Reading Response: CR 221-240

Ballenger writes about revision in this section of the book to a great extent and this chapter is filled with priceless revising techniques. He tells the reader/writer that even though it’s hard to look at a draft of your prized writing and see it’s flaws it’s definitely necessary to take that second, third or fourth look to get what it is that the draft is missing, or to see what needs to be taken out.
Ballenger talks about the thesis of the draft as a tool for revision and how a re seeing of the thesis might help expand ideas and broaden the mind to new writing purposes and focuses that the writer may not have otherwise explored.
Ballenger also brings up that it would be extremely beneficial to the writer to reexamine the information and resources drawn upon in the first draft, and also that there may be some information holes in the research draft and quick looks for new, small filler facts might drive home points and help paint the picture better for the audience.

Reading Response CR

In these few pages, Bruce Ballinger tries to give a new look on revising. I never take revising too seriously. I feel, however, after reading these pages and listening to the class lecture, I'm going to try and look at revising in a new way. The point of this part of Ballinger's book is to try to teach students how to revise the right way. He talks about purpose and makes it clear that it is OK to mark up your draft and tear it to pieces, even if you are scared. He also makes a point of explaining that your thesis isn't something set in stone; it can pave the way for a new and improves paper. Also, to help make his point even more clear, Ballinger explains that sometimes people just leave little information out that they don't realize they need. One thing I found interesting, was his passage about voice. I had trouble trying to make my op-ed have a voice of its own and I'm both excited and nervous to try and fix that in my revisions. It was a helpful tool to read Ballinger's examples of a bland interpretation of facts versus a livelier version. I will hopefully try and apply this information to my revisions in the next few weeks.

to eat meat or not eat meat, that is the question

In the past, immigrants and natives alike have referred to this beautiful country as the land of the brave and the land flowing with milk and honey (freedom). In present day 21st century, most people still see our country in that same light. But will we still put America on such a high pedestal in the future? The answer is no- let me tell you why. If we (Americans) keep slaughtering poor, and helpless animals for the sake of our taste buds then, not only will we be the most obese nation in the entire world by 2020; but we will also have exhausted our resources. Already, in the year 2008, we used ½ of all our fresh water supply to feed the corporate meat industry’s animals like cattle, chickens, and pigs- all which undergo stressful and horrible lives due to the fact that the meat industry doesn’t care about their well being, and tries to produce more animals, for less money. More animals for less money means that by the time these animals get to the slaughterhouses they are in pain, limping, cancerous, diseased, and starving. The drugs they are given ( to make them grow faster) are unnatural and hurt the animals, some animals will even die from the drugs, form mutations, or not be able to walk because their weak legs can’t withstand their genetically altered body weight. So why would we even want to eat gross, diseased meat in the first place? Most people would say just because it tastes good... Well, America, I hope it tastes good when we are a fat and poor nation. Also in order to feed and keep feeding these animals farmers have to grow tons and tons of feed- 3/4th of all the grain and corn we grow is for the animals we eat. Aren’t our homeless numbers going up and aren’t there starving people in America who could use that food? We should be growing corn and grain to feed ourselves, not the animals! There are 304,000,000 million people that live in this country, and over 3/4th eat meat, and over a lifetime- that is a lot of consumption of animals. By the time someone reaches 65, they will have eaten 215 chickens- now multiply that by 300 million!
Eating meat is also linked to obesity- what a coincidence. Now, with our super size meals and fast food joints it’s very easy to increase in size very fast. What people don’t realize is that they don’t have to totally stop eating meat like some vegans and vegetarians choose to do; even if a family were to cut back, and cut certain meats and animal products out of their diets they would become healthier, save money, and be saving the lives of animals as well. People need to start caring about their bodies, or they won’t have one! Consuming animals is not the answer to anything… period. It’s definitely not healthier- you can receive the same nutrients from a plant-based diet, it’s not wiser- every bite of meat you take cause pain and conflict for tortured animals, and most importantly, if you keep taking that bite, then America will cease to become the land of the brave (is it brave to slaughter animals?) and the land flowing with milk and honey. Slowly, but surely Americans will watch our land become dry and unfruitful- There won’t be any honey, honey!
The only solution to this problem is to stop eating meat and animal products! And if you lazy sons of gun can’t do that, and then you can definitely cut back on some things... everyone can do that- it just takes a little effort and efficacy. We can save this country, and we can save ourselves.

