Who Killed The Electric Car?

Our blogging assignment this week was to write about the documentary we saw in class, Who Killed The Electric Car?. This is one of my favorite documentaries, another that I actually own (even though I seem to have misplaced it currently). I like it because it talks about an interesting subject and because it's more balanced and even-handed than many documentaries that I tend to watch. Although it comes from an obvious pro-environmentalist POV, it also tries to show all sides of the issue. It interviews not only electric car owners but oil & car company representatives as well as politicians who were responsible for killing the electric car mandate.

One thing that I mentioned in class was that the movie did not spend a lot of time talking about electric/gasoline hybrid cars. Since the beginning of this decade hybrid car ownership has skyrocketed in this country, mostly due to the success of the Toyota Prius. I felt like the filmmakers could have talked about how many people who would potentially buy an electric car have instead settled for buying hybrids, and how that's not a perfect solution but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Third Paper

For this blog assignment, we were to watch a fourth documentary on our own, in addition to the three we are watching in class, and write a reflective blog post on it.

For my fourth documentary to watch for this assignment, I chose March of the Penguins, a documentary that chronicles the journey emperor penguins go through to mate and reproduce. I chose this movie for a couple reasons. For one, it's one of my favorites - I've owned it since it first came on DVD (it was a Christmas present) and have seen it a bunch of times, so I'm familiar with it. For another, I wanted to do my paper on a documentary that was less incendiary and controversial than some of my other favorites, such as Outfoxed or pretty much everything by Michael Moore.

At any rate. The film begins with stunning cinematography of Antarctica, where the emperor penguins live. It was structured as a story, telling how the penguins "march" or walk to their ancestral breeding grounds to find a mate.

The conflict is how the penguins fight against the harsh elements of Antarctica to hatch their young. For example some of the eggs get exposed to the harsh winds, and freeze, killing the baby penguin. Also, once the babies are born, some freeze to death. There is one particularly moving scene in which a mother penguin finds her frozen baby and she starts trumpeting her anguish.

A recurring theme in this movie is that these penguins are trying to live and reproduce in the harshest place on earth. Survival is hard for all animals, who have to fight against the elements and other predators, but it is especially hard for animals trying to survive in Antarctica.

The film concludes with the parent and now older baby penguins seperating, and gives the impression that soon these baby penguins will be making their own journey or "March". It's a very satisfying end.

Supersize Me

This week's blogging assignment was to talk about the movie we watched in class, Supersize Me. That's pretty easy for me, because I actually own that movie and have seen it at least half a dozen times.

In Supersize Me, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock eats nothing but McDonald's for a month and documents how it effects him. Along the way, Spurlock talks about the obesity epidemic in the United States, especially as it pertains to our nation's children. It's a fascinating journey. I remember the first time I watched this movie, I thought, "wow, now I'm never gonna eat McDonald's again". Haha, that didn't last very long. But the movie definitely makes you think twice before you order that Extra Value Meal.

I think the most powerful moment in the portion of the film we've seen so far is when Spurlock vomits after having eaten McDonald's.... and the camera pans out to show the actual vomit. It makes you recoil in horror.

One question the movie raises is whether it's appropriate to sue the fast food companies for making us fat. I definitely think no, because there's a point when personal responsibility is supposed to kick in, but at the same time the fast food companies bear some of the responsibility too. Not enough that they should be sued, but enough that they should be blamed. There's a lot of factors that go into the obesity epidemic and the fast food companies are definitely part of that problem.

Documentaries

Our blogging assignment this week was to read from the film Making Documentary Films and Videos and write a reflective post about our reading.

The chapters we were to read mostly dealt with defining what a documentary is and isn't. There was a lot of discussion about programs or movies that are like documentaries, but are not in fact real documentaries. For example, tv news and reality tv programs are most definitely not documentaries.

One thing I had a little problem with was that the author talked about programs he called docugandas. These are programs that purport to be documentaries but are in fact forms of propaganda. He used one of my favorite film-makers, Michael Moore, as an example of someone who was presenting docuganda instead of true documentaries. I could see the author's point - Michael Moore is very one-sided and not neccesarily very fair in covering all sides of an issue. Another example was a favorite movie of mine, Outfoxed. This is a documentary on how Fox News is consistantly biased and - according to the filmmakers - something of a tool of the Republican party. I tend to agree with that assesment. Also, the movie is very informative and provacative... as well as being very entertaining. But yeah, it's definitely not very "fair and balanced" as it were. The author talks about how CNN has a similar bias to the Democratic party, which I completely disagree with. I've never seen an example of liberal bias on CNN. On MSNBC, yes, but not CNN.

