In this essay in Binghamton Writes, the topic of sexual assault in the military was discussed. The essay talks about how women are not being treated well in the army, or out of it. Women are being mistreated in the military, and then when they get out of it they begin to develop PTSD. The author discussed that not enough support is given to the soldiers when they get home, some is given, but it's not enough.
I can't believe that this essay was in this book. It starts off really well, but as it continues to go on it starts to lose its topic. The longer the essay goes on, the more unclear it gets. Also, this isn't an op-ed. It's just an editorial. This essay confuses me.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
Article #10
Citation:
THE WASHINGTON, TIMES. "'Redskins' Isn't Only Offensive Name." Washington Times, The (DC) (2013): 2. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
The President recently weighed in on the Redskins name change. People are starting to consider this name offensive... but are they overlooking something else? If the name Redskins is offensive, then the name of our 46th state must be changed. Oklahoma, is derived from two Choctaw Indian words meaning"red people". If the Redskins are offensive, then how isn't this?
This is a huge point being made. This really just shows that people like to pick their battles. If this soon turns into a debate over whether a states name would be changed, that would be huge. I think people shouldn't be hypocrites.
Link:
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=7&sid=9f223762-e63b-4a6f-ba5b-87d93f97f0b0%40sessionmgr115&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=4KB520131009020922000033
THE WASHINGTON, TIMES. "'Redskins' Isn't Only Offensive Name." Washington Times, The (DC) (2013): 2. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
The President recently weighed in on the Redskins name change. People are starting to consider this name offensive... but are they overlooking something else? If the name Redskins is offensive, then the name of our 46th state must be changed. Oklahoma, is derived from two Choctaw Indian words meaning"red people". If the Redskins are offensive, then how isn't this?
This is a huge point being made. This really just shows that people like to pick their battles. If this soon turns into a debate over whether a states name would be changed, that would be huge. I think people shouldn't be hypocrites.
Link:
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=7&sid=9f223762-e63b-4a6f-ba5b-87d93f97f0b0%40sessionmgr115&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=4KB520131009020922000033
Article #9
Citation:
JESSE, WASHINGTON. "As Debate Over 'Redskins' Name Intensifies, Hard To Tell How Many Indians Think It's A Slur." Canadian Press, The (n.d.): Points of View Reference Center. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
Debate has been intensifying over whether or not the Redskins' name should be changed. More and more Native Americans have been weighing in on the name recently. Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation weighed in, saying that his tribe has better things to worry about. The name of his school team? The Redskins. Other people say the name is respectful, but once other 'skins start calling people by their skins then it becomes racist. In 1932, Owner George Preston chose the name to honor Head Coach William Dietz, an Indian.
This article shed some more light on this debate for me. The fact that the name was created in honor of someone really changed how I look at it. The name was not picked with hate, but to honor someone and their heritage. People are just looking way too into the name.
Link:
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=6&sid=9f223762-e63b-4a6f-ba5b-87d93f97f0b0%40sessionmgr115&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=MYO369276640613
JESSE, WASHINGTON. "As Debate Over 'Redskins' Name Intensifies, Hard To Tell How Many Indians Think It's A Slur." Canadian Press, The (n.d.): Points of View Reference Center. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
Debate has been intensifying over whether or not the Redskins' name should be changed. More and more Native Americans have been weighing in on the name recently. Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation weighed in, saying that his tribe has better things to worry about. The name of his school team? The Redskins. Other people say the name is respectful, but once other 'skins start calling people by their skins then it becomes racist. In 1932, Owner George Preston chose the name to honor Head Coach William Dietz, an Indian.
This article shed some more light on this debate for me. The fact that the name was created in honor of someone really changed how I look at it. The name was not picked with hate, but to honor someone and their heritage. People are just looking way too into the name.
Link:
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=6&sid=9f223762-e63b-4a6f-ba5b-87d93f97f0b0%40sessionmgr115&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=MYO369276640613
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
My Topic Proposal
In recent discussions of the Redskins, a controversial issue has been whether the name should be changed. On one hand, some argue that there is much tradition in the name. From this perspective, the name is a compliment. On the other hand, however, others argue that it's extremely insulting. In the words of the Oneidans, one of the view's main proponents, the phrase is "a dictionary defined racial epithet." According to this view, the name should not be used. In sum, then, the issue is whether the Redskins can keep their name or have to change it.
