Hypothesis

The inquiry question that I began my research project was how the government and military are recruiting children to the war in Iraq. I also wanted to know why they are recruiting children. For the most part my inquiries have stayed the same, however, I now phrase my questions differently in order to not be bias towards the subject, as well as allow myself to look at my topic from perspectives other than my own. I want to know how exactly the government and military are recruiting minors to the war in Iraq. Specifically, I want to know what methods they use to target them, and how exactly these methods are persuasive, or not persuasive. How exactly is the government and military campaigning to convince American minors to enlist themselves into the war. I also again, want to know why they are recruiting minors instead of Americans who are of age. To get deeper into this part, I want to know what types of minors they are targeting exactly and why? Is there a specific gender, race, or education, of these minors? And if so, why? For the most part my inquiry questions have not changed, but I have gotten more specific and put more focus on certain things (the inquiries I have now). I narrowed down what I wanted to discover because upon researching my topic I realized what I really wanted to see, and write my paper on. I found what I thought was most important and most interesting about the general topic of recruitment of American minors; the campaign that targets them and how it does so, and focused on that. What I know now about my topic that I did not know before are the many ways that minors are being targeted and persuaded. I have researched and seen that the army has not only exploited themselves through magazine ads and commercials, but have made their way into children’s heads through video games and other forms of entertainment that can persuade them without them even realizing it. This knowledge has shaped my understanding of my topic of inquiry because I now know how serious the situation has become, and how children are being targeted even in the comfort of their own homes. Its out there everywhere, and I have been able to discover how widespread the army campaign has become through my research. The research that has provided me with this new knowledge are many articles on how minors are being targeted by the military and government. I have also read the the ads, watched the commercials, and played the games, to see for myself how the army is able to corrupt young minds. Also, through my survey I am able to see how other Americans feel, both my age and older, on the topic, and if they think the methods of persuasion are effective or not. What I want to know more about regarding my topic, are what specific types of minors are being targeted with the military campaign to increase their recruitment numbers. I want to know if there is a specific type of minor they are looking for to enlist or if there is a specific type of minor they are campaigning to. If there is I want to know why exactly, and if it is successful, and why it is successful. This information I want to find out is important because it will make me see why the government and military is campaigning the way they are. I will know exactly who they are targeting with their methods of campaigning and be able to rhetorically analyze their persuasion in a new light, knowing that they are trying to persuade a specific type of minor in America. It will also help me to see why or why not their campaigning is successful, due to whether it actually attracts these types of people or not. A lot of research has provided me with this new knowledge, but I have yet to research more and dig much deeper. I can see from some articles I have found that when a recruitment officer visits school to talk about the military and do his best to persuade the students to enlist as soon as they are able, these are low budget schools. Why are they low budget schools? Because the children that attend them are more likely to not be able to amount to anything unless they join the military and become “army strong.” Through my research it seems to me that they are targeting less fortunate children who might actually need the army in order to get farther in life if they so desire. To dig much deeper into this part of my topic I am going to look at many more articles in order to get more specific. I will consult credible scholarly sources such as Newsday, the New York Times, etc. I want to get the facts straight to see where this army campaigning is hitting the hardest and then I will be able to formulate my own analysis and opinion as to why. The specific gaps I am noticing in my research that could potentially create an original idea are if these methods are really working or not. I am going to use my survey to elaborate on this idea, and see how the American public views the subject. I am also going to look to see if the army’s numbers have increased since the new campaign started to get facts on the subject as well. There are some sources that claim that the army’s numbers were never down at all, which completely disconnects with many of my primary research subjects as well as many of my secondary research subjects. I would like to get down to the reasoning of this and see what other information I can find. I wonder if I will actually be able to prove one side true or not. Or does this even really matter? Whether the army’s numbers are up or down, or even remaining the same, minors are still being targeted through many different ways. It is said that the falling numbers have to do with it, but if the numbers are not falling then that definitely contradicts all of that. The idea that children are being targeted because they are an easier mind to warp is what is brewing in my head. If I had to make an argument about my topic of inquiry today, it would be that the minors of our country are being target by the government and military to enlist into the army because they are much easier to persuade, and persuading them is what is going to increase the military’s numbers of enlistment, and provide more soldiers to fight this continuous war with Iraq. My justifications for this working hypothesis are the many ways these minors are being targeted. These methods of persuasion are meant to be convincing and make minors want to enlist as soon as they can. This can be seen by not only analyzing the ads that are out there, but by discovering the more subtle ways they are out there such as videogames, that are supposed to just be “fun.” 

