What did the film have to do with writing?

This film was amazing, sad, and a great story. It was about every emotion mixed into a video. This film could have many things to do with writing. How for the guy himself, it came to his only way to communicate, which was writing. How it has to do with me writing personally, I can't see much, other then it would give me an amazing story to tell others through writing. But another thing, the person who was talking through the main characters point of view, he was reading from what the guy had wrote through his high tech device. It shows that even when you can't talk, you can still write. You can write to tell your story, to vent emotions, anger, jealousy, love, all on one peice of paper. This film shows how writing could be used as a tool. As I said previously, a tool to get your story out there or to express how you feel if you can't put it in words.

Genre - The Media

The media alone as a genre can be defined as current events such as things going on in the world. What it shows are things little from the weather or different things going on in celebrities lives to more catastrophic or important events such as 9/11, war on Iraq, or the election of different government positions. I can use this for my research question because what the media shows such as different news stations or articles are usually the popular opinion on different political subjects. A lot of people don't usually look into or do more research on things such as Illegal Immigration or different government bills or laws trying to be passed so what the average American watch on the tube when they wake up or when they get back from work or read in the newspaper is usually the most information they know on something. Then those people who beleive exactly what the media says is when a conflict on opinion arises. So I could definately use media as a genre.

Genre- Advertisement

So advertisement is a very popular strategy for different political issues to get there perspective to the public. a quote from Chuck Blore, a partner in an advertising firm, "Advertising is the art of arresting the human intelligence just long enough to get money from it." This quote hits the nail right on the head for the most part. Different propositions uses tv and other advertisements to twist the facts so that voting no or yes for it seems to be in their favor. People who are campaigning for certain government positions uses tv ads to get their picture out there, to show or at least say what they are supposedly going to do and how other campaigners are the wrong choice. Also different groups can use advertisement to get their perspective out to the public on certain issues such as having tv commercials talk about how illegal immigration or animal violence is inhumane and they could show vulgar sad pictures to show the worst possible outcomes to different issues to make the audience feel sorry.

Song Lyrics

     First off, I was planning on using this genre for my MGP so this blog will kind of let me get a first shot at it so i can work on it from there. So my research question is pretty vague on what it asks because its abstract, but to sum it up I want to know the different perspectives on political issues pretty much but in my paper I'll also go into who have certain perspectives.
     So song lyrics can easily relate to political issues, an example for political issues being brought out in songs would be Gimme Shelter by the Rolling Stones. It brings up the vietnam war and other conflicts at the time. Oh, a storm is threat'ning

My very life today
If I don't get some shelter
Oh yeah, I'm gonna fade away

War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away

It talks about how violent the world was at the time, how not only the vietnam war aws going on, but here at home at the U.S. there aws different racial conflicts and violence acts happening. So you can see that with the right use of words you can sing about political issues in an abstract way. And if it's catchy a lot of other people could end up listening to it also.

Annotation on Navigating Genres by Kerry Dirk

     This essay gives a lot of different examples on what a genre really is, it goes into explicit detail on genres. The main point of this essay is simple: She wants to show the reader how knowledge of genres goes far beyond a simple discussion of types. "My purposes are to expand your definition of genre (or to introduce you to a definition for the first time) and to help you start thinking about how genres might apply to your own writing endeavors. But above all, I hope to give you an awareness of how genres function by taking what is often quite theoretical in the field of rhetoric and composition and making it a bit more tangible." (250) And she does all this, she also talks about how she had to do research on how essays are suppose to be written when they are pointed towards students reading them. How the writer is suppose to seem more as a coach then a authority figure, because everyone knows that students ("younger" ones) relate better to people talking to them when that person is informing them by not speaking down to them, but instead by being at the same level and encouraging them.
     Kerry Dirk uses a lot of different quotes for references, and they are from credible sources such as, Mary Jo Reiff, a professor who studies rhetoric and composition, Anne Freadman, a specialist in genre theory, Amy Devitt, a professor who specializes in the study of genre theory, Carolyn Miller, a leading professor in the field of technical communication.
     "In other words, knowing what a genre is used for can help people to accomplish goals, whether that goal be getting a job by knowing how to write a stellar resume, winning a person's heart by writing a romantic love letter, or getting into college by writing an effective personal statement." (253) this paragraph from this essay is one of the many great description on how knowing what a genre is used for and utilizing it for what its worth can benefit anyone. Kelly Dirk points out that people participate in many different genres daily. For example, telling a joke or uploading a witty status on Facebook. She points out that all genres matter because they shape our everyday lives. "And by studying the genres that we find familiar, we can start to see how specific choices that writers make result in specific actions on the part of readers; it only follows that our own writer must too be purposefully written" (254) this quote goes back to my utilizing a genre for what its worth can be beneficial.
     She gives some rules that tell writers exactly what to do and not to do while writing to relate rules there are with genres. Similarities within genres help us to communicate successfully, knowing what a genre is because you've seen it before and other people use it for the same thing kind of gives a norm for that genre. Kelly Dirk writes, "Imagine the chaos that would ensue if news broadcasts were done in raps, if all legal briefs were written in couplets, or if your teacher handed you a syllabus and told you that it must first be decoded." those situations happen differently and almost the same way every time because the similarity makes it simpler to read. "In language, too much variation results eventually in lack of meaning: mutual unintelligibility" (Devitt, "Genre" 53) a very help full quote she uses.
     I believe she does a great job with informing others how to use and what are genres. She gives many examples and has great references. She backs up her statements with many credible quotes and she depicts other quotes or parts of articles to give even more in depth information on genres.

