I thought the presentation about MMORPGs was fascinating. Probably because it is a whole new world to me. I can't believe that people would spend and upward of 1,600 dollars for a piece of virtual real estate--it doesn't exist folks. While I am still blown away by how people spend this much money on a concept that completely virtual (I had no idea how huge this on-line gaming business was!), I am trying to formulate an opinion on it.

My initial reaction is, "this obsession is retarded." However, I am going to try to see this from another perspective. Maybe it can be related to people who sup-up their cars. This might not be the perfect example because the objects are tangible, but I feel like there is a significant correlation. Some people spend tons of money on car parts that do little for their car's efficiency, little for its asthetic quality, little for anyone or anything besides the owner's satisfaction and maybe the other people who have the same perspective as the owner of this piece of machinery and can appreciate its significance. And yet this practice is much more widely accepted. Let's parellel this with people who belong to Second Life. These people gain a sense of importance as they own a piece of virtual land that benefits nothing besides their sense of happiness and the people that can appreciate the significance of this purchased piece of imaginary real estate. So in light of defending something I don't really believe is of any value I will try to formulate an enthymeme from the other perspective's side.

WATCO of Second Life on an individual's quality of life?

Enthymeme: Second Life increases an individual's quality of life because Second Life provides a sense of satisfaction for its consumer.

My thoughts on media bias have also been affected by a conversation I had with a guy I know, who served in Iraq. I was surprised to find that he felt we were doing more good than harm in Iraq; he felt our presence there was important and that the media skewed the truth. I was completely surprised because all I had heard up to this point was negative comments about the conflict. I still don't feel that I know enough about the situation to have an opinion (basically because I don't trust the media), but the more I hear from grass-roots level participants in the Iraq war, the more I realize how misconceived my notions are from the media.

A media bias causes an uninformed reaction from the citizens, which in light of the information they are given seems rational. Many times, however, the average citizen does not do enough research on his or her own to know the opposite face of the debate cube. Even a citizen who researches a topic may not be completely informed if not all of the information in the debate is available. This makes it seem like the battle of well-rounded information is impossible to win; however, if the media does what they are supposed to do, present all sides of the story no matter how much the individuals who report the story agree with one side or the other, at least information would be available for individuals to have a glimpse of the other side of the story.

I was trying to think of something I could write about that is actually interesting. Then I remembered . . . So my first day of work was this past Thursday. I don't have a car, so I checked out the bus schedule and figured out what bus I was supposed to catch and at what time. The schedule said a specific time, so I decided to finish up the footnotes on my English paper before running down to catch it. Go figure, the bus LEAVES on the time it says on the schedule; it doesn't arrive at that time. So I missed it. Normally I would be stressed out about this sad news, but for some reason I figured there wasn't much I could do about an honest mistake besides either call someone for a ride, hitch hike, or walk down there.

Well I work about three miles off campus, so I figure maybe I could just walk fast. I only had a half hour, so as you can calculate I definitely couldn't just walk. I have my backpack on, in work clothes--no jeans, so nice pants--and definitely not running shoes. As I'm walking, I realize I have to start booking it or else I'm not going to make it on time to my first day of work! WHAT? How bad does that look. So I'm totally laughing about this situation, glad it's a nice day, and running down a pretty busy road. Everyone is looking at me like I'm crazy running with a backpack on and in nice clothes. It was hilarious. So I got there twenty minutes late. My employer asked me how my day had been, and all I could say at that point was--great but a little crazy. So then I couldn't help but tell her the story because I thought it was funny. At first she didn't believe me because I wasn't really sweating that much, but then she went and wrote an email to all my new coworkers about my running to work! Hahaha. What a way to start a reputation.

Based on my previous post and an idea for my next rhetorical analysis post, I will develop some enthymemes that I could use for my paper.

1. WATCO of media bias on American politic decisions?

A-term: Media bias
B-term: American political decisions

Enthymeme: The media bias hurts American political decisions because the media skewing the Iraq war hurts important decision-making points in Iraq.

Here I employ an A1 term.

A1-term: The media skewing the Iraq war
C-term: Important decision-making points in Iraq

I think I might have a difficult time proving this enthymeme. I would need to define media bias. As we've discussed in class, this would be difficult with out solid, peer-reviewed articles. I could always compare different articles from different papers about the war to show that there is a bias; unfortunately, it might be hard to find pro-war articles. It would also be hard to prove the effects of the A term on the B term because we only see the effects of decisions made. The effects of what hasn't been done is strictly hypothetical and extremely hard to prove. (I'm talking myself out of this enthymeme as I write this blog.) It would also be hard to prove that media is skewing the Iraq war. What sources would I use? I can't personally interview at a grass-roots level and the people I know who served there might not offer enough ethos for my audience to buy my argument (also they might think I could have made up the interview). I could, however, use international sources, but they would be newspapers and other sources that might not be considered reputable. I would also have to research specific decisions that were "hindered" (an objective term) by a media bias. It looks like I won't be doing this enthymeme.

I've been brainstorming for the next paper we have to write, and I find my thoughts returning to a theme I've had on my mind for at least the past year--media and propaganda/media bias. This topic has been on my mind for the past year. One conversation that I had which really catalyzed my thoughts on the subject was with a friend of mine after watching V for Vendetta (edited version of course) last summer. It's about a futuristic tyrannical government in England . I was sharing my opinion about how the despotism represented in this movie could never happen in today's world; we've seen the holocaust; we're aware of how it developed; it can't happen again. He, who is pretty knowledgeable about history, was on the opposite side of my argument. He said he believed it can happen again very easily.

