again it's hard to galvanize people to make a change if you don't give them an option of how that might be done.

Stan's rough draft op-ed

When you think about wounded soldiers in combat, you probable think of physical injury or maiming. This subject really hit home this last week with the tragic massacre down at FT. Hood, Texas. There were nine wars and almost 130 violent conflicts across the world last year. That makes for a lot of veterans. What I want to talk about is the lingering effects that combat have on our young men and women in today’s armed forces and why not much is being done to fix this inexcusable injustice. These service men and women place their lives in danger for us and our country and we should give them the best medical care available when they return. Many are returning home with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder or better known as PTSD. What is PTSD? In layman’s terms, it is shell shock or battle fatigue. Can it be cured? The answer is yes. With the right medication, counseling, and time, it can be brought under control. The problem right now is that it’s not. Soldiers are being sent back into combat without receiving treatment for it. Who is to blame for this? Is it the soldier that is afraid to ask for help? The leadership that is more concerned for getting the mission accomplished? The doctors who are caring more about their obligation to their uniform than to the white coat that they wear? Or is the blame on our government who doesn’t believe that there is a problem or that they just don’t want to address it. The answer is all of the blame. They all share a portion of blame. Out of a force of over 500,000, the Army has just 409 physiatrists in uniform. That’s just crazy. I understand that that doesn’t take into account physicians assistants and counselors but still unacceptable. We have over 140,000 troops in Iraq alone. How many of those 409 are over in theatre? Then there are the other side effects of untreated PTSD. Drug and alcohol abuse, depression, suicide, and the list goes on and on. Recent report show that over 95 percent of uniform code of military justice (UCMJ) cases in Iraq and Afghanistan where related to either alcohol or drugs. With the availability of heroin in Afghanistan, many are turning to that. Know we have highly trained junkies with PTSD returning home. Very scary I think. Suicide in the armed forces is skyrocketing. The army is on track this year to have over a 300 percent increase over last year. That’s totally unacceptable. It should be zero percent. There are other issues. I just wanted to throw some of this stuff out there for you to ponder. Do I have an answer to this injustice? No, but I do know we need to figure out how or we are going to have an epidemic that’s going to cost this country more than just money.

Op-ed

Ella Yearicks English 102 Christy Vance November 13, 2009 Juveniles vs. False Confession Many investigators, both in the recent and the non-recent past, have wound up focusing on a juvenile as the main suspect of a homicide. In these not so rare cases, an interrogator is usually advised to take special care in questioning the suspect. In many places throughout the country a juveniles interviews and interrogations all have to be recorded in some way or another, usually by tape recorder, sometimes a video recorder; but not in all places. When Miranda rights are presented to a juvenile they must be explained efficiently and thoroughly in a way this specific child will understand. Ignorantly, this step in minor interrogation is pretty much skipped a lot of the time. If a child doesn’t understand his or her rights you may as well not even waste your breath asking them questions. What should happen is a parent or attorney should inarguably be notified even without the child’s consent. A juvenile is too young to vote. How is someone not responsible enough to choose a candidate supposed be responsible enough to make the decision to waive his or her rights? Rebecca Diloreto described several incidents where a juvenile was wrongfully interrogated in the Supreme Court document, Juvenile Confessions/Right Against Self-incrimination. One of these is the case Woods v. Clusen where a 16 ½ year old murder suspect “who had no prior criminal record and no serious previous contact with criminal justice system confessed involuntarily; suspect was awakened early one morning by police officers hovering in his bedroom, was handcuffed and led away from home ostensibly for theft of chain saw, was stripped of his clothes, given institutional garb, but no shoes upon arrival at police station, and was fingerprinted and photographed and led to interrogation room where he was confronted with graphic pictures of murder scene and subjected to interrogation. If this was an adult, do you think this would have gone differently? Well, yes unless the adult has the same mental capacity as a child. An adult knows when the law is wrongfully mistreating them, for the most part. On the other hand children are subject to do as they are told as long as it is an adult who is asking them to do it. They are taught consequences come from disobeying elders. This is an indisputable reason why a parent/guardian or an attorney should be contacted for the benefit of the child. When it comes to the case as a whole, most of the time it will be thrown out of court if a child is wrongfully treated or denied his rights during interrogation, and rightfully so. If the “totality of the circumstances test,” described by Ann Gergen in her article on Constitutional Issues in Juvenile Interrogation, is carefully considered when interrogating a child the evidence will undoubtedly hold up better in court. Even though it would be most parents’ decision to be called in while his or her child is being interrogated, it’s not a law in any state. But it should be.