Fallacies

For this blog assignment we were to read in chapter nine of our texts about fallacies. Dictionary.com defines fallacy as:

1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.

and

4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

Our text dealt primarily with the second definition, or how fallacies are used in logic, with arguments.

One of the methods of using a fallacy in an argument that I see used most often in my political debates with friends or relatives is the slippery slope argument. An example of this was used in our textbook, discussing how some people believe if we have handgun registration, it's only a slippery slope down towards no rights for gun owners and soon we'll be in a police state. I hear this argument all the time from my stepdad, who is a hunter and favors strong rights for gun owners. I am in favor of common sense handgun laws, but whenever I argue for them, my stepdad will say "If we allow that [registration, more stringent background checks, limits on how many guns someone can buy in a month] than the next thing you know they'll want to take away our guns alltogether."

In all, I understood the basic principle behind fallacies but I'm not looking forward to whatever assignment we'll be doing that requires us to write about them. I'm sure our professor had us read this chapter because our next paper will deal with fallacies. Oh well. :)

Chapter Six

For this blogging assignment we were to read chapter six and analyze it. I enjoyed this chapter, and even though it was rather long (like 40 pages) it was highly readable. It dealt with developing your own argument and translating that to essay form.

One of the points the authors really stressed was knowing who your audience was for your papers - mainly, your teacher and your fellow students. They also talked about not assuming your audience knew everything about the topic you were discussing.

I found the section on asking questions, such as "What is X?" and "What should we do about X?" to find out where you stand on an issue to be very helpful. I will use this strategy when I write my next paper.

I found the essay by a student at the end of the chapter to be interesting and well written, especially because it was written in first person. I am more accustomed to writing in first person, what with all the blogging I do, but I didn't know it was ever appropriate in formal essays or papers.

My Topic for The Next Paper

For this blog assignment we were supposed to talk about what topic we will do for our next paper, in which we craft an argument (using visuals) about a controversial topic. I briefly considered doing my paper on abortion, but two things are stopping me: one, our professor specifically said "Don't everyone do it on abortion, because grading twenty papers on the same topic will get old fast", and two, I can't think of any appealing visuals one could possibly utilize on the abortion debate. Also, there's the fact that I am sort of conflicted on abortion... I believe life begins at conception and could never have an abortion myself, but I am fiercly pro-choice for everyone else. It's probably not best to chose an issue I am not 100% one way or another about.

So I'm going with another issue - universal health care. It's an issue I care deeply about, being that I am currently uninsured. Even when I was insured, dealing with the insurance companies was such a hassle, and there were lots of things they either didn't cover or only partially coveraged. I have literally thousands of dollars in medical debt. Meanwhile, I have friends in Canada, the U.K. and other countries that have free universal health care for all citizens, and they can't comprehend how someone like me can be too broke to go see the doctor. I care about a lot of issues politically, but this is one of the most important to me. I would seriously vote for a candidate that I disagreed with about every other thing if they could just get universal health care for our citizens.

Since I am passionate about this issue I think it will translate well into an argumentative paper for me.

Chapter Four

For this blog assignment we were to read on chapter four and reflect on it. I found this chapter very interesting and more readable than some of the other chapters in our text.

This chapter was all about using images in your arguments. It opened by stating visual materials are used with written arguments primarily to appeal to emotions or to clarify numerical data, such as with graphs and charts.

The chapter talked about images in advertisements, and images that accompany news stories. It asked the question, "Are some images not fit to be shown?", and gave examples of the video of journalist Daniel Pearl's execution and the Danish newspapers who printed cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. My opinion on these two situations is, I always believe in free speech and freedom of the press, but the media has a responsibility to be respectful to people in what they show. Airing the video of Pearl's execution is not only in extremely poor taste because of the gruesomeness of the video, but it is extremely disrespectful to Pearl's family. As for the Muhammad cartoons, that's just intentionally going out of your way to offend a major religion, and nothing but trouble can come of that.

