Weekly Writing Assignment #4

Toulmin Model
Argument/Counter Argument

The controversial issue against lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 continues to be heatedly debated from both sides.

OPPONENTS OF LOWERING THE DRINKING AGE
main source can be found here.

One of the major non-profit groups against lowering the drinking age would be the Support 21 Coalition. Their website can be found here. Support 21 was founded by MADD [Mother's Against Drunk Driving] and has been supported by other organizations such as the 'Insurance Institute for Highway Safety' and the 'American Medical Association' and other such prominent groups.
Support 21's claims for having the drinking age stay at 21 is mostly out of assumptions. They have no other proof that lowering the drinking age to 18 will cause more or less damage on the road or on binge-drinking.

They have ignored the success of such countries as Europe or Canada when it comes to alcohol education: it first starts in the home, at the hands of responsible parents that teach them how to drink. They have claimed it as a 'myth'.

Support 21 are against lowering the drinking age because their main claim is that the current minimum drinking age saves lives. Their concern is that drinking is a public health concern; they have zero tolerance for anyone over the age of 21 purchasing alcohol for teens. Support 21 appeals to not just people under 21; but above 21 as well. By claiming drinking as a public health concern; it also appeals to adults who deal with alcoholism and those that have been victims of knowing alcoholics.

One of the solutions that they provide is to increase law enforcement and harsher punishments when it comes to catching teens in possession of alcohol and those caught drinking. They are also skeptical when it comes to starting early alcohol education courses. Their argument is that despite having driving lessons; teens still get into accidents--the same theory also applies to sex education; teen girls still get pregnant. So what is the purpose of incorporating an alcohol-safety class if teens are still going to binge?

One of the studies that they have conducted was that in the 70s', over 29 states lowered the drinking age to either 18, 19 or 20. This law introduced an increase of motor vehicle crashes among teens. After the government decided to enforce the minimum drinking age in 84'--American Medical Association reported that death and injury on the road declined rapidly. [source; The American Observer]

On a more personal analytical opinion of Support 21 Coalition's mission and goal, I would have to slightly disagree with many points. The first being that the study was conducted in the 70s'--in an era completely different from today's modern times. Times are changing, people are more aware now. People were smoking furiously until they were educated that it caused cancer; people are more educated now when it comes to drinking and driving--and I believe that with more education, people will learn when it comes to alcohol.

Teenages are more drawn to things that they are forbidden from doing. Enforcing a law such as this one causes only more harm to those that are uneducated. It needs to start at home with responsible parents at a very young age. For those that enter college without any introduction to it in the home are bound to go wild at parties and drink more than they know how to handle.

SUPPORTERS OF LOWERING THE DRINKING AGE

One of the supporters of lowering the drinking age would be Choose Responsibility. They are advocates of teaching kids at a young age the cons of drinking and trusting them with the ability to grow up and drink responsibility. Education is the key, for them.

Other supporters would be college presidents that have been key witnesses in what happens on college campuses and many tragedies that strike college students when it comes to binge-drinking. Over a hundred college presidents signed a petition to lower the drinking age to 18. Such situational problems that arise at college parties can be easily avoided had students known better.

However, one of the criticisms that arise out of this would be that they are putting their trust into teens in this modern day and era too much. How much do we really know about the average teen and that they are thinking and doing behind closed doors?

They have no actual proof that when it comes down to lowering the drinking age; that it would work.

The article from the American Observer writes: "It’s important to look at the historical perspective. If alcohol consumption at 18 is as damaging as critics say, there would be an entire generation of Americans and generations of Europeans with brain damage resulting from drinking too early."

They are protesting that having such a high drinking age limits any room for discussion and will cause more harm--Choose Responsibility's goal is to get people to start talking again and to make people realize that at 18, if you can vote, buy cigarettes and be chosen to stand in the front lines in war to face death--than you can most certainly have the capacity to drink responsibility.

While I am a supporter of lowering the drinking age, I would have to agree with some of the critics about this. How are we to know for sure that teens will drink responsibility? We have no solid, actual proof. All we have are assumptions--and I don't even know if that is enough sometimes. But I am a huge supporter of educating people--I think education is key and will make many breakthroughs.

Analyzing Seattle Times; Sports

This is an analytical in-class assignment about an article from the Seattle Times. The article may be found here.

