In Class: 3 Part/Unit 3

I HATE group work... I am the one that is trying to get into grad school and so I need a's and b's in my classes for that to be a possibility. I have a full belief that everyone has around the same competency level as I do, but I feel like I am the only one with work ethic at times. The worst experience with this was definitely when I was at a junior college. I got stuck writing a 25 minute presentation and 10 page essay with about a page of notes from my 2 other group members as input. Also in this class I have been grouped with 3 different people who did not complete their work and them refused to give input on mine. Group work, when not allowed to choose your own groups, can be VERY frustrating. If you were allowed to choose your own however, I believe that the responsibility for making bad decisions falls a little bit on the chooser's shoulders as well. Fortunately I have not been grouped with any of the people in this class that I have had a bad experience with so hopefully they will be much better at work ethic than the people I have worked with in the past from this class.

Everyone in the group, for things to go smoothly, needs to contribute, volunteer work hours and make themselves available IN SOME FORM. outside of class. I realize that not everyone has a flexible schedule but a quick answer to emails within about 12 hours from the sent time really isn't too much to ask. I think as long as everyone is attempting to be creative and contributing in some form or fashion that things should go just fine.

Different roles for the group:
This one is kind of tough for me since I feel like everyone should probably contribute to every piece. I feel like that should still remain in effect, but that people should be in charge of making sure (not necessarily doing it themselves) that things get done. For example since we have 4 girls I would say that 1 person should be in charge or the cover memo and then have one person in charge of each argument. Again this would mean it gets done AS A GROUP but that one person is in charge of making sure each is polished after its initial completion and ready to go for submission and presentation.

In Class: Semester Sum Up

This class has forced me to write about things I never really thought about before. It was interesting to look back on all my work from the semester and think that there is only 4 weeks left and less than 10 class periods to go. At the start of this semester I was a little freaked out, not because of the work but because of how the professor presented it. This wasn't that hard of a class to get through but the first day presentation of "I don't say there is no such thing as an A, but it says that you have done EXEMPLARY work" was a little intimidating. Also the 25-30 pages of writing for each unit kinda scared the crap out of me. Getting to the end of it though it is much more simple than I expected it to be. After all is said and done it was about as much work as I expected a writing class to be. Unfortunately, after applying to graduate yesterday, I am showing a few signs of senioritis, so hopefully I can continue the level of work that I have done thus far through to the end. It is comforting to know that I have come this far though and done so much with an extraordinary amount of effort and am nearing the end.

In Class: 3 Texts Tie In

How do these textes fit together?
These texts are all a bit combative. With the first text with the seminary president he starts by attacking their tactics in the ministry and how they are opening themselves up for failure. The second text of Ron Jeremy's debate validates the moral character of the people in the ministry, but seeks to cut his argument at the throat, not at the knees. Jeremy discusses the the ridiculous nature of the claims that the leader makes and does not address the situation in a passive sort of way.

How are they the same?

How are they different?
The theo. pres. goes for a different tactic in calling into question the moral character of Gross and his people. He also, in his main points does not cut directly to the point when talking about what he does not agree with. He says that Jesus wouldn't necessarily go to a sex expo, but he never says that Gross shouldn't. Most of his language is metaphorical but strong at the same time.
Jeremy's text has a lot of information that is in direct response to something previously said (as is the nature of debate) but he is also quick to respond that he agrees with a lot of what Gross says about not being available for kids and the fact that he is true to waht he preaches.

Unspoken Values and Assumptions:
Many of these arguments, especially from Gross and the Sem. Pres. talk about what Jesus would view as appropriate. The fact that this point plays such a large role in both of these agruments begs that the audience understands who they are talking about and that they attribute some sort of authority and power in the citation of the name. For those that do, it allows these specific statements to hold a lot of weight and carry meaning, but for those that don't the message could get lost. Also, the fact that participating in pornography is a "sin" is an unstated assumption in these two texts as well.

