Journal 5

For two days, a loud war of voice was fought over a sea of students from the tops of stones in front of the Penn States hub. Around this war, there was a huge crowd of people that grew and shrank through out the days. On one side there were the preachers who had come first to save the souls of those believed to be damned to burn forever, and on the opposite were those believed to be damned forever. It was a rally of preachers and counter-preachers.

Seeing a preacher around Penn States University campus isn’t very uncommon to students. Everyone here has either seen, heard, or possibly talked to at least one of them, and they probably have tons of hand outs in their trash to show it. However, when a group of lutheran preachers got together to preach to people walking in and out of the hub for two days, there was a revolt among Penn state students. Students such as freshman Jessica Martell who said “Those guys are f’in’ gay, if I could get enough people together I would counter-preach too" are fed up. It seems that there is no doubt with local students about whether counter-preaching is justified or not, but some students seem to think it should have been done with in some other way.

Student Kyle McBride, a freshman here at Penn State said “I’m for the fighting between the groups because they’re hilarious, I’m against the preachers because they’re too harsh, but I think its good that they’re trying to convert, I just don’t think it should be done like this”. However, the counter-preachers have their share of critics also. Another student at Penn State, Benjamin Capozzi, said “I don’t think anyones going to get anywhere fighting like that. I think they both have the right to say this but it would be much more effective if they went to different areas instead of battling it out like that”. According to friendlyatheist.com all of the counter-preaching was run by the local Atheist Agnostic Association (AAA); however rumor is that the AAA only started the counter and most of the protest came from other students. It seems that what I need to find out is where the commotion is coming from and how its affecting local students.

"#1 Party School" review

Ira Glass’s online broadcast, “#1 Party School”, does a very good job at showing the problem he was trying to. The problem is drinking as well as underage drinking. Some of the reasons Glass gives for a need of action seem like bad examples. Some of the problems defined in the broadcast are victimless, for the most part, and become really drawn out. Specifically, some of the problems that either aren’t problems that are that bad or are problems but are given way too much time for how small of a problem they pose are problems such as girls wanting to be slutty, people getting into frat parties with alcohol when the party with alcohol wasn’t supposed to be had in the first place, a “drunk button” that if existed some students would use it along with the reporter who states “I would have pressed the drunk button back when I was in college too” which just seems biased and vain in the way that the reporters opinion or history isn’t really important in a story, and if one were to listen to this part of the broadcast, her comment doesn’t fit in very well at all. However, there are a lot of real problems properly defined in this broadcast.

Some of the more important problems defined with the drinking problem that are mentioned on the broadcast are crime, underage drinking, death, and problems alcohol posses to the community. The problem that was done the best, with interviews, facts, and a show for an actual need for change was the problems the #1 party school had been, and probably still are, posing for nearby communities and families. This part of the broadcast made it very clear that partier’s were posing a threat for the locals, such as the pizza deliverer who had never had alcohol, the second reporter, or the person who had alarms set up in different parts of his yard who it seemed that he had to deal with a lot of partier’s mayhem, especially when he states “if you find a used tampon in your yard, get a stick, and go looking for the condom”. Overall, the producer of this broadcast wants the audience to reach the conclusion that being the #1 part school is a problem that needs action.

Although some of the arguments in the broadcast are weak, and there wasn’t enough time spent on the topics that were most important, this broadcast wasn’t bad. Personally, I believe that at least half of it was irrelevant or uninteresting, but the other half makes up for it. Also, some of the reporters in the broadcast sound just plain angry when they talk about some of the issues which tends to lose the audience. The broadcast could have easily cut at least five minutes off the broadcast if the reporters realized that their opinion didn’t matter for the broadcast. It’s an investigation not a debate. Conclusively, I felt this broadcast was really well made and interesting for about forty out of the sixty-eight minutes, but I felt it lacked a point to the other twenty-eight minutes.

