TA: Paper B condemned as INHUMANE

The following sentence is the one that mentions the inhumane argument, but I don’t really address it in my paper.

“Supporters of allowing immigrants infected with such diseases plague the courts with words that condemn current law as “inhumane” or “unconstitutional.”

The following part of my research paper B was condemned as “inhumane:”

“Similarly, legislation must be revised to permanently prohibit tuberculosis or HIV carriers at our door and prevent immigrants—infected with any other of the diseases of public health significance—entry into the United States of America.”

I personally thought the sentence was quite strong when I wrote it, but I’m struggling getting around the “inhumane” argument. What can I say? Yes. It is inhumane to stop some individuals from coming in illegally. But, does the doctor who wishes to cure people with leprosy kiss his patients goodnight? No! He can’t. There needs to be some kind of level where we have to say, “I know this is a little inhumane…but for the greater cause, but for the American public health, we say ‘No!’ to the infected immigrants who desire to cross our borders.”

Professor Esplin mentioned that “inhumane” arguments never win. On this account, I will revoke the statement above and work for something else. Should I just completely drop the “inhumane” argument and leave it out of the paper—or discuss the importance of thinking more about the American Health first? Isn’t it inhumane to let a group of children plagued with HIV to play with your children? What if it was someone you knew who contracted the disease due to an immigrant who failed the examination but was let in? Wouldn’t that be just as inhumane as rejecting their entry? Perhaps agreeing that it is inhumane, respecting and showing sympathy to the opposing side, and then reminding the board would be what its priorities are is the better stylistic approach—instead of the bitter cold, logical argument. What do you think? Is there anyway to hop around this argument without being too impersonal or mean?

FW: The whole idea about video game violence

Can anyone deny that watching violent material causes violence? I mean, what is the big deal? Those who oppose are adults anyway, and could buy the games even if they were rated MATURE. There was one fact in particular that sold me on the idea. It was that in the United States, homicides doubled the same year the television was released. Now there could have been some drastic political movement, or some other cause that added to the rate, but to think that it doubled! Undeniably, violent media has an effect.

Now off of that topic, onto a new. Should we limit or prohibit violent video games? If we did, why not limit what can be put into movies? Why not prohibit alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, and every other terrible thing linked to crime? Because it takes away somebody’s right to partake of such things. Thus I stand on the side of: don’t take them away. We can’t. I mean, a sinless world would be nice, but unless we’re going to eliminate some of the bigger factors (alcohol, porn) first, then why pull the enjoyment of someone’s video game pleasure when such a minute percentage of people actually go crazy after playing these games? Enough said. I think this case isn’t going anywhere for awhile.

RA: Video Game Violence

“Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions,” was written by Craig A. Anderson. He immediately opens with his educational background. I had to laugh when I read it. So few articles posted on the web these days actually open with their credentials. His creds, in particular, would silence any opposition! He is received a PhD in Psychology from Stanford University and is currently the Department Chair of Psychology at Iowa State University! The article then lists his various achievements in his 40+ years of studying media violence. All in all, the article does a great job in summing up the fact: argue with him, and you’re an idiot!

His article then goes through and lists the typical myths about video games:

Myth 1: Violent video game research ahs yielded very mixed results.

Myth 2: The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.

Myth 3: Laboratory experiments are irrelevant.

Myth 4: Field experiments are irrelevant towards aggression.

Myth 5: Correlation studies are irrelevant.

He then goes through one by one, with proof, citing all of his sources on why all of those are false. I have to admit, the article was fairly convincing—Despite the fact that never once does he say: Violent video games cause violence. It seems that he effectively beats around the bush and describes everything but that exact statement. Well done, Stanford graduate, well done.

TA: My other resources for Research B

Here is a quick list of some of the other sources I used for research paper B.

The Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention

The Constitution of the United States of America

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

United States Department of Health and Human Services

United Nations Statistics Division

The reason I picked these as some of my primary sources is because…well, just look at their titles. Is there any more ETHOS that can be established than that? I have all of the top centers in America who are and would be involved in the participation of creating a powerful lobby group to Congress in order to tighten medical screenings. I also included the United Nations Statistics Division just in case. I think it adds credibility to my paper because the UNSD is a division outside of American policies and bias. They provided much of the needed statistics that actually helped me prove the negative aspects of allowing immigrants, carrying any of the Communicable Diseases of Public Health Significance, into the United States.

I did use three articles for the sake of saying that I researched some of the archives (which, honestly I did)—but they just were too opinionated. I thought a new idea would to be including a majority of statistics brought from government agencies, who would provide neutral and reliable statistics for my paper.