Another image that was used in this chapter was that of an advertisement from the American Cancer Society, depicting a cigarette that is bent, and on the opposite end from the filter the cigarette turns into a smoking gun. This is extremely powerful. Most public service announcements or anti-smoking ads are preachy and corny, but this is just a simple image that packs a powerful punch. I used to smoke and if I'd seen this ad, it probably wouldn't have made me quit on its own, but it would have really made me think and consider what I was doing to my body.

The chapter also talked about political cartoons and how they can make a major impression. I enjoyed reading this section because I am something of a political cartoon junkie - I always check out Mike Luckovich and Tom Toles.

The chapter ended with suggestions on designing and formatting academic papers. I found this section helpful.

Franke James Essay

For this blog assignment we were to select an essay by Franke James and reflect on it. I chose the first one of hers that I read, A Green Winter: Will Global Warming Be Good For Canada?, because it was on a topic I care about and also, it caught my eye.

I thought James' essay was excellent and well written. Presenting it as a series of doodles on illustrations and snapshots really brought the message across. At one point the author is talking about how when she went to a resort, all the ski lifts were empty - on a snapshot of lonely looking ski lifts in the sky. At another point she talked about how she was looking over the mountain and not seeing any snow, alongside a photo of green and brown landscape, in the middle of January. This reminded me of a pivotal scene in Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, when he showed a picture of a famous mountain (I can't remember which one) as it was years ago, capped with snow, and how it is currently, all brown and shriveled up. You can talk about global warming all you want, but nothing drives the point home like seeing an illustration of what climate change has wrought.

I also liked how James showed photos of Canadian cultural icons, like the Twoonie and a Tim Horton's cup, and how connected with snow they were. It really shows how powerfully snow is intertwined with the Canadian identity, and how much global warming threatens that identity.

Analysis Paper

I chose Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's speech from the recent Republican National Convention as the topic for my analysis paper.

Sarah Palin utilizes a variety of propaganda techniques in her speech. She exudes confidence while speaking, first of all. She also uses the name-calling technique, although she is more subtle about it than most politicians often are. For example, she calls the current Democrat-majority Senate the "current do-nothing Senate" and talks about the "Washington Elite", which is a common conservative perjorative lobbed against Democrats or liberals. (I've never understood that insult, for one, because there's plenty of Republicans in the "Washington Elite" also, but that's just me.)

Mrs. Palin uses the scapegoat technique, although again, she is more subtle about it. Oftentimes politicians will flat out insinuate, "if you don't vote for me, the terrorists win". This time Mrs. Palin simply states, "terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons without delay" and urges us not to "leave ourselves at the the mercy of foreign [oil] suppliers" such as Iran and Venezuala. So she still makes it seem like we are in a dangerous world in which Americans need a protector - and, of course, that protector is herself and John McCain.

Mrs. Palin uses the transfer method by describing John McCain's bravery while a POW in Vietnam, so that we will experience those inspirational feelings.

But most of all, Mrs. Palin utilizes the "plain folks" technique of propaganda, by portraying herself as an average, down-to-earth everywoman. Right towards the beginning of her speech she describes herself as "just your average hockey mom". Later in the speech she talks about how her husband is a commercial fisherman - as opposed to having some executive white collar job. She talks about her kids in great detail. The idea is that a mom will listen to her speech and think, "Hey, I'm really proud of my kids, and so is Sarah Palin - therefore, Sarah Palin is just like me!"

***

When I write my paper, obviously I will go into more details about these propaganda techniques, but that's the gist of what I'm going to write about. I hope I've got the idea of the assignment down.

Analysis Paper Topic

Our second blogging assignment this week is to talk about our topic for the analysis paper on propaganda. I'm choosing to do my analysis paper on Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention, for two reasons. One, because I'm sure everyone expects me to do it on Obama's speech, since I am voting for him and all. Second, because I think Sarah Palin and the Republicans use more propaganda and emotional appeals than Democrats do. That's part of why the Republicans keep getting elected to the presidency over and over again - they're better at appealing to people's emotions than Democrats are, even if (I believe) Democrats are better at the actual job.

Also, even though I really, really can't stand Sarah Palin, I admire her oratory skills and she honestly does give a good speech.

Here is my citation for the analysis paper.

"Sarah Palin RNC Convention Speech." The Huffington Post. 3 Sept. 2008. 17 Sept. 2008 .