My own view is that it should not be changed. Thought I concede that some may be insulted by it, I still maintain that we are trying to feel for those that we think should be insulted. For example, 9 out of 10 Native Americans are not insulted by it. Although some may object that its a racist term, I would reply that most are actually not insulted by the term. This issue is important because it deals with racism and political correctness
My own view is that it should not be changed. Thought I concede that some may be insulted by it, I still maintain that we are trying to feel for those that we think should be insulted. For example, 9 out of 10 Native Americans are not insulted by it. Although some may object that its a racist term, I would reply that most are actually not insulted by the term. This issue is important because it deals with racism and political correctness
Rogerian Rhetoric
"Rogerian Rhetoric" by David Brent explains what you'd expect it would; Rogerian Rhetoric. Rogerian Rhetoric is a way to analyze another writer's writings. It's a much calmer way of writing an Op-Ed, it uses a way that I don't think many writers use these days. Most writers are very confrontational, but that's not what Rogerian Rhetoric is.
.
.
Brent uses four points to describe how to use Rogerian Rhetoric;
"1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.
2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.
3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.
4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what theother lacks, so much the better. (283)."
These steps make you consider the authors points, and take the positives from it. It doesn't want you ripping someone's writings to shreds. Rogerian Rhetoric wants you to consider the author's points, and really see where they were coming from.
Article #8
Citation:
"Tribe seeks to force NFL Redskins name change." CNN Wire 7 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
The Redskins owner has put in his two cents. The NFL commissioner has done the same. Now, the Oneida Indian Nation is weighing in. The Oenidans held a symposium in the nation's capital on Monday, October 7th. Representative Ray Halbritter made it clear that he and his group were clearly offended by the team's name. When asked why they are only going after the Redskins and not the Braves or Indians, he responded by saying that while some names are respectful, some are "a dictionary defined racial epithet." He believes that President Obama being the first President to speak against the name was a historic moment.The Oenidans seem to be in the minority of Native Americans offended by the name.
I believe that the Oenidans have a legitimate say in this case. However, I would like to know why they are offended, as compared to other Native American groups. Most do not take offense, but this takes serious offense from it. They have started radio campaigns against the team for each city the team plays in. I want to know what makes the word so strong for them, and why it isn't strong for others.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|A345025682
"Tribe seeks to force NFL Redskins name change." CNN Wire 7 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
The Redskins owner has put in his two cents. The NFL commissioner has done the same. Now, the Oneida Indian Nation is weighing in. The Oenidans held a symposium in the nation's capital on Monday, October 7th. Representative Ray Halbritter made it clear that he and his group were clearly offended by the team's name. When asked why they are only going after the Redskins and not the Braves or Indians, he responded by saying that while some names are respectful, some are "a dictionary defined racial epithet." He believes that President Obama being the first President to speak against the name was a historic moment.The Oenidans seem to be in the minority of Native Americans offended by the name.
I believe that the Oenidans have a legitimate say in this case. However, I would like to know why they are offended, as compared to other Native American groups. Most do not take offense, but this takes serious offense from it. They have started radio campaigns against the team for each city the team plays in. I want to know what makes the word so strong for them, and why it isn't strong for others.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|A345025682
Article #7
Citation:
Travis, Waldron. "How Much Would It Cost Dan Snyder To Rebrand The Redskins?" ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., 13 May 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013
Summary:
A main point in Snyder's refusal to change the Redskins' name is the potential cost of the rebrand. It is predicted that rebranding an NFL team could potentially cost between 10 and 20 million dollars. However, based on studies of college teams, this could quickly be turned into a profit. Teams that have changed their Native American connections have turned profits within 1-2 years after the name change. This is however, with winning seasons behind them and has only been done in college, not yet in a professional sport.