Research log 5

Griswold, Daniel. "Willing Workers: Fixing the Problem of Illegal Mexican Migration to the United States." CATO Institute. Web. 15 Oct. 2002


In the first paragraph the auther gives some statistics such as that there are an estimated eight million or more people that live in the United States without legal documents, and that number is growing by an estimated 250,000 a year. This was also in 2002, think how high those numbers could be now, and unless some of the United States Illegal Immigration policies have worked, that number as probably increased to close to twenty million plus would be my guess. Some key claims of the author is that the demand for low-skill laborers have increased and because there is no legal way for immigrants to come into the United States to fill that gap, the number of illegal immigrants has gone up. So if there was a way to prevent illegal immigration but at the same time allow more immigrants in that meet certain standards, we should do it.

“Legalizing Mexican migration would, in one stroke, bring a huge underground market into the open. It would allow American producers in important sectors of our economy to hire the workers they need to grow. It would raise wages and working conditions for millions of low-skilled workers and spur investment in human capital. It would free resources and personnel for the war on terrorism.” This comment from the article to me is a big skeptical idea. Legalizing Mexican migration would do these things, but it also would throw off the population of the United States, make it harder for Americans to get job, It would create more cultural diversity but at the same time, what makes some one think that if you bring a huge underground market into the open, that those criminals will stop what they are doing. If anything they will find other, worse ways to do it. We have ways to stop the underground market at this time, maybe not proficiently, but if we could do it proficiently we wouldn’t have that problem.

There will always be pro’s and con’s to the different ideas on Illegal Immigration, if there weren’t any con’s to an idea then we would probably be using that policy at the moment. I just enjoy bouncing off different ideas and gaining more perspectives on this issue. I stay strong to my beliefs and opinions, and I believe everyone else is entitled to theirs, but taking in these different ideas will only help me persuade others to agree on my ideas.

I’ll go from here and start working on my annotated bibliography sense I have all my five research logs finished. I’ve never done an annotated bibliography before so this should be pretty interesting. But I believe I have enough research and information on my issue and that I am ready for this project.

Research Log 4

"Backfire at the Border: Why Enforcement without Legalization | Douglas S. Massey | Cato Institute: Trade Policy Analysis." The Cato Institute. Web. 14 Oct. 2011.

The author’s purpose of this piece is to bring to the reader’s attention that an enforcement only policy to stop illegal immigration isn’t going to work, and that is true in my opinion. Some other claims the author makes is that the cost to U.S. taxpayers of making one arrest along the border increased from $300 in 1992 to $1,700 in 2002, an increase of 467 percent in just a decade. Which if that is true, that is a huuuge increase and something needs to be done about it. Because there are less arrests and more deaths, it’s costing taxpayers more because they have to pay the law enforcement that are protecting our borders. So if we were able to come up with another policy other than enforcement, that would greatly help tax payers and help illegal immigration prevention.
Some great key concepts that Mr. Massey discus’s is “Congress should build on President Bush's immigration initiative to enact a temporary visa program that would allow workers from Canada, Mexico, and other countries to work in the United States without restriction for a certain limited time. Undocumented workers already in the United States who do not have a criminal record should be given temporary legal status.” And I think this idea is genius, I’m all for getting rid of illegal immigrants, but if that illegal immigrant has no criminal history (other than being in the U.S. illegally of course) they should give him a temporary legal status, maybe not amnesty, but a temperate citizenship granted to work for a certain amount of time then go home. If they want to comeback then they could come back legally and go through the process like they should. This idea is a more peaceful way to slow down illegal immigration and I believe it would work because instead of taking illegal immigration on with just force, a peaceful and helpful or beneficial for the illegal immigrant policy would probably work.
I reacted to this claim positively and if it was brought to a vote, I would support it and heed others to support it as well.
I chose this source by using google scholar and looking up enforcement on illegal immigration, and after scrolling down and reading other articles I chose this one because one it wasn’t a 35 page pdf and that it was clear and to the point. Also because of its percpective on illegal immigration perspective. It wasn’t just against preventing it, or for enforcing prevention as strictly as possible, it was a clear minded view on it. I want to know if there are any laws like the author talks about out there yet, or if there are some in the process in the making. I could go from here and get another article on against preventing it because I only have one or two articles on it at the moment. I want to get as many perspectives on Illegal Immigration as possible, I still hold my opinion on getting rid of illegal immigrants as fast as possible, and if that means granting more visa’s to immigrants from Canada, Mexico, and other country’s temporarily then I’m all for it.

Research log #3

Hurlbert, Stuart H. "Immigration Control and Biodiversity in North America." The Social Contract Spring 2011: 21-22. Print.

Mr. Hurlbert’s purpose or one of his purposes in this article is to talk about population, and how it has increased in size because of the amount of immigrants, illegal and legal, that are coming into the United States is increasing. He says in the article that 10-20% of the U.S. population is immigrants. Some of his main claims in this piece include a stabilized population, habitat and wildlife issues along the border, and biodiversity. He uses quotes from earlier articles and other authors such as Garret Hardin, Beck, R., and L. Kolankiewicz., Hidinger, L, and Hurlbert, S.H. A lot of his claims are based from reading these writers works, he has his opinion but uses quotes from credible sources to support his “ideas” or main claims.

