Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Supreme Court evaluates a case involving race, testing and job promotions
NPR News Story: Supreme Court Hears Firefighter Promotion Case
-Josh G.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Maya's RR
Response to "A Work of Artifice."
By Daniel Sapiro
Leigh RR2
A Work of Artifice
Karly Lundy
Monday, April 20, 2009
Han Cao RR2
Bonsai Trees Aren't One Gender
While reading “A Work of Artifice” it is easy to see the parallel between the bonsai and a woman. The obvious interpretation is of how sexism has oppressed women. While this is one reading of the poem, it is not the only possible one. It could also be read as an individual being pruned and shaped by the government as well. I would certainly not argue that this interpretation is more prominent but I think it is more interesting. I have to confess; reading it through a gender lens was kind of boring due to the topic having been done so many times. I suppose I have become desensitized to these kinds of things.
Anyways, I found the poem to be a little more interesting by expanding the identity to that of simply a human instead of just a woman, though I suppose it could be read through a pet’s view as well. Discrimination doesn’t occur just between the sexes, it happens to everyone. Marge Piercy wrote this poem to be about female oppression but it’s just not very provoking that way. Perhaps it’s because the information isn’t anything new or because the poem itself isn’t aggressive. “A Work of Artifice” is not a poorly written poem or lacking in literary devices, it’s just not very original. Please try looking at it through a different lens and tell me if you think it made the work a little more impressive or if it didn’t change anything for you.
RR2 Brian S.
-Brian S.
A Work of Artifice
With that being said, I don’t think this poem is very effective on people that are not already fighting for or at least supporting women’s rights. It is artistic and lovely to those of us that agree with its message but if this had been an attempt to persuade a person over, it certainly would not have worked on me. It feels like this piece was written with a tone better suited for the people that suffer from sexism than for the people that support it, regardless of its attempts to provoke a response from the ‘gardeners’ it mentions.
The problem with this poem is the fact that it feels much easier to relate to, regardless of whichever minority group you belong to. It attempts to attack sexism in our society by pointing out examples of women conforming to meet male standards such as the feet binding in China and the hair curlers but still carries an overall tone of suffering and the injustice of it all rather than the logic behind why it’s wrong and how to stop it. “A Work of Artifice” is a work of art, worthy of the praise it gets, but not provocative enough to spark any real reaction.
Carolyn Sheedy
Courtney Puckett RR2
Mary Saunders Response 2
April 19, 2009
“A work of Artifice” by Marge Piercy uses the symbol of a bonsai tree to represent women’s rights. Throughout the poem, the tree is described as being small and helpless. The tree has the potential to grow to be eighty feet tall, but instead it is carefully pruned by a gardner that only lets the tree grow to nine inches high. This careful pruning of the tree is a representation of men holding women back and not allowing them to reach their full potential in their lives. The poem describes the gardener crooning to the tree, “It is your nature to be small and weak; how lucky, little tree, to have a pot to grow in.” Many men throughout history and even in the world today have this same attitude towards women that the gardener has towards the tree. They say that the women are lucky to be safe, protected and cared for by men when in fact all women really want is to be treated equally.
Alexander's RR2
Jasper RR2
Sunday, April 19, 2009
John Taylor rr2
Theme for English B by Langston Hughes
-Chelsea Schoenberg
GROUP FIRE
Thanks,
Brian
Sarah RR2
Joe Najdek RR2
Justin Sander's RR2
-Justin Sander
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Social Rules with a Critical Eye
The assigned readings made me think of the ways in which a dominant culture/society can shape a subordinate one...but also made me think of how what is popularly understood to be a subordinate view/position can deliver powerful critique of the dominant culture, or highlight interdependence.
And if that doesn't work for me, I always find that comedy news helps get me thinking.
The Daily Show
-Josh G.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Suggestions for My Em?
I am just about to start writing my rough draft and was wondering if you had any suggestions for my enthymeme. Also, is there a certain amount of sources you like to see in a paper?