In Jerry Brewer's article, "Fanatomy: As a sports town, we’re underrated"--Brewer makes a case and defends Seattle sport's fans against other hardcore sport fanatics from mainly east coast cities. Brewer mentions several times throughout the article that Seattle is often perceived as caring more for their art museums than sports. He likes to emphasis the the perceived prejudice about Seattle is that they are more 'intellectual' (i.e. cultivating culture, independent bookstores, coffee enthusiasts) than the fist-pumping crowds in Pittsburgh or Boston.

The article chronicles past failures as well as recent wins when it comes to sports in Seattle--and that despite everything, the strongest thing in this town are the passionate fans that still show up for a game; even if it is raining. The longest running fanbase out of all the sport franchises in Seattle is of course University of Washington's football team, the Huskies.

Brewer appeals to the motivational side of what it takes to be a genuine sports fan from the Pacific Northwest. He emphasizes how fans, though they may not come off as enthused, have shown their fair share of taking their love of a team to extreme lengths. Brewer chronicles funny anecdotes of long-running jokes among fans: one story in particular about the coach from their archnemesis team in the 70s' and how they chased him throwing beer at him; and whenever the coach would come into town, it was requisite that they all threw beer at him. Such examples as these motivates the reader (who I would assume to be a Seattelite) to such heights that they would begin silently cheering throughout the rest of the article for their beloved hometown.

Brewer also manages to appeal to the audience's emotional side by showing another lovely example about an incident where the Sonics were beaten, and the area began playing an ironic Frank Sinatra song. People were not angry or upset, but some began laughing at the irony of it all. Seattelites have a good sense of humor, and Brewer understands this, so he inserts a humorous anecdote to make us love our city even more.

The author creates an environment that appeals to every Seattleite who loves sports; and he does a great job of it by not only assuring them that they shouldn't be number 52 and that they are not understated--but isntead manages to pump them up even more and prepare themselves for the next game.

Press Release; Seattle U's response to tragedy in Haiti

SEATTLE, Thursday, January 14, 2010 -- Father Sundborg, President of Seattle University has recently sent out an email to all students, faculty, staff and friends urging them to live Seattle U's mission and help in any way that they can concerning the catastrophe in Haiti.

Sean Bray, Social Justice Minister in Campus Ministry, has been appointed as the coordinator for all help-relief efforts in the community. Any questions and concerns or ideas should contact Bray at brays@seattleu.edu.

Sundborg provides several ways that the community can rally together and offer support. He writes that we can respond educationally, humanly and spiritually--and that "each of us can respond in our own personal way unique to us and we can support one another at this time as a community."

Sundborg closes the email by giving dates when mass will be in session and that all donations will go directly to Catholic Relief Services as well as Jesuit Refugee Service. The president is also working with Gonzaga University to unite both Jesuit institutions in the midst of this tragedy and to keep the Jesuit faith alive.

Weekly Writing Assignment #3

[1] CBS News: The debate on lowering the Drinking Age
[2] US News World Report: The Drinking Age Debate: Time to Go from21 to 18, But It's not an Easy Call
[3] LA Times: At 18, is it time for a drink?
[4] ABC News: Group stirs debate on Legal Drinking Age

The debate on lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 in the United States has been sparked with controversy since two years ago when one hundred college presidents (including Dartmouth, Virginia Tech and Duke) across the country signed a petition to lower the drinking age to 18. The movement was started by John McCardell, the former president of Middlebury College in Vermont.

According to CBS News, the history of the law began in the 1980s’, when the goal was to reduce highway fatalities by lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18.

The debate that McCardell has been trying to provoke is that he does not think the law is working at all—and instead of pushing kids to begin drinking at 21; kids have taken it underground, behind closed doors, allowing them to become uneducated in alcohol and instead abusing it heavily and binging on it excessively.

Being 18 is considered an adult in America, you can vote, drive, buy cigarettes, and be potentially drafted—and McCardell is arguing that they can make the right choices about drinking if they are educated about it at an early age.

The opposing side includes Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who helped implement the law in the 80s’. Siding along with MADD, includes other prominent groups such as the American Medical Association, the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Safety Council, the International Association Chiefs of Police, the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, the Surgeon General of the U.S., as well as the U.S. Transportation Secretary.

Their beliefs include that they don’t think that kids can decide for themselves the right choices when it comes to alcohol—and that will mean an increase in teenage deaths in American families.

Another side pro-lowering the drinking age would be first-hand witness accounts of authority figures that know how kids abuse alchol.

