Writing has always been a touchy topic for me. Sometimes I feel that writing is the most enjoyable part of my academic life, and that--if given the opportunities--could turn into a potential career choice. Other times, however, I remember why in my previous years I have despised writing. Forms of busy work and--in general--disinteresting topics (at least to me) can strongly turn me away. However, no matter the topic or subject, I know that I have to try my best because I know that writing is important, and I know that my writing will make my legacy for me.
I am not going to further explain my opinions on my enjoyment of writing, however, but rather my opinions on the quality of my own writing. Looking back at the last few years of my life where I have started to write seriously and with more importance, I must reflect on my strengths as a writer, but also the challenges that I have faced and will continue to face as my academic writing career continues if I cannot improve my weakest skills. In general, I have always had a problem with unity. In fact, you can scroll down right now and read some of my older blogs and clearly see where I often stray from my topic. Acknowledging this, I always try to focus on every sentence and think of the next sentence strictly in regard to the overall goal of my piece: to answer my "prompt". Accompanied by various, smaller writing mistakes--like common punctuation or even spelling errors--I feel that this is the biggest challenge that I face as a writer. However, on a better note, I would humbly say that no matter what I'm writing or how well-developed it is, I can always find the right word choice. Often aided with a thesaurus, I can not only find quintessential words to use but more importantly, I find the words that fit my rhetorical situation almost perfectly most times. Although this is not is arguably not as important as unity in writing, I have at least this to feel confident about and drive me forward mentally as I continue to write seriously in the coming academic years.
Monday, April 30, 2018
Hits and Misses
Over the course of this past school year, we have had multiple opportunities to express ourselves through words. As I write this now, I am making an example of how writing has allowed us to share with our peers and teachers what we know, think, and are interested in. As the school year comes to a close, I look back on what we have done this year and reflect on my experiences in various writing activities. I wrote some of my greatest pieces so far this year, but also I fell out of favor with some.
Our introduction to this year was met with a fun, creative assignment: a zine. Never having done a zine before, I allotted some time to it on the weekend and worked no make a great first impression. Although it was most definitely not one of my best pieces of literature, I can say that I enjoyed the assignment more than a lot to come. Next, we made our blogs, which--almost 9 months later--I am still updating and writing on. Some of these blog posts I sincerely had a great experience writing, while others felt more like busy work rather than a platform to truly express ourselves. However, I can say that overall these blogs were not something that I can easily say poorly reflected my writing competency. The significant points in the year, however, were marked by our major papers. However, I will only mention one: my research paper. Although I felt my others were still decent, I feel that my research paper stands out as my most well-developed, written, and--coincidentally--longest piece of writing this year. As I spent multiple weeks in the process, it becomes clear why it is so, but never did I think in the beginning that it would become the epitome of my freshman year English experience. Through the various writing assignments and opportunities that we were given this year, I can say that while I had still "missed" some, I "hit" the ones that counted, and I won't forget them for a while.
Our introduction to this year was met with a fun, creative assignment: a zine. Never having done a zine before, I allotted some time to it on the weekend and worked no make a great first impression. Although it was most definitely not one of my best pieces of literature, I can say that I enjoyed the assignment more than a lot to come. Next, we made our blogs, which--almost 9 months later--I am still updating and writing on. Some of these blog posts I sincerely had a great experience writing, while others felt more like busy work rather than a platform to truly express ourselves. However, I can say that overall these blogs were not something that I can easily say poorly reflected my writing competency. The significant points in the year, however, were marked by our major papers. However, I will only mention one: my research paper. Although I felt my others were still decent, I feel that my research paper stands out as my most well-developed, written, and--coincidentally--longest piece of writing this year. As I spent multiple weeks in the process, it becomes clear why it is so, but never did I think in the beginning that it would become the epitome of my freshman year English experience. Through the various writing assignments and opportunities that we were given this year, I can say that while I had still "missed" some, I "hit" the ones that counted, and I won't forget them for a while.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Monday, April 16, 2018
PH Reading Response
Purple Hibiscus has taken turns to places which I could not have initially imagined. Beyond being a novel about maturity and the family construct, it strikes on darker, deeper topics in a chaotic world of corrupt politics and poverty. The setting has provided all the story has needed so far to create a frighteningly realistic take on modern life and the family system. The strain on Kambili and Jaja's lives as children, students, and--most importantly--people is clearly seen in this novel of revealed abuse, fear, and struggle.
