Me as a "Blah" Writer

I really don’t want to do this blog. I’m not going to lie. I would much rather write my papers and get on with this class. However, I must do these blogs to pad my grade a little bit. That is why I’m no longer going to talk about this and focus on what this is supposed to be about.
Sarah Palin. We all know her as the fun little hockey mom from Alaska. The vice-presidential nominee. What we don’t know are why so many people make fun of her. Well, that’s what my second paper is about.
I feel as though I wanted to write it better. Maybe I should just worry about revising it later. Yes. That will be the best option for now. This is not my shitty first draft, but I know I can do better than what I’ve got. So my pledge to myself and to my papers is this:
I will have all of my papers completed by Friday, through Endorsement Groups by the end of next week, and revision completed by the 30th. This may be only a small amount of time for revision, but it is revision after all. I have all the ideas. It’s the small things I have to worry about there. This way, if I’m not satisfied with my revision, then I will have 3 extra school days for improvement.
That’s me as a writer. Set deadlines and follow through with them. The first part is easy, it’s the second part that gives me trouble every now and then.

New is Hilarious

For anybody that doesn’t enjoy watching news, here’s a little piece for you to enjoy. News first objective isn’t to be enjoyable. That happens over time. I didn’t watch any news until I started working for a TV-station. Furthermore, I didn’t enjoy being there until a couple months after I started. It used to be boring to me. Sometimes it still is. The key to enjoying news is finding the funny things in it.
For example, have you ever noticed how ridiculous some of CNN’s programming is? Filling time is a big issue in the news, but it comes from that inability to easily fill time with significant news where you get hilarious snippets. Check out the video I posted at the bottom from The Onion News Network on Youtube. The Onion is a fictitious news organization with the motto, “Making you Seem Better Informed.” It’s all about having fun.
The thought most people have about the news is that it’s rigid, uptight, and only for upper-class individuals. In reality, you just have to find the best station that fits for you. While news is supposed to offer unbiased opinions, most people know that’s only a guideline, and when we watch different news networks the fact is, each one caters to a different crowd. Election years show the differences clearly. Fox offered support to McCain and NBC swayed voters toward Obama. So try this: if you’re liberal watch NBC networks and conservatives may try Fox. If you still don’t like it, watch The Onion, then go back, watch the news, and try to see if you can spot the ridiculousness of how serious the news tries to be. Trust me, after two and a half years of working at a news station, they fail miserably. They just don’t make it obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo&playnext_from=TL&videos=J-TRw5W51Qs

Case Study: Revision

The topic of revision has been brought up in class now, so I have decided to offer my opinion yet analyze my first paper as well. Before meeting with Stephanie, felt I had a pretty decent paper. I didn't feel as if anything needed to be changed, save a few minute details. Thank God I met with her though. Once, I was able to take a closer look at my paper with Stephanie's comments to guide me, I realized what I thought was a good paper was a good paper. I just had a conflict with the wording I was using. I also found out I was supplying a false statement on accident because I was lead to believe by inductive reasoning that ICC had a campus-wide attendance policy. Not a big deal on the large scale, unless you consider who I was addressing the paper to.
I felt I had my audience figured out to a "T" and in a way I did because it worked with how I wrote my paper. Unfortunately, because I was wrong about one of my support points in the paper, I was also wrong about who I was addressing. If I kept the audience how it was, my paper would have been useless because the audience had little authority on the matter. That being said, my audience has shifted from ICC administration to ICC teachers.
The final issue in this paper was the wording which affected my purpose. I had the idea that attendance policies were more of a guideline. Meaning they could state what they wanted, so long as there were certain stipulations that were followed: good or bad. However, policy and punishment often go hand-in-hand which is what was happening in this instance. Because I had this wrong, it translated into me stating that attendance policies needed changing instead of stating the correct statement of, "There should be NO attendance policies period."
All-in-all, my support works to bring down the idea of attendance policies, but my opinions were off a little, which threw off my focus, and in the end corrupted the paper entirely. It's not that the paper was crap, in the end it was that the paper was addressing the issues incorrectly. If I listened to Stephanie correctly, then my next draft will qualify as strong with minimal effort.
Thanks Stephanie.

