I had the great opportunity to go to a session of General Conference this weekend, so I figured I would write about that for my free write this week. I have gotten tickets for at least one session of General Conference every semester I've been at BYU and it has been such a great blessing. Obviously you can listen to the messages wherever you may be, but there's something about being in the presence of the prophet and the apostles and all of our other great leaders that changes it. Being in the room with them as they tell me to strive to do better makes me feel an even greater resolve to do better, because seeing them in person makes them seem more real. Watching them talk to each other before the session begins and seeing them meet their wives afterward and hold their hand and walk away brings these great men down to earth. Yes, they are men of God, but they are also just like us. I also just love going to the conference center, because it is so beautiful and such a remarkable tribute to President Hinckley.
It's very strange to hear the word prophet associated with anyone besides Gordon B. Hinckley. He's been the prophet for as long as I can remember. I vaguely recall President Howard W. Hunter, and even more vaguely remember Ezra Taft Benson. President Hinckley is basically all I've ever known. Thus, having a new prophet just felt odd at first. I have always loved President Monson, but I had a hard time thinking of him as the prophet before this weekend. I believed that he was, but a little part of me still expected President Hinckley to walk out, waving his cane in the air. But it was completely clear to me as I was listening to President Monson speak this weekend that he truly is called of God. He had a different spirit about him that let me know that he does have new keys and he is the head of this church. This weekend is something I'll never forget.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
T.A.
I thought I'd analyze an interesting source I found that talks about video games causing seizures in children. I've been thinking about writing about this for my paper.
1. The argument is that children may experience seizures as a result of playing video games.
2. It seems that the target audience would be parents of kids who play video games.
3. The argument relies heavily on logos: lots of statistics about this issue are used. Photosensitive epilepsy is described in detail, and they talk about the fact that it is much more common in children than in adults. Other statistics are given about the amounts of people who have experienced these seizures. 618 children in Japan experienced this problem from a single TV show one year. Their argument makes perfect sense in that regard. Pathos is inevitable since the argument is about children and is directed toward parents. No one wants their child to suffer from anything, including epilepsy. Ethos is effective as well, because the research was done by a department that specifcially studies seizures. They obviously know what they are talking about. I think their argument is mostly sufficient, but probably a few quotes from pediatricians would have been effective. The more offical sources you can have the better. It was a very typical argument, in the fact that all of their methods were perfectly predictable. They didn't try to shock their readers too much; they simply told everything how it was. All of their information was accurate, which is good. And everything mentioned completely relevant. The article was very concise, which is perfect for their audience. Short and sweet and to the point.
4. I thought this argument was extremely effective, which was the scary part. The numbers of people who suffer from this are shocking. I never thought about the idea that video games could cause medical problems.
1. The argument is that children may experience seizures as a result of playing video games.
2. It seems that the target audience would be parents of kids who play video games.
3. The argument relies heavily on logos: lots of statistics about this issue are used. Photosensitive epilepsy is described in detail, and they talk about the fact that it is much more common in children than in adults. Other statistics are given about the amounts of people who have experienced these seizures. 618 children in Japan experienced this problem from a single TV show one year. Their argument makes perfect sense in that regard. Pathos is inevitable since the argument is about children and is directed toward parents. No one wants their child to suffer from anything, including epilepsy. Ethos is effective as well, because the research was done by a department that specifcially studies seizures. They obviously know what they are talking about. I think their argument is mostly sufficient, but probably a few quotes from pediatricians would have been effective. The more offical sources you can have the better. It was a very typical argument, in the fact that all of their methods were perfectly predictable. They didn't try to shock their readers too much; they simply told everything how it was. All of their information was accurate, which is good. And everything mentioned completely relevant. The article was very concise, which is perfect for their audience. Short and sweet and to the point.
4. I thought this argument was extremely effective, which was the scary part. The numbers of people who suffer from this are shocking. I never thought about the idea that video games could cause medical problems.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
R.A.
I've been thinking about a few options, but I can't decide which one. First of all there's not really any overwhelming evidence for any of them, just because these things are relatively new topics. So I'm just wondering how hard it's going to be to find 2000 words worth of information.
1. The effects of us idolizing celebrities as much as we do. So much attention is giving to knowing every detail of their lives. How is that affecting us as a society? Or maybe more specifically, how is it affecting kids as they grow up? Are they living their lives in an accordance with how they think they should according to their celebrity idols? People devote their lives to celebrities, from knowing everything about them to getting plastic surgery just like them. News stations report just as much celeb gossip as they do actual news these days. But the problem is that I don't really know what to argue exactly. Plus, is there are even a way to change this trend?