Some key phrases or concepts in this article would include a stabilized population, which the United States would of achieved by now if it wasn’t for the growth rate of its population from the constant and growing flow of immigrants, illegal and legal. A stabilized population to me is where we can control our pollution and consumption of certain things.

He uses a quote from Garrett Hardin (1989), “Never globalize a problem if it can possibly

be solved locally.…We will make no progress with population problems, which are a root cause of both hunger and poverty, until we deglobalize them.… We are not faced with a single global population problem but, rather, with about 180 [now 200+] separate national population problems. All population controls must be applied locally; local governments are the agents best prepared to choose local means.” This is a very different perspective on this situation which I have never even thought of, instead of making a problem bigger, make it smaller instead, and let it be handled in smaller portions. Instead of the government trying to stop illegal immigration as a hole, let the local communities do their part in preventing it, lawfully that is. But I mean if communities are going to complain about things not being done, let the local council or whatever runs the community come up with a plan to stop it in their area. If more communities would do that, then it would greatly decrease illegal immigration and stop the over populating of the United States. All the communities would have to do is come together and find a middle ground where the majority agrees upon something such as reporting anything they know. There has to be some communities out there that are mad of the side effects of over population that could be prevented. I mean it sounds inhumane not letting anyone and everyone into the United States, but you must think about the long term effects, the effect of increase of pollution, habitat destructions, and over populated areas. Cities could become to populated, there could be a HUGE increase in homeless people because there are fewer and fewer jobs out there because were letting anyone into the U.S.

I chose this article to do my research log on because it was a different way to look at immigration, not just illegal immigration or the pro’s and con’s of the laws against it, but a bigger issue that no one really thinks about when they hear the word immigration. It’s kind of like an issue that if we don’t take care of, one day it’ll stab us in the back and we won’t even see it coming. I can go from here, well I can, but I am going to go from here and go into why we see it racist or discriminating to be anti-illegal immigration towards some races, but not towards other races. That seems like a great point to bring up because it seems to me like a double standard.

Research log number 2!

Harris, Craig, Alia B. Rau, and Glen Creno. "Arizona Governor Signs Immigration Law; Foes Promise Fight." The Arizona Republic 24 Apr. 2010. Print.

     The author's purpose of this piece was to give a perspective of what was going on when the Senate Bill 1070 became law at 1:30 p.m. The author gives quotes from the opposing and supporting side of this bill which Gov. Jan Brewer says the law represents another tool for the state to "work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix - the crisis caused by illegal immigration and Arizona's porous border." The author goes into detail on how long it'll take for the law to go into effect, what the opposing side said towards the law, and how they promise to do everything in their power to change it. The author also talks about how the people supported it, what they thought about the bill and how they were glad that it was signed, that it was a great day for Americans.
     The author had a lot of quotes from both view points on this topic. The author's purpose of this piece wasn't to persuade or give their view on this issue but to just discuss what actually happened and how both sides felt about it. I didn't really "react" so to speak, but soaked in what information I could. I learned how other people that supported this bill felt when it became a law. Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio is among the supporters who believe it will give officers more tools to detain illegal immigrants. "We've got some very serious crime problems out there, and this bill does not address them. It does not give us tools to go after criminals that are part of the cartels," said Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who is running for governor. This is one of the few parts of this piece that actually rose a reaction out of me, I don't know how close minded some one could be. How can they not see the bigger picture, majority of undocumented-immigrants have a criminal history let alone being in America illegally, also Terry says it does not give us tools to go after criminals that are part of the cartels, why doesn't it? I mean if undocumented immigrants are leading this cartel and are helping it out, and this law allows officers to detain illegal immigrants, how does that not fight such crime problems?
     I chose this source because it has a direct relationship to my essay. I specifically wrote on the Senate bill 1070 in one of the first paragraphs because I wanted to bring it up because I knew it was a very controversial law. I want to dig more into what the opposing side thought about this bill, but also I want to read more quotes of the supporting side since there were very few in this article. I could go from here and look up similar articles on the Senate Bill 1070 because i guarantee there are many more articles such as this one.

Research Log 1 revised

Miron, Jeffrey A. "The Realities Behind The Immigration Debate." The Dailey Caller 18 May 2010. Print.

            This article talks about different methods of stopping illegal immigration. Jeffrey Miron, the author of this article, goes on to explain different methods of illegal immigration prevention techniques. He gives pretty good detail on each method, but the details or explanations he gives are mainly one sided. Mr. Miron talks about what they don’t do for illegal immigration instead of bringing up the positive things that these anti-illegal immigration methods actually do accomplish. I have to admit that the points he brings up are relevant and do make a good point to a certain level. He brings up credible groups such as NAFTA and CAFTA for support on one of his points, but the rest of it from what I read is mainly his opinion or his “hypothesis” on different scenarios.

            Jeffrey Miron writes, “Most of this debate involves wishful thinking: the claim that stricter border controls or Arizona-like measures can make a real difference. The reality is that only four policies can significantly reduce illegal immigration.”, this quote from the first paragraph kind of leads into what he’s going to talk about, which is the four policies that he think can significantly reduce illegal immigration. He already begins his article off with saying the methods the government uses or want to use are wishful thinking, but that’s not all true. They are the first step in ending illegal immigration or at least slowing it down. Plans that are implanted and took into action first have to come from ideas or this “wishful thinking” to even exist.