Annotated Bibliography continued…

Drawing on Hill, i think these images will psychologically affect the viewers because due to the fact that they are images they will immediately trigger more emotion, and in their case a greater want to actually join the army, which is the goal. Instead of creating an image of what the army would be like in their heads, it is put right in front of the viewer with bold words questioning their strength and ability to almost instigate them into enlisting. Since our minds want to be shown the easier way to make a decision, the pictures that are thrown in front of viewers expressing how positive the army is, is exactly what makes a viewers decision easier when deciding whether to join or not.

Annotated Bibliography

 

Magazine Ad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Army Strong. 28 Jun. 2007. 21 Jul. 2008.            <http://www.usarec.army.mil/2ndbde/3ebn/Army%20Strong%20Definition.html>

 

The argument of this source is that the army can give you a certain type of strength that nothing else can, and that this strength is the toughest of strengths. By asking the question are you army strong? They are challenging you. They are asking the viewer if they can do what the army can do, and if they are tough enough. This is targeted towards the American public but more so young adults and minors. The goal of this ad is to question the young Americans of our nation to make them want to recruit themselves in the army to be the best they can be. It is bias because it only expresses the strength the army can give you, which is a positive thing. It doesn’t display all the negatives of the army because they want to gain young recruits from this ad. They don’t want to drive them away, they only want to draw them in. The main phrase of the army recruitment campaign is “There’s strong and then there’s army strong.” This can make young minds feel that they can never gain strength to their full ability unless they join the army. This is all relevant to my research paper because it is an example of how the government and army are trying to recruit young minds of America. This ad is a method of persuasion and targeting minors to want this specific strength that only the army can give to them. I will use it to address how, specifically, children are being targeted.

 

Army Strong Commercial

Army Strong. Youtube. 2008. 25 Jul. 2008.            <http://youtube.com/watch?v=YSbCnWe6e1o>

 

The argument of this source is that in order to be as strong as you can be; the best you can be, you must join the army. This commercial is meant to prove to the American people the great feats and accomplishments of the army and make them want to take part in it all for themselves. The audience for this commercial is the American public. However, I feel that it is more geared to the less fortunate American people, people who need the army in order to someone, individuals who are looking to have the great strength the army says to supply, and those who will quickly believe that the army can better them. The government sponsors this commercial and it is their goal to get recruitments. That is why this commercial only displays the positive parts of the army, and the good it will do for those who join. This video is relevant to my research project because it is a persuasive way to get minors to want to be a part of the army. This is because this commercial can easily target the young minds of our country to believe that they want this great strength that nothing else but the army can give them. I will use it to show how the army and government are trying to convince young mind of America that joining the army is a good thing.

 

 

 

Blog Assignment #6: Primary and Secondary Source

Primary Source:

America’s Army. 2008. U.S. Army. 22 Jul. 2008.

            < http://www.americasarmy.com/>

 

The America’s Army game was originally created by the MOVES Institute at the Naval Postgraduate School. It is now financed by the government and distributed across America for free.  The U.S. government has political values of militarism and supporting the war effort, which are both displayed in the game. It is distributed to help with U.S. Army recruitment. This is proven not only by the graphics and scenes of the games, but by the virtual army experience it provides its players with. In allowing players to experience soldiering in the most realistic way possible they are attempting to reel in minors for recruitment. The intended audience is minors and young adults. The hopes of this game is to produce positive feelings towards the army from players thinking the army experience is “cool,” and wanting to take part in it for real. It is a game of persuasion to make young individuals want to be just like the soldier they are controlling in the game. This game was produced during a time of war with Iraq, when recruitment numbers are supposedly low, and the U.S. military is desperate for Americans to enlist. Due to this they are turning to American minors using video games to reel them in. The message of this video game is a complete suggestion for the players to take part in the action on their screen in real life. The purpose is to get young recruiters to join the army when they are eligible and those who are eligible to want to enlist as soon as they can.