Cultural of Assertion:
The state of argument in America, as suggested by these 3 sources, relies heavily on shock value and authority. They seek to accomplish this by citing someone they each consider a relevant power in whatever argument they are trying to make. In the event that someone does not see the validity in the authority that they each cite, there is a lot of lost ground.
There is also a lot to be said on the shock value factor that each present. Each one of these interviews and debates cite something that should make any normal audience gasp. In hooking the audience's attention by this method there is an extreme emotional factor.

xxxchurch.com

I had a really hard time coming up with this topic. I wanted to do something within my major, but it was hard for me to think of a controversial event within psychology that had a lot of primary sources that were generated. While I was listening in class on Tuesday, I thought of a friend of friend and how maybe furthering with a rhetorical analysis would be fun since I have a more personal connection to this topic.

All that to say my topic is on XXXchurch and Strip Church located on the strip in Vegas. If you are a little shocked by the name, it's exactly what it sounds like. This is a previous youth minister who has left the comfort of a settled church to pursue evangelizing to anyone involved with the porn industry. Lots of media has been generated around the idea and many churches are completely disapproving of this ministry focus.

The biggest thing they do every year are the porn expos in Las Vegas and Australia. Here they hand out flyers, where shirts that say "Jesus loves porn stars," and hand out XXXchurch Bibles and Strip Church water bottles. I will be looking for things surrounding this and may even check Las Vegas newspapers to see if that was featured. I would also like to take a look at at least one backlash statement from within the church community. As it sounds so far, all the backlash from the porn community dissipated when they realized that these men were not coming at them with picket signs and screaming against their lifestyle.

I'm hoping to get some really good information and this will be tons of fun for me since I do have a personal connection to Craig Gross and his wife.

In Class: Holy Crap

I am feeling a little bit nervous about this particular project. I realize it is supposed to be over something that is interesting and relevant to me, but for the life of me I cannot come up with anything. In the last section I had a hundred ideas the second the assignment was given, but this time the idea is a bit more vague. This leaves me with so many options that it is hard for me to find one, especially one I would enjoy working on and learning about for the next 5 or 6 weeks.

I also am a little bit confused as to how this assignment, in its execution, will be much different than the paper before it. I feel as if the assignment is basically the same but that there are just bigger names attached to the concepts of what we were already doing. I realize that labeling the arguments as such should start to go away but other than that I think I may be missing something.

My biggest challenge, as I said for this upcoming assignment will be to knuckle down and just grab a topic. Once I can do that I am pretty sure that a lot of my anxiety, if not all, about this project will start to fade

This particular scene shows, what I am assuming to be, George H. Bush in a western outfit on a movie screen. The quote he has reads, "Tell Saddam an' all them other gol-durned scalawags -- this looks like a rerun of a bad movie -- and I'm not interested in watching it!" this is over a completely empty movie theatre with the exception of George W. Bush as the only viewer in the audience.

This can be taken on so many levels. With the exception of the vague signature it is hard to decide who is responsible for this particular visual, but the audience is easy to pick out. It is intended to be view by anyone that attempts to pay attention to contemporary politics and political history of the US. If someone were to view this that didn't know what was going in the world and/or didn't know about the Desert Storm it is easy to see how they could get lost.

Another thing I focused on was the empty theater with Bush as the exception. This is a shot to Bush's character. It is saying he is willing to go through with these actions even if no one anywhere backs him. As a politician with the entire country as constituents, showing Bush without any support is striking and something to take note of.

The fact that this picture is a little bit comical establishes an ethos for the author and a form of pathos toward the content. The ethos comes through in that this picture is not very in your face. It's not overly offensive or graphic but it gets a point across in a cheeky and humorous way.

The sheer fact that this picture can make you smile initially is something to be careful of. Emotion in the form of frustration, possibly even anger, could be stirred up in looking at that. By looking at the scene of father to son it could possibly envoke rage that no one is backing these ideas, it's just the son carrying on the father's shortcomings.

The effectiveness in this argument is definitely there in the immediate reaction it has the potential to invoke, but overall, I think more could be done to enhance this as a whole

In Class: Rhetorcial Analysis

Rather than just "thinking in general", rhetorical analysis is not validating a side of an argument, but more of validating what information each side gives. I like the end examples of Bok from Harvard and the critic that reviewed his writing. He spoke of a dilemma on campus and attributed that to free speech. I think that he evaluated both sides of the argument even though he himself had a personal pull in one direction. Using his rhetorical analysis he found validity in both sides of free speech versus not wishing to offend. The cover of this by the woman from the communist country was also very interesting. In analyzing the argument by Bok she used his arguments to go deeper and further critique his rhetorical analysis along with adding some of her own take in the argument. She quickly adds personal experience and background to gain credibility and then continues on to give more credibility to the author that she is critiquing. I found this interesting because even though she is back and forth on whether or not she supports all of his points, she does make it very clear that is arguments are valid and effective.

