Dear Future 110 Students,

This past quarter in my 110 English class I learned a lot about the fundamentals of writing a good paper. We focused a lot on understanding and being able to analyze a paper by using steps of analysis. We did this by looking at primary and secondary sources and trying to understand what the author's overall message was throughout it. This was important when we had to write our analytical research papers. The ARP papers were our main focus throughout the course, there were many steps we took to complete the final paper. For this assignment I would highly recommend picking a primary source that you feel you can write a lot about. As well as a good secondary source. If you are not very confident with your choice I would definitely take the time to pick a different one, because the easier it is to write about the better you will do. That is the one thing I would change looking back on the course. There is a course topic for each class, ours for example was technology. You might end up with a course topic that is of no interest to you, but you have to be ready to try and find interesting things in the course anyway. Another big writing piece you will do besides the ARP is the Commonplace paper. I actually enjoyed the commonplace paper because you get to pick a topic that is a little more interesting and you get to write the paper in any style you want really. I think it is much more interesting to not only write but read and analyze. This class definitely helps with necessary skills for writing, it was very useful to me.

Good luck future 110 students!
Kati

In the article PETA: How the Messenger Kills the Message the author brings up a valid question, “are their tactics so radical that they are actually counterproductive to what they are trying to achieve?”. I would have to agree with the author in saying yes, some of their tactics are too extreme and offensive and actually lose some of their audience. Although I am a supporter of PETA and what they stand for I do agree that all of the tactics they use to get their message across may not be the most effective way in doing so. Most issues PETA talks about are very important issues that need to be put in the public eye and receive news time. I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with very extreme methods of getting your issues out there, however, when the methods become too offensive it can actually take away your credibility. What PETA did at the graveyard I believe was out of line, and disrespectful. KFC had a good point in saying they do not own a single chicken farm so why take it out on them. Although I see PETA's side to that too, where it is partially their fault because they are buying from the places that do torture the animals, I don't know if I would say it is fully fair to completely try to ruin their image. I am a vegetarian and definitely care about animal rights. This is one reason I think PETA should reconsider some of their tactics because by having any part of their audience backlash it is less people who will take action on these issues which is leaving the animals to keep suffering.

Facebook and other Internet sites are a place for people to be able to post their pictures and thoughts with friends. It is open for anyone to use and allows people to be able to communicate easier and share whatever they want with whoever they want. Student athletes however don't have all the freedoms most people have. Student athletes have certain codes of conduct that they must abide by made by either their coaches or schools. Some coaches demand the right to see their athletes pages and if there is something that violates the code they may get the athlete in serious trouble. There have been a few cases in which athletes have suffered serious consequences from pictures they have been in. Some athletes have been suspended or cut all together. One story I read about was the Northwestern girls soccer team. They're were pictures found of some of their team on Facebook where it looked like they were involved in some sort of hazing so the team whole team was suspended. Another article I read was about track players from Slippery Rock University. Facebook pictures emerged of a group of them drinking in a hotel now they are all at risk for serious consequences that could lead them to get kicked off the team. With the rise in technology and Internet sites people have less and less privacy. For student athletes what they post on these sites can get them into a great deal of trouble because they are given no privacy. I am a student athlete and I know the risks I have by having a Facebook. It is important that I am aware of what pictures are put on my page because it puts my team and me at risk. Privacy on the Internet ceases to really exist these days. If a person posts a picture that picture is there for good. It is important for people to know the risks they are at when they post stuff on the Internet.

Privacy is something most people like to have, but how much privacy do we really have these days? With the advances in technology it is fair to say that privacy is not something we can be so certain of anymore. As I read in the blog Is Facebook killing privacy--on purpose? it talks about how privacy can easily be violated. As long as you are on the internet or involved in social networking it is extremely easy for someone to hack onto your site and find out almost anything about you. As I am reading this blog written by Yahoo, I get the sense that the author's tone is a little skeptical and negative about social networking. He discusses how much privacy has changed over the years and how it used to be an assumed thing and how now people have barely any privacy at all. I believe the purpose of this blog was to get a person to open their eyes to the reality that their information is basically public for anyone who wants to see it, even though most people these days are aware of this and don’t mind. The author does not seem to fond of the whole idea of anyone knowing his information, that’s why he says he is in favor of privacy controls, but he also says he is realistic enough to know if people really wanted to get his information they could. This article interested me because almost everyone I know has a facebook so that is what drew my attention to it, but it also was interesting to realize just how little privacy we do have being involved with such a network. Analyzing this blog was different from what we have done in class because it was a topic I was interested in and caught my attention, and it was also very different from an advertisement.

What people eat can sometimes tell a lot about them. It can allow a person to see a person's background and family life. It sometimes allows them to understand a person's culture and get an incite on some of their beliefs. Looking at my food for instance you may be able to tell one big thing about me. You won't find any meat in my fridge because I'm a vegetarian. From taking a look at my food and eating habits a person would be able to see that I care about my health because you'll be able to find some fruit and vegetables in my fridge. They'll also be able to tell by looking in my cupboard that I like to indulge in snacks and junk food too. I like to be able to enjoy most kinds of food because I also like to try to enjoy most things I do in my life. I like new experiences and trying new things. I try not to decide whether or not ill like something before actually trying it. I love going out and experiencing new things and having fun. My life is a lot about balance. I not only balance a healthy diet but balance my social life. I have to balance being a student and an athlete here. I try to make enough time for my social life and to have fun as well as saving enough time to study and practice. A person could tell from the food I like to eat is that I love italian food, especially pizza; so I'm glad the saying "you are what you eat" isn't completely true.

I thought the Brooks article was the more interesting of the two primary sources. It was interesting to me because he brought up some good arguments. He criticized newer technology and the people that use it but in a subtle way. He was able to acknowledge the advantages that come with these technologies but there was a sarcastic undertone in which criticized the younger generation that relies on them. I agree with his view to an extent that the younger generations are reliant upon these technologies that simply do work for them. He was insinuating that we are lazy and stupid. I don't fully agree with those points however I agree that newer technologies do make us have to do less work and sometimes use less brain power.