“Launched in July 2002 the America’s Army game, which is rated “T” for Teen by the ESRB, has become one of the most popular computer games in the world.”

I think this is a negative thing because for the young Americans in our nation to become engaged in such violence can be bad for our country’s future and possible for their own lives if they are persuaded enough to actually join the army. It is true that this game is popular because minors and young adults love to participate and see action like that. Our nations popular culture thrives on it. The fact that this game is so exploited and out all over America supports my idea that the military and government are targeting minors for recruitment. It is blatant that it is desired by the makers and distributers of this game, to think the army is great and want to have a part in it’s action. I do not view this as positive I view it as destructive.

“So, when the Army began making the America’s Army game to provide civilians with insights on Soldiering from the barracks to the battlefields, it sent its talented development team to experience Army training just as a new recruit would.”

I think this is definitely a great idea into putting the idea that they want to be a recruit themselves into children’s heads and I highly disagree with it. From virtually training as an army recruit and having fun doing so, a child could easily think it to be the same in real life and want to enlist in the army once they are able. This does not sit well with me. A video game is much different from real life but the creators and distributors want the young players to think it’s the same, and that if they like playing the game they will like being in the real military. This again supports my idea that the military and government are targeting young children to enlist and fight in the war with Iraq. It is a method of persuasion and serious method of deceit.

“Through its emphasis on team play, the game demonstrates these values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage and makes them integral to success in America’s Army.”

The description of the game as well what the game displays itself gives children a positive outlook on the military, the war, and most importantly, joining the military. The values emphasized are values that many of the young players want to have for themselves and will mistakenly feel that they have to be like their character in the game in real life to have them. It is deceitful to make these children believe that to have these values and be successful in the game they will be just as successful in the military, but that is the goal of the creators and distributors. They want the children to think that they will be able to integrate into the army perfectly.

-This source also promotes the go army website which I might use in my paper as well.

 

Secondary Source:

 “Army Recruits Video Gamers.” CBS Evening News. 30 Mar. 2004. 20 Jul. 2008.

            < http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/30/eveningnews/main609489.shtml>

 

This news was reported by CBS. CBS is a broadcast network and one of the largest radio and television networks in the United States. They are always one of the first to exploit what is going on the world currently. They cover numerous events and issues, so of course the war with Iraq has been a main topic for some time. Their intended audience is the American people. It is their goal to keep the nations citizens updated and aware of what is going on in their country and all around them. From this article their specific intended audience are those who disprove child recruitment. It is to make them aware of the military’s attempts to persuade our nations children into enlisting. A report like this might also anger enough people to act out and put a stop to what is going on around them and make a change. The larger context in which this news report is coming from is the war with Iraq. This is what is causing our own children to be persuaded and targeted for recruitment. The main message is that our nation’s children are in danger and are being targeted by the military in ways that affect everyone. The purpose of this news report is to send out a warning and open the public’s eyes to what is really happening.

“It’s a video game created by the U.S. Army to win over the hearts and minds of American teenagers.”

This idea is completely true, and I find it to be really sad. Our own army has infiltrated what is today’s entertainment for kids in order to recruit minors and increase their falling enlistee numbers. The game was designed to reflect a positive image on war and enlisting in the army through what the army claims to be realistic portrayals of the army experience. This supports my idea that the U.S. Army is making its way into the minds of minors in order to persuade them into recruitment. It was created for this reason and I find it to be disgusting.

“’We look at all the things that the Army is doing that is under the control of the Army that captures people’s attention and the game is number one,’ says the game’s creator Col. Casey Wardynksi.”

The Army is now using video games to force positive outlooks on the military into young Americans’ minds. This is immoral and unjust. It is an idea that will work, and most likely convince enough minors to want to make the game real and join the army once they are able to. However, this disturbs me and I completely disprove of it. The game is a hit, as the military and government knew it would be. Children love action like this and love to take part in it from their living room. Once the game is over, and they want more, they will be left to take the next step and enlist, thinking it will be just like the game. If the game is fun, why wouldn’t the real army be? This is another quote that supports my idea that the Army is using many methods of persuasion to gather up recruits for the war. Video games is a clever way to get themselves into the minds of minors and teens and warp their judgement. 

