On August 25, 2008, a new time of many people’s lives started. This was the first day of class for Nebraska Wesleyan students. For a lot of these students, this was the farthest away from home they had ever been. For others, it was a short drive from their house every morning. Some students went to a school times larger than this while others had come from a town with less people than this University has students. No matter which walk of life they came from, they all had one thing in common, they were freshmen.
When starting out, I think that many realized that they were going to have to force themselves to meet people, to make friends. Another issue facing these newcomers was to develop some sort of study habit to make sure they succeeded in all of their classes. Many kids made friends by striking up a conversation before class, maybe asking for help on a problem, while others boldly sat at a lunch table with kids they had never seen before. Sometimes, these first meetings grew into friendships that would last the rest of their college days.
Now that the first semester is coming to a close, the majority of the freshmen on campus have gotten into a routine that is consumed with hanging out in friends rooms, studying until the wee hours of the morning, and sleeping well past noon on Saturdays. With finals quickly approaching, students might (keyword might) be studying material from August trying to refresh knowledge that has more than likely leaked from their brains.
Over the past 3 months, these young adults have journeyed from a protective high school lifestyle to a self-sufficient one that for many is the epitome of college: Freedom.

Left - Handed

For this assignment i chose to write about being left handed. I am a twin, so the chances of me or my brother being left handed are fairly high. I was the fortunate one in my opinion and was blessed with the "southpaw" abilities. Left hander's are actually fairly common in my family, as my uncle and a cousin are left handed as well. There are only around 10 percent of the world's population that area left handed, making this group an extreme minority.

There are a few reasons for becoming left handed. One is a possible over-exposure to testosterone. Testosterone suppresses the left hemisphere growth as an unborn. This allows the right hemisphere to become dominant, which controls the left side of the body. Living in today's world there are a few everyday objects that are not left hand - friendly. Scissors, kitchen knives, and computer mouses are made to be used by right handed people.

From personal experience, I have been able to adjust to using scissors and the computer mouses without any problems. However, when my class was learning how to write cursive, it was a challenge because the teachers were not able to teach me left handed because they weren't left handed. As a result, my handwriting is almost legible, and I sometimes need to be careful when writing a paper that actually has to be turned in.

I have just researched this topic online and found that people who are left handed are shown to excel in academics and more artistic lines of study as well. This was shown in a research study performed by the University College London.

I can say that I am proud to be left handed, not only because of the supposed greater mind but also because it makes me unique.

VP Debate Post

The question asked of these vice presidents is will there be anything this campaign promised that they will not be able to keep because of the Wall Street bailout? My group is asked to discuss the implementations of ethos in Sarah Palin's response to the question. Governor Palin begins her response by stating, "The nice thing about running with John McCain is I can assure you is he doesn't tell one thing to one group and then turns around and tells something else to another group..." This immediately establishes some credibility for the McCain campaign. As the audience, we can go back through former speeches and debates to see if this is actually true. Obviously, Governor Palin is a convenient source for this statement but nevertheless can be checked out.

She then turns her attention towards the energy plan, and at the same time turns her body towards Joe Biden, indicating that she is focusing on an event his campaign was involved in. She states that Barack Obama previously voted for this energy bill that allowed oil companies to recieve large tax breaks. Again, we can check voting records to see if, in fact, Obama did vote for this. She then turns the tables on this subject by telling of how she had to fight these oil companies for the goodwill of the people to rise above the greed of the oil companies. This is an example of pathos as well as ethos because she is showing the audience a hardship she had to perservere through. However, she also tries to downgrade her opponent's reputation by showing a contradiction in Obama's voting history versus what she is trying to promote.

Governor Palin talks shortly later about how "The people are going to come first." By saying this, she is telling us, the audience, that she will make the people come first while her campaign is in office. She also says that the tax breaks will not be given to the oil companies when it "adversly effects the people who live in a state, and in this case a country," another example of ethos. She also gives off an authoratative vibe when she says, "You know what I had to do in the state of Alaska? I had to take on those oil companies."

Finally, when asked to confirm that there was nothing that might be taken off the "to-do list" if the McCain-Palin campaign reached the White House, she quickly states that "there hasn't been a whole lot that I've promised..." She previously said shes "How long have I been at this, like 5 weeks?" so we know there is not a whole lot of time to make a lot of promises. She also says this sort of jokingly so that we might shrug this factor off. This last joke gives the audience a sense of confidence from her and that she is backing what her running mate is standing for.

Third Presidential Debate

Link to video (wouldn't upload for some reason?): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tlAERYqPS0&feature=related

I chose this question on appointing Supreme Court Justices based on their beliefs on certain issues (in this case, abortion) because of the heavy influence this issue will have on the presidential election this year. John McCain would like to see the Roe v. Wade ruling overturned, while Barack Obama would like to see the ruling stay in effect. John McCain answers the question first, responding that he would never, and has never, (:18 sec) impose a litmus test on a justice nominee. He believes that justices should be appointed based on their qualifications, not based on their ideology (what someone believes in). He employs logos in his response by stating facts such as "I voted for justice Bryor," and "I would consider anyone in their qualifications..." stating that he would vote for a justice based on facts and results from prior judgements, not outside opinions on subjects that are debatable. McCain points out that a fair way to decide who to vote for would be to see how closely the judge in question has abided by the Constitution. Obama later agrees with McCain's stand on litmus tests. Obama also says that "The most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people." This provides us with clear guidlines on what voters are looking for in a justice. McCain employs pathos in his response by saying the United States Senate was about to "blow up" about the way of going about nominating a judge. Obama uses pathos when he says that "Abortion is a very difficult issue, and it is a moral issue." Although he doesn't emphasize how difficult of an issue this is, the majority of voting Americans understand this issue entails two heavily debated sides that are being fought over time and time again. Obama also tells a story about a woman who had been getting paid less that a man to do the exactly the same job. The court said she took to long to bring up this suit and rejected her suit. Obama says that he tried to overturn the decision while McCain chose not too. Lastly, McCain and Obama both use ethos when they sparr at each other about their past voting records and appointments in the Senate. McCain points out that Obama chose not to join a committee on deciding the best way to appoint a justice. Obama later brings to our attention that in the equal pay for equal work case (the previously mentioned story) McCain chose to vote to confirm the ruling that did not give here equal pay, while Obama voted to overturn the ruling. I think the audience for this debate is paying especially close attention to this issue, as it involves the candidates position on abortion. It has been the most scrutinized issue on the debate trail in recent months, and will carry over into the election term, so many Americans want as much information on the topic as they can get before November.

Chpt 1 and 2 Questions

Chpt. 1-
1) If the reader cannot see the underlying assumptions, how does he/she fully understand the text?
2) How can a cartoonist tell if his/her cartoon has a persuasive meaning that the audience(assuming that the audience is a national one) can relate with and understand?
3) How can one determine whether or not a political cartoon has crossed the line? And if there isn't a boundary, should there be one?
Chpt. 2-
1) In Figure 2.4, there is visual evidence of the product working, but is this the actual proof? How do we know that?
2) Is exaggerated use of pathos appropriate in advertising? Why? Why not?
3) How can parody be used to differenciate ethos from what they really are?