Op-Ed rough draft

“College Tuition” Education today has become an abomination. Teachers no longer want to teach and students no longer want to learn. This is why I believe the entire college tuition should be paid in full at the first semester of the freshman year of college. Not only would that eliminate the poor, unintelligent, slacker, and careless students, but it would change the cash flow of the universities to be able to hire teachers who like to teach, not who are there to find an easy retirement job. By paying this tuition, poor , middle class, and unintelligent students would no longer be pressured to go. This would help the workforce and would also cut down on the number of student loans being drawn out of the federal government. Finally an idea to help the budget; teachers, students, and universities get back to a place of respect. Not some day care for eighteen year olds who want a break from responsibility. The most important change that paying the tuition up front is the professors. No longer would it be acceptable for old burnouts of their field to end up at a university teaching classes that they could care less about. To these teachers class is not a big deal. They have already left their mark writing books or publishing research and these students could care less about what is being taught. By paying the entire tuition up front these schools could “clean house” of professors like that and find real teachers. People who enjoy and feel the need to help students who want to be taught. This goes right back to cutting the poor and unintelligent students, creating an environment that professors would enjoy teaching in. In effect this, again, helps reestablish the respect that colleges deserve –not becoming a playground / / / So, i have kinda hit a writing wall and am stuck. Its about 300 words ish and seems scattered. I am giving up and gonna watch planet earth on BBC.

A Day Without Commercials

Jimmy Hendrix once wrote, “When the power of love overcomes the love of power we will know peace.” I ponder on those words in days that seem rife with struggle and bloody contempt but today, on a day when I look around and see the placid looks of apparent peace on the faces of strangers, I wish for some sign of anger or unrest on those faces. I feel I’ve lost my personal power of choice, of free thought; all my rights dissolved for someone else’s idea of peace. Our society has been plunged into an era of decline due to an ever increasing control over what we see, hear, read and consume. We have freely surrendered our personal powers and responsibilities in favor of someone else doing everything and making every decision for us. We have become zombies with wallets who will buy anything we are told to without a second thought.


Our news is brought to us by corporate thugs who want to continue to pollute our planet while robbing us blind. These same thugs also own about 90% of the music and book publishing outlets. They also own drug companies, energy consortiums, food companies and about half the politicians in our own government get campaign contributions from them so that they can get laws passed that allow them to monopolize, privatize and exploit just about everything. It’s rather ingenious really, most dictatorships start with bloody coupes, all these guys had to do was buy up all the news outlets, radio stations, television channels, and willing politicians. After that all they had to do was make the public stupid enough to believe that they are still free. Sounds like the plot of some book I know, what year is this? 1984? Robert Kane Pappas agrees, he even made a film about it called “Orwell Rolls In His Grave” but of course no one has seen it unless they were looking on the internet because the same thugs own the movie studios. If you can’t find that on You Tube go rent the movie “Network” from 1976, still awesome and relevant today.

I know all that is probably distorting that placid grin on your face right now but don’t worry, we have an answer. We have a drug for when we feel blue, a drug for when we feel anxiety and for just about any other type of feeling that could be just as easily assuaged if we simply expressed them. If the drugs don’t work we can try to eat ourselves into a sugar coma or artificially torque ourselves up with caffeine, taurine and L-carnatine. All those things lead to a premature death and random shopping sprees but the recession is over now so it’s ok to shop again, never mind the foreclosure sign on your neighbor’s lawn, maybe they’re just dead beats.