Survey Questionnaire

I am going to give surveyors different type of methods the military uses to recruit minors (video games, visits to schools, commercials, magazine ads, etc.)…

 

1. Which method do you think is the most effective and why?
2. On a scale from 1-10 how persuasive is each method?
3. Do you find this method really persuasive? If so, what makes it so persuasive?
4. Do you think a specific race, gender, or class is being targeted? If so who?
5. If you think specific minors are being targeted, why do you thing these types of children are?
6. What is your opinion on child recruitment?
7. Do you feel the children of our country need to be protected from child recruitment? If so, who do u think should be protecting them?
8. Does child recruitment effect you in any way? If not, do you still care?
9. Do you support our military’s recruitment practices overall?

Primary Research…

What do I want to discover?

My first priority is that I want to discover different types of persuasion the military uses to recruit minors. I want to know which minors and parents of minors view to be the most effective and why. I also want to view the military’s different methods of recruitment to discover how exactly they are trying to persuade minors and why it can be effective. I want to know who is responsible for protecting the American youth, and what people think should be done. Also, why exactly is it minors being specifically targeted? I want to discover how the American public views the military’s practices of recruitment. I want to know who it effects and why. I also want to know if the people who it is not effecting care. How do these people view our military’s practices as a reflection of the war with Iraq? In discovering the answers to these questions I will not only find out how people view the current ways of recruitment by our own army but how these individuals look at the war as a whole.

How do I plan on discovering it?

Through surveys I plan on discovering which methods of military recruitment both parents and children find to be most effective and why. I plan on discovering the answers to my inquiries through interviews with minors and people my age. I also want to interview adults as well to get their opinion on children being recruited because what if it were their child? I think with a few interviews on top of my survey I can get more personal with the answers to my questions. Most importantly, I want to uses analysis. I want to analyze different types of persuasion the army uses to recruit minors. Through this I want to discover what methods of persuasions they use, why, and how they work.

Who am I going to talk to/observe/survey?

I am going to survey and talk to individuals my age (19) who are eligible to actually enlist in the military, minors, and parents of minors. I want to get their opinions on the matter of recruitment of minors and see how they feel and are effected by it. I plan on observing the military recruitment campaign and their methods of recruiting.

How am I going to be able to gain access to these groups or individuals?

I will interview people in and around my hometown. I also want to research and view blogs on the internet that display individuals opinions on the matter to see how others no so close to where I live and a part of different classes feel.

What are my biases about this topic?

My biases about this topic are that I am not personally effected by it, and neither is anyone I love, know, or are around me. Due to this I do not know how the effects of my subject really feel, which is why I think it is very important to get peoples opinions of different classes, races, etc.; people who actually are effected. I also view child recruitment very negatively and believe a stop should be put to it immediately.

How can I make sure my biases are not reflected in my research methods?

I can ask general questions that are not bias. I need to take into consideration both people who view my topic negatively and positively, and use both in my research and as my sources. I need to make sure the questions I ask people are not persuasive in any way or reflect the way I feel. Also, when examining military recruitment practices and methods I need to read and watch with an open mind.

What do I expect to discover?

I expect to discover how the military tries to persuade and lure minors into enlisting and why it works. I also expect to discover how people feel about these methods, and if it makes them nervous. I also expect to discover why certain types of minors are targeted over others and who is really being effected and why. Along with all of this I will get American individuals’ opinions on child recruitment.

Blog Assignment #5: Research Proposal

The specific topic I intend to research is recruitment for the Iraq war. To get even narrower than that, I am going to specifically focus on the recruitment of minors in our country to join the war when they are of age. This is a serious problem that began with the military’s rapid falling numbers of enlistees in September of 2005. So, the limited time period for this topic will be from then to the present day. Geographically this obviously only takes place in the United States because it is American children being persuaded to join the American army. However, I am aware that certain areas are targeted much more heavily than others due to race, gender, and most importantly, class, and I will need to be looking into that. It is important to recognize what types of children are targeted more than others and why. By seeing this the topic will be limited itself. The historical and critical context of this topic is the war in Iraq, and very specifically the army failing to meet their recruitment numbers for the first time in over a decade. Another major part of the overall context is the extreme controversies that are debated and caused by this war throughout our nation. One major example of which specifically, is my topic, recruitment of minors. Through research I want to look at how they are targeted, who targets them, and what methods of campaigning are used to reel them in. I want to look into the type of advertising that is being used and directed towards these children and if it is false or not. I also want to look at importantly, what people are doing to prevent and stop this act of greed by the army, and how they are going to do so. These questions don’t investigate whether I agree or disagree with my topic, the delve into it to see the controversies about in depth and exploit them. These questions have rhetorical substance and the answers to them will persuade my reader to understand my rhetorical purpose.

