really?

myself

I would have to assume there is a big chunk of me in my paper, but it definitely is still just an assignment. once assigned, and after all the complaints, what really goes into it - in order to make sure i don't explode with boredom- is all me.

i choose the topic - my paper has to be on something that i find interesting. I WILL NOT be writing 8 pages or reading 45 sources on something i dont like at all. in this choice, i can see something about myself and my personality. (obviously i chose something boring... but not really!)

i choose how i lay it out and research it. - as opposed to just finding sources and info, i choose to delve deeper and look at my actual topic (That im interested in!) in life today. i see how i react to it, how i relate wih it, and how Im involved at all with it. my argument bases are how i want them to be made and solely reflect my needs or opinions.

though im inside of it, it will always, to me, be just another assignment(just like all the others before it, too) I do occasionally get into the research and arguments of the topic, since it is one i like (i chose it...), however, i could never write a paper about it on my own. why would someone ever do that? There are other time-comsuming venues, like breathing, watching ants carry a twig somewhere, online gaming, or even friendship!

okay? i did all that? do i need to write it here? I'm guessing so....

main idea: irradiating foods is important to help reduce illnesses and is perfectly safe.
argument is clear and well put. good support, and facts. also, the argument is arguable.
can easily cover 8-10 pages

transitions are smooth and guide readers well, and there is an abundance of credible research!

research methods

i have been researching alot of journal articles about the way and how fast technology is changing how the new generation does things. when i find an article, often, it points out different things (because its not entirely focused on my argument...) so i take those different things and search for them, and read the background information of my original articles...

this process is helping me figure out supporting ideas and concepts that i would otherwise have totally missed.


by the way, i have reviewed my topic, and have re-focused... on the way a change in technology offers a change in lifestyles. ish...

globalization

hmmm i plan on researching and reporting on how conflicts in Israel and tension in the European nations could be caused or related to the United States and allies' involvement in the Middle - East.

im fairly interested in the political causes and effects of war or tension and i would like to research how they affect neighboring regions.

I think thats all i have to do.... so.... yeah

FDR's war declaration

President Roosevelt's use of rhetorical tools such as syntax and diction create an optimistic, undaunted tone that captures the hearts of the people and congress of the United States of America. FDR reuses a similar sentence structure five times in order to get his point across to Americans and congress. Each time, he brings up events that add to each other, sizing up what all has happened. In describing the events that occurred, Roosevelt uses such words as "Dastardly," and "unprovoked" which stir up powerful, angry emotions among the listeners.

I feel this speech portrays and does what it needs to do to be effective.

Bob Dole, wait who?

(1996 - Dole, "pants on fire")


In 1996, Clinton and Dole were "duking it out" for the presidency. many of the ads shown by the democrats claimed Dole was "risky" and emphasized many important topical debates that Clinton favored. This ad, "pants on fire," addresses any individual who had seen Clinton's ads and taken them for what they were. "Pants on fire" announces to the viewers of all the false statements and claims made by the president's campign team, and Clinton himself. In his discussion, Dole mentions things like Clinton saying he would not raise taxes on the middle class, then bringing up the fact that Clinton DID. Something Dole denounced was Clinton's ad claiming things about both men's point of view and stances on topics that were not true, and in reality were opposite of what the ad claimed. Dole pleas for support from individuals looking for a president with firm values, and bashes on clinton by calling him a liar. He gains credibility with the use of a DEMOCRAT's quote that listed Clinton as an unusually good liar. By using quotes from someone of another party, Dole gives the viewers an objective look at what Clinton really might be like.

this ad struck me as Incredibly effective (maybe not effective but relative). I started looking through the ads one by one and got the "wow, this Dole guy is a big jerk" feeling. After watching the ad's myself (all of the ones for Clinton, that is) I started to look at Dole's, anticipating a hatred for the man. Of course, while watching the first few, I began to poke dole's head with the mouse pointer, because he was such a bad man (mouse pointer head poking, is a sentence reserved for terrible people). Then I got to pants on fire. WOW, Dole isnt too bad, I guess Clinton was just making that up. well, "Sorry for doubting you, Bob Dole, I hope the voters get the same message I got. GOOD LUCK"

Result: I had not actually heard of Bob Dole.(he lost.)((I guess the effect the ad had on me was only because I had JUST WATCHED all the ads, while in reality, many people didnt give a"hoot" ))

*disclaimer: maybe I had heard of him a few times.....