Op-Ed rough draft

Art is a timeless tradition that will never end. Yet through the ages society has continued to oppress new and innovative styles. Graffiti has seen a similar sort of oppression during the last century. The fact of the matter is that man has been writing on walls for thousands of years. Now the problem these artists face is a place to express them. With constant fear of the law artists resort to hiding and living a near criminal lifestyle. These artists shouldn’t be forced into hiding for doing something that they love. In fact they should be given appropriate opportunities to create their work and be inspired by others. In today’s society many things out of the norm are commonly accepted, so the question is why are these artists still considered criminals?
From the law abiding stand point, graffiti is the defacing of property. Vandalism in its truest state. This is a crime and in some instances a serious felony punishable by law. In Boise the law is very strict against graffiti. Artists such as Jay O’Leary face serious punishments including probation. In other large cities there are similar situations and the law consistently looks down on graffiti. The simple facts from the government’s point of view is that graffiti costs money. Man power and supplies to remove unwanted graffiti costs thousands of tax dollars each year. This money could be put into other things if graffiti were eliminated from the picture. In other words it is a nuisance to the tax payers. Although it continues and shows no sign of stopping healthy and safe alternatives must be crated so that the problem can be handled correctly.
Safe and legal alternatives for graffiti have been explored and proven successful. Many cities sponsor walls put up specifically for graffiti in skate parks and such. Places where graffiti is accepted and allowed have shown significant decreases in problems related to graffiti. Another alternative is places where businesses allow artists to paint space in back alley’s where it does not affect the appearance of the storefront. Artists understand that if they are given free space not to overstep their boundaries. They create a mutual respect with the owners usually without even meeting them in person. Having available space free of persecution allows the art to continue and develop. It also allows newer artists looking to make a name for themselves to stay out of legal trouble. Having these alternative more readily available seems like a win-win situation to both parties.

Rough draft op-ed

This is a very ROUGH draft and needs an introduction that will pull the reader in and state my stance and a better ending!

All gay and lesbian couples encounter struggles encountered when trying to adopt a child. “Only Florida and Utah specifically prohibit lesbians and gay men from adopting children, but that doesn't mean it's easy to adopt in other states,” says Nolo.com, a website that offers legal advice for family and business. The website says, gay couples encounter numerous problems when trying to adopt a child including prejudice in the judicial system and even being rejected by some adoption agencies. OrphanStatistics.com, sponsored by the Home for Good Foundation explains that 5,760 children become orphans each day. Most of these children either spend the duration of their lives in orphanages or foster homes, never actually getting the quality lifestyle that they deserve. If gay couple adoption was a more widely accepted practice, more children would have the chance to feel the love of a family. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force states, “Given the huge waiting list for adoptive homes among children in foster care, restricting adoptive parents to heterosexual married couples effectively cheats children out of the chance to grow up in a loving home.” But why, do you ask, is there such a prejudice against gay couple adoption? The skeptics of gay couples adopting have many. According to a poll website entitles “Should Gays and Lesbians be Allowed to Adopt Children?”, one of the major complaints is the claim that gay and lesbian people are more likely to molest children than straight people. In reality, that statement is a myth that should be brought into the light. In as early as 1998, The Journal of the American Medical Association had a study in it that said that 90% of those who molest children are men. It also stated that 95% of these pedophiles were heterosexual. As you can see, these statistics offer clear proof that homosexuals do not have a greater chance to molest children, let alone responsible homosexuals engaging in a long-term relationship, getting ready to adopt a child. The biggest argument, according to the poll website, made against gay couples adopting is that gay couples are “unfit” parents; they can’t raise a child the right way; they aren’t able to parent and help their children grow up in a healthy environment. Doctor Ellen Perrin states that growing scientific research shows that children who grow up with one or two homosexual parents “fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” People opposed to gay couples adopting assume that sexual orientation is something that is particularly important to raising a successful child. Pending parents should be assessed on more credible evaluations than homosexuality or heterosexuality. For example, do the parents show up for the kid’s baseball game? Were they there to attend their daughter’s parent-teacher conferences? Do they take the time to read their son a bedtime story? Are they willing to tell their child they love them at least once a day? Those are the kinds of things that make great parents. Taylor Gandossy, a reporter for CNN, says there were 65,000 children that had been adopted and were being raised by gay couples in the United States in 2007. In Gandossy’s article, he talks about a gay couple that had two adoptive children. The couple explains that it is not important for them to be straight or to be biological parents. It is only important for them to love their child.