            Mr. Miron’s first policy that he brings up is to allow more legal immigration. He thinks that the reason why we have such a bad problem with illegal immigration is because we restrict legal immigration. I agree with this policy idea to a certain point, I agree with that we could loosen up on allowing legal immigrants in, but to a certain extent. He believes we should allow all immigrants come in, but he doesn’t take into consideration that some may be convicted of violent crimes or be full blown criminals from where they are from. Why would we want to allow people with a violent history into our country, I mean you can tell me that’s inmoral not allowing immigrants in, but I can tell you that your crazy if you expect me to be okay with allowing violent criminals in. But to the contrary, a criminal is someone who is convicted of a crime, and some of these crimes could be minor such as stealing or something that isn’t as bad as it may seem when you hear criminal.

            The second policy Mr. Miron brings to the table is expand free trade. He says that if we expand free trade and make it easier for goods to travel across borders then the low-skill labor will shift from the United States to the poorer countries. This is a faulty policy, he’s correct that making it easier for good to travel across borders will allow immigrants to stay in their country and work their instead of in America, but that doesn’t mean that working in their country will be good. Foreign employers could use fear tactics on their workers, pay them less, or abuse them. But those claims are all skeptical and the only way of knowing what would happen is to actually try it out, but by then if it doesn’t work out we’d be screwed.

            The third policy or whatever you may call it because at this point in the article he gives up on calling these “policies” policies. And he has a good reason to because they are becoming more into the category of “wishful thinking” which is starting to make him sound like a hypocrite.  He started off and saying that the reality is only the four policies that he talked about in his article would stop illegal immigration, when the REAL reality is, that every idea is “wishful thinking”. But that’s not a bad thing because that’s where great ideas and great things come from is wishful thinking. So my reaction is, or well opinion for that matter, is don’t try and say you have the correct answer to ending illegal immigration and at the same time say that the other ideas aren’t as promising as yours, because you start to sound ignorant near the end of what you are trying to implement.

            I chose this source because it kind of brings out the other side of illegal immigration. It gives good detail on the other side of my argument and I believe it is necessary to know the other side of your argument so you can cripple it. But not only that, if you learn about the other side you can describe why your side is correct compared to your “opponent”. Also if you don’t know the other side of your argument, you’re in for a crude awakening when they start bringing up ideas that are in favor of their side and all you can do is sit there with your tongue tide. I might want to know a little more of the opposing side to my argument, because this is just one perspective to pro illegal immigration or in other words allowing more immigrants into our country. I could go from here and include in my essay a little more about why Americans should support the prevention of Illegal Immigration and the laws passed to stop it, because these ideas in this article show how faulty the opposing argument really is.

"Stung" by Elizabeth Kolbert Annotation

     I would summarize this article as a first hand experience on beekeeping that stemmed from an article on the colony-collapse disorder. Elizabeth Kolbert read beekeeping manuals and catalogues to learn more in depth information on bees and beekeeping. She learned things such as "different "races" of honeybees, each with its own "dialect"", different diseases, different hives used to hold bees, and different bee suits from these beekeeping manuals and catalogues. Readings those was a great way for Mrs. Kolbert to gain secondary research, which to me is information that's gone through two or more people. But to get more in depth, first hand research she bought her own beehive. She says "But by that point I wasn't sure whether I was writing the story to keep bees or keeping bees to write the story" which show she was getting caught up in her writing and it became an excuse to pursue a newly found interest.
     Her research goes into details about variety of bees all with scientific names such as, Andrena florea, a small European bee, relies exclusively on the delicate white blossoms of bryonty plants. She researches different traits of honey bees; for example, Apis mellifera, meaning that it will feed on just about anything that is blooming. She also goes into details on how honey bees are very common and that they are used to pollinate crops.
     She gives examples of the dependence on bees. A good example would be how California's increasingly large almond industry is almost entirely honeybee-dependent.
    Elizabeth Kolbert describes the moving of bees, how they are typically shipped by flatbed trucks, the hives are stacked on pallets then unloaded with a forklift. But that this hard on bees and keepers expect to lose at least ten percent of his queen bees simply as a result of the jostling. A con to this is that mass movement on honeybees spreads parasites and disease.
    She uses a primary source, David Hackenber, to further her research on the colony-collapse disorder, CCD. David Hackenber gives details on how his hives grew tremendously from when he started. He tells her the amount of travel bees go through in a season.
     Mr. Hackenber was the first to see CCD. He tried to come up with a reason why it was happening but couldn't come up with anything promising.
     Mrs. Kolbert then goes to tell about her experiences on owning a hive, how she went to a bee organization meeting to gain more research. She also talked to Van Engelsdorp, a Penn state apiary inspector, who David Hackenber contacted earlier about the CCD.
     This Article was helpful for me, not for my topic of research, but on my knowledge of honeybees and how they are kept. This article could be used to shape many arguments on honeybees such as, are they being kept properly, are they being mistreated, or that is there a viral disease spreading through them that may end up being able to come in contact with humans. This topic hasn't really affected my thought on illegal immigration because it's really hard to relate to that topic, unless you think of it as a disease but that seems inhumane to me.

Something that I feel is important for people to know about?