CASE STUDY #3

Often times we are our own worst critic, but other times what we think of ourselves is too arrogant for the situation. We’ve seen it plenty of times where someone comes up to us with a big accomplishment, and we say to them, “That’s it?” Writing is the same way. I often will look at my essays and think that it’s just amazing, but once it is compared to another peers essay of the same topic, I suddenly get brought back to earth. Other times, I feel as if my article is no where near good enough to even be shown to my brother or sister. These case studies help to bring out the best of both parts of the criticism world.
Take my blog about the legalization of marijuana. To me I felt as if it was a good topic. I didn’t feel like I did a very good job with it, but upon further review and support from scholars, I was reaffirmed that I went about presenting it in the best way possible. All of the things stated in that blog were things I wanted to people to think about. If I convinced one person that the legalization of marijuana was a bad thing, then I did my job correctly. What I especially liked about it was the fact that if someone wanted to counter what I said in that blog, I kept my tone at a place in which they could do so, but not feel as if they had to pummel me with their own facts.
I feel that’s what I need to do more in my writing. I don’t so much need to force people to think my way even if I want them to. The best tone I write in isn’t harsh, but a suggestive one. I always do my best writing when I’m there to, more or less, offer a different way to think about a common topic. This is similar to what news does. While they provide the facts in either a liberal or conservative tone, it’s never completely one way or the other.
The last thing I did not do in that blog was offer statistics from professionals. Seeing as how it was a blog, I didn’t feel the need to for it, but I would definitely do further research for a longer paper. I have also discussed the topic with peers and adults many times before broadening my understanding of the topic. With that being said, I liked the way I presented my view of the marijuana issue and I’m open to discuss it with anyone who has more information and authority on the subject. I didn’t pretend to know it all and I feel that’s the best tone I write in.

COULD I GET SOME FACTS PLEASE?

Up until this point, I had no idea what I should be writing about. However, as I was brainstorming, I came to the conclusion that I have recently been presented with an interesting article posted by a friend on my Facebook page. In this article entitled, “Super Bowl Halftime Show: Time For Baby Boomers to Release Their Cultural Death Grip”, Daniel Kalder tries to show that the Super Bowl halftime show is just some elusive plot by the baby boomers to try to push some sort of cultural agenda down our throats. Unfortunately, this man’s argument falls apart almost before it begins.
First of all, the whole article is based off of the man’s opinion. There is little in the way of statistical or factual support. What factual support this man does offer does not show, in any way, that the live performances or musical ability of these artists is lacking talent. Further more, it seems as though the factual evidence he uses is backed up, again, by his own opinion.
Lastly, this man is a foreigner, which should automatically discredit any personal opinion he has about what Americans do or do not like. Because his whole article is just his opinion, it has no reliability to it. I just felt this article would be appropriate to analyze seeing as how it uses most of the elements we have been told to avoid.
Seeing as how this man is not a professional on American entertainment, I don’t see where he should is allowed to tell me what I should enjoy. I’m not saying that I enjoyed this latest performance by “The Who”, but it wasn’t the worst thing I’ve watched on television, either. Further more, I would have to say that the performances by Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, and Tom Petty were among some of the better shows I’ve seen during halftime. I’ve also had some friends tell me that the “Rolling Stones” performance was pretty good as well. I don’t have any statistics to back it up for certain, but I’m sure if you asked any American if they like the “CSI” theme song, they will say yes. Ironically enough, no matter what season you say “yes” to, they all use theme songs written by “The Who.”