Now that we know how we got here it’s time to figure out how to take our power back. It is so simple it boggles the mind. We close our wallets and stop buying what they are selling us. No more voting democrat or republican, no more campaign contributions of great size from just one person or group of people, no more conglomerates invading the air-waves, sound waves and brain waves of free people. I’m not asking for people to take to the streets, in fact just stay home, do nothing, turn off your television and radio, leave the newspaper on the lawn. If you get bored go to You-Tube and look up “Orwell Rolls In His Grave” and “Food Inc” and when you are done watching them, look up The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. You will never look at your education the same way again.

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: November 7, 2009

Your body is probably home to a chemical called bisphenol A, or BPA. It’s a synthetic estrogen that United States factories now use in everything from plastics to epoxies — to the tune of six pounds per American per year. That’s a lot of estrogen.

Bisphenol-A (BPA)

More than 92 percent of Americans have BPA in their urine, and scientists have linked it — though not conclusively — to everything from breast cancer to obesity, from attention deficit disorder to genital abnormalities in boys and girls alike.

Now it turns out it’s in our food.

Consumer Reports magazine tested an array of brand-name canned foods for a report in its December issue and found BPA in almost all of them. The magazine says that relatively high levels turned up, for example, in Progresso vegetable soup, Campbell’s condensed chicken noodle soup, and Del Monte Blue Lake cut green beans.

The magazine also says it found BPA in the canned liquid version of Similac Advance infant formula (but not in the powdered version) and in canned Nestlé Juicy Juice (but not in the juice boxes). The BPA in the food probably came from an interior coating used in many cans.

Should we be alarmed?

The chemical industry doesn’t think so. Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council dismissed the testing, noting that Americans absorb quantities of BPA at levels that government regulators have found to be safe. Mr. Hentges also pointed to a new study indicating that BPA exposure did not cause abnormalities in the reproductive health of rats.

But more than 200 other studies have shown links between low doses of BPA and adverse health effects, according to the Breast Cancer Fund, which is trying to ban the chemical from food and beverage containers.

“The vast majority of independent scientists — those not working for industry — are concerned about early-life low-dose exposures to BPA,” said Janet Gray, a Vassar College professor who is science adviser to the Breast Cancer Fund.

Published journal articles have found that BPA given to pregnant rats or mice can cause malformed genitals in their offspring, as well as reduced sperm count among males. For example, a European journal found that male mice exposed to BPA were less likely to make females pregnant, and the Journal of Occupational Health found that male rats administered BPA had less sperm production and lower testicular weight.

This year, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that pregnant mice exposed to BPA had babies with abnormalities in the cervix, uterus and vagina. Reproductive Toxicology found that even low-level exposure to BPA led to the mouse equivalent of early puberty for females. And an array of animal studies link prenatal BPA exposure to breast cancer and prostate cancer.

While most of the studies are on animals, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported last year that humans with higher levels of BPA in their blood have “an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities.” Another published study found that women with higher levels of BPA in their blood had more miscarriages.

Scholars have noted some increasing reports of boys born with malformed genitals, girls who begin puberty at age 6 or 8 or even earlier, breast cancer in women and men alike, and declining sperm counts among men. The Endocrine Society, an association of endocrinologists, warned this year that these kinds of abnormalities may be a consequence of the rise of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and it specifically called on regulators to re-evaluate BPA.

Last year, Canada became the first country to conclude that BPA can be hazardous to humans, and Massachusetts issued a public health advisory in August warning against any exposure to BPA by pregnant or breast-feeding women or by children under the age of 2.

The Food and Drug Administration, which in the past has relied largely on industry studies — and has generally been asleep at the wheel — is studying the issue again. Bills are also pending in Congress to ban BPA from food and beverage containers.

