I am a little late on this blog...yet again. But now I get the chance to talk about Halloween weekend. It's been a long one to say the least. I was surprised that when people asked me how the weekend was I was not quite sure what to say to them. It just seemed like every other weekend except we were all in costumes. Anyways I realized there are few things I was disappointed in.

Things I was disappointed about during Halloween Weekend:

1. The Po-Po were everywhere.

I do admit I felt a little safer, but they were busting so many parties. Some of the places weren't even parties, and weren't even that loud. I bet a lot of kids are gonna be bitter once it hits them that they have a couple of hundred dollar tickets to pay.

2. No State Street?

This was probably the worst of it all. They barricaded the place off on Saturday night I know at least. If they didn't want us there then why did they have the lights up?

3. Costumes

The girls had the usual lack of clothing but I felt like no one put as much thought into their costume this year. I mean, that is the essence of Halloween. Although I must say I did meet a girl that was dressed up as the "Walk of Shame" that was pretty good.

4. I lost my boxing gloves the first night

I was quite upset.

Well all in all it was an alright weekend. I'm looking forward to hearing other people's adventures for the night. I guess its back to reality eh?

Back to the Technology debate:

(Rhtetorical Analysis 2)

New York Times-- "Parents Fret That Dialing Up Interferes With Growing Up"

By Mireya Navarro--October 23, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/fashion/sundaystyles/23TECH.html

In one of my past blogs I wrote about some of the complaints I have about Instant Messenger. To my surprise when I was looking for an article I could write about for my rhetorical analysis on. The article does not merely talk on Instant Messenger it also talks about the way technology is effecting teenagers.

Throughout most of the article Navarro explains parent’s issues with the dramatic change in the amount of time children spend with technology, technology meaning mainly: computers, internet, video games, and TVs. She goes on to point on the bad effects this has on children’s active activities and family relationships. She also points at the fact that this issue comes about in every generation as there has always been some advancement that has parents worried and children hooked.

The article was very well-written in the fact that she points out both sides of the issue. She interviews the children as well as the parents and also includes ways that parents are handling the problem. Most of her phrases seemed to use all unbiased words making it appear as though she herself was unsure if technology use was really creating a problem or not, which I think was very good about the issue. By using unbiased phrases she really allowed the reader to see that the issue is very finicky. Technology advancements in general all have good and bad effects. They usually provide an easier way of going about things while adding other problems.

By adding both points of view on the issue, Navarro plays devil’s advocate very well.

Content: 8

Ease of reading/ Rhetoric: 9

Overall: 8.5

I don't think 50-minute tests are always the best way to assess how well you know material? Who's with me?! Let's just go protest against tests, right?

No. I don't mean it exactly the way the whiny students means after he/she got a bad grade. (Although I did just get a bad grade...damn the inventor of Ochem).

What I mean to say is that some students are slower readers and it takes them longer to process questions. For others maybe they just need to take the first 10 mintues letting everything soak in their cerebrum and then they start. All students have different test-taking kwirks, and who is to say that someone is smarter than the other because they got through the exam in the alloted time.

Also, different professors have such different test formats. So it's not very fair to say a test is a test is a test, now is it? For example, I know in Zoology and other classes you have 4 different professors that cover 4 different sections...which means 4 different exam formats. It can be great because you get 4 different teaching methods but never getting used to the format you never have that sense of familiarity. I know when I study I try and think "Now, what is Mr./ Ms./ Mrs. So and so going to ask?" It's hard to come up with an answer when you haven't had an exam of theirs before.

I suppose there is no going around it. You CAN NOT get rid of tests, there needs to be ways to assess that you know information, and tests do serve the purpose even if they aren't perfect.

All I can say is: "Man, I wish I would've remembered to mark the chiral centers!" (Excuse me while I go slam my head against the wall)

Jailed for Life After Crimes as Teenagers
-Adam Liptak

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/national/03lifers.html

Rhetorical Analysis: Are You Serious?

Wow, I don't think I have ever been so shocked to have read the opening line of an article before, okay maybe that was an exaggeration. But seriously: 9,700 American prisoners serving life sentences? Reading the last story really took me off-guard I would never imagine him getting a life sentence. When I was 14 years old I was doing all sorts of stupid things. Maybe my friends weren't killing people but if the circumstances were different I could not say that maybe I wouldn't have gone to steal something just for the sheer excitement. We all do dumb things, his just went too far, which from the sounds of it was not his fault.

Okay, well that is the content but as for the rhetorical anaylsis of this article. Frankly, I think Liptak (the author) could have made this article a much more intense, interesting article. It was extremely important to put in statistics in an article like this but was it necessary to put so many redundant statistics, some of which were worded extremely awkwardly: "In those same years, the number of juveniles sentenced to life peaked in 1994, at about 790, or 15% of all adults and youths admitted as lifers that year."

Liptak also added a comment about race and sex on the 2nd page. The fact was very interesting but he didn't go any further to anaylze what consequences this has on either arguement (for or against juvenile life sentences). I was pretty sure I learned in high school not to introduce statements unless they were relevant to the topic at hand, and why they are relevant.

ALSO, I had a huge problem with the comments by Ms. Falcon. I almost stopped reading the article when I read, "I started listening to rap music and wearing my pants baggy. I was like a magnet for the wrong crowd."

Oh please, I listen to rap music and I don't think any of my friends have shot anyone? That is extremely stereotypical. There are many reasons I could say that she fell into the wrong crowd, after only reading this article: not supervised enough, self-confidence issues, coming from a broken family. But the only reason she can come up with is because she listens to rap? Her mother came upon the same conclusion, which makes me want to say to them both: You make your own desicions. She chose to be friends with whomever she was friends with and it had nothing to do with what she wore, or what kind of music she listened to.

Although the content of the article was interesting and brough up many issues I didn't even realize were issues, I did have trouble sticking it all the way through the article. Maybe I'm reading too deep into things or am completely off, but both Liptak and Ms. Falcon may want to work on their sentence structures and word choices.

I thought I'd add a rating from now on to my rhetorical analyses.
Content: 8
Ease of reading/ Rhetoric: 5
Overall: 6