Propaganda

This week our blogging assignment was to comment on the handout we received in class, "Emotional Language: Propaganda". This handout detailed what propaganda is and gave examples of how people use it. The author defines propaganda as "a form of persuasion... that appeals to our emotions rather than to our reason". In other words propaganda appeals to pathos rather than logos.

When I hear the term "propaganda" I tend to think of the Nazis, or Stalinist Russia, or George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four (one of my favorite books, by the way). I think of dangerous, manipulative lies and a mob mentality. But the author of this handout stresses that while those are definitely kinds of propaganda, it's not the only kind, and that propaganda itself isn't evil, it's just another emotional appeal. But he cautions us to "know propaganda for what it is" and to "not allow ourselves to be manipulated by it". For example, if we go to a political rally knowing that the speeches we're about to hear could contain propagandist messages (and many politicians do use propaganda) we can allow ourselves to have a clear head and not get sucked into it.

Chapter 5

For this blog assignment, we were to read chapter 5 and give our thoughts on it.

This chapter was infinitely more enjoyable to read, mainly because it was so much shorter - less than half as long as chapter 3. I'm sure we're all grateful for that. :)

This chapter explained how to write an analysis of an argument, and then gave us an example of both an argumentative essay, and a student's analysis of that essay. I found the example of a student's analysis to be very helpful. Her essay touched on a lot of points I would have touched on, such as how the author of the original essay does not adequately go into alternatives to fixing the deer overpopulation problem besides just hunting.

For what it's worth, I don't think solving the deer overpopulation problem is as simple as "thinning the herd" by hunting them. And I say this as someone who grew up in a rural part of upstate New York, where my stepdad and most of my extended family all hunted. As a liberal Democrat I support common sense gun control, but I also support the rights of law-abiding hunters too. However, the real deer overpopulation problem is in the suburbs, and is that really a place where we want hunting? Do we really want guns going off in our neighborhoods where our children play? I can see having specially trained sharp-shooters who "take out" the deer, but just regular sport hunters shooting at will in suburbia? It doesn't seem practical.

Op-Ed Analysis

This week our blogging assignment was to chose an op-ed piece from the newspaper and discuss it based on chapter 3 of our textbook. I chose Hold Your Heads Up by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, a piece telling liberals to be proud of their accomplishments and not let conservatives beat them down.

As I've mentioned before in this blog, I am a devoted Democrat and Liberal. I am not ashamed of being so; in fact I am quite proud of my political convinctions. I freely identify myself this way. But we liberals have been told we are clueless, wrong, bad for America, and a million other ugly things by conservative politicians and the conservative media machine for so long, a lot of us believe it. The author touches on this point by saying,

Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they’ve taken from the right that they’ve tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever.

This is an instance of arguing by defining by example, demonstrating how liberals have been trying to adopt more of the conservative platform in an attempt to appear less liberal. Obviously, that never works. The liberal just appears to be a sell-out or compromising their beliefs.

The author further defines by example throughout the rest of his piece, showing ways in which liberals have benefitted America over the past century. He gives examples such as Social Security, Medicare, and advancement of civil rights causes. This can also be called arguing by example by citing real events.

The author uses emotional appeals with this sentence:

Liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak.

By reminding us of loved ones who benefit from Medicare and Medicaid, he is appealing to our emotions.

Finally, the author utilizes verbal irony by stating:

Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas.

With this passage the author is implying that the conservative, African-American Supreme Court Justice is self-hating. (The author of this op-ed is black himself.) Whether that's true or not isn't something I would know, but it's amusing nonetheless.

I greatly enjoyed this op-ed piece, as I generally enjoy everything written by this author. It reminded me of why I am proud to be a liberal.

Handout and Chapter Three

This week we are supposed to blog about two things: a handout on high school English literature, and Chapter 3 of our textbook.

I'll start with the handout. There were two aspects to the handout: letters to the editor concerning John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and whether it was appropriate for high school readers, and also an opinion piece from a high school English teacher lamenting how we don't teach our teens good novels. I was intrigued by the discussion of Grapes of Wrath, because I've always meant to read it and just never got around to doing so. I know that it's about the Great Depression and migrant farmers coming to California, that it was made into a famous movie, and that it's considered one of the classics of American literature, but for whatever reason I've just never read it. I think I might do so now... if only because one of the writers said it was sordid and innapropriate for young readers. I've found that many books that are considered inapropriate are actually great reads.