“When you have 92 percent of the American population exposed to a chemical, this is not one where you want to be wrong,” said Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network. “Are we going to quibble over individual rodent studies, or are we going to act?”

While the evidence isn’t conclusive, it justifies precautions. In my family, we’re cutting down on the use of those plastic containers that contain BPA to store or microwave food, and I’m drinking water out of a metal bottle now. In my reporting around the world, I’ve come to terms with the threats from warlords, bandits and tarantulas. But endocrine disrupting chemicals — they give me the willies.

I liked this op-ed piece. Maybe its because I have worked in food for a long long time but its kinda scary to think about.

Response to "They Say, I Say"

The main point the author seems to be getting at in this particular reading is that when one is writing an argument paper it should not be forgotten that you aren't talking to yourself, this is a converstation and your paper is meant to be your contribution to that conversation.  I find my problem when writing my argument is not that I forget there are others who might not agree with me but that their own arguments skew the can skew my original question.  There is a certain amount of tangents involved with any argument and to fully argue effectively you have to understand what those tangents are and their importance to the case. 
The movie "Thank You For Smoking" keeps being brought up in class and I can see why, the main character does a really good job of skewing the question so much that his answers are correct but not for the original question.  My attempts thus far at drafting are not including the counter arguements yet because I feel that I need to fully lay out my claim and it's supports for each facet of the arguement and then go through after the draft is complete and insert the opposition's claim with my rebutal to keep me on track and not let their own tangents distract me from my main purpose. 
I didn't really like the canned phrases the reading gives us for either agreeing, disagreeing and for being of two minds on the subject.  I don't like the idea of barrowing someone else's words when I write since a writter's style is so intertwined with word and phrase choice.  I realize we should be using these examples simply to get our minds thinking critically about how we will approach our opposition.

Reading Response: They Say, I Say

Page 1 Ella Yearicks English 102 Christy Vance October 30, 2009 Arguing is one of the most popular ways of associating with other people; it can be a positive thing or it could be a negative thing. Even though you disagree with someone does not mean that you are putting that person down in any way. Everyone has his or her own opinion and there’s nothing anyone can do about that. So the next time someone disagrees with you don’t take it as an insult, they are just merely expressing their own feelings and there is nothing wrong with that. They Say, I Say, is one of the most valuable readings there is to read before writing an argument paper. Whether for a class assignment or a letter to the editor, this essay gives numerous ideas of how to argue a good argument no matter what side you choose. While “constructing an argument, remember you are entering a conversation and therefore need to start with ‘what others are saying,’ and then introduce your own ideas as a response. Summarize what ‘they say’ as soon as you can and state your own opinion” right afterwards (19). This quote tells how to start an argument. I like the way the writer affectively states throughout his essay sure ways of getting ones point across without complication. The reader will understand a lot better, what your position is, if you state it at the very beginning of your argument. I also like the fact the writer tells specifically each way you can agree, disagree, or both. There are more than two sides to every argument. When you disagree you need to not only say that you disagree, but you need to explain why you disagree. Same thing if you agree with a particular subject, you need to state the fact that you agree and then give reasons why you agree. Even though it may seem lazy to both agree and disagree with anything it is a more affective decision than you may think. With this strategy you can agree with one side of the argument, and yet disagree with another side without causing confusion. No matter if you agree, disagree or both make sure it is clear to the reader which side you are on, and do it early or your paper will not be as effective as it could be. Remember, if you don’t choose a side you are not arguing you are just stating facts without any reason for doing so (They Say, I Say). The most effective way (well, pretty much the only way) of arguing is to either agree, disagree or both. You simply can’t argue if you don’t have your own opinion.