If you would like to read the article at hand, here is the link:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dkalder/2010/02/08/super-bowl-halftime-time-for-baby-boomers-to-release-their-cultural-death-grip/

CASE STUDY BLOG #2

Back in high school an English teacher gave me an assignment one day in class. That assignment was what seemed to be a simple task; write whatever is on your mind. Thank god that assignment was given to me back in high school because now it would be filled with things like… well, never mind. Ever since that assignment, I’ve started every paper the same way. With what I’m thinking at the time. For this case study, as an example, I have in mind the direction I want to take it, but I have no idea what exactly I should say. That’s how I’ve ended up at this point. I brainstorm in writing until I figure out the right words. While my papers can’t start exactly like this, my blog can. That brings me to this semester, the most writing I have done this year has been for these blogs. I was a little opposed to the whole idea at first. I thought it would be extra work, but when you get to voice your own opinion without being graded too harshly, it makes the writing process easier. Everything I’ve written up to this semester has been a struggle because I haven’t had the opportunity to unwind with any project like a blog, where if I feel like saying the class sucks I can. Since that is not the case, that is the last time you will see that phrase in my blogs. As I was saying about the case study, take, for example, the first couple of assignments. The negotiation letter: while it wasn’t my best work, it wasn’t difficult because it was my own opinion. The Hollywood inference paper: while I was way off the mark with how I was supposed to label things, I still enjoyed doing it because we got to judge someone. Our teacher gave us permission to judge someone. The iRead essay: granted it we had guidelines to follow, but we still got to read something we were interested in. Whether we were for or against the issue, we weren’t bored to death with some sort of nonsense article we didn’t care about. Writing in this class seems to be a breeze because I get to read and write about topics that matter to me, and further more I get to express how these topics make me feel. So as far as myself as a writer, I’d say I’m more comfortable with having the class in my hands rather than some teacher’s. Because let’s be honest, deadlines are a reality everywhere, you don’t always get to choose what’s taking you to it.

From the other side of the Marijuana Issue

I understand this is pretty well-worn territory, however, it seems we never hear about this side of the marijuana argument. By no means do I take a side on this topic. It doesn’t particularly bother me in the least. I don’t condone the act of smoking it, and I don’t do it myself; however, I feel as if some things need to be said about the whole issue, and it doesn’t seem like enough college students speak up about how they feel if they are against it. For one, it would be regulated, and then the question of how it would be enforced is another issue. Possibly the biggest argument for it would be that the economy would be given a boost, but that may not be so true as what it seems. While, we may be sick of hearing about the topic, the other side never seems to get discussed, and that is what this entry will try to address.
First off, if marijuana is given the chance to become legal, it’s not going to be in the sense that everyone thinks. We have to define legal, and as much as I disagree with some of the things the government does, I don’t think they are ridiculous enough to just say, okay, we’re no longer enforcing laws against marijuana, go smoke! Further more, if they do choose to make it legal, it’s going to be a gradual process. It’ll start out as medicinal everywhere. If it even gets past that point, there will still be stipulations against it. There will be certain people that are able to get it. The regulation won’t stop there.
There are other parts of the whole issue that have to be regulated. These are the ingredients in the product and permits to sell it. The product that the dealers (if that’s even what they’ll be called) will be selling won’t be as potent as what we see now. It will have a tax on it, which means a middle man. The whole reason it’s so expensive now is because there is no middle man, and there is no regulation. What’s more, is the whole fair practice issue, which means the price will most likely be set by the stock market prices, seeing as how the government would be involved with this industry’s regulation. The regulation of it could go on, but I’ll leave it at this for now and discuss enforcement.
This is an overlooked topic when it comes to the big picture. It’s hard enough to enforce underage drinking these days, so the thought of adding another crime to enforce makes it nearly impossible, and we’re right back to being illegal. Not to mention, we have to look at what we are going to enforce. The obvious is that we don’t want to put any more danger on the roads that’s already there, and I really don’t want to drive on a road with a half-baked driver coming my way. It seems like the only way to enforce a driving under the influence would be to have a limit of the amount in your system, and that can be deceiving seeing as how THC can stay in your system for 3 to 90 days depending on potency and frequency of use. The other complication when testing this is the ability to quickly test it. The only way to get a reading is to do a blood test. By the time the blood tests come back, the offender could be long gone. Then, what if someone is found innocent? Lawsuit anyone? How many police officers are going to want to mess with that?
With these lawsuits that an innocent person may want to file, there will be money coming out of the state’s pocket. Then, the extra training and equipment to enforce the law comes into play. Police officers are not just implanted with these abilities. Of course, we really get into the issue from here. The argument is that marijuana will boost the economy. People look at the cost of marijuana and say wow think if there was tax on that! Lets really break it down though. Once it’s legalized, greenhouses aren’t going to say, “well, it’s legal, but we haven’t been growing it, so we better leave it alone.” What’s going to happen is it will get manufactured on a mass produced scale? When you really think about why the cost of marijuana is so high (no pun intended), it’s because no regulation on price and because it is illegal, the demand by those who want it is much higher. In essence without it even being involved in the economy yet, it’s still under the law of supply and demand. After mass production, the drug will go down in price dramatically. It’s not as if it’s difficult to grow. It grows on the sides of roads and was once used as rope when we had a shortage of the traditional materials. With only a small portion our population using the drug on a regular basis, the fact that it would be a booming industry is not necessarily true. If we could keep the price increased, then it may be a decent sized industry, however, once the cost starts to slip after production begins, and we begin to import better stuff (which is inevitable with the United States), the profit will not be as big. Then, we factor in the cost of training police officers, and depending on whether the training and supplies cost enough, layoffs happen. Initially, jobs will be created to manufacture it, but once the cost to profit ratio becomes too high, jobs will inevitably be lost.
I’m not saying I’m against legalizing it totally, but we need to think about these things. Regulation and enforcement are not the easiest accomplishments, and the economy issue, when looked at in a deeper, closer manner, is not actually a benefit. Initially it may be, but job loss is inevitable when we want better product. This isn’t an outcry against marijuana, nor is it a request to keep it out of circulation. It’s simply the other side of a well worn issue, meant to ask questions. Questions we can ponder on our own, and give a voice to the unheard other side.