I don't know if I completely believe this study. It makes a lot of predictions (instead of using cold hard data) to come up with results. Also, changing a college football team is completely different from changing a professional team. I would not want to compare apples to oranges.
Link:
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/05/13/1997471/how-much-would-it-cost-dan-snyder-to-rebrand-the-redskins/
Travis, Waldron. "How Much Would It Cost Dan Snyder To Rebrand The Redskins?" ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., 13 May 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013
Summary:
A main point in Snyder's refusal to change the Redskins' name is the potential cost of the rebrand. It is predicted that rebranding an NFL team could potentially cost between 10 and 20 million dollars. However, based on studies of college teams, this could quickly be turned into a profit. Teams that have changed their Native American connections have turned profits within 1-2 years after the name change. This is however, with winning seasons behind them and has only been done in college, not yet in a professional sport.
I don't know if I completely believe this study. It makes a lot of predictions (instead of using cold hard data) to come up with results. Also, changing a college football team is completely different from changing a professional team. I would not want to compare apples to oranges.
Link:
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/05/13/1997471/how-much-would-it-cost-dan-snyder-to-rebrand-the-redskins/
Article #6
Citation:
Florio, Mike. "Goodell Reiterates Defense of Redskins Name, Willingness to Listen to Opponents Of it." ProFootballTalk. N.p., 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has been anything but firm with his stance on the Redskins' name. Having grown up a Redskins fan, Goodell sees nothing offensive in the name. He brings up chants such as the "Hail Redskins" chant, saying that it brings honor to the name. However, he does say that the people who are offended by it deserve to have a say, but that's all he said regarding that. He compared his stance with Obama's, saying they were very similar, even though they were not.
I believe that Goodell's opinion should one of the largest influences in the debate over the Redskins' name. However, for this to happen, he must take a firm stance on either side. He can't be in a gray zone. With the power he holds, he must make it obvious what he wants to do. He cannot be a weak commissioner.
Link:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/08/goodell-reiterates-defense-of-redskins-name-willingness-to-listen-to-opponents-of-it/
Florio, Mike. "Goodell Reiterates Defense of Redskins Name, Willingness to Listen to Opponents Of it." ProFootballTalk. N.p., 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has been anything but firm with his stance on the Redskins' name. Having grown up a Redskins fan, Goodell sees nothing offensive in the name. He brings up chants such as the "Hail Redskins" chant, saying that it brings honor to the name. However, he does say that the people who are offended by it deserve to have a say, but that's all he said regarding that. He compared his stance with Obama's, saying they were very similar, even though they were not.
I believe that Goodell's opinion should one of the largest influences in the debate over the Redskins' name. However, for this to happen, he must take a firm stance on either side. He can't be in a gray zone. With the power he holds, he must make it obvious what he wants to do. He cannot be a weak commissioner.
Link:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/08/goodell-reiterates-defense-of-redskins-name-willingness-to-listen-to-opponents-of-it/
Article #5
Citation:
Wrigley, Will. "Majority Of Washingtonians Support Redskins' Name, Washington Post Poll Finds." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 June 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
61% of Washington DC citizens support the Redskins name. 66% of DC residents believe that the Redskins should keep their name. In a national poll, 28% of people surveyed believed that the team should change their name, a large increase as opposed to the 11% that thought so in May. Some newspapers are beginning to stop using the name Redskins when covering the team. One newspaper has began calling them the "Pigskins" when covering the team.
Fans have a large say in whether the team should change the name or not, whether or not people think the should or shouldn't. If the fans begin to feel like the team is offensive, then they'll stop coming to the games. If attendance begins to decrease because of the name, then the owner will have no choice but to change the name.
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/majority-support-redskins-name_n_3496552.html
Wrigley, Will. "Majority Of Washingtonians Support Redskins' Name, Washington Post Poll Finds." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 June 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
61% of Washington DC citizens support the Redskins name. 66% of DC residents believe that the Redskins should keep their name. In a national poll, 28% of people surveyed believed that the team should change their name, a large increase as opposed to the 11% that thought so in May. Some newspapers are beginning to stop using the name Redskins when covering the team. One newspaper has began calling them the "Pigskins" when covering the team.