Police officers and sheriffs in college towns are well aware of how kids abuse alcohol, and most would agree with McCardell’s stance on the issue—no matter how many kids they cite or arrest; kids are going to keep drinking.

Most of the people on both sides of the debate would agree that alcohol education starts at home—and that parents should be responsible in introducing it to their kids in a safely and well-educated manner.

Both sides of the debate would also agree that not only is education important in the manner, but that safety is the first issue to address when it comes to alcohol.

Letter to my boyfriend

The problem that has brought some strain into our relationship deals with the future. What happens to 'us'? I graduate from Seattle U fall quarter and have plans on attending UC Berkeley or the University of Chicago, and he is still in the graphic design program at Seattle Central for two more years. I would make the assumption that we are very serious about each other. He is asking me to stay with him in Seattle while he finishes his degree and than we can move together, but the problem is that I don't want to wait around for someone else to continue on with their lives while I stand still. Hence, the pickle we are in.

Alex,

Yes, I do understand your reasoning. Long distant relationships never work out. But you don't know that we wouldn't. Maybe we are the exception not the rule (stole that line from 'He's just not that Into You'). If it is a question of being faithful then it really has more to do with trust issues than which part of the world we are living in. You also have qualms about leaving the Pacific Northwest, which has housed you for twenty-one years--you have never visited or lived by yourself independently anywhere else. Now is the opportunity to see what else is out there. Yes, Seattle Central has a great graphic design program, but there are other art schools out there in more rapidly developing urban areas that are offering lucrative careers for your field.

My stance is more logical. You can get your graphic design degree anywhere--the surrounding colleges around Berkeley or Chicago have great art schools. If it is an issue of money, you barely make enough to support yourself now, so what difference would it be if you move to another location and continue barely supporting yourself there? I am willing to support you, support 'us', I will continue doing freelance jobs and working in office environments if that will help us get through the next three years. The issue that I have my head wrapping around would be why you would even ask me to wait two more years so that you can get a degree while I can't?

If you were to move with me to either of these great cities, you'd have access to some really great opportunities. Yes, Seattle is vibrant and brimming with design opportunities, but that's the great thing about your job--you can work anywhere and in any citiy. Chicago is home to Threadless T-Shirts, infamous for their designs. San Francisco is about an hour's drive from Berkeley--home to the Academy of the Art and beautiful architecture. Every city is unique and beautiful and I have loved my little home I made in Seattle with you, but you can make a home anywhere, especially if we are together. Cities are just ingredients, but the end product will be incomplete if we don't live together post-college.

You've talked about possibly becoming an architect, Chicago can provide that for you. Any city can. You just have to leave Seattle to find out for yourself. I can't even imagine living anywhere else if you are not there with me. It makes no sense. There are great art schools around the two cities that cost the same as Seattle Central; though I do see your point that you will be out-of-state and that costs will be more. But I don't think money should be a factor in determining our future together; our experiences that we will gain together; and the idea of us growing into adults that write checks and talk politics over dinner parties--that shouldn't all disappear because of your stubbornness. You are being unfair to yourself and to me. Trust is key here, and I think you will be happier leaving Seattle and discovering what else is out there.

Hopefully, I will see you in Berkeley, California or the Windy City,

Carolyn Huynh

Weekly Writing Assignment #2

The article can be found here.


1.) The argument being presented is the ongoing and controversial debate between keeping the drinking age in the U.S. at 21 or lowering it to 18. The article presents two sides of the spectrum. The author includes professors at multiple universities who are on board with the idea of lowering the age due to their experiences of being involved firsthand with students who binge-drink. The other side presenting their argument is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)—who are concerned with the idea that there will be more drunk drivers on the road. Both sides represent good arguments
2.) Looking at this article as a supposed believer, I do believe that the reporter has contributed enough articles in favor or lowering the drinking age. He did not include enough opposition examples to balance out the debate enough; so I am looking at him as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune who lives in an urban setting surrounded by prestigious universities and colleges and I am voting in favor of his article. He uses good examples and he even closes the article with a quote in favor of this movement.
3.) As a non-believer, I am very skeptical of how skewed the article is. The reporter, Justin Pope, barely allows more opposition in the article. I do have to put into question his own personal experiences in college and his own personal stand on the issue. As a reporter, one should be neutral in news reporting and present a balance when it comes to debates. I did not believe Pope was very fair in this regard; but I can see how he can be biased on this topic. I would have to assume that he went to a respectable university where he has witnessed the trouble of binge-drinking that goes on in college.
4.) I am only basing my assumptions on the fact that it is a generic article presenting a debate as neutral as possible. I am using the fact that it is the Chicago Tribune as a foundation for my rhetorical argument—that the Tribune has enough prestige and enough intelligence not to put it’s power and clout it towards their own biases. From the way the article is written and presented, and considering it’s location and its urban reporter, I am judging that the author might feel passionate about the issue and that it is important to him—given the fact that he allowed the article to be seen more in his bias than on a neutral point.