-Just About to Start
Dear JATS,
First, start with a minimum of one citation. If you use more, that is fine, but make sure that you are using MLA guidelines.
Secondly, what is your QI?
If we deconstruct your Em (phrase the CLAIM as a QI), it is not a good conversational trigger.
"Should the golden rule of expression be that if one does not want to be judged by their cover they should act in a modest fashion?"
You need to start with a 'trigger' QI that can operate at conversational speeds.
Like we did on the board at the end of class yesterday, cut it down until it easily triggers conversational reaction.
That QI will then morph into a functional CLAIM that will then link to a solid REASON with a SHARED TERM to form a viable Em.
After arriving at a successful QI, proceed by:
-determining your stance (do you agree or disagree)
-determining your audience
-reviewing your choices for a shared term
-choosing the one that will provide momentum in the trajectory that you want to explore with the essay
-providing your REASON
-completing the Em
-checking the UNSTATED ASSUMPTION
-sketching/outlining an essay based on the BURDEN OF PROOF (the REASON)
-following the rest of the steps in the writing packet
Best of luck,
-Josh G.
Struggling to Turn My QI into an Em
I am struggling to turn my question at issue into an enthymeme that makes sense. My question at issue is How are swear words considered profane and offensive? I am also considering the QI How do swear words set the norm for what is socially acceptable in society? I am not sure which one is better, or if I am phrasing it wrong altogether. Do you have any suggestions how it can be phrased into an enythymeme? Thanks!
-Struggling to Turn My Question
Dear STTMQ,
First, phrase your QI as a 'yes-no' question to make sure that your audience (and you) are able to respond to it in a meaningful way (make sure it is interesting and clear enough to trigger a response).
The second one works better in this respect:
Do swear words set the norm for what is socially acceptable in society?
(though socially acceptable and society create a distracting redundancy)
Also, you may want to see if you have something specific in mind when you write "set the norm."
After you've settled on an effective QI:
-determine your stance (do you agree or disagree)
-determine your audience
-review your choices for a shared term
-choose the one that will provide momentum in the trajectory that you want to explore with the essay
-provide your REASON
-complete the Em
-check the UNSTATED ASSUMPTION
-sketch/outline an essay based on the BURDEN OF PROOF (the REASON)
-follow the rest of the steps in the writing packet
Best of luck,
-Josh G.
Is this question/Em okay?
Is this question/em work okay?
QI: Do women have the right to feel like they are oppressed because of their lack of education and ability to work in relation to men?
Em: Women are oppressed because they are not treated equal to that of men.
Thanks in advance,
Is This OK?
Dear ITOK,
First, remember to make it clear in your question that we are discussing something within the realm of "the rules of expression." On first review, your question and Em is not addressing our general discussion.
A way to reconnect would be to re-read "Marked Women" and see what connection you can make between choices of expression and judgment or unequal treatment.
A QI related to that essay may read:
[Ex: Do people judge women's level of education and professional abilities based on their choice of clothing more so than they do for men?]
Secondly, as your Em reads, it is circular. Follow the exercises below to arrive at a viable Em.
[An Em is circular if you can flip the key words in the CLAIM and REASON and the meaning of the sentence is unchanged: Women are not treated equal to [that of] men because they are oppressed.
In any case, to make this more effective in generating thought for you as an author, and for your audience, try phrasing the question at issue in more specific terms. It would me most helpful if you could relay the context of the discussion in your question.
Vague/Unclear: have the right to feel like they are oppressed
Specific/more clear: [example- justified in feeling discriminated against]
Vague/Unclear: lack of education and ability to work
Specific/more clear: [example- ?] Including this (phrased this way) in the question introduces an assumption that an individual is lacks or possesses an education and the ability to work based on their gender/sex. All but the most essentialist individuals would likely disagree that all women lack education and the ability to work. [In short- delete all indefensible assumptions.]