Fans have a large say in whether the team should change the name or not, whether or not people think the should or shouldn't. If the fans begin to feel like the team is offensive, then they'll stop coming to the games. If attendance begins to decrease because of the name, then the owner will have no choice but to change the name.
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/majority-support-redskins-name_n_3496552.html
Article #4
Citation:
Shin, Annys. "Snyder Defends Redskins Name in Emotional Letter to Fans." Washington Post. N.p., 09 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
Redskins Owner Daniel Snyder does not believe that the Washington Redskins should not change their name. In a letter to fans and season ticket holders, Snyder got very personal in giving reasons as to why the name should not be changed. He writes about one of his Redskins games with his father, and how happy it made him to be there and chant with him. Snyder says that the 81 year history of the team cannot be ignored. His main opposition to keeping the name is the Oneida Native American Nation. Snyder brought up my studies that showed that people were not actually offended by the name.
I believe that Snyder is one of the few that actually has a say in this. He owns the team, and I believe that he has the right, since he owns the team. Anyone involved in the NFL can have a say in this NFL endeavor.
Link: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-09/local/42848069_1_redskins-name-washington-redskins-name-offensive
Shin, Annys. "Snyder Defends Redskins Name in Emotional Letter to Fans." Washington Post. N.p., 09 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
Redskins Owner Daniel Snyder does not believe that the Washington Redskins should not change their name. In a letter to fans and season ticket holders, Snyder got very personal in giving reasons as to why the name should not be changed. He writes about one of his Redskins games with his father, and how happy it made him to be there and chant with him. Snyder says that the 81 year history of the team cannot be ignored. His main opposition to keeping the name is the Oneida Native American Nation. Snyder brought up my studies that showed that people were not actually offended by the name.
I believe that Snyder is one of the few that actually has a say in this. He owns the team, and I believe that he has the right, since he owns the team. Anyone involved in the NFL can have a say in this NFL endeavor.
Link: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-09/local/42848069_1_redskins-name-washington-redskins-name-offensive
Article #3
International Business, Times. "Is A Redskins Name Change In Order? Washington Mayor Wants To 'Do The Right Thing'." International Business Times 09 Jan. 2013: Points of View Reference Center. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
Washington Mayor Vincent C. Gray believes that if the Redskins are to move to the nationals capital that a name change must be in order. He believes that the name is racially insensitive to Native Americans. Gray points out that the Washington Bullets changed their name to the Wizards in 1997 without any repercussions. If the Redskins were to change their name then the Atlanta Braves and Cleavland Indians would have to as well.
I believe that the mayor shouldn't have a say on whether an NFL should change their name or not. However, if the team is coming to the mayor's town, then maybe he should have a say in what they're named. This creates a whole different aspect in who should decide.
Link: http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=2&sid=4abe383d-80a0-4edf-b866-158c39c9c96b%40sessionmgr198&hid=123&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=422500.20130109
Summary:
Washington Mayor Vincent C. Gray believes that if the Redskins are to move to the nationals capital that a name change must be in order. He believes that the name is racially insensitive to Native Americans. Gray points out that the Washington Bullets changed their name to the Wizards in 1997 without any repercussions. If the Redskins were to change their name then the Atlanta Braves and Cleavland Indians would have to as well.
I believe that the mayor shouldn't have a say on whether an NFL should change their name or not. However, if the team is coming to the mayor's town, then maybe he should have a say in what they're named. This creates a whole different aspect in who should decide.
Link: http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=2&sid=4abe383d-80a0-4edf-b866-158c39c9c96b%40sessionmgr198&hid=123&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=422500.20130109
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Article #2
Citation:
Chris Chase@chaztopherUSA TODAY, Sports. "Limbaugh: 'Redskins' debate not for feds." USA Today n.d.: Points of View Reference Center. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
Rush Limbaugh provided insight on who he believed should be responsible on whether or not the Redskins should change their name. When asked about the name change on his talk radio show he responded with; "Let the NFL figure this out." He believes that the federal government should stop sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. This is in response to 10 Congressman sending letters to Roger Goodell (NFL Commissioner) petitioning for the name to be changed. Limbaugh believes that if people were being offended, that nobody would show up to the games every week. When a survey was taken by the Washington Post, about two thirds of the responders did not think the name was offensive.