My topic is valid because it fits perfectly into our them of war. The war in Iraq is a tragic ongoing war, and we have learned in depth details of this through our Unit 1 assignments. I was very disturbed by the emotional appeals I got from my visual artifact in my Unit 1 essay, as well as by the information I found and used in order to support my purpose. These facts, opinions, and overall information wanted me to dig deeper and get to the roots of the disturbing problem of the recruitment of minors in our country to sign up for such a dangerous future. It is one of the numerous controversies brought about throughout our country from the war with Iraq, but it is one that personally disturbed me. I want to know how bad it is, and if it is going to be a problem that continues if the war does. I want to see if this controversy is one that proves the war must end immediately or if is one of many that is blown out of proportion. So, I intend to research this topic and these questions because it is something I am not only particularly interested in but have developed and emotional feel for. I think tampering with the minds of not only the children of our country but the future of our country is a dangerous and immoral thing. Why is our government allowing such a thing? Don’t they think they are also taking the easy way out by targeting a specific group of people? I am concerned for the children of our country if they are being recruited to the army which leads to my concern for the future of our country because we the children are the future.

I intend to research this topic and those questions starting with the research I have already done. I will go back to my sources from my first essay and read them over again to see what else I can find and if they can take me to other sources that will be of help. I want statistics and facts as well as the many opinions that are out there to add to my research and paper. I will take both fact and opinion into consideration and incorporate them both into my paper because they matter equally. Facts are facts, but the opinions are what are creating the controversies and upheavals throughout our nations. The opinions are going to change what is going on in our country for better or for worse. I want to get all different perspectives on this topic and then delve into why these people are saying what they are saying and upon further research see if it is all justified or not. What do the children or better yet the parents of the children who are being recruited feel? What do the children and parents of the children who are not being targeted feel? This matters.

My topic matters not only to me but to everyone living in the United States. If our children are being recruited to the army as such a young age it is imperative that this is recognized by everyone, and we work together for a change. I think one important part of my research, however, is that although this topic should be recognized by everyone, who does is matter to more within the United States? Who does it matter to the most? I will discover this answer throughout my research as well as why. But overall as a country this issue needs to be looked at and addressed and with that, to me, our nation can see the bigger picture and problem. Importantly, also, I think children would be interested in my work. They are the ones this is happening to, or people just like them. Not only is it important that they are in the know but that they see what is happening to their peers and their similar types. Our nation is at stake here and it is imperative that we recognize a huge controversy and problem, such as my topic, that is being caused do to the context in which is it in; the continuing war with Iraq. 