2. What are the consequences of young kids having cell phones? Is it necessary for safety purposes or is that concern just paranoia? Does a kid having a cell phone change the rate at which they grow up? Does it lead to younger ages for everything? I.e. drugs, sex, etc. At what age do we deem it a necessary thing then? I got my first cell phone when I was 16 and I could drive, just in case something happened. Should that be our cut-off? Or is that not practical and we should cut it at 14 or 15?
I think either one of these would be really interesting, I guess I just need to do a lot more research so I can see which one I'll actually be able to expand on. Right now I'm leaning towards the cell phone thing, but should I also expand that to include kids having ipods, tvs, etc?
1. The effects of us idolizing celebrities as much as we do. So much attention is giving to knowing every detail of their lives. How is that affecting us as a society? Or maybe more specifically, how is it affecting kids as they grow up? Are they living their lives in an accordance with how they think they should according to their celebrity idols? People devote their lives to celebrities, from knowing everything about them to getting plastic surgery just like them. News stations report just as much celeb gossip as they do actual news these days. But the problem is that I don't really know what to argue exactly. Plus, is there are even a way to change this trend?
2. What are the consequences of young kids having cell phones? Is it necessary for safety purposes or is that concern just paranoia? Does a kid having a cell phone change the rate at which they grow up? Does it lead to younger ages for everything? I.e. drugs, sex, etc. At what age do we deem it a necessary thing then? I got my first cell phone when I was 16 and I could drive, just in case something happened. Should that be our cut-off? Or is that not practical and we should cut it at 14 or 15?
I think either one of these would be really interesting, I guess I just need to do a lot more research so I can see which one I'll actually be able to expand on. Right now I'm leaning towards the cell phone thing, but should I also expand that to include kids having ipods, tvs, etc?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
T.A.
I really have no idea what I'm going to write about for my media paper, so I'm just brainstorming right now. But I found this study about the tabloidization of the news that I thought was interesting.
1. The argument is that newspapers and television news stations don't just report the news anymore because they are losing readers and viewers. News is now a hybrid made up of some actual news, opinion, history, and pop.
2. The audience is people who at least care about the news a little bit.
3. There is a lot of logos in this argument, because it is full of numbers and different statistics about readership levels and circulation, etc. The author lays everything out in a very straightforward manner. He says that because those numbers were going down, newspapers and TV news stations had to do something to get money so they completely changed the format of what they do. I would say there is a lot of ethos in this argument, because a lot of credible and prominent people were interviewed for their opinions on the matter. Having credible sources helps to make you credible. Pathos is at a minimum. The argument is very straightforward, kind of like the author is saying, "Here are the facts. They tell you all you need to know. I'm not going to even try to convince you." It's an interesting strategy, but in a way I think it makes his argument a little less than sufficient. It's strong, but his indifferent attitude does make it a little weaker. In that regard, his argument is somewhat atypical. Most people try to incite some sort of emotion is their audience. He doesn't. The argument is definitely accurate and relevant, though. He is talking about a real problem and he has real facts to back up his side.
4. I think his argument could be effective for some of his audience, but not all of them. People who like just straight-up facts would enjoy it, but a lot of people might feel like he doesn't really care about them as audience.
1. The argument is that newspapers and television news stations don't just report the news anymore because they are losing readers and viewers. News is now a hybrid made up of some actual news, opinion, history, and pop.
2. The audience is people who at least care about the news a little bit.
3. There is a lot of logos in this argument, because it is full of numbers and different statistics about readership levels and circulation, etc. The author lays everything out in a very straightforward manner. He says that because those numbers were going down, newspapers and TV news stations had to do something to get money so they completely changed the format of what they do. I would say there is a lot of ethos in this argument, because a lot of credible and prominent people were interviewed for their opinions on the matter. Having credible sources helps to make you credible. Pathos is at a minimum. The argument is very straightforward, kind of like the author is saying, "Here are the facts. They tell you all you need to know. I'm not going to even try to convince you." It's an interesting strategy, but in a way I think it makes his argument a little less than sufficient. It's strong, but his indifferent attitude does make it a little weaker. In that regard, his argument is somewhat atypical. Most people try to incite some sort of emotion is their audience. He doesn't. The argument is definitely accurate and relevant, though. He is talking about a real problem and he has real facts to back up his side.
4. I think his argument could be effective for some of his audience, but not all of them. People who like just straight-up facts would enjoy it, but a lot of people might feel like he doesn't really care about them as audience.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
F.W.
Wow, I don't think I've ever been more tired than I am at this particular moment. I honestly cannot recall a time in the recent past where I've gotten more than four hours of sleep. There is just way too much to do and way too little time to do it all in! I think you know that if you're hitting REM sleep within seconds of taking a nap that you need more sleep, but there's no easy solution. I feel like it has no choice but to catch up with me and I'll crash for a couple days, but at the same time, I can't afford to crash for a couple days. Also, apparently lacking sleep makes you much more suspectible to diseases, so am I go going to get sick from my lack of sleep? Getting an awful illness during finals because I'm stressed out is one of my worst fears. It would be awful. Basically, I just can't wait to go home and take a break from school. I'll be busy, yes, but in a different way, and usually if I want to sleep, I can actually sleep. Those will be the days. Plus the weather will be infinitely warmer, so I'll definitely take that in a heartbeat.
