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.

Bad Paragraph: The jumping Kangaroo was running fast past the slow tortoise while the hot brush fire was pushing up against the animals, and it was driving them out of their homes. The bright lightening had begun the fire when the quick lightening hit the dry brush. The fire was spreading. Flames were sending smoke into the air.

Bad Paragraph Edited: This paragraph has too many "to be" verbs. Several descriptions are obvious: Kangaroos generally jump, tortoises are almost always slow, lightening is always bright, flames always send smoke into the air. The writing could improve by replacing the to be verbs with more active and specific verbs. The paragraph could also benefit from stating less of the obvious.

Better Paragraph: The tortoise stared at the kangaroo as it sped past him into the shadows. Lightening had ignited the brush several hours earlier causing animals to flee to safety. The brush exploded like a tinder box under a match and the flames spread like water from a broken dam. Precipitation had always been scarce, but this year's rainfall record didn't even have one drop to add to its ledger book.

While this paragraph isn't picture perfect, it improves on the first paragraph by implementing the editing suggestions.

Each player lists 6 facts/habits about themselves.

I was tagged by my older sister, Chantal.


Six Facts about myself:

1. I want to ride a camel and an elephant some day.
2. I can turn my innie belly button into an outie. (Chantal, you probably didn't even know that one!)
3. I have commitment problems.
4. I'm extremely gullible.
5. I had surgery on my lip.
6. I like to be crazy; The bus system in El Sal is run privately by individuals that can get a hold of a beat up, old school bus from the United States. Bus owners ruthlessly compete for customers. The way it works is one guy drives like a maniac while the other guy jumps off at the bus stops to recruit potential patrons. (You should see these guys jumping off while the bus is speeding down the road. It's gotta become an Olympic sport one of these days.) At times, it can be chaotic on the sidewalks when recruiters are trying to shout above their competitors.

The guys that owned the bus Sadie and I got onto that night tricked us; they told us they were going to our stop when they really weren't going directly there. After an hour and a half, Sadie and I were the only ones left on the bus. I was getting really bored, and I was tired after a full day of work, so I just wanted to get home. Eventually, I decided that since there was nothing we could do about our situation, I wanted a good laugh. I told Sadie to get ready with her camera because I had a sweet plan. I decided to ask the guy if I could jump off the bus with him and yell at potential customers to get on his bus. I figured he couldn't say no from a business perspective because how could a white girl jumping off the bus as a recruiter not attract attention in a diversity-less country? So this kid who was younger than me smirked and told me what to say to the customers when I jumped off.

I think Sadie had the best time laughing, but I had the second best time just hanging out of the door with the wind in my face and jumping off the bus before it stopped and yelling at the people on the sidewalk. The expressions of the El Salvadorians was just what I was hoping for--they were totally at a loss of what to do. It was worth the memory and worth the laughs.

So I'm getting a job. I'm pretty excited about it. It's hard to find a paid editing job around these parts. Lots of girls at BYU are editing minors; so the market is saturated. So my parents aren't going to be too thrilled with this decision. There reasoning is legit: In my college career, there have only been two terms I haven't worked. I've done really well both times, especially the second time. So working takes a toll on my grades, and my parents don't want me to work this semester. It's true my schedule doesn't have space for twenty hours a week to work.

I'm already pretty spread thin in my schedule as it is, but hear me out. (1) I need the experience; if I don't have experience in the editing field, I can't get a job. If I can't get a job, I can't support myself. A little sacrifice on the grades will result in a job. I think that's pretty argument on the side of getting a job. (2) I need the money; I haven't had a job that actually paid me in solid cash--not amenities--in three years. My parents might think that if I want to go to Grad school, I need better grades. They would be right. BUT my rebuttal would be, education isn't all about grades. Life itself is education too. Real world experience sometimes gives you more of an education than formal education. My parents might think I am going to squander the money I make. (I have been labeled their most worldly child.) Hopefully someday I can convince them I am a little better with my money today then I was in high school. That's all for today.