The

End

"Shitty First Drafts" reflection

It’s a bit ironic that I’m basically writing a review about an essay that’s about a writer and how she wrote reviews for other people, but that’s not the point. This sentence is the first thing that came to my mind when I sat down to write this paper, and if I had just planned this paper to be my final draft I would not have typed it. I think this is the point that Lamott is trying to make. If I were to just write this whole paper out as a final draft then I wouldn’t be in the creative mindset I can have when I know what I am writing is not going to matter greatly. Because its much easier to do something when you go in thinking it won’t matter than when you go in thinking it’s definitely going to matter, at least I’d say it is, and I think Lamott would agree.

Lamott writes about how the average person may believe that writers just sit down and spew magical energy into words as they hastily type up a paper because thats, in a sense, what they were “born to do”. Lamott is quick to point out that this “fantasy of the uninitiated” is not a reality and that a person that has written a best selling novel is likely to have some difficulties when writing it. Sure, a writer may spew out magical words of wisdom and beauty at the very instant they start typing, but they’re also very likely to spew out some, well, shit (I apologize for how disgusting that sounds). Take this as an example, a builder can take wood, stone, nails, cement, etc. and quickly throw them together and he could build an amazing building with no schematics, but, at least I’d like to think, this is much less likely than if he/she were to sit down and make a few “rough draft” schematics beforehand.

I can’t say whether Lamott would consider the product or the process more important for an essay, just because I would never want someone to try to describe what I was thinking to other people (especially if they misunderstood me), but from what she says I’d have to say that they are both as important as each other. The process of writing a rough draft is more of an emotional inner-importance and the product of the rough draft is more of a progressive importance. If I were to focus on the process and just write things down for however long I wanted and then say “I’m done” I’d feel great from letting out all my thoughts and feelings, but what I had written may be lacking in transitions, introduction, and the conclusion may come to an abrupt end. However, if I were to focus too much on the product of my paper I might make good transitions and have a proper introduction and conclusion, but my paper may lack the beauty and emotion that comes from the process of writing a rough draft. A balance of process and product is needed in a good paper so, unless one is a magical writer who only spews magical energy from his/her fingertips, it is required for one to go through the process of the “shitty rough draft” and then to perfect the product of the paper in the second or third draft.

"Shirt-Worthy" review

In “Shirt-Worthy”, by David Giffels, Giffels describes how he earned a Ramones shirt. Giffels starts off saying that to respectfully get a Ramones shirt when he was a kid you had to go to a specifically good, chaotic concert and buy one there, but in todays time kids just go get one at a place like Hot Topic. Giffels earns his Ramones shirt when he buys his ten year old son a Ramones shirt for his birthday and his son ends up ripping it on a fence making it unwearable by the son. Giffels replaces his kids shirt with a new Ramones shirt and keeps the old one seeing this as a respectable way to get a Ramones shirt.

I felt that the essay was made for an audience of, not full blown punks, but more like a semi-punk or a “retired” punk. I say this because Giffels doesn’t go in depth in any real punk ideology except for wearing out of shirts, especially in his analogy concerning god and his illusion to the cookout where his son ripped the shirt because ideologies concerning gods and traits of conformity (cookout) weren’t very popular in older punk music. Although, as a punk or at the least a punk fan, I can relate to the importance of a worn out shirt to any real punk (I still wear shirts that have half foot long holes ripped in them from fist fights I was in over half a decade ago). Overall, Giffels story remained mostly relevant and was really easy to find something to connect to.

To me, the meaning of the story seemed clear that a ripped shirt symbolizing parenthood brings just as much honor as a shirt that was ripped in some crazy punk concert and that its not necessarily the wearing out of the shirt thats important but rather the memory and meaning that comes with it. I would have to say that his best rhetoric tools were his analogies, illusions, and his use of mild humor. The use of all of these makes an audience member feel somewhat connected to Giffels almost as if he is a well known acquaintance. When writing me memoir, I will try to include analogies, humor, and illusions as well as Giffels did. Conclusively, I enjoyed Giffels story about how he earned his Ramones shirt and his use of proper rhetoric in his paper, and the only thing I would have changed would have made it more geared towards more legitimate punks, but this is a personal preference and not necessarily one that made his essay any less enjoyable.