A great topic that I finally decided on, after many brainstorms of great ideas, would be certain things that affect school. And I don't just mean affect the school itself but things such as, what motivates students to actually go to school? such as someone going to see their friends or to increase their social standing on the food chain of high school or college. Or student athletes go to school to get good grades or at least passing grades, so that they could play sports. Another one would be different clubs, drama, cheer leading, literature, etc. etc., where you have to participate in school to join them or attend them, either that or they happen during school hours so you must go to school to go to the clubs activities. All these things affect school, because they motivate individuals to put forth the effort and go to school, go to their classes, and turn in assignments. But then at the same time, what are all these different "environments" so to say having on the bigger picture? Such as bringing the community closer, people who live in that town go to athletic events such as Friday night football games and cheer on those student athletes, or people go to attend different plays put on by the drama club or attend a coin drive to help fund different clubs. So this is a topic that i feel is important to me, well at least important enough to bring relevant to the class.

Class work, answering questions on Bouldering's article 9-20

Chad Durkin

Itzel Ponce

Mitch Longerbone

“Can there be world citizenship” by Boulding

1. How does Boulding describe the problems with the current state of “World Citizenship”? Find a quote or two that helps support your claim.

-Boulding says that there is a number of problems with making world citizenship today such as “The (same) issue of assimilation versus creative diversity faces the world in the institution of the United Nations Itself.” “Conflicts per se among humans are inevitable because each of us, Is a unique person, but responses to conflict are learned.”

2. Describe the term “three-fold citizenship.” What would this proposed global community look like in reality? Do you have any personal examples?

-Three-fold citizen can be broken down into local, state, and international. Your role in the community, your role in country, and what you can do globally. It’s really making people be more self-reflective, but gives you the sense that we are all one cooperative civilization. Examples: Role as a family member, friend, team mate.

3.  Does this proposed “governance for the planet’s citizenry” seem possible? What are the restricting factors? What seems possible?

-No, it’s idealistic though. It’s more of a less tangible idea, where a lot of people want this idea to happen, but don’t want to make change for it, to a certain extent. Economic variables, lack of communication, people want to stay in their nitch, they want to do what’s convenient for them even if it affects others negatively. Given time we can see humanity come together eventually, but that’s just one of many futures the world can hold, at any time something could change and affect the whole world, either for the better or for the worse.

"Can There Be World Citizenship?" reading response

     First of all this article was writen in a way where you had to read it about three or four times before you understood what the guy was talking about. It was written in probably the most complex way possible.
     "Can There Be World Citizenship?" is the question Elise Boulding asks for her topic of this article. I will tell you now that this question, how she approached it in her article, is pretty much impossible for one person to grab every perspective there is on it. She brings up that there is a "three-fold citizenship for every human being" and how she describes each of the three citizenship's makes it easier to understand what the point she is trying to get across. Which to me, her point was simple: "we the people of the United Nations" should all be treated fairly, but fairly in the eyes of the beholder, not treated how other people believe "fairly" is. That when a state or local government law restricts us from doing something that is part of our culture or binds us to land, we should go to a higher government, in this case the United Nations, and have something done about it.
    She states "conflicts per se among humans are inevitable because each of us, is a unique person, but responses to conflict are learned. People can learn to use violence in the face of differences, or they can learn to resolve differences peacefully" and I agree with this statement, but it is way easier said then done. For one person to prove another person wrong, it's going to upset that person, and not everyone can handle being wrong as well as others. So there is going to be cases where one person will lash out at another person, its just inevitable. The idea, the thought, of resolving our differences peacefully, is something of a far greater society that we have yet to become. Or will become for many generations. So I say, go for it, try to reach these goals, it won't be easily accomplished, and here is where I answer the question, "Can there be world citizenship?" from my perspective, I know there can be, but it'll be practically impossible to achieve world citizenship anytime soon. Because to reach world citizenship, one must persuade and show others how you can resolve differences peacefully, and that it is possible to resolve something without violence. But the problem that they will encounter, is different cultures believing different ways of resolving things. Someone would have to find a middle ground for all society's and for all cultures to meet and agree on something.
     The two articles "Generation Me" and "The Why-Worry Generation" go to show why we won't be able to achieve world citizenship for generations to come. These two articles state how our generation is all about themselves and only looking out for number one, you. For there to be world citizenship we would need a generation that care more about society becoming one, and cultures coming together, or how Elise Boulding put it "If we of the 10,000 ethnic groups put our imaginations to work on the world as it could be and on the United Nations as it could be. Serious vision work during this United Nations Decade dedicated to a Culture of Peace can eventually guide our strategies toward a workable action program.....to bring that citizenship into action."

Generation Y Reading Response

     In these two articles, "The Why-Worry Generation" and "Generation Me", both writers discuss how "Generation Y", which happens to be my generation, are a bunch of narcissists who think to high of them selves and are to confident. This is stereotyping 101, just because a couple people here and a couple people there thing highly of themselves, and believe that they are number one on the society food chain, or because some one has really high standards of what they want to do with there life, does not make our generation narcissistic. The fact that people can stereotype our entire generation as narcissists is ridiculous. But in "The Why-Worry Generation" I like the point they make near the end about how our generation's ability to stay positive, even though our elders are losing their jobs or drowning in debt, is whats keeping our generation alive.
     Some hot spots in these articles, or things that stick out to me, would be how blunt they are or how quick they are to call us narcissists or spoiled brats. An example in "They Why-Worry Generation" article about how blunt the writers are could be found in the first paragraph when he calls us "entitled whiners" or writes how other people think we're "entitled whiners", but even better is the rest of this quote," Spoiled by parents who over stoked their self-esteem..... trophies on any player who showed up." In the "Generation Me" article Raina Kelley writes "Gorged on a diet of grade inflation, constant praise and materialistic entitlement, I probably would have succumbed to a life of heedless self-indulgence." To be honest I think these writers are jealous. Jealous of how success full our generation is going to be. They see the technology we're going to event, the diseases we're going to cure, the wars we're going to end, and natural disasters we're going to prevent, and instead of pushing us forward and motivating us to keep going and achieving greater things, they chose to sit back and call us spoiled brats? why? because we're success full. That is one of the most ignorant claims I have ever heard.
     I disagree with these articles for the most part, about how they talk about our society and generation so negatively. But I do like in "The Why-Worry Generation" how he actually turns what he says around in the end of his article about how that over confidence our generation has might actually play out in our favor, it's whats keeping our heads up in these bad times.