I think that an issue that exists solely in the NFL should stay in the NFL. Limbaugh is correct when saying that the government should keep its nose out. However, I disagree with his point about the stadiums being filled every week. The stadium is not filled with Native Americans, the people that we are concerned over offending. Another funny thing is if he wants the government to shut up about it, maybe he should as well.
Link:
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&sid=17cb3081-d70f-40ed-b81f-755593d86a89%40sessionmgr115&hid=128&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=J0E284881319313
Chris Chase@chaztopherUSA TODAY, Sports. "Limbaugh: 'Redskins' debate not for feds." USA Today n.d.: Points of View Reference Center. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
Rush Limbaugh provided insight on who he believed should be responsible on whether or not the Redskins should change their name. When asked about the name change on his talk radio show he responded with; "Let the NFL figure this out." He believes that the federal government should stop sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. This is in response to 10 Congressman sending letters to Roger Goodell (NFL Commissioner) petitioning for the name to be changed. Limbaugh believes that if people were being offended, that nobody would show up to the games every week. When a survey was taken by the Washington Post, about two thirds of the responders did not think the name was offensive.
I think that an issue that exists solely in the NFL should stay in the NFL. Limbaugh is correct when saying that the government should keep its nose out. However, I disagree with his point about the stadiums being filled every week. The stadium is not filled with Native Americans, the people that we are concerned over offending. Another funny thing is if he wants the government to shut up about it, maybe he should as well.
Link:
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&sid=17cb3081-d70f-40ed-b81f-755593d86a89%40sessionmgr115&hid=128&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=J0E284881319313
Article #1
Citation:
Sappenfield, Mark. "Obama backs Washington Redskins name change: Is it his business?." Christian Science Monitor 06 Oct. 2013: N.PAG. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
President Obama has offered his viewpoint on whether the Redskins name should be changed or not. He was reported as saying that it should be changed "if it was offending a sizable group of people." The statistics are confusing. In 2004, a survey was conducted and 9 out of 10 Native Americans were, surprisingly, not offended. In fact, Wellpinit School in Washington (which has a reported 91% Native American student population) wear the name Redskin with pride. Whose to say that the name should be changed?
This article brings up some valid points. Who's jurisdiction does it fall under to change the name? Should Obama have a say in this? Also, if the Native Americans aren't actually offended, should it be changed? These statistics make it seem like people are just trying too hard to be politically correct.
Link:
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&sid=40eca26c-666e-43f1-9c84-f90dc14bcc95%40sessionmgr198&hid=128&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=90678999
Sappenfield, Mark. "Obama backs Washington Redskins name change: Is it his business?." Christian Science Monitor 06 Oct. 2013: N.PAG. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
President Obama has offered his viewpoint on whether the Redskins name should be changed or not. He was reported as saying that it should be changed "if it was offending a sizable group of people." The statistics are confusing. In 2004, a survey was conducted and 9 out of 10 Native Americans were, surprisingly, not offended. In fact, Wellpinit School in Washington (which has a reported 91% Native American student population) wear the name Redskin with pride. Whose to say that the name should be changed?
This article brings up some valid points. Who's jurisdiction does it fall under to change the name? Should Obama have a say in this? Also, if the Native Americans aren't actually offended, should it be changed? These statistics make it seem like people are just trying too hard to be politically correct.
Link:
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&sid=40eca26c-666e-43f1-9c84-f90dc14bcc95%40sessionmgr198&hid=128&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=90678999
Monday, October 14, 2013
Easy Writer
Easy Writer
The pages of 176 to 204 of Easy Writer discussed how to conduct and use research in your writings. It was very informative. It discussed the many mediums you can use to gather research. Lunsford gives ways to find research using a library, newspapers and websites such as google. After discussing these mediums, it gives ways on how to use and quote that information. It tells how to use quotations, brackets and how to fit it into your essay. It gives many examples throughout the reading of how to use the information given, so you have an explanation and an example of how it is used.