I believe we have reached the climax of the plot, as the action has accumulated and built up to a momentous final straw for Kambili, Jaja, and Beatrice. As Kambili and Jaja return from their trip to Nsukka, they are changed forever. Jaja and Kambili's growing realization of the lack of happiness and freedom in their lives at home leads to their painful reality check brought by their father, a detrimental reminder of the prison from which they are trapped from within. So far, the plot movements and real-world issues that Purple Hibiscus has struck upon has no less than stunned and obstructed my view of the world and family constructs.
Friday, April 13, 2018
#483: Republican, Democrat, or Independent?
**Let me preface this by saying that this is not a political blog post. I am not going to argue for any specific stance as I did in my last post. This post, instead, will focus on my political identity and how political parties represent political beliefs. Enjoy.**
Two major political parties exist in America today: the Republican Party and Democratic Party. There also exists a small "Independent" Party, made up of a tiny minority of Americans today. The Republican Party is advertised as a party representing conservative views, while the Democratic Party advertises themselves as representing liberal views. However, what separates these parties from the Independent Party is that they neither of them are full, true embodiments of either political stance. Most conservatives identify as Republicans, and most liberals as Democrats, but the Independent Party represents their beliefs more fully than either of these parties. The Independent Party is an advertised "medium" to the political spectrum in America. So, Independent views are essentially a mix of conservative and liberal views with variation in each individual and political topic. As a conservative myself, I can say that I identify as a Republican, but I will explain why being a "Republican" or "Democrat" may not accurately express one's political beliefs fully.
The Republican Party in America currently holds the majority in every branch of the United States Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial). Although all of these politicians identify as "Republicans" their views are conservative for the most part, but it is not as simple and shallow as that. Being a "Republican" simply means being affiliated with a certain party in America; it does NOT describe one's political views necessarily. For example, our President identifies strongly as a Republican, holding many strong conservative and right-leaning views. However, he also has shown that his views can become questionable as being completely conservative or with the conservative majority. In fact, prior to his candidacy, he identified as an Independent, and some of his children continue to today. A more local example is the majority of Louisiana citizens' political identification. Although we are considered a "red" state, as we have mostly had Republican governors, congressmen, and mayors (up until recently), the majority of Louisiana citizens are actually registered Democrats. However, the generally accepted irony here is that many registered Democrats are actually voting Republican. The current major political parties in America today can be associated with certain political stances, but an individual's association with a political party is not the equivalent of an individual's political stance.
Two major political parties exist in America today: the Republican Party and Democratic Party. There also exists a small "Independent" Party, made up of a tiny minority of Americans today. The Republican Party is advertised as a party representing conservative views, while the Democratic Party advertises themselves as representing liberal views. However, what separates these parties from the Independent Party is that they neither of them are full, true embodiments of either political stance. Most conservatives identify as Republicans, and most liberals as Democrats, but the Independent Party represents their beliefs more fully than either of these parties. The Independent Party is an advertised "medium" to the political spectrum in America. So, Independent views are essentially a mix of conservative and liberal views with variation in each individual and political topic. As a conservative myself, I can say that I identify as a Republican, but I will explain why being a "Republican" or "Democrat" may not accurately express one's political beliefs fully.
The Republican Party in America currently holds the majority in every branch of the United States Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial). Although all of these politicians identify as "Republicans" their views are conservative for the most part, but it is not as simple and shallow as that. Being a "Republican" simply means being affiliated with a certain party in America; it does NOT describe one's political views necessarily. For example, our President identifies strongly as a Republican, holding many strong conservative and right-leaning views. However, he also has shown that his views can become questionable as being completely conservative or with the conservative majority. In fact, prior to his candidacy, he identified as an Independent, and some of his children continue to today. A more local example is the majority of Louisiana citizens' political identification. Although we are considered a "red" state, as we have mostly had Republican governors, congressmen, and mayors (up until recently), the majority of Louisiana citizens are actually registered Democrats. However, the generally accepted irony here is that many registered Democrats are actually voting Republican. The current major political parties in America today can be associated with certain political stances, but an individual's association with a political party is not the equivalent of an individual's political stance.
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Monday, April 9, 2018
Political Post: 2A and Firearm Control
The article I chose was from The Daily Wire, a more recent news source with accurate representation and uses credible sources from other bigger, as well as more local, sources. This article is about a specific case, but in the larger picture, argues strongly for the Second Amendment to the United States' Constitution.