Reading back on that paragraph makes me think of being a little kid and my mom telling me not to wish my life away. I'm really not; I do love my life, but this semester has just been insane. I think my brain is completely fried from my OChem test today and so all I can think of is not school. 3 more weeks and my Chemistry career will finally be over. Oh I can't wait! I guess technically I have biochem still, but I kind of consider that a separate genre since it's not strictly Chemistry. We'll see how I enjoy that. Which reminds me that I need to register for classes next week...everything I have to take sounds scary, so I definitely have my work cut out for me. Wish me luck!
Reading back on that paragraph makes me think of being a little kid and my mom telling me not to wish my life away. I'm really not; I do love my life, but this semester has just been insane. I think my brain is completely fried from my OChem test today and so all I can think of is not school. 3 more weeks and my Chemistry career will finally be over. Oh I can't wait! I guess technically I have biochem still, but I kind of consider that a separate genre since it's not strictly Chemistry. We'll see how I enjoy that. Which reminds me that I need to register for classes next week...everything I have to take sounds scary, so I definitely have my work cut out for me. Wish me luck!
Monday, March 24, 2008
T.A.
Let’s first try to understand what causes violence in schools or even violence in general. People committing violent acts are angry at someone or something. So what do the children in public schools have to be angry about? As much as students complain about their mean or unfair teachers, school violence usually involves students hurting other students. Why would a child be angry at a fellow classmate? According to the National Education Association (NEA), a lot of anger is the result of bullying. Until recently, people often assumed that bullies were the ones committing violent acts in school. The opposite is actually true. Gerald Newberry, the director of NEA’s Health Information Network explained, “The kids who pulled the trigger weren’t who we thought they were. They were not the bullies-they were the kids who had been bullied.” This idea is further supported by a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, which found that 86% of high school students said students resort to violence in school because of being picked on, made fun of, or bullied by their peers (Greenya).
A major way many kids try to fit in with their peers is through their clothes. Certain things are cool to wear and certain things are not. Topping my thirteen year-old sister’s Christmas list this year were specific articles of clothing she felt she needed to have. But the specificity of her requests did not lie in the color or really even the style of the clothes. The only requirement was that they came from specific stores. She really believed that by wearing these clothes she would have the coolest, the best, and most importantly, the most friends. According to a study by the National Mental Health Association, there are many students besides my little sister who place a lot of importance on clothes. The survey found that 76% of students say kids who dress differently are picked on at school (Greenya).
A major way many kids try to fit in with their peers is through their clothes. Certain things are cool to wear and certain things are not. Topping my thirteen year-old sister’s Christmas list this year were specific articles of clothing she felt she needed to have. But the specificity of her requests did not lie in the color or really even the style of the clothes. The only requirement was that they came from specific stores. She really believed that by wearing these clothes she would have the coolest, the best, and most importantly, the most friends. According to a study by the National Mental Health Association, there are many students besides my little sister who place a lot of importance on clothes. The survey found that 76% of students say kids who dress differently are picked on at school (Greenya).
Saturday, March 22, 2008
F.W.
I too am out of reminiscences so I figured I would just write just what came to me. You guys really don't have to read it, since it'll just be my ramblings and will probably bore you to tears. But at least it will be fulfilling its purpose, which is to be 300-400 words before tomorrow at midnight. I can't believe I've written 30 of these things already...I honestly didn't think I had that much to say! This semester has seriously gone by so fast. I feel like Valentine's Day happened yesterday. But it definitely did not. Tomorrow is Easter. 4 more weeks and school will be over. I'll officially be 3/4 of the way through my college years. That is, if I actually finish in 4 years, which is really doubtful. But still. 3 years of college down. That's so crazy. That makes me feel so old. I wonder what it will actually be like to graduate. I won't know what to do with myself. I can't imagine what it will feel like to be on my own. Mostly I am just so excited to go home for the summer. It is going to be a blast. Hanging out with Lindsey 24.7, spending lots of time with my brother before he goes on his mission, seeing my sister and brother-in-law and my niece, going to Puerto Rico...and those are just the highlights! I mostly need to spend a lot of time working and making all kinds of money and working in a hospital getting all kinds of volunteer hours. So I will basically be really really busy. But I'd much rather be really busy than really bored. It makes life so much more productive and keeps you out of trouble! I really am so much happier when I have a TON to do, as much as I may complain about it. It's the only way I feel like I have a fulfilling life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)