The "Ted Talk" with the video game designer Jane McGonigal was fascinating, and pretty cool. Making your life a video game with objectives is an interesting way to approach things. She talked about how eating something healthy, thinking about something positive, or taking a walk to clear your mind were "power-ups" and how those in her life were "allies" while her obstacles were her "enemies". It's a good concept for those who are feeling desperately ill, or extremely upset, but for those who work for a living and are busy, it is difficult, if not impossible, to keep up with. She recommends that everyone should give it a try, and that it is easy. I disagree with this, because the busyness of life gets in the way.

Reflection on the Semester

-->

            My experience in Principles of Composition II this year was unlike any prior to it. Usually, English classes are based primarily on reading and writing, but this class was based almost entirely on technology. Because of this, my papers were different than they usually are. I feel the work that I have completed is quality, but not my finest. However, I do feel like my Ethos in the work that I have produced is solid to exceptional in certain cases. If there was one thing that I improved on dramatically in this class, it is improving my Ethos as a writer.

            My definition of Ethos essentially is the credibility, and believability of the author when the reader reads something. If a person reads something and does not trust the source, then the author’s ethos is miserable. Conversely, if a reader believes and fully trusts the author, then the writer’s ethos is good. Ethos should not take much effort from the writer, but it often does. It is an art developing good ethos, and takes preparation and care. This semester, I believe that I developed good ethos in all of my papers, but especially in the first one, “Modern Day Fantasy Football”.

            Fantasy football is a game that I am absurdly experienced in. I know what I’m talking about when it comes to it. The purpose of the first assignment it appeared was to learn how to build ethos in a relaxed context where the student felt comfortable. Nowhere do I feel more comfortable than talking about sports, and it was apparent in my blog post. It gave me the confidence moving forward on my other papers, as well as a foundation on how to utilize proper ethos in my writing. If this paper were in a museum, I would be proud to show it. It exhibits exactly what I want it to, and does a proper job explaining how fantasy football has changed over the years. While a museum isn’t exactly the ideal place for a blog post, if my article was featured on a fantasy football specialty website, such as Rotoworld, I would be thrilled. My second paper, on the effect of technology on the Arab Spring, exhibited many of the qualities that the first one did.

            The Arab Spring, or the series of revolutions in the Middle East over the past few years, was an issue that I, being Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel, followed very closely. My knowledge of the situation, plus the extensive research on the subject that I found interesting, helped my Ethos tremendously in that paper. However, the subject was not talking specifically about the Arab Spring, but the technology associated with it. I found it challenging to develop a strong level of Ethos in the article, because my knowledge of technology was limited. If this paper got exposure, I would be fine with it, but relatively embarrassed at the lack of quality. It would need to be refined to be shown off to the world. My third paper, an evaluative paper on a Ron Paul advertisement, was filled with Ethos as well.

            The story about the third paper was solid content, but marginal writing quality. This paper’s Ethos was good at the core, but needed to be refined tremendously. I believe that if I had put more time, energy, and drafting into that paper that it would be my finest of them all. The ethos exhibited in the paper was good, but was negated by a lack of support and expansion of my points. I would be fine if this paper were featured on a website or in a museum, as long as I was able to revise it a few times. The points featured in the essay are beyond satisfactory in my mind, but the paper itself needed a lot of work to be acceptable in public eyes.

            Overall, I believe my work this year exhibited strong characteristics of rhetoric. This includes logos and pathos, along with a strong ethos. With a little more refinement in my work, I would be proud for it to be featured in a museum, or on a website featuring student work. In their current state, however, I would not be comfortable sharing my work with the public, especially the academic community. It would require much more effort on my part. That being said, I have been moderately satisfied with my work this semester. I definitely could have done more to improve papers, but the development of  rhetorical concepts improved throughout the semester. 

Politifact.com: A Service to Our Society?

The website Politifact takes statements that politicians make, and prove them to be accurate or inaccurate. Content in the website is fascinating, and accurate. It gives links to quotes the people say, and they give proof that they exist, and validation for their conclusion. They have a scale that they use, from completely true to "Pants on Fire".  It is a wonderful resource to decipher what is true and what is false in the political arena, because quite often it is difficult to distinguish what is real. Something that absolutely demolishes this website's Ethos is the fact that there are questionable pop-up ads for sketchy companies, such as housing loans. Overall this is a fantastic resource for people looking to get more informed about their political ideology and decision making.

Watson, the IBM supercomputer that won Jeopardy, is an example of how technology is rapidly improving. It is the first example of a computer being able to comprehend witty phrases, and pop culture references that require a person to "read between the lines". To some, like myself, it shows that technological advances are increasing at an incredibly rapid rate, and that it is a good thing. Some, however, would argue that it is a very bad thing, and that no computer should do what a human can. I agree with this statement, partially, because it is possible that too much technology can put people out of work in the future. While Watson is not a direct example of this, if people can design computers that can think like people, is it just a matter of time before they can think more logically than a lawyer defending a client? Or a doctor diagnosing a patient? It is far fetched to think these things, but in the distant future, or not so distant, according to who you talk to, it is very possible.