Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Developing your ethos as a student writer
In the second half of class, I’d like you to respond to any of the pieces you’ve read recently and develop an argument about the issue that reflects your own position on it. As you begin your response, make sure and give your reader a sense of the debate or a brief summary of what the writer you're responding to wrote. Then, as you develop your argument, emphasize appeals to ethos as your primary proof for this argument and draw upon your strengths and position as a student to help give you credibility on this issue. Try to use some of the strategies we’ve discussed in class today to strengthen your argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Last night, the nation listened as President Obama gave the highly anticipated State of the Union Address. I personally refuse to identify with any political parties because I feel that the conflict actually prevents my country from moving forward on any issue. Obama completely confirmed my opinion last night in the opening of his speech and I was thrilled. He walked onto stage wearing a purple tie. My kindergarten teacher taught me that when you mix red and blue paint you get purple. So break down the social barriers the political parties have created and move forward in a wave of purple. Obama then made a formal statement about how he is done dealing with such hatred from the two political parties and is moving forward in the middle. In high school I watched my two closest friends—one a right-wing Republican, and the other a left-wing Democrat—get into a political debate. As I watched them verbally fight I could see that it was going to boil over. Suddenly one hit the other as hard as he could on the cheek. I will never forget the sound the punch made. Then a series of bone crunching punches followed. I looked into my friends’ eyes and saw pure hatred. I lost respect for political parties at that point. Now, your question will be to me, “Was it the Republican or the Democrat who took the first swing?” But does that really matter? A fight is a fight no matter who took the first swing. Obama would agree with me that there is just so much hatred going on between the two parties that it is ineffective to try and move forward without reaching some sort of middle-ground on all policies. I am surprised that there have not been more fist fights given the childish way that the two parties seem to treat each other. Obama honorably continued to try and make statements that would relate to one party or the other just to try and keep the peace. Is not Obama’s job hard enough as it is without having to mold every single word he says to appeal to two completely different political parties?
ReplyDeleteHere is what I have so far:
ReplyDeleteIn a recent article written by Mike Littwin titled “Too much Arizona dreaming” he discussed the pre-shooting immigration debate in Arizona. I disagree with his approach to the piece. Littwin’s style is that of skeptical humor, but I feel that in a piece over such a heated, and terribly tragic topic, there needs to be restraint. I would develop ethos if I were writing this piece, by showing compassion and empathy for the tragedy that occurred.
Throughout Tina Griego’s article arguing the cruel treatment of illegal immigrants she appeals to the sense of right and wrong. Immigrants are coming to this country for the same reasons that we did in the past; freedom, economic opportunity, and a pursuit of happiness. Yet those here legally have earned the right to these benefits. Griego does not hold these illegal immigrants to any sense of responsibility for their actions. Illegal immigrants come into this country knowing that they are not going to be blessed with the same opportunities that citizens do. Griego’s lack of accountability leaves our country open for immigrants to take advantage and abuse our country as they please. Generally they do nothing to support our country via taxes. They are not held to the less appealing bonds of being a United States citizen yet they are able to pillage the economic opportunity that is available here.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Dan Haley’s article – A no where man
ReplyDeleteLast night, huddled in a small dorm room on the University of Denver campus, my classmates, and the future leaders and citizens of tomorrow listened along with the rest of the nation as President Obama over and over again emphasized the importance of bipartisanship in congress to move the nation forward. While wearing a purple tie, Obama urged congressmen to find middle ground and act as one. While many applauded Obama’s charge this charge to Congress, the way Congress has recently been “working together” actually contradicts Obama’s wish to move past politics and make the hard decisions. Recently, the compromise in which Obama accepted the Bush tax cuts again so that entitlement benefits would be extended. Yes, this is a bipartisan decision, however, it does not make the hard decision to move the country forward. In his article A no where man, Dan Haley argues that independents are being pushed out of government because they do not sway far enough to one side. Even though an estimated third of the Colorado population identifies with the independent party, these politicians are slowly being weeded out of office to make room for a partisan member, increasing polarization.
This nation’s voters and politicians are sending mixed messages. On one hand, the desire for bipartisanship, but on the other hand, strong beliefs are not willing to be compromised. What do we end up with? Compromises made that in no way advance the country, just keep us locked into the same policies.
As my fellow classmates watched President Obama address the nation last night, we wondered what this would do to our future. If the promises made by these politicians will be consistent with what they say and if the voters will respond. This is our future in which are in the hands of those who can’t get along. After all, our parents teach us from an early age to compromise. Lets see if this government can do the same.
To be continued
ReplyDeleteDavid Harsanyi’s piece, The Constitution is dead. Long live the Constitution, questions why the United States Constitution has become so difficult to understand and interpret efficiently. As a current ethics and law student, it is obvious as to why we have to reread the Constitution at the beginning of congressional sessions. Because the Constitution is so old, it is now hard to interpret it in our age of technology. Many of the statements in the Constitution are outdated and some of the amendments are outlawed. The Constitution itself is also vague in many parts of defining law and proper punishment.
Harsanyi quotes, “As you know, the Constitution is malleable and we all believe deeply in our own version — that's if we're imbued with enough wisdom to understand it.” Everyone has their own version of the Constitution, whether it is correct or not. In this new age, we need to learn how to read the Constitution for current issues in our society.
As a member of society I believe, as I’m sure the majority of you do, that when something illegal is realized that it should be categorized as illegal. But, is it really that black and white? I believe that all situations are unique enough that don’t support this black and white way of thinking. I believe this to be the case when discussing the term “illegal aliens”. The American language is vast and the advantage we have as a society is the ability to clarify when possible and add additional context and meaning to the terms we use to classify everything, and certainly when it comes to people…..