"The Ways We Lie" 10 examples

"We lie. We all do. We exaggerate, we minimize, we avoid confrontation, we spare peoples feelings, we conveniently forget, we keep secrets, we justify lying to the big-guy institutions".

1. The White Lie - Wife "Honey does this new outfit I got from the farmers market on sale look good on   me" Husband looks at it and thinks for a second "Of course it does"
2. Facades - A slob who has trash all over his house and is a mess constantly, goes out and buys a nice suit for a date or a job interview to make who ever he's seeing think he's high class or that he takes care of himself pretty good.
3. Ignoring the Plain Facts - A highly honored officer in the military has been getting complaints about crossing the line while in action and doing things he shouldn't be doing. Instead of giving him dis-honorable leave, his commanding officer just moves him to a different base or stations him in a different state, instead of addressing and fixing the problem then and there.
4. Deflecting - My brother is being accused by my parents for leaving garbage everywhere, and he deflects the topic by telling on me saying,"Well Chad got an F on his test" so now the accusations are on me instead of him.
5. Omission - My friend tells me he got in a fight over the weekend and him and his buddy's beat the guy up for trying to start something, but leaves out the fact that the guy beat the snot out of him before his buddies jumped in and helped. Or he just leaves the buddy's part out of it and say he beat some one up.
6. Stereotypes and Cliches - "That blond girl trying to read the menu must be having trouble because she's probably dumb because she's blond"
7. Groupthink - John is at a buddy's house with his friends talking about girls and his friends are saying very vulgar things about girls, and John himself has a girlfriend, and instead of speaking up and disagreeing with them he goes along with what there saying.
8. Out and Out lies - Mom,"Chad did you eat the cookies" Son,"No mom the cookie monster did"
9. Dismissal - A friend tells his buddy that he doesn't want to go to a party because he's scared of the consequences, and the buddy tells him that he does want to go to the party.
10. Delusion - When someone forgets there home work and is giving the teacher excuses why he forget it and he is giving the teacher so many excuses that he sees them as facts, when truly they aren't.

Free Write about our rant 9-8

Chad Durkin
ENGL 130 (12:30)
Mrs. Tellesen
9-8-11

Free Write about our Rant

My rant was on the topic “Laziness” but in my perspective. It was late at night when I finally got to my rant and I was thinking about what topic I wanted to write on all day. I had finished cleaning up after my room mates (my brother and his girlfriend) right before I did my rant, and I was extremely tired so I didn’t write my rant on what I truly wanted to write it on, but on Laziness.

Some features of my rant would include, different types of laziness, how easy it is not to be lazy, and the difference’s between wants and needs. I used examples for most of the “features” or topics of discussion in my rant, such as personal experiences of being lazy and what my Dad use to tell me about the difference between doing something you want to do and doing something you need to do. There’s not many tangent examples other then a person being lazy, if you would even put that under the category of a tangent example.

250+ word Rant 9-7

"To do things you want to do instead of things that you need to do, to be able to tell the difference between wants and needs, the lack of motivation to do something or the irresponsibility of not doing things that need to be done" this is my interpretation of laziness. Today laziness is growing more and more popular, getting out of shape, not doing chores, or procrastinating to the last minute to finish something. So many Americans fall under this category, including myself. But for me, through out high school I definitely fell under this category. I procrastinated to do homework assignments, and most of the time didn't fully complete the assignment or just ended up not doing it at all. I wasn't necessarily out of shape, but I was lazy in the term of not doing things to be in shape, such as working out. I kept telling my self that I was going to work out, but always made up excuses that I'll do it later. But now its like i don't have enough time in the day to do everything i want to do, then find my self staying up late and having lack of sleep and having to catch up on my off days because I don't want to go to bed until I'm satisfied that I've completed and accomplished enough tasks for that day.
     Bad roommates also fall in this category, people not wanting to do the dishes or help out around the apartment or house even when it comes to simple, small things such as picking up after yourself. People cant see the difference in needs and wants. My dad use to tell me, and still does, that on Sundays, his only day off, he wants to relax and enjoy it, but he knows that there is yard work that has to be done. He says, "Nobody wants to do the things that need to be done, hell I don't even want to, but now that I do it I don't have to worry about it later on and I can continue my day doing things that I want to do after I finish the things I need to do."
     Everyone talks about being out of shape and wanting to be thinner or leaner in some cases. And I understand that it is genetics that people look how they do and theres not much you can always do about it. But for those who let themselves get out of shape out of pure laziness is ridiculous, because it's not that hard to simply go out and exercise. And by exercising it can be from walking down the road or back, something simple, it doesn't have to be some hard work out. For me my coaches and everyone always bugged me about working out because I'm a bean pole, and I know it. Through out high school I wanted to go work out and put on weight, or simply just get bigger. But I was lazy and made up excuses why I didn't want to work out that day, or I'd tell my self that I'd do it over some break, then end up not doing it because I "wanted" to do something else instead of doing something that I needed to do.
     To be honest I am super tired and really wanted to do a rant on something more broad such as the topics, Illegal Immigration and how people could think that it is okay, or the current war we are in and rant about the thought of how Americans can speak so lowly about our military service and what they are doing right now. So I hope we get an assignment such as this one later on so I can rant on those topics. But for now I will have to settle for ranting on laziness because my self got caught up in different things that kept adding up today. Such as cleaning up after my brother and doing a boat load of dishes that he was suppose to do, and he was putting off, and I saw them as something that needed to be done now not later. Then I got caught up on cleaning up around the apartment, taking out the trash throwing boxes away because some people, *cough* my brother and his girl friend *cough* simply didn't want to take the 1-3 minutes it would take to take care of it themselves.