CASE STUDY BLOG #1: WEDNESDAY 1/26/2010

As I consider how to approach this case study of myself, something comes to mind. That something would be the fact that it’s always seems tough for me to begin writing. Once I get over that initial hump, it’s home free, or so it seems. I guess the reality of it is that my whole writing style is flawed. The beginning, the middle, the end, and even the rules you have to follow. Of course, transitions are also another huge part of the writing process, and I tend to have a tough time making good transitions.
The beginning of my papers always seem to drag on to me, no matter how short they are. I feel like it’s good to put a lot of ideas into the opening. At the same time, I always tend to put useless information into the first paragraph of all my papers. Some of the sentences are awkward, and the transitions seem as if they take forever to get to. Further more, when I do cut things I always cut too much out. The best solution for having a strong paper, but still having enough to make the paper look legitimate, would be more information and research in the middle of the essays which is another problem.
The ideas are there in my head. The problem I have is getting them down on paper. When I do get good ideas down on paper, I tend to support them too little. The quickest fix for this problem would, of course be, to do better research. Hopefully, English 111 will help me to figure out how to do that. The biggest reason for not receiving an A in the class would be the fact that the papers didn’t have enough research and support. That is most likely the biggest problem I have. Compared to this the ending is just like the beginning of my papers.
The ending of the paper is supposed to be the easiest. It’s supposed to be a restatement of the first paragraph (or opening paragraphs). Whoever coined this simple concept must have written the worst writer in history. Of course, I’m kidding about that. That concept is much easier said than done in my case. I could tell a hundred people about this idea, but I couldn’t give them an example of my own. I can do it, but not in a way that doesn’t make my closing sound monotonous with the opening. Then there is the issue of lack of information in the closing, but that’s not a huge deal. At least that’s what I’ve been told.
One of my biggest issues in writing is those pesky “never never” rules. When I follow those rules, I have a tough time reading my own papers. They never seem to be too interesting because it doesn’t seem like the way I would say it if I were speaking. That’s how I like my papers to look, as if I was speaking it naturally. Those rules throw off my grove and the nature of my grammar. It would be different if I didn’t speak very well, but that’s not the case with me. If we could be taught these rules, but given some leeway in breaking them that would make my writing that much better.
This is a rough look at how I write. Of course, now as I finish out this entry you are going to see if it’s as monotonous as I claim. The use of “I” was used a lot here, and that is one of the “never never” rules. Now that I have analyzed myself, I realize that most of the things said are true. Even in this paper. All I have to do now is ask myself, what’s necessary for change at this point?