Blog Assignment #4: War Porn

The rhetorical purpose of this essay was understood through claims that allowed for the generating of original ideas. The original ideas Laurie is trying to get across to the readers are that the United States and the culture it consists of might not be as “civilized” as it claims to be. She is also trying to generate the ideas that there is a blatant increase in the popularity for “war porn,” which makes it obvious to not only outsiders but the people in our country themselves that we are not as humanitarianly as we claim to be. Through these general ideas, she narrowed her thoughts down and researched deeper to make the original claim that war porn encourages democratic participation and is the “ultimate perversion of the abjection of war and power.“ She came to realize this original idea but analyzing this so called “war porn,” and in its depths finding the underlying meanings behind such cruel displays.  It was instigated by Bresheeth’s question, “What has happened,” and “is a muted embarrassment…Such deeds, regrettable as they might be, are necessary, the Western public seems to be saying – but why photograph them?” and grounded in negation of postmodern explanations and interpretations of the hidden meanings and causes of war porn offered by Jean Baudrillard and Susan Sontag. Stemmed from these sources, Laurie’s further research and inquiries led her to see differently than others, which is what led to her original idea. She looks past the evidence provided as she fails to believe that war porn is only a mere reflection of a shameless military culture that has lost their moral compass for the reasons that are given to the public. She does not agree with the dismissal of war porn resulting as it being looked at in that way, which is what led her to move away from her sources and generate her own thoughts. Through the research Laurie supplies on war porn conducted by other scholars she inserts her own ideas into the conversation to fill the gap she noticed. These scholars claim that war porn is developed and displayed due to the “shamelessness” cruelty of our military culture, but fail to recognize and explain where this shamelessness is stemmed from. That’s where she puts her two cents in and justifies the scholars’ claims for them. Within the conversation in her essay, she takes their theories and statements to the next level to satisfy her own, and prove herself correct. In her essay she also uses her research differently to accomplish her rhetorical purpose. Her synthesis incorporates many elements that justify and clarify the purpose of her writing. She uses examples, which are the war porn photos, as evidence, to put the picture of what she is explaining to the reader in front of them, allowing them to view the horrors for themselves while reading her words. This ads to the ethos of the paper and creates emotion leading them to eventually see her purpose exactly how she is trying to get it across. Laurie uses Bresheeth’s question as a catalyst to stir up her own original ideas. She states his question, but then responds to it, as well as explains how his questions need to be more in depth and look at more subjects, which leads her to. She uses research of by Jean Baudrillard and Susan Sontag to elaborate on and justify her postmodern explanations and interpretations of the hidden meanings and causes of war porn. She uses their research to compare and contrast with in order to use it as a catalyst to further what they are saying into her own ideas, and how she doesn’t exactly agree. She compares their research to her ideas by contrasting them in proving her disagreement with the dismissals of war porn. It is completely blatant that she is doing this when she states,  “Baudrillard and Sontag would pinpoint war porn here as an end product of a complex association of prior events.  I want to pinpoint war porn here, as an origin of social activity that has the power in Latour’s terms to make other actors do something that modifies a state of affairs and makes a difference.” She also contrasts Kevin Michael DeLuca and Jennifer Peeples’ research to Andy Grundberg’s to show different analysis’ of the subject, but then agrees with DeLuca and Peeple’s to justify her purpose. Laurie’s organization of all of her information makes her rhetorical purpose clear to the reader and immensely effective. By starting out with background information then moving on to explain disturbing images, to explaining how they are warn porn, to describing what war porn is as she goes through what it consists of and why other scholars think it is out there, before explaining her opinions and original ideas on the matter, she maintains and organized and understandable essay. This contributes to her rhetorical purpose because a major key to the rhetoric of her paper because in order to understand her purpose the reader must be walked through all the elements of it in a clear and orderly fashion until they can then see her point and stand by it. The images Laurie uses in the essay function mainly to appeal to the pathos of the reader. It creates emotion by not only disturbing the reader with the horrific sites they depict but by proving her statements and claims completely true. This saddens and angers the reader as they realize the harsh realities and cruelties of our own military. The image create a deeper emotion among the readers because as they read the text they have the ugly evidence right in front of their faces as sheer proof. When talking about Bresheeth’s question and getting her own inquiries out of it in order to dig deeper in discovering her own original purpose she makes logical appeals. She is asking the reader questions regarding morals and our morals within our culture as a country. With this she is appealing to the audience’s rationality, and how they actually feel towards the morbid subject, suggesting that they should not be supporting it. Her questions make the audience think about the cruelties of our own army during this war with Iraq, as she wants them to realize how horrible they are and that they need to end immediately. Laurie makes ethical appeals by explaining what Bruno Latour says are immediators, and what they have to do with war porn. She agrees with his statements and theories and uses his to back up and support her own. Reciting information and facts from a scholar and siding with it giver her as the author credibility, thus making her purpose more understandable and agreeable to the audience.