This book is very boring. I had to take a few breaks when reading it, because it was a very dry reading. Since I already read the They Say I Say readings, I didn't feel like I actually learned anything from this reading.
They Say I Say
They Say I Say
Chapter One of They Say I Say focused on the 'they say' part of writing. I'll be honest, I didn't want to read it but once I did it was actually extremely informative and I can see it being very helpful. It informs the reader on how to discuss what they say (or the view you're agreeing with/ arguing in this example) so that their piece isn't confusing to others. If you don't inform people on what they say and then just go on and on about something that you believe, the reader will be extremely confused as to what the point of it was. The chapter gives many examples as to how to reference what they say. Examples include introducing it as a debate, as an assumption and a few other ways.
Chapter Two of the book gives a detailed explanation on how to write a summary(which I will now write a summary of). The book brings up an interesting point, as it says to bring some of your own voice into the summary. They claim that a normal summary that just lists what the author says is way too boring, and doesn't actually get anything done. On the other hand, they also say to not put too much voice into the summary. Once that happens and you show your bias, the summary is no longer a summary. Its just you ranting about something you believe in and that rant was fueled by the piece. A good summary should be subtle with its bias, the reader should not be able to tell the authors views on the piece.
Chapter Three of They Say I Say focuses on the art of quotation. It explains how quotes should be used in a piece. Before a quote is used, a frame should be built around it. It can't just be stuck into an essay. It must come at a relevant time, and then be explained after it is said. If it's kind of just there, it'll stick out like a sore thumb and potentially ruin the essay. Same thing goes for the language used in a quote. A quote should match the writing that it's in. If your writing is in the personal form and then the quote you use is extremely formal, then it just doesn't work well at all. An essay must flow, that's the beauty of writing. Don't quote too much. Or too little. Those are bad too.
These chapters were very informative. I like the way that this book is setup. Surprisingly, I actually kind of enjoy reading this book. It finds a way to talk about these informative topics in an interesting manner. Just these three chapters gave me a better understanding on how I am going to write this paper.
Chapter Three of They Say I Say focuses on the art of quotation. It explains how quotes should be used in a piece. Before a quote is used, a frame should be built around it. It can't just be stuck into an essay. It must come at a relevant time, and then be explained after it is said. If it's kind of just there, it'll stick out like a sore thumb and potentially ruin the essay. Same thing goes for the language used in a quote. A quote should match the writing that it's in. If your writing is in the personal form and then the quote you use is extremely formal, then it just doesn't work well at all. An essay must flow, that's the beauty of writing. Don't quote too much. Or too little. Those are bad too.
These chapters were very informative. I like the way that this book is setup. Surprisingly, I actually kind of enjoy reading this book. It finds a way to talk about these informative topics in an interesting manner. Just these three chapters gave me a better understanding on how I am going to write this paper.
Analyzing Editorial and Opinion Pieces
Analyzing Editorial and Opinion Pieces
This was a lengthy, but informative article. It made good points on how to identify and reason out bias when reading editorials, a very important skill to have when writing an Op-Ed. It showed examples of the three appeals of rhetoric, and how they can be used. This is very important because in each piece we will be writing this year, the appeals will have to be used in a different way. The article showed what kind of voice should be used when writing an editorial.
First things first.... this article was sideways... c'mon Scott. But, reading it was indeed helpful. It helped me realize the transition that I must make to go from the informal voice of the personal essay, to the more formal voice of the Op-Ed. However, I'm still not completely sure on how formal my voice should be. Since we're using personal blogs, I feel like I should still keep some form of informality. However, a newspaper is a serious medium and shouldn't be treated like a personal essay. I need to find the correct voice.
Dbax
Thursday, October 10, 2013
About me
About Me
My names Dylan Baxter. I'm an eighteen year old freshman attending Binghamton University and I'm currently studying Accounting. I am from Washingtonville, New York and I graduated with the class of 2013. I live in Marcy Hall in a suite of five other guys, who are quickly becoming my best friends. I enjoy long walks on the beach and puppies. Feel free to comment on anything I post. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)