President's Address to the Nation, September 11, 2006

After reading this address, I just now realized how much appeal to emotion was put into this. Almost every paragraph in Bush's speech appeals to American's emotions or pride. In the beginning of the speech, he pretty much recalls exactly what happens, highlighting mainly on the people that were involved and how brave they were in rising to the occasion. A little later on he comments on how brave the men and women of our nations defense are by putting their drive to keep America safe above all others. And then in the end he comments about how he met a mother who lost her husband and two sons because of 9/11, and even though she missed them, and hoped for her sons' safety, she was still proud.
Everything Bush says is used to appeal to the audience, the entire nation. He did a great job reflecting on the entire spectrum of emotions that people felt during the horrible event.
I like how through all the appeal to emotions, Bush also accurately states what he has done and plans on doing in retaliation to 9/11. I never realized how often these elements we learn about in class are thrown into speeches and papers all over.

A Modest Proposal

I remember reading Swift's A Modest Proposal in high school. I had a lot of fun reading this selection because we had to write our own "modest proposal." It was a group activity in which we had to write a satire similar to Swift's essay. I wrote mine on something really ridiculous, though I can't quite recall what it was about. But one of my friends that is still in high school had to write one recently and I helped her with it a bit. She chose to write about how she was a mad scientist that came up with a drug that reduced the levels of testosterone in males and how this would better the world, fixing the problems of war and relationships between people. I thought it was funny and all, but didn't really agree with or appreciate the topic. But I didn't tell her that. Another friend of mine decided to write his on some crazy idea about how to rid the world of all the ugly people. I'm just using these examples to better reinforce something close to what Swift was trying to do. That is the point of a satire after all. A satire is supposed to be something the author doesn't approve of and is most times funny, with strong use of irony, sarcasm and parody. Satire is my favorite type of writing, and that's why I enjoyed this reading so much.

What Are You Eating?

This read was my favorite so far solely because it made me the most heated so far. I completely agree, 100%, with the first article. What people eat and how much of it they eat is THEIR sole responsibilty. Why should someone else suffer because of what another person likes stuffing their face in. These people need to learn what is good for them, in what quantities and when it's appropriate to "snack." I eat McDonalds all the time and I am nowhere near overweight, I'm acutally the complete opposite. I need to gain some weight. If I can eat unhealthy sometimes, and then balance it out with eating proper later and exercising, why can't other people? It's not that hard. If people are overweight, it IS their fault. No buts about it. I also don't like how the second article made a general statement about "teenagers" and how they drink soda more than anything else. I'm proud to say I don't drink nearly as much soda as I do water. If I have the choice, 9 times out of 10, I choose water. I love water more than any other drink available, especially vitamin water. I also happen to love milk. In case you didn't notice, this reading really grinded my gears.
I understand for the people that are genetically overweight. If the entire overweight population was people that are genetically overweight, THEN it'd be a bigger problem for us all to solve. But it's not. Most of these overweight people, are people that can change what they eat and their habits, and in the end, fix their problem.

We're All Celebrities?

This was an interesting read mainly because I think we can all relate to it. We all have a Facebook or a Myspace, and look what we're writing on right now... a blog site. I must say that I disagree with the author though. I don't think this makes us celebrities in anyway at all. If anything I get annoyed with people on Facebook or Myspace. Half the status updates and bulletins I see are pointless thoughts, ideas or sentences that I'm sorry I wasted my time reading. I could care less about a great majority of the things that pop up on my screen while surfing the networking sites.
I will say however that I agree a little bit more on the blog site concept. On these websites we just type away, revealing our thoughts about things we've seen or read. And then we have to go back and read our fellow classmates' blogs and comment on them. So we have to pay attention to each other and express our feelings together. That makes it a little bit more "celeb-like" I suppose.
Another thing I wanted to comment on is the privacy issue. I know on sites like Myspace, certain things that we don't really want to get out end up getting out. But this is our faults. Myspace doesn't require you to put anything on your profile that you don't want on there. You could have a blank one with no pictures and just music if you wanted. These sites only invade our privacy because we let them. We're the ones typing in the information.

Take a Picture?

This was a interesting read. I really can't believe that certain professionals are trying to lecture that "stopping" to take a picture is endangering them and those around them. Even in the interview with the 19 year old, he mentions that he never once "stopped" to take pictures. He was "running and taking pictures." He didn't block in or endanger anyone trying to get off the plane. And the author doesn't make any note of any accounts so far in which a person or people have gotten injured or anything because of someone stopping to take pictures. If professionals are really taking this that far then the last sentence says it all; "it may take someone dying" for people to consider stopping to take a picture as a dangerous thing.
I will say however that it is really annoying when people in front of you on the road start slowing down just to stare at a car accident on the side of the road. These people slow down traffic and increase the chance of another one happening. It might not completely relate to the topic at hand, but the read definately reminded me of this occuring. It happens all the time and it has a little to do with the subject. I don't see a problem however if the people aren't slowing anything down or endangering people. All they're trying to do is "snap" a little bit of history and maybe send it in to a major news media.

Single-Sex Education

I personally think single-sex education is a great idea. Everyone knows that playing "the mating-dating game" is a huge distraction and definately takes away from the time you could be using to study or do other school work. I know from personal experience that dating someone ultimately takes your focus away from school things that you're supposed to be focusing on, whether it be just texting them in class or skipping the class all together to grab lunch with them. It might just be me because I have horrible time management skills, but girls play a huge distraction when I'm trying to get work done. I believe that if I was to attend a single-sex education facility, such as the one we read about, I would be able to be more focused on the things I'd need to be focused on and wouldn't be so worried about impressing some cute girl in my Monday class.
But as for the arguement presented in the reading, if society is allowed to have female single-sex education, then it's only fair that men are allowed to have the same opportunity if they wish. You can't take away one and not the other. That would show sexism and totally take away from what people have been trying to accomplish forever, equality. And if we took away one of these institutions, then like dominos, all the others would soon follow.