Vague/Unclear: in relation to men
Specific/more clear: [example- compared to men]
Once you have a specific 'yes-no' QI that addresses the 'rules of expression,' you can:
-determine your stance (do you agree or disagree)
-determine your audience
-review your choices for a shared term
-choose the one that will provide momentum in the trajectory that you want to explore with the essay
-provide your REASON
-complete the Em
-check the UNSTATED ASSUMPTION
-sketch/outline an essay based on the BURDEN OF PROOF (the REASON)
-follow the rest of the steps in the writing packet
Good luck,
-Josh G.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Way Too Late
I know I am emailing you way too late but here are some ideas I have come up with-
Question at Issue: How do different discourse communities that oppose each other interact? Or In what means do opposing discourse communities interact with one another? Or How do controversial discourse community motto’s affect other similar discourse communities/ the public?
If you don't get back to me in time, which I expect, I am going to go ahead with one of these even though they are not well developed yet.
I am showing these to you just so maybe you have a better way to develop one of these ideas for a better question at issue. And which would help me complete the different aspects of brainstorming.
Thanks, Way Too Late
Dear WTL,
Of the three questions the one that I see as being the most workable starting point is the third:
How do controversial discourse community motto’s affect other similar discourse communities/ the public?
However, this question has gotten about two steps ahead of itself in complicating the terms and phrasing of discussion.
First:
Take a step back and use clear, precise terms in your question. Starting from an readily identifiable point will help the essay/discussion develop. If the question is broached but the terms and referents are unclear, there is no momentum. [As you develop the discussion/essay, more general terms can be used, as it will then be clear exactly what you're talking about.]
So, clarify the terms:
Vague: Controversial discourse community
Specific: [example- the National Socialist party (Nazi)]
Vague: mottos
Specific: [example- (logo/symbol) swastika]
Vague: similar discourse communities
Specific: [example- other political movements]
Vague: the public
Specific: [example- people who may be offended by the expression]
Second:
Try phrasing your initial question at issue as a 'yes/no' question.
This is like the continental divide, determining where you 'stand' as the author, and where your audience stands. This is essential in determining your relationship and approach to the issue and the audience. If nothing else, it is a quick way to find out if anyone even cares enough to have a response to it.
[example 1- Does the use of the swastika by the National Socialist party (Nazis) have any effect upon other political parties and how they utilize symbols?]
[example 2- Does the use of the swastika by the National Socialist party (Nazis) have any effect upon people who would otherwise take no notice of that political party.]
The second example is a stretch and may simply confuse an audience, however, the first may be thought-provoking.
After you have determined that it is viable, find out where you 'stand' and then proceed with the Em-production process.
-Josh G.
Was Wondering About the Topic
I was wondering about the topic that I have chosen to write on.
My topic is symbols and my QI statement is: How are discourse community symbols viewed in different contexts around the world.
I'm not sure about how to answer the other questions though because I'm not really taking a solid stance on an issue. I'm mainly talking about how symbols like the Nazi swastika is looked upon as bad in our society but in Buddhism it's a sign for peace.
Let me know what you think and any advice you can give me would be greatly appreciated.
-Was Wondering About the Topic
Dear WWATT,
First, you have a good starting point because it is something that people will want to talk about and it relates to the rules of expression.
However, to develop the idea into a written essay, follow the small steps carefully to avoid confusion, conflation, and ultimately, frustration.
It sounds like your QUESTION AT ISSUE (a question of interpretation) is something like:
Can the same symbol represent violence and hate in one context but represent peace in another context?
From your email, your answer is clearly 'yes.'
To continue developing the idea, phrase your QI as an analytical question (using 5WH):
How can the same symbol represent violence and hate in one context but represent peace in another context?
Answer this to get your REASON. In doing this, use a link (shared term) between this question (which is simply your assertion phrased as a question) and your answer. As phrased above, the strongest options for linking are:
(same) symbol
representation
context
Additional options:
violence and hate
peace
Once you have an answer, combine your CLAIM and REASON to form an Em.
-Josh G.
