Blog Entry 7

Considering the main argument of the article, I do agree with where this student stands on the issue of hard copy texts converting to E-books. I think that financially, E-books are much more efficient and available to the students here at ASU.  I also agree that it will give ASU a boost ahead of other universities competing for grants and titles. I think that maybe he could have quoted students on their opinion of E-books and hard copy texts. Conducting a survey could have proved beneficial.  I think the part where he mentioned the idea of giving students Ipads or tablets is irrelevant to the specific problem. He states a fact about a local private school, where tuition is even higher than it is here at ASU. It is an idea, but an idea that could prove to be an entirely new paper. Most classes here require some type of online work, and it is rare to come across a student without some form of computer or tablet. The audience for his paper would be school officials that are in contact with the book companies and bookstores here at ASU. They value education more than anything, and believe that books are necessary for a class to function properly in most cases. I do not think that they would be opposed on this topic, yet I also don’t think that change would come easy. They are interested in what will most help the students and the university. Financially, I am sure they are concerned as well. E-books are much more cost-efficient for students but are they just as cheap for the university to disperse them? I think the author does a wonderful job at addressing the problem to the specific readers. The writing used only small amounts of ethos. He makes a point of ethos through financial needs. Is it ethnically correct to be charging students hundreds of dollars for a hard-copy book when there are other options available? These are problems and questions the author applied very well to his paper. I would have liked to see more ethos in his paper; therefore, I would only rate it a 5 or 6. His paper included a great deal or logos, but it would need to be balanced with some or more ethos. I do think this is a good model for our assignment. Overall, it is a very well written paper, and is set up correctly as stated in the directions. I think he addresses the problem and topic very well. It sparked a few ideas for my paper as well. Which is really good, because I was having a mental block at the moment. I think that this student could have enhanced his paper with even more research. If I were him, like I said, I would have conducted a survey or teachers and students. I think that more numbers could have been involved in his essay as well. Not just surveys and percentages but charts and pictures. Maybe even quoting articles or officials could have given this essay the boost that it needed. 

blog #6

To reduce the risk of the country being taken over by technology, our country would have to take serious steps to ensure jobs throughout the nation. One way that we could limit technology taking over the manual labor could be limitation. In order for change to occur, either before or durring the progression of technology, government would have to make a law or laws of some sort. I am not a big political person, but I do believe that this could be prevented. Also, people could control the amount of technology used in their homes and businesses. It could be worse, if the people creating the machines produced them in such amount that there was no time to make a plan for those whose jobs would not be needed. It could send the United States into another great depression. In order to prevent or stop technology from taking over our lives in a negative way, the government and the people would have to limit production and usage of the technology created. 

blog #5

First off, it is ironic because just recently I had a dream that I had a flying car. When I woke up I thought of how crazy it will be some day when cars can actually fly. If technology keeps progressing, I can only imagine that jobs will be more and more limited. Personally, I think that automated cars are not close in our future. They may be close to being created, but I can’t imagine they would take over the streets anytime soon. Technology is being created every day. Form little gadgets that assist hair removal, to machines that perform a surgery on the other side of the country. As I try to think of jobs that will be distinguished, the first that come to mind are construction workers. I do believe though that there will always be workers to operate and control the machines. Even if the machines were operated there would be people ranked higher than the machines. Almost every type of worker is in danger of losing their job at some point due to technology. A sandwich maker at subway could potentially be replaced by a machine that makes your customized sandwich. A therapist and other communicating jobs would be hard to be replaced by machinery but I don’t think it is impossible. I think the economical effects would be impossible to predict. It all depends on the expenses that the machinery require and how much would be charged to use them. Potentially, yes, jobs would decrease. I think that the government would have to step in at some point and regulate the machinery and it’s production. Also the government would have to creating jobs. I don’t think the government would be to blame at all for the effects of technology on the economy, yet I do think they would be responsible for helping those who were affected negatively by the progression of technology. 

Blog #2

After reading Obama’s speech several times, I finally decided where I stand on the arguments he made, and how he made them. When I read the chapters of the book I feel like I became an expert at analyzing. Obama uses many rhetorical devices to appeal to the audience. The audience he was speaking to though, was a very close-minded group of people.  The majority of Obama’s speech seemed to be correlated with a pathos and ethos approach. They refer to his campaign and how he used “hope” as a campaign slogan. Hope itself is an emotion that connects directly to the pathos approach. Pathos is shown when he used logos to state a fact that the biggest separation in our country is of those who do and do not attend church. Ethos, Logos, and Pathos, all seemed to be intertwined in some way. One device will be used to enhance another. His entire speech is on a topic of religion and politics itself. Religion and politics both fall under the category of ethos. They both have a certain set of ethnic responsibilities. Obama relates his speech to his own personal life and what he went through. This is appealing to pathos and the emotion of the attendees. There is a greater amount of ethos and pathos used in his speech, but he uses logos to back up his statements. 

Blog #1

            In his speech, Obama speaks to a very closed-minded group of liberals. Obama places his focus of the speech on his beliefs. He does not believe in basing laws off of religious beliefs. He believes that laws should be based off of shared values of the people. He also mentions that people should agree with him, based on their own beliefs. Obama claims to be a Christian, but does support abortion. Mr. Keyes says “Obama says he’s a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.” Mr. Keyes says this because of the democratic standpoint of abortion.  Mr. Keyes also makes a critical statement that Jesus Christ would not have voted for Barack Obama. Obama states the importance of, and places importance of conservation. He focuses on the separation of church and state. Obama makes a strong statement, “faith does not mean that you don’t have doubts.” Obama speaks of his own religious experience, comparing black churches and their history to modern churches. It was not until after college that Obama dedicated his life to Christ. He also advises that politics are not all about the religious morals and values. He supports this by stating, “Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment.” Obama speak to the people about how they are “tired of seeing faith as a tool of attack” rather than bringing people together under one god.