Letter to the Editor: Seattle Times

This is in response to Sue Rahr's article.


I was raised by a father that taught me to follow in the footsteps of Siddhartha. Helping others, he would say, is the key to a fulfilling life. You should never stop.

After reading Rahr's op-ed, I am still mulling over the last line in her article: It's a comforting and empowering reminder that we are truly in this together.

Considering the recent tragedies that have struck police officers and law enforcers in Washington state within the last few months--for most people, egoism would kick in, and they would say, "we are most certainly not in this together!" It's the Darwin in all of us; survival of the fittest. Or rather, stay away from a group that is clearly being targeted.

Its been proven that in a crisis or tragedy, people unite--Rahr proves this by explaining the outpouring from the community. She also compares all these tragedies to post 9-11: the American flags, the cookies, the waterfall of constant support.

But while these men and women are responding to our 911 calls, who is making sure that they are being safe?

After the initial shell-shock phase is over, acceptance begins and eventually people gloss it over as another horrifying incident in their minds. The American flags stop waving, cookies are reserved for Netflix movie nights, and the support disappears. Where does the support go? Are we really in this together? Or are we only in this together for right now?

Safety is everyone's responsibility. If you are of sound mind and body, you hold the responsibility to make sure that your neighbor or the stranger down the street is okay.

Rahr is conveying her thanks and enormous gratitude that the community has shown. I was touched by her letter, but I am also hoping that the support never stops; that those thank-yous and flags never stop coming and waving. That we always know innately that it is our responsibility as well to make sure that safety is both a duty and a human obligation.

Seattle Times editorial analysis

The editorial addresses the idea of possibility by stating that there is hope for a peaceful future. The author, Sue Rahr, a King County Sheriff even states that after the all the shootings that was definite potential for an 'us against them' mindset among police enforcements across Washington State -- however, Rahr goes against this claim as she states examples of kindness across the community, that there was a massive support for them. That the kindess of a stranger doesn't necessarily result in open-fire gunshots, but instead cookies and thank-yous; that there is a certain maternal instinct towards police officers from the community and that they do care.

Rahr's language summons up a common unity from the community: we all feel sorrow. She uses the grand example of post-9/11 shock to summarize feelings that law enforcers have been feeling these past few months. The image of waving an American flag is mentioned to reinforce that yes, we are all Americans, and despite wearing a badge or not, we are all in this together.

The discourse is full of emotion; Rahr is saying thanks to the community for coming up to her and her colleagues by saying 'thank you for your service'. The language is heartfelt and her intention was to convey that she is grateful, just simply grateful.

She does tap into the fear that is still among police officers. She mentions that if a stranger were to go up to one of them, they would immediately be on guard and look for free hands first before laying down instinctive guards. However, the symbolic convergance of it all is that despite certain immediate reactions, it should be excused given all that has happened. The audience should not be fazed by this-- America was all on guard post 9/11; we have all felt terror. Police officers are no exception, especially in this day and age.

In conclusion, Rahr's language was emotionally crippling. I felt hairs stand up on my arms as I felt almost guilty for those times that I cursed when I got a parking ticket. Her vocabulary was simple and to the point - but the message was vibrating acorss the article and it was very clear.

Out with hate, in with equality

If there is ever a time for change, it is now. I have been sorely disappointed in Obama's silence when it comes to allowing gay marriage to happen. Equality is a basic human right, and so far, Obama has not come through on his promises. A lot of Obama's supporters were members of the LGBT community; they had placed their hope in Obama but he has failed to deliver. For a man that has received the Nobel Peace prize, he has been undeserving of it so far. For a man to be given an award for peace, he first must make peace for the millions of people in America that want the opportunity for marriage.