Very Confused on This Topic
I am very confused on this topic. I wrote my QI & Em on the video from our blog. Is this okay? Or did I need to make up my own interest?
-Very Confused
Dear Very Confused,
It sounds like you are going in the right direction, because you are responding to something that is related to our discussion, though without knowing what video you're referring to, it's hard to tell where you may be taking it.
The key point here is that (within the context of 'rules of expression') you don't have to 'make up' your own interests, you just have to identify and articulate those interests that you already have.
-Josh G
Trying To Figure Out a Good Topic
I'm trying to figure out a good topic to write about and I need help figuring it out. Maybe you have a suggestion?
-Trying to Figure Out
Dear TTFO,
The general topic is 'rules of expression.' To find a starting point, do the assigned reading and make a note of something that sparks your interest.
Once you have that, I can coach you in methods to develop it into a viable idea fit for sharing with our discourse community.
However, nobody can just give you a 'good topic.' You have to start with what interests you about something in the assigned readings, then analyze it in the context of 'Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? (5WH).
-Josh G.
Still Drawing a Blank
I am still drawing a blank about what to write about. I am leaning towards talking about how media, leaders and governments manipulate public opinion at times of war to get people to support and further their cause.
Any help?
-Still Drawing a Blank
Dear SDAB,
You have actually already gotten past the blank, because you've articulated an interesting idea regarding the rules of control. Now you just have to recognize what you've accomplished, and how to develop it further. If you look at what you've written, you're asking a QI (a question of fact: 'Does it exist?") that would read something like:
"Do media, leaders, and governments manipulate public opinion during times of war?"
[Note that your / a QI is simply your / a CLAIM / ASSERTION phrased as a question.]
It is clear from your statement that you think 'yes,' they do.
Now look at the dependent clause in your email about your topic. Here you've already given a REASON ("to get people to support and further their cause").
To clarify this reason more, phrase your QI as an analytical question (using 5WH):
"Why do media, leaders, and governments manipulate public opinion during times of war?"
Phrase your answer using a link (shared term) from the question. Your choice of shared term will determine the trajectory of the essay. Your choices (as phrased above) are:
media, leaders, and governments
manipulation
public opinion
(times of) war
Once you have an answer, combine the CLAIM and REASON to form an Em.
This is what you will bring to class today, essay due Thursday.
-Josh G
Confused by the Syllabus
I was confused by the syllabus. Do we write the 3-4 page draft for Tuesday or is that due Thursday?
-CBTS
Dear CBTS,
The Question at Issue and Enthymeme is due Tuesday. The essay is due Thursday.
-Josh G.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Poison, Protest, and Prosecution
Here's an Oregon example that you may be familiar with:
Ian Van Ornum tasered by Eugene Police while protesting against poison spraying (May, 2008)
Police use Taser on protester
http://www.kval.com/news/local/19411459.html
Big issues lie behind stun gun court case
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/11095211-57/story.csp
-Josh G
Saturday, April 4, 2009
john taylor
But in end I can't be mad at the fact that the certain companies used decieving words. Because in the end its their job to sell products. And that means by any means necessary. Obviously if the product does the complete oppostite of what they are advertising they fight against, I would be mad. But in the end alot of the products pretty much do the same thing as their competitors.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Scott RR1
Kyle Lachmund Response: Orwell Got it Wrong
Weasel Words
It almost sickens me to see how sneaky the media and companies can be. They give us the illusion that they want to help us by creating helpful products, yet their sole intention is to fool us so that they can make more money. Furthermore, what is the most upsetting is that millions of people buy into it. You would think that after purchasing “new and improved” merchandise and realizing it’s no better than the previous product, that we would stop believing phrases like this. Unfortunately this is not the case, companies continue to find other methods of manipulation, and the public continues to fall into their traps.
Accountability in Advertisement
-Maya Barnes
Weasels..
