This is Harder than I Thought

Well I am half way finished with my rough draft and I am stuck. The first 3-4 pages were easy. I basically discussed different scenarios for earthquakes as well as statical predictions from government agencies, but the rest of my paper will center around past EQ's and what they have taught San Jose. I am realizing that this portion of my paper will be very difficult because it requires a deep understanding of the technical and geographical information. It is hard to read an article from an academic journal on EQ's despite having taken a geology class; they use "big" words. However, I have noticed that many journal use pictures, charts, and graphics to illustrate their point; I can do that too. I will insert pictures and explain them to the best of my non-expert ability. After all, I do not want to put my reader in the same frustrated state that I find myself in when I read journals.

Drive Straight and NEVER look Back....

Researching for a paper is difficult.  When I begin to brainstorm possible topics for a paper, I find myself juggling two to three different topics.  I try to find the one that most interests me. What I fail to realize is the two to three topics that I was juggling are ones in which I already had a strong opinion on.  Having an opinion is not exactly the problem; the problem lies in the issues my opinions create for my researching relevant information.  For example, I want to research the reasons why San Jose State parking fees are so high, as well as present ways to reduce prices.  There is already one very large problem that my personal opinion has created: I have already convicted SJSU for having too high prices without knowing whether or not the prices here are actually high in comparison to other schools.  Another way in which my personal opinion can hinder my research is the material that I choose to search for and the leads that I choose to follow.  For example, I may have a great idea for lowering parking fees.  I have thought about it in my head, but I have not really done the research. But now that I am choosing to research parking fees for my paper, I may only choose to research possible ways to implement my solution, without ever researching or considering others.

Chapter 6 of CDA states that we as writers must be willing to be flexible and excepting during the research stages.  We must also remember that no stage of a research paper is ever fully completed until the paper is turned in.  As we write new ideas may form, an idea may not fit logically anymore, or you may find that your previous research is to narrowly focused.  All of these reasons require us to stop writing and go back to researching.

Not in My Backyard, Not with my Money, and Not at my Discomfort

This week's post is about a potential Oakland A's (or should I say San Jose A's) stadium project in San Jose. Speculation about such a project is creating quite a buzz in the city. The A's were denied two different locations by Fremont, which was in large part due to NIMBY's influence. NIBMY stands for Not in My Backyard. NIMBY's goal is to protect local city residents from large projects that would hinder their daily routine and economic interests.

In an article in the Mercury News, Scott Herhold discusses the impact that the stadium would bring. He writes that home values would depreciate; traffic, both on city streets and freeways, would increase severally; and the city would not be able to fund both a stadium and the new BART project, given its already troubling economic situation. He, however, concedes that the HP Pavilion was a positive thing for San Jose. He discusses that although traffic can be terrible, economically the project was in the best interests of the city and its residents.

I do not live in San Jose. In fact, I live in San Leandro, which is much closer to Oakland; therefore, it is much easier for me to get to an A's game if the team stays put. How would I feel, however, if the A's were considering moving their stadium near my home? Not great! Scott is correct: I do not want the A's in my backyard, but I would not mind them in someone else's backyard a few miles away. Selfish, I know, but what can I say, I like baseball games.

WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT EDUCATION, THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T

The article I read was from the Mercury News Editorial section.  The article Retraining Workers must be Silicon Valley's number one priority is a short argument that states that until we put our focus back on education, we will not begin to see an improvement in our local economy.

This article speaks to a harsh reality that all of us realize, but many of use take for granted.  Education in American is slumping behind other developed nations.  California is slumping behind most states--we are 47th in the nation.  