They Say

I thought this reading was very good. I really liked ho the author made me think that when writing a thesis, I need to state what others think about my subject as well, to give my stance substance and credit. I tend to leave this out a lot of the time when I write and it is something I need to take into consideration when writing. It makes your writing have more credit if you include others opinions in your writing, so you audience realizes that its a group opinion and not just yours. It just gives you, the writer more credibility with your audience. I thought it was a good topic that the author talked about when the auther addressed the topic of making you stance clear and precise. I seem to see that a lot in my reading. I have to get half way through a article before I find out what the writer is trying to point out. It seems llike a lot of current writers are almost like politicians. They just beat around the bush, instead of just coming right out and getting to the point.

"they say"

I did not like this reading as much as the Orwell reading, It seemed like the writer was in a hurry to get this done because it had no personality to the writing. that aside, there were some good points throughout the writing. When the writer talked about the lecture about Dr. X and how his work was wonderful and profound and yet no one knew why there was a need to defend this work was great! I cannot understand when people write papers, speeches, or anything without a point. That is great that his work is profound but who says it differently is a question i have asked myself more times than i would have liked. I did not like the templates at the end of the writing. Not because they are bad templates, but that I fear students will take these templates and use them rather than applying the Orwell talked about in "Politics in the English Language". Instead of making templates i think that it would have been better to have shown students how to get down and think about how they really want to say what it is they have to say. I liked the part about book lovers. Its a funny yet true point about how book readers really do congratulate themselves and that someone could read this and understand the point. (and teslin i forgot to tell you there is a spell check in the post screen, its across from the font and next to paragraph formatting but i could not get it to work)

Should the blog be entitled "Teslin, Ella, Stan and Justin's English 102 blog?" It's a mouthful, but I was just wondering... ;)

Orwell Reading

I really enjoyed this reading. Using shorter, more concise and english rather than greek words seems like common sense. apparently not for the time period that Mr. Orwell had wrote this essay. I have always tried to use shorter sentences when possible and clearer words when possible and it was neat to read an essay by someone famous who thinks along the same lines as me. when Mr. Orwell used the first examples I had a hard time finding the issues with the writing, probably because I have become accustomed to using catch phrases come to mind and describe things for me. after reading through the essay, i realized that i am at fault just as much as those writers. even in my ethnography I am just as at fault(even here with this catch phrase) as any writer that Orwell could have cited. My favorite parts were about the pretentious dictation and useless words. Doing some of the research I have found more that my fair share of pretentious dictation from high and mighty writers. There is no reason that people have to talk down to others since they have done a little research. useless words are another great part of his essay. some of these words are just plain ridiculous. words that have mroe than one meaning or meanings that cannot be agreed upon are just another way of putting extra words into papers, essays, and other forms of writing especially political.

Response to Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"

When I Googled this to actually find the essay I saw that George Orwell wrote it in 1946. All the countries of the world were trying to recover from a war that was caused by a dictator who's cult of personality lay squarely in his ability to speak passionately to his people and dupe them into genocide, murder and a war that would eventually destroy half of Europe.  We have had many more dictators since then and many more politicians who have used the same tactics to push their agendas and yet we havn't stopped as Orwell did to say a word about why we keep letting these veiled speeches rule us over.
 It is hard to imagine how much our language and writing has changed since then.  I can relate to his frustration towards bad writing  because I see how bad it is today.  Pick up just about any news paper or magazine and they are filled with bad metaphors and buzz words which don't really express the true meaning that the writer should convey.  They are often meer puppets to conventional wisdom and play every scene to the masses that consume them rather than saying something real that makes a person actually think not stand up and cheer.  Likewise our literary works have gone downhill in quality where a book writen for teenage girls is a best seller, (talking about the Twighlight series here), who is reading this crap with any sort of seriousness? 
The way Orwell ties political speeches into this is masterfull.  I can't think that I've seen one single speech delivered by a politician in my time that was anything but a vailed effort to conseal something or say a lot about nothing while sounding and looking really powerfull.  I can say without worry of reproach by nearly anyone that watching former President George W. Bush speak actually made me feel scared for the future of our country and not because the terrorism threat level was red, but because I was afraid in his vagueness and stupidity that he would say something that would outrage his own people and end in a bloody overthrow on the White House lawn. 
Now we have President Obama, a wonderous pontificator but only because his audience is being swayed by fancy rhetoric and aren't actually listening to what he says which doesn't make any real sense anyway or watching what he is doing while they are buying plates with his face on it off the television.  If he were actually sucessfully pulling us out of some nasty situation, perhaps on a Nelson Mandella level where we are now free from Apartide, then I could understand the lauding and fawning over him, but he hasn't done that and he probably won't do that because as is he doesn't have to, he seems to be able to stand on the shear fact that he made it to the White House.  Now he has speech writers who can spin a web of well intentioned phrases that sound really nice but are useless in all practical application and the people will love him for it because they don't understand what is being said.
I wonder if it really is the writers responsiblity to change this trend as Orwell says.  I can see where they would have the power to change the way they write but are the masses going to respond anymore to this better way of writing?  I wonder if we are too late.  Have we all become numb to this reduced form of expression?  Would we even know good writing if it was staring us in the face?  I would have to say the answer is a resounding no considering the newspaper with the highest current circulation is a tabloid.  If writers are goind to start writing better I suggest they use baby steps and start there, although I would hate to see a writer toil to write a better written story on the next level of stupidity to come out of the "Jon and Kate Plus 8" drama.  George Orwell would be rolling in his grave.