The column from the high school English teacher was interesting, but I couldn't quite get a handle on exactly what her argument or main point was. Was it that we need to teach more interesting books to high schoolers? Was it that teenagers simply have too many distractions these days, with YouTube and video games, to be interested in "pictureless chains of black print", as she called it? I couldn't quite figure out where she was coming from. She made too many points but didn't have a clear MAIN point.

The other topic we were to blog about this week was chapter 3 of our textbook. This was a long (30 some odd pages) chapter that was densely packed with information, dealing primarily with arguments and how it related to critical thinking.

One concept that I had trouble with in this chapter was syllogism. The text states that a syllogism is "The joining of two premises - two statements taken to be true - to produce a conclusion, a third statement." It further defines syllogism as being Greek for "a reckoning together". I understood the basic definition, but had trouble applying it practically. The easiest way for me to understand syllogism is to think of it as a synonym for "conclusion", but that seems a little simplistic.

An interesting thing in this chapter was the essay by George F. Will. Now, because I am a devoted Democrat and Liberal, I generally avoid anything written by Mr. Will, a staunch Conservative, because I know it will only serve to irritate me. I can appreciate Mr. Will's style and skill as a writer, but everything he says, pretty much I disagree with. This essay was no different. I admired his wit and his skill at crafting an argument, but everything he said made me roll my eyes and get annoyed. But I think it's good for me to read things I disagree with occasionally; it makes me better for having seen both sides of an argument.

Chapters One and Two

Last week we were to read chapter one in our textbook, From Critical Thinking to Argument, and this week we were assigned to read chapter two. I enjoyed reading the text; I found it much more interesting and readable than the typical college textbook.

Chapter one was dealing with critical thinking and writing. My favorite essay within this chapter was the op-ed piece by Alan Dershowitz in favor of having a national ID card. I found this essay very interesting because I know Mr. Dershowitz is a Libertarian politically, and usually Libertarians are against national ID cards because they fear they are too broad and will infringe on our civil liberties. I, personally, am torn about national ID cards. I believe it's true that there are too many holes in the state ID system, or else the 9/11 terrorists wouldn't have been able to get driver's licenses here in Virginia so easily. However, I fear that having a national ID card has the potential to infringe on our liberties (even though I am not a Libertarian), and I fear it will make life more difficult for immigrants, even those here legally.

Chapter two dealt with critical reading, and discussed ways in which the reader can skim, summarize and paraphrase the text to better understand it. It explicitly went over the difference between summarizing, paraphrasing and accidentally plagarizing works, which I found helpful. I can see how it would be very easy to be intending to paraphrase in an essay and instead plagarize by accident, so I will be dilligent to avoid that.

One of the most interesting passages in chapter two was an essay by Susan Jacoby dealing with pornography, feminism and the First Amendment. As a feminist, I personally believe that while porn can be degrading and demoralizing, it's still protected by the First Amendment. If we try to censor porn magazines, they will also try to censor great works such as paintings by Georgia O'Keefe, which would be tragic.

Introduction Post

My name is Marie, and I am a 29 year old college student attending school at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Virginia. I am a General Studies major who plans to transfer to George Mason University, where I will be a Social Work major. I eventually want to become a social worker or a counselor to teenagers with problems such as drug use or depression.

Some things about me are that I am passionate about music and going to concerts - I am seeing Panic at the Disco for the second time this year in October - and hanging out with friends, watching movies or just getting coffee. I enjoy spending a lot of my time on the computer - including blogging actually. I have several blogs where I talk about music, politics, popular culture and my personal life. I have many friends online who I enjoy talking with through email, instant messaging, and text message, as well as through social networks such as Facebook and LiveJournal.

I am taking English 112 because it is required in order to take the 2 literature classes I need for my degree. English 112 actually does not count towards my major, but it is a prerequisite for taking the literature classes - English Literature and American Literature - that I need.

I am hoping to get several things out of this class. As with taking English 111, I hope this class will help improve my writing and communication skills. I hope to become a more critical thinker and improve my ability to argue and make my points come across succesfully. I believe I improved my writing, argumentative and rhetorical skills after completing English 111, and that I will improve even more by taking English 112.