In El Salvador, I experienced what it was like to be a minority. With few groups besides the mixed European/Indian blood, we stood out like a strawberry in the middle of grapes. I don't think I've ever been in a less diverse place. People don't go to El Salvador because there isn't much of a draw to go there--no vacation spots, no capital for businesses. I went down speaking maybe a handful of Spanish words--agua, hola, como esta, and the like. I didn't even know what Los Hermanos meant until I was in El Salvador for a couple of days. While I was picking up on the language relatively fast, it was always a relief to find someone once in a while who spoke English. I relished the opportunity to communicate more when someone could offer it. People were patient with my inadequate Spanish speaking abilities.

Coming back to the United States was a shock for me in many ways. One way in particular was when I was in line at Cafe Rio with my old companion Sister Salazar. I started talking to the guy behind the counter in Spanish; I was so proud of my newly developed skills and was excited to talk to the workers in Spanish. A guy behind me said, "Don't promote them talking in Spanish; they're here, and they should speak English." I was furious. I was mad because I had just been a non-native speaking minority, and I knew how hard it was hard to be in that position. Who's to say these people weren't trying? And did he know what a relief it was every once in a while to have someone speak to you in your native tongue? I was ticked at his ignorance. If he had ever studied immigration patterns, he'd know people loose their native tongue in a couple generations anyway.

In the University forum today with Chief Justice Roberts, I was impressed with how aware he was of his audience. He started his speech by making a joke about not making lawyer jokes to mixed audiences; the lawyers don't find them funny, and the non-lawyers think they're true. Then the Chief Justice weaved various references to prior devotionals at BYU; experiences with members he had had during his law profession; and historical vignettes about experiences with the Mormon people. He referenced President and Sister Samuelson's devotional about the importance of the constitution. He talked about his experience arguing in front of the supreme court against Rex Lee (and loosing 9-0; ouch, that left an impression).

Although I tried to muster all of the interest I possibly could in his topic--the workings of the constitution, and its amendments--I wasn't sucked in by his speech. Regardless of how enrapt I was by his subject, he presented well his topic to his audience. His tone stayed the same throughout his presentation. It was more formal, but not so formal that I felt a disconnect with him as a person. He also remained consistent with his stance. He addressed the topic in the same light throughout his speech. He embellished his stance by adding that not only did he love the Constitution but he especially loved the third article (the article which talks about the importance of the Supreme Court . . . in a way he was being facetious). Good job Chief Justice Roberts.

Sunday I left my cell phone at a friend's house. I was totally excited to be free of it for a while because I was excited to take a short break from my crazy life. It was fun not having it for about two days, but now the excitement of being disconnected from my life has been replaced by the reality of the situation. I admit, I miss talking to people.

Monday I went to FHE and ran into a guy I haven't seen in forever. It was kind of an interesting re-acquaintance in light of the terms we left off last time we talked. But we've become friends. The sweet thing is, since he's a professional snowboarder, he is totally hooking me up with with a thirty dollar snowboard on his friends and family discount. How nice is that?

Tuesday is always the most insane day of the week for me--class after class with barely enough time to breath. The coolest part about my Tuesdays, though, is that I get to watch old movies. I am taking an American film class, and we get to watch old movies. This Tuesday I watched Sergeant York, and it was totally inspiring.

Wednesday was a great day. Be proud of me, I went running at an insanely early time so that I could work on my awesome English 213 paper ;) I am SOOOO happy to be running again. This was my fourth time after surgery. I won't mention the state of my running conditioning, but I will say, I'm finally running; that's exciting.

Today was awesome because I found out I might be able to go to a Conference in San Francisco this March for a paper I have written. The sad part is that it might cost four hundred dollars. Do I have that type of cash? Nope! But apparently the college of Humanities might be able to give me a little over half of that. In light of how awesome this opportunity is, I might just have to go and pay the loot.

