Jamie+McArthur

jamie's page.





Ms. Wendt, Here is my research proposals. But as i research more and more i am not sure i really want to do any of these. Im stuck at a crossroad on which one i could do a better performance on. But i can't pick a topic i feel to strong over because i will be one who will write why its right or wrong in general. Any ideas.... or should i just stick to the ones i already had proposed, which i don't mind wrting about i just dont know if i want to.



HERE IS MY WORD PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Jamie McArthur Wendt 101 Paper 1 Jan. 24.2008

How is it that one can speak like a boy, or how one can speak like a girl? That is what Dennis Baron is trying to convince the world in his blog “Hillary Clinton: Runs like a man, Talks like a girl”. Baron is trying to convey two different ideas on the presidential election and both have to deal with the American language. He is trying to show that Hillary Clinton may be acting manly so she will be taken seriously in the 2008 presidential election; the diction she uses in her speech makes her sound more like a girl than a man. Baron is also trying to exclaim that past and present presidential candidates had done the same thing. They make themselves sound like a certain type of person so they can earn the votes of the people they are trying to persuade. Hillary Clinton, not the first women who has tried to become a candidate for the United States President but the first to get this far along in the race. She is trying to do something that happened ever few decades. A women going up against a man, and try to prove them wrong. This has happened in the early 1900’s: when women wanted the right to vote; the 60’: women wanted to be treated the same as the man; and now: a woman wants to be the President of the United States. Of course she has to run like a because running like a man means she has to: be as dirty as a man, show no fear as a man, and have a set of balls (figuratively speaking) to take what is thrown at her. So if she has to act like a man, what is wrong if she talks like a woman? As far as everyone knows: she is one. But when she talks like a woman effect the way she may run the country if she is president. Some think that because she does talk like a female, when she has to be stern and push for something she wont be able to because she will sound to polite or that she might not even be able to be mean and forceful because its not in “a woman’s nature” to be an ass. But to others though, yes she may talk like a girl but that does not mean that she won’t be able to get things done. She will be able to keep the calmness in her voice instead of the anger and rage one can pick out of a mans, when they are pissed off. Just because one is a certain sex doesn’t mean that they are not as strong as the other. The way people talk is always going to be different than the person next to them. People have to understand that not everyone is going to sound the way one would think that their sex would talk like. I know a girl that’s voice and the diction she uses in her every day sentences sounds like a guys and at first I really wondered if she was a guy or a girl but just because she uses terms and phrases like a guy doesn’t make her any less of a girl. It’s just the way she was raised. But then I also have a girl that does the whole “totally” and “awesome” girl language. Does that make her any less powerful than the first girl? To some they would say yes. This is because girls are not allowed to have power in their diction. By having that diction, it makes them less of a girl. While the not being able to have strength and power in a woman’s diction, means that they need help and can not stand up for themselves. Does it make a difference in a woman’s diction if she is powerful or not? While some may say that that Clinton is using her womanly diction to sway female votes her way does not make her the first — if she even is doing this — to do so. Past presidential candidates have done this. Is this wrong to change one’s natural diction to get people to like and agree with you. Well it depends on if it works or not. Past presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have done it. They have done this at every level in government. They will change who they sound like in their diction so someone else will take them seriously. This is the way politics work. At times one has to change something about them to appeal to someone else. If they didn’t do this it would wreck their whole chances of winning an election. Because politics is a dirty game and at times the candidates have to run around in the mud like a pig to get the votes they need to win. And the best way at times to fit in with the pigs: is to act like a pig, smell like a pig, and to sound like a pig. So why should now change with today’s candidates. Obama sounding like a white man, while Clinton sounding like a woman. People need to understand that this is the way the life works. At times in order to get some one to like you, you have to change who you are. So Clinton is changing by running like a man instead of a women, it doesn’t mean she has to stop using the diction of a woman. At times, that is the most powerful thing a person can do — is to sound like they are suppose too. It shouldn’t matter how someone uses their diction. Either way they are powerful. Yeah guys and girls do sound differently, they also have different body parts; I don’t see anyone claiming that by having such is a bad thing — so why should it matter if they sound different.

Journal 1 In the past you have probably never paid attention to whether or not you were appealing to your readers' logic, emotion, or character. Go back and think of times when you have written and have done so. Do you have an idea of how to appeal to your reader? What of these three appeals will you need to work on the most? Are you good at giving examples? Are you pretty logical? Do you know how to sound like a good, moral person? Spend some time writing about these three appeals and how you perhaps compare to the author you are analyzing and how you measure up and what you need to work on.

In the past I know that i have appealed to my readers. I don't think that i really have so far in college but i know in high school quite a few of my papers was able to pull at my readers emotions and character. I find that its hard to appeal to the reader because not every one you that will come across your paper will be able to relate so i try to not really get them to relate to me but to understand where i am coming from and how it feels, so they can have an idea of oh hey so this is how she feels. I have to work more on ethos in my writing. I find that ethos is so hard to have in there because not everyone is giong to have the same character as myself so its hard for me to reach that level in my writing.I can give examples of things when i need to, do they always fit in at the right moment of time... no but i can give examples. When asked if i am logical, i have to say, not really. i can be when i need to be serious and have some logic but its not all the time.In my papers i do try and sound like a good, moral person. I guess its hard not to sound moral if you are not moral. IF you are not a good person most of the time is shows in how you talk about other people and items. I have to really start to work on logos,pathos and ethos. I know what they are and starting to get better at finding them but i have to pratice including them in my writing.