I like rhetorical analysis better than what we have been doing thus far because it seeks to dissect every aspect of something that is otherwise not thought of. Using these methods it is much easier to pull out not only what a person is trying to say, but also how effectively they accomplished the goal they had in their arguments, that is whether or not you agree.

Emo, Photo, and Lego (it's a bad joke)

The first thing that stands out to me as an ethical appeal in my observations of Chili's was that when I went in on a Sunday afternoon there was a family with young kids sitting at a table in the bar. This stood out to me because as I walked by it seemed as if this was a normal acceptable thing to do for these younger children to be eating in the bar with their parents. I found this to be representative of the fact that Chili's was PG enough to have children sitiing in an area as controversial as a bar and not cause any sort of a fuss.

Something else I saw as an ethical appeal was a little different from the first. It came in the form of a photograph on the wall next to the booth I was seated in. The photgraph was of a father and son, again showing the family-friendly aspect of the attempted representation, but it seemed to be a bit dated, and they were wearing Elvis wigs. I would go so far as to say that the fact that this picture was taken at least 10 to 15 years ago might suggest that the restaurant is a well established chain that has been in business for awhile, but that it is also saying that there is a fun family atmosphere in Chili's.

The fun, family atmosphere is something that plays into the emotional argument as well. However, I found this argument to be more of something they wanted people to think rather than something they actually portrayed. Maybe it's because college kids don't tip well, but I found on more than one occasion the hostess was a little cold. I also noticed that a large number of there employees have tattoos in noticeable places which doesn't exactly contribute to the emotional atmosphere that they are going for.

The logical argument I have seen there has a lot to do with their prices. The lure in this instance is to suck in the customer with a large, quick, and fairly priced meal. This is obviously a logical argument since many of us have been to the discount restaurant only to find that their food is terrible, or the opposite end of the spectrum where the food is wonderful and you end up paying way to much for a meal. Given the good deal, the atmosphere and the food it is a reasonable choice.

In Class: Visuals

My attention in "Candy Cigarette" is immediately drawn to the look on the girl's face paired with the fact that she is holding a cigarette. She is giving a look that a strung out adult might give when looked at by a judgemental passerby. Also the fact that the light is falling on the top of her head pulls my attention there it is showing that this particular person is the important subject in this photograph. The fact that she seems to be looking out from dead eyes shows that it is not something to laugh at it is something to be considered as a heavy and unpleasant argument.

This connects with the fact that she is wearing white and the adult in the background is also wearing white suggesting that maybe that there is a neglectful relationship between her and the adult that is allowing her to do this. Or another scary thought is that the adult may have even given it to her since they are so close in proximity to where she is standing. The fact that everything is dark and kind of fuzzy makes it also seem like some sort of drug portrait. Since this is normally how drugs are portrayed


This picture is about the increasing trend for kids to start smoking younger and younger. The fact that there is an adult in the picture shows this. The artist could have chosen to put that person with a cigarette in their hand but but they chose to use the little girl. Her facial expression seems to be calling someone to intervene.

The purpose of this image is trying to anger or sadden the audience. The fact that this is probably disturbing in some way for a lot of people shows that the artist wants to bring some kind of action not just a shock value expression of something unsettling. The girl with the hands on her hips may be showing that there is some disapproval, but definitely not enough to stop her from the actions she is taking.

In Class: Chapter 4

I didn't necessarily have any problems understanding the material but I did find something to be interesting that it should be used as a logical argument. The idea of tradition in the book as an argument of logos or as the book says, "we have always done it that way," was something that I related to a topic discussed recently in my social psychology class.

In that class there was a study done where people were told information and were told to form rationale for why this might be true. When told much later that this was misinformation used only for the study, much later people were found to still be holding the ideas because they had become accustomed to thinking this way.

Additionally, this could be something that is strange to others or even flat out wrong. The fact that it is just something that is done with whoever you are talking about is something that is not easily argued against. The deep seeded clenching to tradition is something many people have of different things an could be a subject that they are unwilling to budge on.