p.s. I apologize if there are a lot of uncapitalized i's because I just started typing and unfortunately auto spell doesn't work so great on the blog like I thought it would so I probably missed a few in there.

"Why Don't We Complain" class work 9-6

Mitch Longerbone

Chad Durkin

Itzel Ponce

1) Sitting on the train, dying of heat, and he goes to ask the conductor to turn down the temperature and the guy next to him looks at him as if saying, "What are you doing?" in a shocked tone, as if its bad to speak up. He believes that the American people "are all increasingly anxious to be unobtrusive, we are reluctant to make our voices heard, hesitant about claiming our right."
2) 1."and not one of them....consigned to suffer"
    2."When our voices are finally mute,....incapable of feeling"
    3."We have less and less say about the shape of events which shape our future"

• He feels that it'll eventually turn us into unemotional robots, that the society lacks the voice needed to shape our own future.

3) People are still scared to speak up to authorities for the chance of being wrong, or unjust. And the ones that do are frowned upon as if they should be an outcast. But we are more vocal about our own issues instead of society's own issues, or in other words we care more about person or "trivial" issues when we should be caring about more "grave" issues that could have a bigger impact on the society as a whole then "trivial issues.

"Online guidlines" Class work

    "Cleaning up the "mess" will be hard but you can do it one polite rebuke at a time." He saying to try and stop the corruption of our society's view on people with different opinions or beliefs by using "polite rebukes" which to me seems just like a smart ass way to tell some one your right and they're wrong.
Some of the online guidelines my group put together would include:
1. Get a sense of humor (Widen your mind, don't just focus on the "wow I don't believe he just said this")
2. If you disagree, stay away

Read & Response "Why i like vicious, anonymous online comments"/"Make our ugly discourse better"

     First off, I loved these two articles. They both covered things that do happen constantly in our society, and I would love to go off about them. But first I'm going to try and answer the questions about them and try not to go off topic (which after my first draft I found out that not going off topic is easier said then done).
     A hot spot in these articles that i noticed, is how they both had to do with other people "trolling" others or thinking and saying something so low to some one else just because there beliefs, views, or even just cause of a video they posted on youtube. In the online comments article, one commenter says, "It amazes me how easy it is to sit behind a computer and launch a heap of self-righteous cynicism at something as harmless as this." and that's so true. People hide behind user name's to comment or say vulgar,cruel, and ridiculous things at others, which to me makes them look like a total jackass, but if it was there real name or there ip address that showed they would never say some of these things cause they would be scared about how it would make them look or the flack that would come back at them, so instead they use "the protective force field of anonymity" and Matt zoller seitz the writer is correct when he says, "they say things they would never say in the presence of flesh-and-blood human beings." In the "make our ugly discourse better" article, a part that seemed a hot spot to me would be when he says,"Any time you see or read or hear anybody step over the line, call them on it. Do it politely, with kindness and consideration. But do it clearly and cleanly, with a humble explanation of what they did wrong." I loved this part because its like the "proper" way to show someone there wrong and i just got the biggest kick out of it, also his examples were pretty good.
     I ran into difficulties of understanding when both articles quoted comments people posted on a youtube video or a comment one would say to the other because they viewed things differently. I mean myself i lean towards the right side and i love getting into arguments/debates with people with a different view on something as me. But to let an argument get to the point of vulgar mud slinging or even getting into fisticuffs is ridiculous. Also for someone to make a point and watch a video that they don't  even like just to leave rude and cruel comments on it is just utterly incompetent. Don't they have something better to waste there time on like some hobby. If some has something mean or vile to say to some one, why not just keep it to your self, because obviously the other person or other people that will read/hear the comment don't want to hear it. I mean it shows how low our society has become, and the only way to come back from how low we've gone is if people find self-control or get some common sense to tell whats wrong and whats right.
     A couple questions these articles have raised for me is, what motivates some one to try and "crap" on some ones life by either commenting on a thread/post/video and leaving rude comments or how can people let there anger get the better of them in an argument or just in general. I mean i understand some people just can't control there anger or what they say, but the average human should have the will power to watch what comes out of there mouth. Most of my questions are kind of just repetition with what I had difficulty understanding.
     I agree with actually everything that these articles state, for the most part, i mean i agree that web sites should make people use there real name or something that can be traced back to them, even though that's against their rights or whatever, but i mean i think people should be held responsible for what they say or do, in any case.
     Mainly "make our ugly discourse better" has the biggest relation to the issues were raising in class i think because we discuss different things which usually ends up getting into some debate or the topic is a debate, and if people reacted like a "civilogue" instead of a hot headed extremest, we would have a more civil society in general.
     So I really love the articles you chose for us, i mean compared to the dry topics in high school were given, these ones are fun to read and give a response to or have a discussion about.