Jasper Newton
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Sooooo Misguided
In the reading Orwell Got it Wrong Mr. Kinsley took a very biased one-sided view of the development of technology. He states that it has “expanded human freedom” by making world news and information readily available world wide. I say though that having this power has forever enslaved the human race. How many people do you know that check their facebook or myspace or everyday? How many people do you know that own and use cell phones either to call or text message everyday and when they don’t have it their lives are put on halt. The constant bombardment of advertising also doesn’t allow for freedom because the consumer is always persuaded to buy product or the other. The war on terror has proven that the use of technology makes it very easy for the government to track and find you. The terrorists have discontinued use of a lot of technology using letters and sending tapes to each other. Their lack of technology has made them disappear from the face of the planet and therefore more free than anyone in the modern world.
Karly RR1
The style of writing really catches my eye because not only does Kinsley prove Orwell wrong, he does it with poise, each point almost makes Orwell look like an idiot. I also agree with the fact that the democracy of information can be a tough trade off. There is an extreme, over the top amount of inappropriate information on the web, and that really takes a toll on some people. But, the pros definitely cons, and explicit material is something that will never go away. All in all this was a very interesting reading that helped solidify my outlook on technology.
Sarah's RR1
In my experience I have typically had a good result from my products. Nyquil is a lifesaver for me. Whenever I feel sick and need to get a good night’s sleep it does work and I do get rid of my illness after taking it for a few days. EmergenC on the other hand doesn’t work at all for me, and I find that I get sicker the day after I drink it. I belive that if more people read this article then people would give what they are buying a second thought.
Lee Prindle
First of all, technology has done an incredible job of connecting the world and making it possible to share information and ideas with virtually anyone, anywhere.
However, the idea that technology has made it difficult and perhaps impossible to have tolitarian control over their population is a bold claim. Take a look at North Korea - the government has complete control over all aspects of life, and they have used technology to strengthen their grasp, filling television stations with proganda against western culture and 'imperialism'.
My point is that technology can only be what a particular government allows it to be. For American's, the internet is a great tool to spread ideas and knowledge, because we are allowed to spread those ideas and knowledge. In countries where free speech is not a cornerstone of their foundation, information on the internet can be strictly monitored and even mandated.
Kinsley is right in the sense that we are not living in a totalitarian world dominated by all powerful and ever present technology. But, there are some important ideas that he conveniently overlooks.
Kinsley Got It Wrong
The first thing that caught my attention while reading ‘Orwell Got It Wrong’ was that the author works at a computer company. Of course a person who relies on technology to work every day would have the viewpoint that it’s helpful and wonderful. Putting this bias aside, I continued reading to see what more the author had to say about technology in our culture and was amused at the examples he chose to back up his argument. After stating how journalists have kept their right to free speech on the web it was less than inspiring. The problem in the novel was how technology affected everyone, not just the writers and politicians.
It’s interesting that Kinsley failed to mention the other technological devices in Orwell’s book, such as cameras and microphones. These devices are capable of monitoring humans more so than online magazines and fax machines. I guess I just don’t think that Kinsley focused on the more problematic machines to prove his point well. Also, the counter argument about pornography being the growing trouble with the internet was ridiculously silly. Identity theft and computer security is more dangerous to the public than smutty pictures on the web. I believe that technology has not followed the dark path Orwell described in 1984 but definitely not because of this article.
April 1, 2009
Writing 121
Michael Kinsley’s “Weasel Words,” examines a topic that every American is very familiar with, the false claims and gimmicks made by advertisers so prevalent in today’s consumer world. In the article, Kinsley analyzes the different strategies that advertisers use to try to market their product to the consumer as expertly as possible. Advertisers have mastered the art of false promises and gimmicks in order to lure in as many customers as they can. This article outlines the many ways that advertisers are able to persuade the consumer, such as “weasel words,” which are words that appear to be making a claim for a product when in fact they are making no claim at all.
I could identify with this article because I often notice the doublespeak and empty promises found in advertisements I see on TV, the internet, magazines, and billboards. I especially noticed the use of the word “help,” which advertisements use to try and convince the consumer that the product will somehow end or cure their problem, when in fact the word “help” simply means to aid or assist. Therefore, the advertisement seems to make some sort of claim that it will work when in fact it is simply an empty promise.