All of our successes are due solely to our education and therefore, it is only fair that our failures, or lack of ability to extend our successes, is due in large part due to our lack of education.  For this reason I do not understand why we are falling behind in education.  It seems to me that education spending has become just one of those things that we must do, instead of the most important thing that we must do.  In our country the most important things are never the "sexiest things", which is sad.  In California the first item to be cut when the budget is short is higher education (thank god that k-12 is mandated spending), instead of raising taxes, or cutting other spending.  Politicians focus on the things that get them elected, such as making sure that the other guy looks bad, or making sure they get their face on CNN, or making sure that they support the most popular stance on the war.  But they never spend their precious time debating the most sacred thing, education.  It is sad.  

It's religious not religion that inspires...

Religion, in my opinion, is not as important to advocacy, as membership in a religious community.  To me my religion does not advocate or inspire me to act as much as my church may. Reading the bible makes me think, but going to church makes me act.  While I do not know if this holds true for a majority of people, or even the members of AVODAH, it is plausible that it does.  For example, Mark Goodman wrote, "I always knew that Judaism commanded us to a mission...but the nuts and bolts of how and why were inaccessible..."  He later states that AVODAH showed him how to make a difference.  I believe Mark means that he knew that helping to make the world a better place was his duty as a Jew, but the inspiration to carry out that mission was not found until a organized community (in this case AVODAH) gave him the inspiration needed.  Abby Maier echoed Mark's thoughts by saying, "AVODAH facilitated the collaboration of faith, working for justice, trying to understand poverty, looking for community...all of these things I had been trying to figure out on my own."  To me religion was a necessary aspects of the AVODAH member's service, but it was not sufficient.  They all needed that inspiration that comes from an organized effort.

A San Jose REVOLUTION

The article that I chose is titled Race to oust San Jose Councilwoman Madison Nguyen heats up. The article was written by Denis C. Theriault.

This article discusses the March 4th recall election, in which Madison Nguyen’s future as a Councilmember from District 7 will be decided. Nguyen first came under fire when she voted to name a section along Story Road as the Saigon Business District instead of Little Saigon. The vote infuriated some within the Vietnamese community who view Little Saigon as a defining and sentimental name. The vote sparked numerous protest, including a hunger strike, and national news.

I am a Political Science major and I am also a follower of all things political, so it is logical that I would enjoy this story. This story showcases local politics at its dirtiest because a single vote on something that has no legal or economic impact for community members, has created a situation in which the elected official now finds herself in a battle for her job. A single vote has sparked a revolution that seeks to remove Nguyen from office. Nguyen, in response, has assembled a team of Bay Area political operatives who have devised a strategy to win the vote.

This story is a political junkies’ fix. Fights like this are rarely seen at the local level and even rarer to be in your own community. We usually equate these stories with fights in Washington, or even in Sacramento, as we saw with Governor Gray Davis, but to be in San Jose and to witness the protests at City Hall, or to see lawn signs that advocate for or against Ms. Nguyen, are great for a political follower like myself.

Never accept an argument solely because of what is argued!!

The ideas in chapter 13 remind me of my love for persuasive writing. I am a student of the law. I admire, think, and write about the law. Legal writing is founded on the power to argue and persuade using logic. The discussion of ethos in chapter 13 can be echoed in a legal writing class because the power of an argument is not only based upon the words, but upon the unspoken characteristics of a given piece, such as the authority and expertise of the author, the tone and strategies employed, the author’s connection to the topic, and the context. While the editorials offered as examples in the chapter are not legal writings, they are meant to persuade. For example, the argument over affirmative action is one in which either side attempts to discredited the others argument by pointing out logical flaws. A great example of this is Mr. Ogletree’s counter argument to the idea that test scores are an effective way to judge a candidate’s possibilities. He counters this by pointing out that the argument takes for granted that all who take the test have been privy to the same opportunities and thus everyone who takes the test are standing on equal footing.

The editorial pieces showcased in chapter 13 all share a common goal--to persuade their respective audiences. This chapter emphasizes the importance of not just accepting a writer’s position, but to think about the writer’s qualifications and purpose for writing this piece. The preceding idea for critical analysis has been something that I have struggled with in the past. I was always one who believed or accepted an argument on its face value, which is not always a great idea.