FW: Thanksgiving

During the break—I think I’ve finally decided on an idea that my friends and I are going to pursue in order to help society. We want to put together a program that will help single mothers into careers and jobs that provide both enough hours to support their family and other benefits. Many single mothers do not have the time, knowledge, or resources that everybody else has to get a job. In fact—it is strenuously difficult. My sister is one of them. She has two kids—and all I hear about is how difficult it is for her to find a job. Even when she does, she struggles putting together a resume to be somewhat impressive to employers. Yet, how can they have the time and means to do this if all of their extra time is spent on the kids? That is exactly why this group needs the help so badly. We want to organize a foundation that will freely help any who wish to partake of our services. It is just a start, but my wife is a linguistics major, myself an English Literature, and my buddy a business-deal making champion. Put us together, and we have a small team to help create a resume and find someone who might be interested in hiring these persons.

RA: An Opposing Article

One of my primary resources is “f The Foreignness of Germs: The Persistent Association of Immigrants and Disease in American Society.” from a periodical known as the Milbank Quarterly. It is written by some man—who I’m assuming is backed with credentials (to which I couldn’t find) because the article is Peer Reviewed—by the name of Markel. He describes the history behind the medical screening on immigrants beginning with practically the Stone Age of America. He discusses each President of the United States and their contributions to the policy to which the law now stands. The article takes a change in stance near the middle: He immediately begins to criticize the policies and the damage they are doing to America (despite the fact that they are keeping out diseases). He brings up plentiful statistics about the illegal immigrant population and no matter what the medical screening does, it will not prevent “microbes” from crossing the border. He finishes strongly on this point. He briefly mentions the constitutionality issue—but for the most part leaves that one untouched.

Overall, the article is written well. The man has done his research. It was actually a beneficial article to me (despite the opposition in opinion) and helped me see where the main argument of the issue lied. I think anybody would be well informed after reading it. I do think that he could’ve provided some kind of resolution. It felt biased to no avail. I didn’t feel like it tried pushing anything, other than the fact that medical screening is bad.

TA: Audience for B

It was quite the battle deciding on whom to pick as my audience for research paper B. At first, I had picked the US Centers for Immigration Services—due to the fact that they are the ones working right along the borders. But, that just didn’t settle right. I imagined a fat man, sitting behind a counter, working forty hours a week for his cheap, government job. Then I thought: The UCIS probably doesn’t care at all what the law is…they just follow it. They would have no say in anything other than the fact that they must obey law.

This is the primary reason I changed at the last moment before typing my paper. I had to find somebody who cared about the public health of America. After searching through a list of services, I found the US Health and Human Services, with a link to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Imagine a board, whose entire career is based around protecting the American public—so why not write a persuasive essay to someone who would actually lobby

Congress to change current law? Writing Congress itself is just a waste of time. Too much politics. Same with the president. Too much politics. We need someone who can (without party ties) lobby congress to help change the law.

FW: The Tuesday Free Write: I want to listen to President Monson, but I can't! BYU has robbed me of my pursuing spirituality opportunities!

As Thanksgiving draws close—the possibilities on how to spend my time feel limited. Homework. I don’t get the ideology behind BYU. Though they claim to be the Lord’s school—I’m stuck with enough homework, that it fills every holiday break (the total of two we get a year) and even my Sabbath. Even the Sabbath! I love it. We can have a general authority in the church come and lecture on how we should obey the Sabbath, yet every professor gets it in their mind that they can plague each student with countless hours of homework—and expect us NOT to do it on Sunday. Who wouldn’t? Who doesn’t do their work on Sunday? I can imagine the second coming of Christ now, and seeing a giant fireball burning this place to a nice crisp—on a Sabbath—because 90% of the student body would be got breaking the Sabbath filling out huge papers that are do the following Monday.

Then there is the classic excuse that it is up to the student to decide if you do homework or not on Sunday. Correct. But how does any professor expect a student to get an A on anything except they spend laborious hours on the Sabbath preparing for their classes? In fact, BYU wouldn’t have the top business school in the nation if it didn’t require its students to work on the Sabbath—yet we all praise and clap when “We are #1” is announced. Is this a good thing? Or are we digging a pit for ourselves?

RA: University of Michigan Research

I have to say as I analyzed the rhetoric of the research performed by the University of Michigan—I had to laugh. The article does go against everything I have to say in my research paper—but I use it as a basis to prepare for what items I need to defend when writing the paper.
Backed with a wonderful background of immigration application law, they continue to establish ETHOS with big professor names and other researches. About half way through the article there is a major shift of stance—pointing towards the negativity of creating stricter law regarding medical applications.
The researchers move the argument completely to other arguments—like illegal immigration, and the constitutionality of creating such laws. Everything that they do to convince their audience (which in my mind, they do a fantastic job of helping the reader become heated over a bunch of random topics in some strange way tied to stopping infected immigrants) is commendable. Both ETHOS, and LOGOS are supported strongly throughout the entire article.Little PATHOS is found, and the biggest weakpoint is definitely its lack of introducing something NEW. It was like re-reading an article that summed up every bit of common sense one could muster on the subject. But, I guess it is the University of Michigan, can’t really argue the big guns when I’m only an undergraduate at BYU!