Op-Ed Rough Draft

Do we really realize who is on the TV telling us to buy useless beauty products, fitness programs, and crappy colognes and perfumes? Do we realize whose voices are being echoed through the ears of our children, telling them what to do and what not to do with their lives? Or do we simply soak it in like a sponge with a brain. Who exactly is it that I’m talking about you ask? Why our neon gods, of course, those we hail as our celebrities.
We see our family and friends every day gawking at celebrities and their deeds. But what’s the big deal if we talk about celebrities? So what if we’re a little envious of their lives and riches? It’s not like it can eventually grow into a serious and ever increasing obsessive – addictive disorder, right? Wrong, it’s called Celebrity Worship Syndrome, and it seems to be affecting more and more of us every day and which, if left unchecked, can lead us down dangerous paths, perhaps even to stalking and violence. Lisa France, a CNN columnist writes about celebrity worship and cites Psychologist James Houran on its potential dangers.
“[Celebrity worship] starts off with very benign forms, but it gradually takes on more dysfunctional behaviors.” Says Houran after the study on celebrity worship, “That’s good news and bad news. That means the stalkers probably don’t start off that way.”
However the bad news means only one thing, there is a potential stalker in all of us. But why are we so drawn to celebrities? What makes them so addicting, and makes us so submissive to their will? Well Carlin Flora from “Psychology Today” provides us with a few psychological clues. It would seem that our brains are naturally hardwired to be drawn more to faces and people who are culturally considered “attractive” rather than what would be culturally considered “unattractive.” And that over time those faces can become to our brain, at least at a subconscious level, almost like good friends or family, causing us to view them as such.
“Politico” correspondent Lisa Lerer points us to one of the most recent and already widely known examples of this psychological behavior, and that is the “Obamamania” surrounding our current president Barack Obama. His entrancing rhetoric of hope and change grasped millions of voters during the election campaign, and Lerer notes that even people already considered celebrities such as; Halley Berry and George Clooney were found to be flocking to the then senator for guidance as he raced to win his seat in the oval office. However, some have taken Obamamania to its edge, whether it’s commemorative plates, coins, pseudo soviet propaganda in his honor, or a recent Nobel Prize nomination and win after less than a year in office, and even less accomplished. The celebrity worship surrounding President Obama has left the border of disturbing and has crossed over into down right scary.
Celebrity worship it’s a two way street, we the people all have the potential to become the next John Hinckley. But perhaps even more frightening is the power we give to celebrities. We are the ones who let their influences penetrate the lives of our children’s generations, and though not all celebrity influence is bad, enough of it is.

Disagree to Agree.

This reading is all about how to take a side in an argument, whether it is to disagree, agree, or be ambivalent to both sides and neither discredit nor condone one view over the other. The very first thing talked about is declaring your stance early on. It’s always the right idea to make sure your reader knows exactly what you are going to be arguing for at the start of the paper other wise it seems to be just a jumble of facts and views that make little sense. Also declaring a side may in fact be one of the best ways to critically evaluate the perspectives of an issue to really dig deep and find every possible interpretation and angle to work off of, so what side should you choose?
Disagreeing with a view, as stated in the reading, “…May seem like on of the simpler moves a writer can make, but in fact it poses hidden challenges.” It’s exactly right in the sense that one cannot simply disagree to make an effective argument; the reading makes the point get to the heart of disagreement, which is to take a view, disagree with the view, and then back up your counter argument with facts, personal experience, or anything else that strengthens your contradicting view.
Agreement, just like disagreement, sounds easy enough doesn’t it? What could be easier? Just say “I agree” and that’s that right? Not even close. Agreement may be even more challenging than disagreement because agreement means that whatever view is brought to the table, you’ve already side with, so where’s the work to be done? There’s lots of work to be done as an independent researcher. One view will not have every single shred of evidence to support it so that is where your brain needs to start turning the screws and tightening the seals. Bring to the table personal experiences, or studies and surveys that support the view your agreeing with. Dig deeper to figure out just why you agree with the view you agree with.
Of course you can always take the combo approach as given by the reading, the ambivalence approach, but as the reading says, “Some may worry that by expressing ambivalence they will come across as evasive, wishy –washy, or unsure of themselves.” But ambivalence doesn’t have to be an issue of commitment, bringing both sides of the argument to the table can also be engaging for a reader, just as long as they know of your ambivalence in the first place. But you can’t be afraid to take a stance, whatever it is.