 

Blog Assignment #2 : Kantz and Said

I found Kantz’s article to be very helpful as to what we are supposed to be doing and how we are supposed to be writing for our Unit 2 assignments. Her article explained that a strong reader and writer needs to have certain abilities and knowledge. These consist of not taking the easy way out and be prepared to research and dig deeper than the facts that are in front of them. The reader/writer also must be aware of all the possibilities and have confidence in her writing skills. Kantz wants the reader/writer to create an ethos for themselves where they are in the right state of mind and able to confidently look and read things at every angle. In order to create a strong sustained research argument in Kantz’s opinion, they need to invent an original problem and purpose for their papers and create an original structure for her argument. They must read and process the texts they are using because it affects processing and monitoring of comprehension. The purpose of reading affects judgments about what is important and what is unimportant in a narrative text. Furthering reading and research tells us that attitude toward the author and context of a text affect comprehension. The reader/writer must recognize the rhetorical situations the texts or images were produced in, and select and evaluate material as well as use it as proof in an original argument. The reader/writer must structure her paper around an original argument and purpose. The events of the text or representation of an image must be rephrased emphasizing what they perceive and inserting comments to explain why. A convenient tool for doing so, given by Kantz, is the Kinneavy’s triangular diagram. This allows the reader/writer to set goals in three different parts of the communicative situation, which are the encoder, the decoder, and the reality. This allows the reader/writers to apply thinking in a conscious and deliberate way to academic tasks. Sources can be worked with on the page into an essay by looking to see if the factual differences suggest anything, they must talk about the source or talk about the material. From this you create and angle or a problem and can distinguish between opinions and facts, which is very important to a paper. According to Kantz rhetoric and rhetorical analysis come into play in reading and writing because when this is looked at a paper is more than repeating source material. These two elements must be analyzed while reading the source and than written about in the paper in order to set a specific rhetorical problem for the paper to say something original. The sources must examined rhetorically while recognizing the discrepant facts, conflicts, or anything else interesting. Edward Said is a role model for the kind of reader, writer, and thinker Kantz advocated because he has an open and confident mind. He does not just look at things for what they are and what everyone says they are. He digs deeper into his research and what is really there to see that there is much more than to what is right in front of us.

To mimic Said’s ethos and and meet Kantz’s standards, in my own sustained research essay I will read source texts as arguments and think about the rhetorical situation in which they were written instead of reading them as sheer facts. I will apply material to a problem or use it to answer a question, rather than evaluate or simply repeat it. I will also do all this in a way where I will dig deeper and look at things with an open mind, rather than with the confined opinions and bias I am supposed to have. I will create this kind of ethos in my work by maintain an open mind and see things from more than the angle that is in front of me. I will analyze the information in more than the obvious way I am supposed to in order to see what else is there for me to know to allow me to right a proper rhetorical essay. For example instead of taking a fact and citing it in my paper and just agreeing or disagreeing with it, I will look into the situation the fact si being produced from and dig deeper to find out why it says what it is saying and if it is actually in fact correct. I want to look at how different sources agree and disagree in different ways in order to build my argument. Upon writing my unit 2 essay I will recognize that facts and opinions are both claims that should be treated the same and rhetorically problem solve. Writers for specific reasons write both facts and opinions to particular readers, and it is very important to know this while gathering information. In recognizing this and reading sources rhetorically I will be able to create my persuasive analysis. I also will recognize the “gaps” in the sources I am analyzing. It is highly imperative to recognize why certain information or opinions are left out of a text. When finding one I will ask myself why such information was left out and why the writer of the source is thinking the way he is. I can see it being an obstacle, reading and writing my analysis with such an open mind. It is often hard to look at the truth from different angles. However, I want to be able to overcome this challenge and make my writing as good as it can be. 

Blog Assignment #1

Arun, Steve. “US Army Recruitment Slumps.” Online weblog. 30 Sept. 2005. Dvorak
Uncensored. 4 Jul. 2008. <http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2938>

I think this source would be very useful in my Unit 2 sustained research argument. This blog was produced for the rhetorical situation of our American children being persuaded into the army due to army recruitment slumps, and the overall war with Iraq in general. Quotes are present to make up the genre of the blog that describe how the expectations of enlistee numbers of the US army fell short, why Americans are hesitant to join, and how it is just going to get worse for them. Then there are people who responded to these quotes and voiced their opinion as feedback for the blog. I feel that this could contribute to my essay because not only does it give factual information about the falling enlistment rates of our army, but displays responses of our own American people and how they think these falling numbers are well deserved. This displays not only our own people’s negative feelings towards the war itself but their sheer disgust towards our Army and the decisions our government has and continues to make. I would like to make this blatant in my essay and explain how the people of America feel this way. The blog, through the facts of the Army’s declining enlistment rates, also explains the army’s motivations to campaign towards a new audience and recruit else where; appealing to the minds of our American children.