In light of the peer reviewing, I need to change my enthymeme. My original enthymeme was: The current Utah voucher plan will exclude the poorest students from higher quality education in a competitive educational marked because the current Utah voucher plan will not provide sufficient monetary means for the poorest students to attend any school of their choice in a competitive educational market. As we peer reviewed, I realized that the voucher system could possibly provide a better quality education for the poorest students; however, the Utah voucher system does not provide equal opportunity for the poorest students to have access to the most expensive education, which is often assumed to be the best education.

The point of the voucher program is to improve education. I believe the voucher system would improve education; however, the playing field is not even: the poorest students would not have all of the options all of the other students above them would have with the edition of vouchers. They would need to be given more money in order to have all of the options the other students have. My enthymeme also errs because there is an assumption here that might be invalid. Most people in America think that the private school sector has better quality education than the public school sector. I need to find out if this assumption is actually valid. If private schools have better education than public school systems, then in order for this voucher system to be a fair system, all students would need to have the option of attending private schools.

As I've researched vouchers, I find pros and cons on both sides of the argument. In theory I like Milton Friedman's 1955 proposal for vouchers. Economically it makes sense in theory. Why not make education an open market? By making education an open market, schools will compete among each other to produce better education. This theory makes sense in a capitalistic society which finds positive results in an open market with its businesses, but businesses are regulated, and the laws that apply to the business world are complex and honed resulting in less potential mishaps unlike the current theories and structures of the proposed voucher system.

I went to El Salvador two summers ago. Their bus system was a competitive market. Buses were owned by individuals looking to make money, and as a result, the buses drove like maniacs so they could get to the next bus stop to collect the people before the other bus drivers and make money. In this unregulated, dangerous system, owners cut corners resulting in more harm to the public than good. This competitive market for the bus systems isn't a bad idea, it just hasn't been worked through enough to benefit the people the bus system serves as much as it could. Likewise, I think the voucher system is a raw idea in need of some serious fine tuning. The intended result will not be the actual result if we continue to implement the voucher system as is.

I’ve been thinking about how much I love this stage of life; I love how great my parents are; I love how awesome my siblings are; I love my room roommate; in fact, I love all my roommates; I love my major; I love my schedule; I love being at BYU; I love meeting the most random and cool people ever at this university; I love that it’s still warm outside; I love how my life is so fluid—I can do anything I want at any time I want.

I was thinking this weekend about Nantucket. This place is a classic love in my life. Every summer while I was growing up, we would spend a week down on the island. By the time we were done, we’d be wind blown, burnt to a crisp, and vacationed out. Some years we were out in the sun so much I actually almost looked blond. I never used to put on sun screen; my mentality at the time—why would I want to take the time to put on sun screen when I could be out in the waves body surfing? Heck no. We’d body surf the waves all day long. One time we went to Nantucket the week after a hurricane. It was pretty sweet. The waves were near impossible, but that was the fun of it. We’d be tossed like rag dolls in a washing machine. Those were the days. Man, all this nostalgia is getting to me; I’ve got to get back there and ride those waves again.

On the proponent side of the Utah voucher system, a minority group argues against the stance of the NAACP Salt Lake City branch. The NAACP is saying that the average per year tuition for a private school in Utah is $8000. The Minorities for Vouchers group suggests that this average has been unjustly inflated by expensive school outliers on the graph. The Minorities for Vouchers group suggests that, when you take away these outliers, the average for private schools come to $4,500.

Coming from another angle of this argument, not many private schools would even be available in a voucher system. Many private schools have decided not to accept vouchers, and others that might be affordable would not have the space in their schools to accept many more students. If space is limited in the private school setting, than why include private schools in the open educational market? The reason people want to include private schools in the school options rests on the notion that private schools are actually higher quality education. The question is, is this actually true? Private schools do not have to have certified teachers while public schools do. Private school teachers do not even have to have a bachelor's degree. But, if the perception is that private schools are better, then children will want to move over to private schools if they have the option too. With that type of demand on the private schools, they will draw better teachers to the private sectors as well, leaving the public school system depleted of quality education, and the students that do not have the money to go to the private schools will not have the option for higher education.