Summary and Analysis http://webtools.uiuc.edu/blog/view?blogId=25&topicId=721&count=1&ACTION=VIEW_TOPIC_DIALOGS&skinId=286

Summary In the article "Hillary Clinton: Run like a man, talks like a girl" by Dennis Baron, talks about how politcians talk in different voices, accents, and tones to relate to their voters. Baron claims that almost all ever running for any office spot has done this and its the reason why some when the election. He claims that this is what Bill Clinton did and know is what Hillary Clinton is doing. She is trying to appeal to her female voters and is being successful. But Clinton isn't the only one that has done this. Past presidents have done this and not only got the votes for doing it, but has gone on and became president. But Baron also trys to explain that men and women talk different from their pitch in their voices to the words they each use. Not everyone can tell which way one is talking more like but at times it is very easy to tell what gender is speaking.

Analysis Baron, i think is trying to appeal to peoples emotions and in a way their logic on how people talk. He is trying to get the whole women are or are not equal to men theory going. He trys to use the research finding "Though Hillary Clinton is a politicain herself, she still follows, to some extent, the historic designation of women's language as the language of a non-powerful." When he saids this he uses his logos, he is trying to prove his point by "real research". But he really uses it as pathos because most women now days don't want to be reffered to as "non-powerful". By saying this the reader wants to read more ot see if he is any more of a jackass than what he has already made himself out to be. He does make it work becasue it is proving his point that people do speak differently. The author is persuasive on the way that people talk different in order to get elected or to prove a point to some one. In this article Baron's audience is most likely people who are following all aspects of the election and different sayings on each runner.This affects how people will listen to the next debate or speech because they will want ot see if they can hear the difference in that way each gender talks and how they are trying ot relate to their audience.The weaknesses of this article is that one doesn't really know what Baron is trying to argue. But once you read the whole article at least twice one will figure out that he is mainly just trying to say how everyone talks differently because of where they were raised, their gender, who they are talking to.Barons strengths is that fact that he does back up his ideas with past prove, like who has won president by the way they talk and the language they use. The atmosphere of the article its self is a little bit on the formal non-photo, casual-formal look. I personaly dont think that the way the site looks affects the piece because the way something looks shouldn't be what your thoughts on it are based off of. With their being no photos and effects doesn't really affect a persons logos, pathos and ethos. But one might say they do because one might feel well this is dull or oh this is nice and formal because of this.... I guess it depends on who is reading this article and how they feel about it.

The word my paper will be about is: silence.

si·lence  /ˈsaɪləns/ -  - noun, verb, -lenced, -lenc·ing, interjection –noun –verb (used with object) –interjection
 * 1. || absence of any sound or noise; stillness. ||
 * 2. || the state or fact of being silent; muteness. ||
 * 3. || absence or omission of mention, comment, or expressed concern: the conspicuous silence of our newspapers on local graft. ||
 * 4. || the state of being forgotten; oblivion: in the news again after years of silence. ||
 * 5. || concealment; secrecy. ||
 * 6. || to put or bring to silence; still. ||
 * 7. || to put (doubts, fears, etc.) to rest; quiet. ||
 * 8. || Military. to still (enemy guns), as by more effective fire. ||
 * 9. || be silent! //“Silence!” the teacher shouted.// ||

Jamie McArthur argument on Brute Brute- A person who acts in a way that one can claim is against morals. I found in the paper that both the patent and the doctor were both brutes. In the debate I had choose the doctor but after I got out of the debate I was back to where I was originally, thinking that they both were. I understand that the patent was drunk and it was his fault that he wasn’t holding still but the doctor knew what he was doing. So really who is it to claim that they both weren’t. The doctor is the brute. The class claimed that he didn’t know what he was doing but everyone thinks before they do something, even if it is just for a second. You know what is right and wrong. The doctor may have thought this was the best idea at the time and all but he still knew what he was doing and when he gave the grin to the patent and said "Now you hold the fuck still", that had right then and there made him a brute. He should have know how to keep calm. Do I think at times like these you have to take the wrong turn, yeah but you still need to learn what the other options are before you take the first one that pops into your mind. The Patent is also the brute. We don’t know if this was his first time drinking or not but chances are that it wasn’t so he should have known that when he drinks he becomes an ass. He should have done what the doctor said and he wouldn’t have been in the spot that he was in. According to the real definition of brute, he fits the animal role of brute. He wouldn’t stop doing what he was doing and he needs to understand that its his own fault that it happened to him. He shouldn’t have been fighting with the guy that was trying to save his life. So in the end I find that they both were brutes because they both did something that most think goes against all morals. So who really is a brute or not is really up to the reader. I think that they both are, but that’s just this reader.

How do you feel about your logos, pathos, and ethos in this piece? Jamie McArthur 1/4/08 When i had wrote my paper i had used illustration,narration and description and comparison. I choose these strategies because i felt that they were able to best help my side of the arugment. The only way i could tell what i wanted to say was with these because they helped to express what i wanted to express in my paper. They didn't really help me but at the same time they didn't make it difficult for me to write what i wanted to either.It was just that when i wrote my paper i knew that i had to include these in and it helped if anything for me to stay on topic. It did this because for once i knew what i wanted to write about, how i wanted to write and by having these already set in my mind knowing how i wanted to argue my side of the word was easy. I have never wrote a paper that fast and in the end, i was able to read and i understand what i wanted to say.My logos, pathos and ethos in this piece are different. I think i have very good pathos and ethos. I knew how i wanted them set up in this but my logos is very weak. i didn't use any stats or direct information i just used my own thoughts and that might in the end hurt my paper really badly.