This specific case mentioned in the article is a coverage of a suburb of Chicago, whose Village Board of Trustees recently passed a ban on "all assault weapons". If a citizen refuses to comply, they can be fined up to $1,000 a day. This ban also grants government officials the rights to confiscate and destroy the guns and magazines owned by (former) law-abiding citizens. This ban on "assault weapons" is actually a ban on all semi-automatic weapons with "assault-style features". The case for this is that it simply will only allow guns "designed for hunting" and other such activities, meaning that the overly-controversial Armalite Rifle 15 (AR-15) has been banned. However, none of the guns described in the ban are actually real assault weapons at all. They all have purposes in "hunting" and other recreational activities, while actual military-grade weapons ("assault weapons") are already banned or require extensive documents and licenses, including all fully-automatic and assault rifles and Personal Defense Weapons (PDWs). This new gun ban, if it is to be taken as what its creators say, is technically a violation of the Second Amendment, as the article by Amanda Prestigiacomo argues.
Around the nation, the stance against guns is becoming increasingly popular, especially in the wake of a recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida. However, there are many groups of people that believe their Second Amendment rights are threatened. In the case of a ban on all guns, yes, it would be. In the case of a ban on all "assault weapons", it depends on the interpretations of the lawmakers as to what an "assault weapon" is. If they are to use the technical and definitive definition of an assault weapon, then lawmakers are not legally admitted to further push gun control as far as it has already gone, according to the Constitution.
As far as gun control is concerned, it would not help further push the anti-criminal agenda on either side of the political spectrum. Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their community, or even the government (as the Consitution is concerned), is not completely a violation of our rights, but it does not benefit society in any way. Criminals are, by definition, not law-abiding, and so they have all sorts of means of acquiring firearms even if more control is passed. In fact, it will help grow a criminal market for illegal weapons, while law-abiding citizens are left without a way to defend themselves against criminals with firearms. Gun bans and gun control are foolish ways to create a sort of "perfect, violence-free society", a utopia imagined by naïve citizens. As we've seen in history, especially modern history, a perfect society does not exist, and self-defense is the best way to counter it. Prestigiacomo creates a vague outline of these points as she refers to the case of a sad suburb.
This specific case mentioned in the article is a coverage of a suburb of Chicago, whose Village Board of Trustees recently passed a ban on "all assault weapons". If a citizen refuses to comply, they can be fined up to $1,000 a day. This ban also grants government officials the rights to confiscate and destroy the guns and magazines owned by (former) law-abiding citizens. This ban on "assault weapons" is actually a ban on all semi-automatic weapons with "assault-style features". The case for this is that it simply will only allow guns "designed for hunting" and other such activities, meaning that the overly-controversial Armalite Rifle 15 (AR-15) has been banned. However, none of the guns described in the ban are actually real assault weapons at all. They all have purposes in "hunting" and other recreational activities, while actual military-grade weapons ("assault weapons") are already banned or require extensive documents and licenses, including all fully-automatic and assault rifles and Personal Defense Weapons (PDWs). This new gun ban, if it is to be taken as what its creators say, is technically a violation of the Second Amendment, as the article by Amanda Prestigiacomo argues.
Around the nation, the stance against guns is becoming increasingly popular, especially in the wake of a recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida. However, there are many groups of people that believe their Second Amendment rights are threatened. In the case of a ban on all guns, yes, it would be. In the case of a ban on all "assault weapons", it depends on the interpretations of the lawmakers as to what an "assault weapon" is. If they are to use the technical and definitive definition of an assault weapon, then lawmakers are not legally admitted to further push gun control as far as it has already gone, according to the Constitution.
As far as gun control is concerned, it would not help further push the anti-criminal agenda on either side of the political spectrum. Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their community, or even the government (as the Consitution is concerned), is not completely a violation of our rights, but it does not benefit society in any way. Criminals are, by definition, not law-abiding, and so they have all sorts of means of acquiring firearms even if more control is passed. In fact, it will help grow a criminal market for illegal weapons, while law-abiding citizens are left without a way to defend themselves against criminals with firearms. Gun bans and gun control are foolish ways to create a sort of "perfect, violence-free society", a utopia imagined by naïve citizens. As we've seen in history, especially modern history, a perfect society does not exist, and self-defense is the best way to counter it. Prestigiacomo creates a vague outline of these points as she refers to the case of a sad suburb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)