I have to admit I didn't believe him, even though he has a much more broad knowledge base than I do. I just couldn't buy how it could happen again when we were aware of it. It seemed like an anomaly. Now I am taking a Racial and Minority Relations class, and we are reading Modernity and the Holocaust by Zygmunt Bauman. The whole premise of this book is that the Holocaust isn't an anomaly; it could very likely happen again. It talks about the media and propaganda used during the Reich. It shows how media and propaganda can manipulate people into believing the most contorted messages. This is a topic I might want to research and present in my paper.

For some reason I am thrilled when random things happen in my life. I think it's just the idea of an adventure. So I just moved out of the house I was living in because of Provo zoning laws. My roommate and I wanted to abide by the laws when we found out we were basically breaking them. So in one day we moved everything over to our new house. I don't know why it was so fun to me; I was just thrilled at the idea of change maybe? It was way cute because my roommate had decided first to move out. I didn't even know she was going to until she told me she almost teared up when she realized we weren't going to be roommates anymore. So when she told me she was moving, I told her I would love to move with her. She found this basement apartment with a girl we both know that has an extra bedroom. She talked to the owners of the place; we found out it was okay; and then we moved in the next day! What?! Yes it is so cool. I'm even smiling as I am writing this.

I saw all the cute little kids running around playing soccer across the street, and I told my roommate how excited I was to get to know the little kids in our neighborhood by name. She laughed and told me I was such an idealist. Another thing that is so cool is that my upstairs neighbors are a married couple with two cute kids. I love that a cute little family is living above us. I heard their kid movies playing yesterday as I moved my stuff into my room. It's great. Also my third roommate is from Taiwan. I am so excited to learn more about her culture. I seriously am so excited. That's all.

After researching several articles on the guest worker program, I can honestly say I am torn. This doesn't help considering our enthymeme is due tomorrow. After reading some articles, I do believe that the cause of illegal immigration is our country's insatiable demand for labor. Looking at the supply and demand curve, we have a demand and illegal immigrants want to fill it. The truth is Americans would do any job that would pay them enough. Employers don't want to pay the wages Americans would demand. If employers were to hire American workers at the wages Americans would demand, our cost of living would sky rocket.

The business people are saying that it would benefit our economy to have cheap labor. Well how do we fill this cheap labor demand? We have a couple options: we can keep our illegal immigrant situation, or we can bring people in legally to work in the United States through legislation. So there are options for filling these demands but at what expense? On the other side of the issue, people ask, "will we be sacrificing our American principles to fill these demands?" I think it is possible that we will be. So the ultimate questions are--how much are we we willing to sacrifice for our economy?

Enthymeme:

United State’s public policies that do not limit job opportunities for illegal immigrants in the United States will not be strong enough to terminate illegal immigration because United State’s public policies that do not limit job opportunities for illegal immigrants in the United States do not provide strong enough incentive for illegal immigrants to stay out of the United States.

Implicit assumption: Whatever does not provide strong enough incentive for illegal immigrants to stay out of the United States also will not be strong enough to terminate illegal immigration.

The premise of this enthymeme is that no matter what barriers we put on illegal immigration, illegal immigrants will still come to the United States if the incentives are strong enough. While I agree with this enthymeme, I feel that it is too broad for a 1000-2000 word paper. I need to narrow my topic to something more manageable within that restriction.

Two potential audiences I could have for this enthymeme are (1) United States Congressmen in states with less concern for immigration. My purpose for directing my paper to this audience is based on the idea that they are probably the most borderline states because they are the least affected. (2) Borderline, potentially interested, and yet uninformed potential voters for the 2008 presidential election.

So I am adopting a new philosophy on life--que sera sera. There are so many unpredictable aspects of life and so many things that I don't have answers to right now, and I've decided--que sera sera (whatever will be will be). I am totally an analyzer and someone who tries to figure out mysteries, so it can be hard for me sometimes not to know what the future will hold, but I don't want to care anymore. I heard a story once about a lady who lived to be in the hundreds, and someone asked her what her secret was; she told them she didn't stress.

So this line is my new philosophy. I don't like getting stressed; I don't want to stress out. Life is too short. So I've found one way not to stress out is to plan. Another is not to stress out when the plan doesn't work, and just be flexible. This is much easier said than done for me. There are times when I am so busy that if I am interrupted by a leisure conversation, I get stressed out. But I have a roommate that is so good at dropping everything and just focusing on the people around her. But how do you balance both? I've learned life is all about a balance.

As I've been researching immigration, I've noticed different recurring conflicts. Border control has interesting pros and cons. Some people say tightening border control will do little if we don't stop the high demand for cheap labor; as long as we have a demand for cheap labor, we will have illegal immigrants. I agree with this assessment to a degree; however, there will be a decrease of illegal immigrants if we tighten up our borders. Tightening up the borders might not take care of all the illegal immigrants, but it will reduce them.

A new approach to this illegal immigrant issue that is in hot debate right now is the "real ID" issue. The proposed legislation suggests we make driver's licenses harder to obtain. Supporters say this policy will reduce illegal immigrant’s functionality in the country. If we make these "real ID" cards necessary, only people that have these cards will be able to be hired. The opponents against this legislation say it is like a national card. It is crossing the line into too much control into the lives of citizens. Soon the government will be able to track its citizen's movement around the country. This is too much power for the government to have. They cite Nazi Germany.