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.