Reading Response In chapter 7 of Bruce Ballenger’s the Curious Writer (Concise Edition), she merely discusses the steps needed to writing an argument paper that not only catches the audience’s attention, but also accurately comes to one conclusion pointing out other point of views along the way. Bruce tells about many examples of informal arguments one such is writing letters to the editor of a newspaper. She explains, “While these essays are often informal, they are still persuasive forms, and as you’ll see later, they often employ the same methods of more formal arguments.” Just like in “more formal” written arguments, newspaper letters to the editor, argue a main point and usually for the most part are interesting and can draw a reader in to the main point (202). There are numerous different ways to argue a point. A lot of people argue everyday whether in relationships, at school, or at work; they all have their own opinion and think that other people should know about it. If you are a lawyer you argue for a living. “When scientists seek to understand something about the way the earth works, they often begin with hypothesis. They then design an experiment to collect data that is meant to determine the truth of the hypothesis.” This is an example of a scientific argument. An argument paper is similar because you too have to do some form of research to support your topic well; plus a topic of an argument paper has a unique hypothesis of its own. In an argument paper you aren’t supposed to “reinforce” any already known “ideas”, you are supposed to come up with your own way of seeing something and let others know so it can lead people closer to the truth about something, or even just to “discover a new way of thinking about a topic” (203). A good argument is one that has not yet been acknowledged by most people, and it’s a strong argument if you show other peoples opinions and “evidence” of why your own should be considered. Bruce also explained a lot of important argument paper misconceptions such as: the similarities and differences between “argument and inquiry,” “making claims,” and the fact that there aren’t always just “two sides to an argument.” These are all important factors to consider while writing a persuasive argument paper.

Reading Response

I really liked at the start of the article when Ballanger makes reference to the Idaho Statesman. There isn't a more opinionated newspaper out there and get a kick out of reading the editorials and the letters in response to them. You are going to always have two views on things and there isn't a better place to do it than in a newspaper or on a talk show. On the second page where Ballanger makes reference to arguing with his father really hit home to me. Seemed like unless i was arguing with him, we never talked. The two most important thing I have learned about getting into a argument is to to me pick one that is winnable and to make sure you know what you are talking about. I had really never thought of a argument being a process until reading this article. Most of the time it seems to just come second nature. The open model of argument was very interesting to me and made me take a step back and think about the process. you really don't think about the investigation portion of it until it is right in front of you. Ballanger points out that there are always two sides of a argument but if it is a a topic or subject that you strongly believe in, you always tend to forget the one that doesn't necessary agree with you view point. I also agree that it is a civic duty as well. We have had many men and women die for the right that we have. Many people do not get the opportunity to argue or question things and we shouldn't take it for granted. I had never really considered that there were different types of argumentative writing until this article and where each comes into play. Ballanger does a very good job of explaining the differences. I believe that this has been the most interesting piece that we have read to this date. Stanton