For the upcoming new year, I am hoping that immediate change and action will happen. It isn't even a question of compromise. With our current sleeping economy, I don't see why allowing gay couples to marry is such a big deal. Leave religion out of this and lets think logically. Allowing more marriages to happen will only strengthen the economy and give more people the chance to adopt. There will be less children in foster homes and less children without loving parents. For this new year, I am hoping for a progressive change. Love shouldn't be such a battlefield, and for all that Obama has failed to deliver, I still retain some small hope that he will correct this wrong.

My favorite coffee haunt

I am a frequent visitor of Cafe Vita on Pike St. The ambiance that it provides allows me full anonymity. Not only is the coffee superior, but the upstairs portion that the cafe has allows me to be able to sit in a dark corner and read my book or people-watch from a second-story view. I normally go to Stumptown in the morning for a quick wake-me-up only because it is in closer proximity to me than Vita. However, what Vita has that Stumptown does not have is the ability to sit down and not run into practically everyone that you know in your life. Stumptown, because of its closeness to Seattle University, is a favorite among people on campus and it acts as a social networking tool. When I drink my coffee, I want to be in complete relaxation without being forced to make small talk. Cafe Vita also houses a certain handsome dreadlocks barista that I come in sometimes just to oogle at. Stumptown does not employ said handsome dreadlocks barista.

Rhetorical analysis of Michelle Obama's 2008 DNC speech

“I love this country!” Michelle Obama said fiercely at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. The audience present at the DNC, consisted of people from “Main St. America” –which is a euphemism for the middle-class. During Michelle’s speech, she channels Dr. King’s charisma and addresses the audience about a very simple and iconic message: the American Dream. Her advice to the throngs of hopeful faces was to never give up; that it is possible, the American dream is real and she is a living example of it. She emphasizes on the topic of unity throughout the twenty-minute speech to appeal to the mass. Everyone wants the same thing. Everyone wants opportunity. Everyone wants the American Dream. These are all the national views that everyone can agree upon – including those not part of the middle-class.
Michelle’s appearance comes off as very maternal. This includes her wardrobe attire. She continues to appeal to the idea of ‘unity’ –that everyone has a mother or even a sister to look to and respect. Her wardrobe, though conservative, seems to mimic the style of Jackie O: simple but elegant. Michelle has come a long way from her first public appearance to the speech she made at the convention. She was first criticized for being too overpowering and coming off as having a very harsh exterior; but it seems she has ‘dumbed’ or softened herself down from her Harvard law background into being a mold of how the First Lady should be and act.
Her use of nonverbal language includes using gentle flourishes of her hands to make an emphasis on what she is saying – instead of what she used to do with her hands, which once including making a ‘whooping’ gesture in the air. She has overtime, transformed into the character that America expects of her. This sets women back decades where Michelle unfortunately has to downplay her intelligence to cater to America – this situational need is partly because of the culture that society has cultivated when it comes to women in power. Hilary Clinton, an exceptional woman who has accomplished a lot in her lifetime, has been criticized many times for being seen as “cold”.
Michelle continues to repeat the idea of the American Dream using her maternal side as a plea. She uses her father and children as examples – which everyone has and everyone was once a child. Her audience responds positively because they believe in what Michelle and her husband will bring – their reaction is nothing negative but full of hope. Their only concern is to not repeat past mistakes and not go the same route as the last president gave them.

Ideas for Class Project 1/7/2010

-lowering the drinking age to 18 instead of 21
-raising the driving age to 19 or 21
-issue of homelessness in Seattle
-Take Back Your Time (Simplicity) Movement, Paid Vacation Movement: http://www.timeday.org/
-a proposal to make Seattle University more eco-friendly and reduce the use of papers in class: Utilize Angel website more; ask students to turn in their essays in PDF format or through email; use blogs (like this class) to turn in work... etc.

Deconstructing the Syllabus; 1/7/2010

The course description about CMJR 320 located in our class syllabus utilizes the concept of rhetoric in several areas. Professor Bammert addresses us (the audience) first as students of journalism. This means that she recognizes that we are here to learn more about persuasive writing, which means that we are to adhere to our biases and to use our own opinions to convince others of our sound and valid argument through persuasive writing. The description advises us to first deconstruct other examples and then to use those skills towards constructing our own. Her argument is that the use of rhetoric should be broken down into an educated, critical and well-researched reasoning and that we should use the same before we are able to persuade others of our convictions and biases.