Meaning of "Freedom" 8/30

What does freedom mean to me? To me freedom means a person has the right to express themselves how they want to. To have the ability to go after a dream or goal. To be free is to be able to speak up in class if you disagree with something or to express your opinion if you chose to. One event that I thought showed freedom, was in 7th grade, my grade started a protest in front of our school and all the other grades (8-12) followed us and protested as well. Atleast the oens that beleived in the same goal as us. We protested because we felt a teacher was getting thrown undewr a bus and we all fought for him. The great thing about this was that we could do something like protest and fight for something we beleived in. So freedom to me is to be able to go after something or do something that your passionate about and not be severly punished for doing so.

"Two Wars" - The American Life Reading & Response

Chad Durkin

ENGL 130

Mrs. Pape

8-25-11

"Two Wars" Video Response

     In the episode "Two Wars" which is part of This American Life tv series, the main subject Haider Hamza who is an Iraqi sets up a stand that says "Talk to an Iraqi" in America. He talks to Americans about the war in Iraq and the u.s. occupation there, but in this video there is a focus on how the Iraqi citizens them self feel about all of this. Haider talks to many people including a few members of the military such as marines and a fellow in the army.

     A "hot spot" that stood out to me was how Haider felt about the U.S occupation and how he talked about it, i don't know the quote exactly but this is is pretty close to it, "When Saddam Hussein occupied Iraq it was bad, but the U.S. occupation is hell..." Yes, I am pro war in iraq (which its more war in Afghanistan now) and i don't want to totally bash on this video just because i see a lot of flaws in it, and i do still see both sides of this topic so I'm not just one sided even if I may sound like I am. My opinion after watching this, which brings me to the hot spot and quote i pointed out, is that just because Haider Hamza was a born Iraqi citizen doesn't give him the right to believe he can speak for all the Iraqi citizens. Yes he can feel free to spread and share his opinion but when he starts talking as if he knows how EVERY Iraqi citizen feels, is when he opens himself up for criticism. Maybe he has his own experience's with the U.S. occupation but most or at least a majority of the citizen (which I can't say for sure, but its my opinion) welcome the U.S. occupation because they are there not only there to protect them but to rid that area and surrounding areas of terrorist who are trying to spread terrorism and also doing acts of terrorism. People blame the military there for the bombings and deaths which is ridiculous because they aren't even the one's planting the car bombs or making acts of violence towards the citizens. But on that note I can say i understand there are those messed up military members who do make acts of violence towards citizens, but to say the entire army/marine and other forces there are the ones doing them is ignorant. And those points are a few of the points that I disagree with.

     The claims Haider made in this piece related to the issues we're raising in class because it deals with current events or past events that we're HUGE in debates and discussions. The claims also are a good place for the class to start with because it's a good topic to get people out of there shell and speak up in class and share how they feel about it.

     Some questions this raised for me is how could Americans not stand behind and back up there troops when they are over in the middle east and fighting terrorism and making it so us Americans back here won't have to worry about there being another event such as 9/11. I mean everyone who tries and talk bad about our troops and make them sounds bad should take a good look at what there really doing. Just because they hear things on the news or listen to how the media twists things about the war doesn't mean they know what there talking about. Our troops are risking there lives for us to protect our home. If critics think that they're going to protect our home by using peace and harmony and not affecting other peoples home or lives need a reality check on life, because they would get a real eye opener if they went over there themselves and tried to use peace and harmony as a way to protect us. I'm not saying that peace and harmony is out of the picture, but with the way how young and innocent children are corrupted so easily in our society and in the other cultural society's shows little hope for peace and harmony in the future.

     I don't know if I'm answering this next question right, but I ran into difficulties of understanding with how small minded people can be about the war in Iraq. In the video an eleven year old girl apologized to Haider for what we've done. Well does she think that the Taliban's or terrorists are going to apologize to her father, who is/was over there, for shooting at him and trying to kill him and the other Americans there? I mean they do have a right to protect themselves cause obviously there not going to just put there guns down and surrender, and we are over there in THERE home so its just natural for them to fire back. But the point is that there are terrorists over there, maybe the military is looking in the wrong spots, but the military is still looking and still putting forth their time and effort trying to stop terrorism so they don't strike back, because that is exactly what they would do if we pulled out of the war right now.

     So as you see talking about the war kind of riles me up because I can't see why people can talk so badly about our military for trying to protect us. Yeah, maybe it is in a cruel and blunt way, but if we wouldn't of retaliated after 9/11 then they and other countries would think that they can make acts of terrorism on the United States and get away with it.

10 things about me

1. My name is Chad Thomas Durkin
2. I think i'm funny
3. I'm pretty tall
4. I love basketball (all sports for that matter)
5. I'm from an extremely small town
6. I like to eat... alot
7. I loooooove mexican food
8. All girls in my family or with my last name have been married into it, not born into it
9. I'm Irish and Alasken Native
10. I have huge feet but small hands.