Response to "Writing an Argument"

I see the purpose of this essay as being why we need to learn to argue effectively as a writer. The most famous discourses on government, ethics, politics and religion were all argued in this fashion, not necessarily to prove a point but to at least get others to think about the issues on a deeper level. American society these days seems to have gone away from an objective presentation of ideas to one of vehement defense of principles that might not be totally understood by those touting them. For example, people pick sides in a political race based on party lines or a few basic assumptions of what a candidate plans to do, not on the reality of what a candidate stands for, their track record or even their ethics.


The media does a pretty thorough job of spoon feeding the masses whatever they think they should believe without, as Mr. Ballenger puts it, "bowing respectfully to the complexity of the subject, examining it from a variety of perspectives, not just two opposing poles." It is not so much news anymore as it is a one sided editorial with a very narrow perspective on the issues that affect us. We may as well just watch the commercials, that way we know we are being sold something instead of them sneaking it in through the back door. So if "arguing is our civic duty" then we should learn to correct this by teaching the next generation to think for themselves and that real wisdom comes from genuine understanding from listening and questioning not from a person's ability to pontificate. If you teach a person to research and really discover the truth of matters than the argument is somewhat moot, if anything the argument paper should be designed to inspire a person to go look for the answers themselves.

Coincidentally enough my own argument paper centers on the idea that the control of knowledge by those in power is the reason for the decline of our society. I see the biggest hurdle to presenting my point may be finding experts who would agree with me, after all, the authorities are the people I'm pointing the finger at and those who might agree with me have been painted as quacks and conspiracy theorists by those in authority. I will have to appeal then rather to direct evidence and perhaps use the authority of the great philosophers to back me up. Funny how Socrates was thought of as a quack and a dangerous man in his own time but now his thoughts are taught in text books, go figure.

Mr. Ballenger breaks the argument paper down into two forms, the Academic Argument Essay and the Informal Argument Essay, I see our papers as being something in between the two of these because we will have research to back it up but we ourselves are not necessarily authorities on the subjects we are writing about. My understanding is that we will take this first argument paper and turn it into an Op-ed at the end of the semester which will have to be much shorter. I'm not in love with that idea, getting to the point in 500 to 1,000 words can be pretty tricky, especially if your topic is as complex as my own, I will perhaps have to argue only a certain instance of my arguement such as how the corporate ownership of media outlets leads to biased reporting and therefore an inaccurate presentation of the facts or perhaps how the influence of lobbyists has corrupted what is to be taught in our public schools. Either way, it will curtail my argument somewhat but it is the nature of the beast.

I would appreciate any feedback or ideas, leads or personal thoughts on the matter, feel free to post.

Our topic (administrator note)

I thought it might be a good idea to explain to people outside of our class what we are doing so that maybe we can get some outside sources and different points of view.
For people outside the class we are responding to the "Arguments" section of  The Curious Writer by Bruce Ballenger.  We will be writing argument papers which will then be widdled down to Op-eds at the end of the semester so this reading was intended to enlighten us to a few features of this type of writting.   Any writers out there who have some insights into what makes for a good argument paper or Op-ed are welcomed to add their ideas here, all of us would appreciate it. 

I am bummed as well

I'm so bummed we don't have argyl for our backgrounds!

Welcome everyone to the new blogging generation, I will now have to close down my "MySpace" for good because I no longer have time for it.  I'm too busy with class, "Facebook", "Twitter" and my new blog to worry about which new rap group wants to be my "friend". 

Hey

Congrats on your new blogging account everyone...

Test

Testing . . . testing. . ..

Hello

Hello everyone.