ReplyDeleteEthos under development ☺
As a resident of California, a state with a large population of undocumented immigrants, I am familiar with the realities of an immigration system that has deteriorated over the years into a giant mess. Due to the federal government’s failure to overhaul the antiquated immigration system, we’ve reached the point where it seems we are punishing hard working immigrants only trying to provide for a better life for their families while serving as an important component of our complex economy. Many liberals have proposed stopgap measures to help immigrants, but most if not all of the plans that have been introduced lately have failed to actually grant full citizenship to those who deserve it.
ReplyDeleteIn his article, “Hating the ‘sinner,’” David Harsanyi talks about the problem within the Republican Party in terms of the division over policies. He uses gay marriage as the example, showing the divide between Libertarians (Republican in fiscal policies, Democrat in social) and Republicans. While this article only discusses the marriage issue, essentially claiming that government should not be involved in that issue, he really is hitting a much larger problem within the Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteThis problem tends to center around the fact that with the advent of the Tea Party, traditional Republicans can no longer just go against everything the Democrats do. For the first time in the history of the Republican Party, they actually have to argue over the specifics of the policy making itself. It is no longer sufficient to just ban together and scream “Everything the left does is wrong” because now a lot of policies that Republicans or Tea Partiers want tend to directly contradict a major tradition of the conservative spectrum: little to no government involvement.
As a Recovering Republican (and really, not that much of one, as I am a registered Libertarian), I can see these problems very clearly, and they are best illuminated through the gay marriage issue. The definition of government involvement, in my opinion, is the PRESIDENT coming into your house. I mean, I was even opposed to President Obama’s mandate that everyone switch to HD TV’s (or get the digital converter box); in my opinion, that is the president literally sitting in my living room with me watching Law and Order. Obama is cool and all, but I really do not want to be screaming at David Ortiz of the Red Sox with him (especially since he is a White Sox fan).
Harsanyi points out how this is a great divide within the Republican Party using a very effective example: “Yet, really, what can one say about a person who won't attend a political event featuring 70 disparate groups — including, yes, The John Birch Society — because he or she might be sitting a table or two away from a lesbian infiltrator who agrees with them approximately 90 percent of the time.” He shows the ridiculousness that has developed within the Republican Party over this inability to reach a consensus in terms of policies. His argument effectively states that if the Republicans do not learn to work together, or overcome petty differences, the party as a whole will be weakened to the breaking point. He concludes with this powerful statement, showing how it can lead to the destruction of the Republican Party, or good ideas, if they’re not careful:
"Republican" must be a code word for those who have sworn their rock-ribbed allegiance to the entire consecrated GOP agenda. Others won't be engaged or debated or shown the errors of their decadent ways, I suppose.
Which is a fine way to bring down your own party, or, if that party happens to smarten up, your own cause.
David Harsanyi: Abortion, Religion, and Reason. For my beliefs I agree with David about abortion. The reason why I came up with being against abortion was by doing research on abortion and becoming knowledgeable about abortion. I agree with David on the topic of a doctor accused of killing babies with scissors after botching late-term abortion. One topic that David did not bring to the table that would have gotten a certain group of women on his side and me also is early abortions on raped victims. It would be hard for a mother and father to love this child. The child might be ignored and eventually start acting out and the possible ending up in jail or into drugs and not respecting women. The teenagers that get pregnet need to step up and start being responsible. The baby or infant does not desserve to die because the teenagers were not carful.
ReplyDeleteAs a new member of the collegiate system, I have experienced first-hand the problems that have been fermenting in the current school system. Though it is disheartening that high school teachers receive a less than deserving salary, students should not suffer from a less than deserving education. Teachers have an incredibly important job. Everyday they seek to form the future minds of the world. Many of these teachers do their best everyday to assist their students in reaching their full potential. However, I have witnessed and fallen victim of teachers who are not qualified to teach. As referenced in your article “within 10 years, only 50 million Americans will be qualified to fill 123 million available high-skill, high-paying jobs”(Haley). This is unacceptable. My fellow classmates and also my younger siblings will be victims of this tragic occurrence. Where is the economy headed? What does this mean for the good of the people? Something must be done. I am one of those citizens who will be trying to fill those 123 million high-skilled jobs. Our only hope is higher education and higher skilled teachers.
ReplyDeleteIn David Harsanyi recent article on “Abortion religion and reason states that the issue of abortion is very complicated and that if pro-life is going to win over the hearts of the American people, they will need more reason and less god. I agree with him whole-heartedly on the issue of abortion. In believe people decide their view based on the cultural and political pressure they feel. I have this view because as women in this society, I feel pressure constantly to change my opinion. People believe its wrong for my to believe in pro-life. However, I believe in pro-life because I am grew up Catholic and have very strong religious beliefs. Also I am a strong willed Republican in my political views.
ReplyDeleteI have been reading a lot of articles that Tom Noel wrote and he tends to rely heavily on historical empriical evidence. For example in his article “Noel: Teaching History”, in which he is arguing the importance for schools to teach social studies and history because it teaches kids very applicable skills like: economics and personal financial literacy. I agree with his type of writing because it is very straight forward and he presents facts from history to strengthen his argument. However, this type of writing can get a little convoluted to figure out the connection of the historical example. This type of writing can also become pretty repetative and boring. My dad was a history major in college so he has always told me the benefits of being knowledgeable in terms of history. But, in terms of a writer for a newspaper this type of writing can lose its strength after the first few articles. I have learned through my schooling that the most important thing to take from history, is to understand it because history will repeat itself if people are ignorant to past events.
ReplyDelete