Monday, November 28, 2011

YOU'RE WRONG!

Joking. When I made my mini-essay things, I had in mind a specific method and failed to use only one method per instance. Therefore, I had more than one method in examples 1 and 5. Either way, you all did great and I'm just a bad teacher. Joking.

1. Cause and Effect. I tried to stress the "if, then" format towards the end with anaphora. The only issue was I had to set that rhetorical gem up with an either-or, which means I used a Classification method as well.

2. Compare and Contrast

3. Process Analysis

4. Example

5. Narration. Sorry for playing Battlefield between writing each paragraph, but it was a five day break. What do you expect? Since I was so occupied trying to relate AP Comp to a first person shooter, I didn't realize how I slipped from analyzing the stepping stones of a story into describing Causes and Effects. Sorry.

6. Description

Friday, November 25, 2011

The Morality of War - Rhetorical Methods

1. When war is waged, it is either as a last resort to defend possessions (both tangible and abstract) or to gain them. In America's case, we always go to war for the former reason. Imagine if we stubbornly refused to go to war. We would be powerless as other countries fought for our land and threatened our freedom. If we refuse to kill people, they will kill us. If we go to war, we can save ourselves.

2. The killing that takes place during war is not murder. Murder is often remarkably one-sided, while war is practically an agreement. Both sides are usually prepared to fight and know who to shoot. Of course, civilian casualties resemble murder as the victim has no really chance to fight back, nor do they wish to. Also, while murder is without good reason, this isn't always the case in war. If killing five innocent people will save twenty, it should be apparent what must be done.

3.War is the crudest form of conflict resolution known to man. It begins when all other desirable forms of negotiation are exhausted; the conflict is resolved by causing the necessary loss of life to force the enemy's surrender. Each side will attempt to harm and threaten to harm the opponent until a side finds concession preferable to extinction. A war can begin for a number of reasons, but the fear of death acts as a driving force every time.

4. Pearl Harbor is a great example of a lack of morality in war. The attack resulted in the death of 57 civilians and over two thousand deaths of unprepared servicemen. The act of declaring war with a bombing run is perhaps the least immoral act possible; without giving the opponent the opportunity to prepare is inconsistent with the morals of armed conflict. Battles in the middle of a war, however, are usually appropriate, even if atrocities like chemical warfare are utilized. This is because both sides go into a war expecting to die and accepting the results.

5. In the video game "Battlefield 3," three Russian soldiers invade Paris and kill its policemen as they rush to defuse a nuclear bomb. They end up killing a few dozen innocent people, but they are fighting to save the hundreds of thousands of residents of Paris and the millions that would die in the resulting world war. The Russians know they are morally sound because they understand how guilty they would be had they ignored the threat.

6. War is, without a doubt, an atrocity. Within the war, however, is a universal effort to minimize the horrors. In the end, men and women will walk the fields damp with blood and surrounded with the unsettling silence that slowly replaces the groans of the dying. Both sides imagine this; many have seen it before. Both sides seek to keep their graves, and often the opponents' graves, as empty as possible. Unfortunately, both sides realize, this can only be done by beating the enemy into submission.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Lightsabers And Ray Guns Are Coming. Give Me Some Time.

     There is nothing in this world that can't be improved. I don't know about anyone else, but I am disappointed in mankind's so-called innovation. We've been dreaming of jetpacks and  flying saucer-esque houses for decades, and the generation assigned the task has failed to make these things readily available.

     But Ryan, I've seen a commercial/magazine article/Mythbusters episode where they had a jetpack!
     That's great, do you have $110,000 to $135,000 lying around?

     The issue with our so called "innovation" is it's not truly public, as it ought to be. Every flying machine and aerodynamic sports car is restricted to our nation's wealthiest. It seems as though we'll never have the popular innovation that captured the hearts of the viewers of the Jetsons. Also worth noting are the houses that are designed to be incredibly green or aesthetically pleasing. They all cost exorbitant amounts more because they're unique than because they serve some purpose. In this way, any houses we can consider "futuristic" are reserved for the top tenth of a percent.

     I want to shape the world, to be an engineer. I've said "I don't want to live forever, but I'd like to make something that does." Unfortunately, I'm most interested in creating guns and airplanes; machines of war. Seems like I'll be remembered as a murderer. But is it such a crime to design weapons? My philosophy is that everybody deserves a chance to live, even if he must fight for it. It is every man and woman's natural right to live, even if he must kill to preserve that right. As long as my creations are used to preserve these rights and not create terror (Think of in the movie "Iron Man," where Tony Stark loves creating weapons until he finds they're being used by militants in the Middle East), then I'll be content.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Computers aren't as powerful as the people that use them.

     Computers have become the foundation of Western life. In fact, they're also acting as Westernizing agents as the "non-Western" parts of Asia, South America, and Africa all become more advanced, albeit at different rates. Computers are quickly becoming extensions of people's will. they can be used to communicate and create; they can be used to manipulate and kill. Is this truly unnatural? Are computers making us less human?
     Computers are simply acting as catalysts, allowing quicker and stronger actions to be taken by their users. For instance, wars are almost always won by the side with the most advanced equipment. The Europeans conquered America and Africa with guns against the native's arrows. Today, America is fighting its wars with Predator and Reaper drones against Al Qaeda's supply of Cold War era Soviet weapons. Computers only make it easier to learn, speak, and kill; they haven't given us these skills. 
     People are afraid of computers bringing about a polarized society, but this is natural progression. Apparently, people worry about a two class system emerging with the growing prevalence of computers: a system divided by whether or not one owns a computer. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your position), this is bound to happen. Not because of the nature of the computer, but because of the nature of capitalism. Once again, computers are just going to accelerate a natural phenomenon, in this case the division of socioeconomic classes.
     In short, computers are part a serious cultural shift in the Western world, but they are not the cause. The cause, instead, is basic human nature as we try to solve our own problems as easily and efficiently as possible.  Thus, though it pains me to say it, it is unlikely we will be able to solve the "problems" that coincide with the use of computers.

Page 126.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

"An Eye for an Eye" Doesn't Work As Well As It Should.

     With two tests and a Drum Major audition tomorrow, I figured I could relieve my stress by going on YouTube for a few minutes. This time, I tell myself, I won't click every related video or find new videos to search for, yet here I am, two hours later with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Westboro Baptist Church. Within five minutes of watching the videos, I truly hated the Church. After about 15, it came to me that hating them put me on their level. After all, they hate people for who they are, and I hated them for who they are. Regardless, I want to do something to fight these people. I don't want to fight them by throwing tear gas into their church (which I briefly considered before having my revelation), but by participating in a counter-protest.
     I'm afraid these people can't be changed (many other protests pointing out their flaws have had no effect), so the best thing that can be done, is my opinion, is to lessen their impact. With humor. Brick Stone (if that's not his real name, I'll be disappointed) is one of the most famous counter-protesters, who dresses as a reporter (he holds a microphone) so he can get close enough to the Westboro Baptists to interview them with hilarious and occasionally profound questions. I leave a selection of his best videos for your viewing pleasure, but I also warn you that the linked videos and related ones contain harsh language and sexual content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9XzShL0h8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74LSy2QFpJI