Subway- Eat Fresh
-Chelsea Schoenberg
Response to Kinsley by Daniel Sapiro
I agree with Kinsley’s claim that technology has “expanded human freedom”, but this statement does not apply to every human being. The examples given by Kinsley in his short essay are all valid, and there is no doubt that technology has opened many doors while breaking down old walls. It has connected the entire globe, but if we step back from the global perspective and view technology through a smaller lens, we see that it can sometimes be oppressive rather than liberating. The smaller lens that I am talking about focuses in on the youth of the world. Kinsley gives a brief acknowledgment to the negative impacts of the Internet on children, but his argument is brief, and I believe there are much larger consequences for children who are over exposed to technology. It seems that the Internet, video games, and the other various screens that demand a child’s attention, have now become the main hobbies for many youths. Don’t get me wrong, it is important for kids to learn how to utilize technology, it is impossible to get through life without it. But when xbox and the Internet dominate a child’s development, it seems that technology can truly be oppressive. In my opinion, a child’s exposure to the surrounding world is just as important as learning how to use a computer. Both technology and the outdoors should be cornerstones to a child’s development, not one or the other. Technology has “expanded human freedom”, but the “trade-offs” for the youths of the world are larger than Kinsley alludes to.
Weasel Words
"And, after all, what is a lie? 'Tis but the truth in masquerade." -Lord Byron
In just about every English class I’ve ever taken, the issue of advertising has always come up because of the amount of dishonesty behind it. ‘Weasel Words’ by William Lutz is another essay repeating this point to me, warning others about the tricks the industry uses to trick us into investing in their products. Whenever I run into one of these essays I always end up thinking the same thing. ‘Why is this such a big deal?’ To me, it doesn’t appear that the advertisers aren’t doing anything that I don’t do myself.
Every day, we all manipulate words in a similar manner to what these advertisers are doing. We shape sentences and choose certain words or details to convey a message to another person. I don’t think misinforming the public about products is justifiable or good advertising. However, if advertisers are out of line for exaggerating facts or twisting the truth, poets and lyricists must be as well. It seems childish to single out advertisers and politicians for knowing how to manipulate our language while ignoring the fact that almost every work of art or every conversation we have uses the same tactics.
With all this said, I believe purposefully misleading customers to buy a product is wrong. But I also think that dramatizing an idea or telling a story in a way to make it appeal is a part of our nature. It might be dishonest to lie but it might also be unintentional.
-Carolyn Sheedy
Han Cao RR1
Weasel Words
-Courtney Puckett
In response to "Weasel Words"
Except, apparently, I am.
I suppose what irritates me about the entire thing is the specific manipulation of people and laws. Advertisements specifically designed to imply a message, rather than outright say it, still have a message they impart. In the literary world, it’s referred to as subtext, and people write essays about how it changes the meaning of plays. It seems that in the Advertising world, it’s referred to as fraudulent claims, and lawsuits are written over whether or not claims are explicitly stated. Now, I recognize that laws written around what a given piece of media made you ‘feel’ would be hard to enforce, but the current system seems geared towards encouraging the mentality that flat-out lying is a no-no, but truth from a certain view is perfectly fine. On consideration, if it worked for Obi-Wan Kenobi, I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised it’s worked for everyone else.
Kinsley Counter Argument
The internet gives sexual predators’ easy access to children. Every day children are contacted by such people pretending to be kids themselves, wanting to meet up in person through instant messaging on the internet. Another example of how the internet can be harmful is the unlimited knowledge that it leaves at one’s fingertips. Knowledge of things such as how to construct a homemade bomb like ones that have been used in school shootings. The counter-argument that I present is that censorship is a good thing when used in moderation.
-Brian Stewart
(Not my true opinion, just a hole in Kinsley’s argument)
RR1 Justin Sander
-Justin Sander