TA: Possible enthymemes

These are some possible WATCO’s and enthymemes for my paper B.

WATCO making stricter laws on the medical application for citizenship on American health?
WATCO providing TB treatment for illegal immigrants on American public health?
WATCO providing TB inoculations for immigrant children on American public health?
WATCO loosening medical regulations on immigrant citizenship on American public health?

These are all options because it seems like if the laws were too strict, it would be unfair to those born with chronic illnesses. It doesn’t seem constitutional to deprive people a life in the “land of the free” if they are born with something—but then again, when do we as Americans put our interests first? I don’t even think constitutionality can be considered when talking about my paper—A) it would be a pain to answer this and B) it seems a little off topic. Any thoughts? My possible enthymeme would be:

Making stricter medical laws for citizenship application will promote better American public health because limiting certain foreign ailments will lessen contagious diseases in America.

The wording is terrible at the moment, but for sake of brainstorming an enthymeme, I think it does the job. The implicit assumption works, and I think everybody would have to agree with this provided with correct statistics (assuming the ACLU never has a look at my paper.

FW: I don't know what to do

Let us just take a moment and complain about now knowing what to do. Does it really matter what I choose? My paper is in no way going to persuade and ant to even look for food. That was a terrible analogy--I just think immigration is such a sensitive issue and everyone has their opinion built on VERY STRONG FOUNDATIONS. Can I change that? No. I don’t really think so. Especially when my opinion about this is still in the air. I think if I had, if anyone had for that matter, a good idea to resolve the issue it would be solved by now. But nobody does—so this paper is going to do real no good, other than to help me learn how to present facts to a brick wall. (Can you tell that I’m upset that we have to write about immigration? I figured it was worth complaining about just a little!)
So in my quandering, I'm lost. It is Tuesday, and I am supposed to turn in two possible audiences with a WATCO tomorrow, and I have no idea what to do. Just because I have an interest in Asia, I am kind of leaning towards that kind of immigration. What can we do to help resolve any issues that exist on the Pacific border? Are there any issues? I don’t even know where to start.
Human rights? Is security more lenient about deportation to Asians rather than South or Central Americans? Are harbor checks routine and consistent? How well does the national guard or coast guard make efforts on preventing such immigration? Should we even limit Asian immigration?

RA: The Tribune Article

As a rhetorical analysis, I will review a previous Salt Lake Tribune source for my first research paper. It is interesting to note how easily it is to tell which side the article is debating. Surprisingly, it is arguing against my paper.
The first paragraph does let the reader hang in silence wondering where the article is going to go. It mentions that the school board is slowly “treading” on the problem of vending machines and that some have rallied to limit competitive foods. After a few comments from members of the Utah Board of Education, it gets down to the point.
After luring the audience this far, he pounces. He throws out some facts about Utah scoring an “F” on the national scale of overweight teen prevention—his source is my source which also stated that Utah has the lowest amount of obese teenagers in the country! Funny how he cleverly left that little bit of information out. Either way, he continues for the last paragraph, letting his audience know that Utah is doing nothing to solve the problem. He lists the various fields in which Utah has failed over the past years—such as providing healthy meals, proper health education, etc.
The information that he did use was all correct. He didn’t lie, but it just beat around the truth that Utah is doing a great job on maintaining student health. Style wise, I thought the article was fairly effective. He followed a nice introduction with some powerful “facts” that there was a problem that needed to be taken care of—whether that be true or not.

TA: Ideas on topic

These are some of the topics discussed in class as well as some topics that I am beginning to research. For the TA, I thought it might be nice to organize some of the topics down on paper. They are as follows:

Making the national language English
Test questions on obtaining citizenship
Tightening security on California harbors for Asian immigrants
Tightening harbor security in Florida for Cuban immigrants
Amnesty
Costs towards building and maintaining southern border security
Crime rates from illegal immigrants compared to citizens
Helping Chinese policy towards emigration prevention
Pushing for stronger punishments towards immigrant crime
Economic “drain” from immigration
Economic “gain” from immigration
The American Dream providing leniency towards illegal immigration
Christianity and immigration platforms
Mormonism and immigration platforms
Medicare and other insurances for immigrants
Benefits of American culture from immigration
Media and immigration
Higher wages for illegal immigrants
Helping Mexican policy against immigration
Effects on labor supply and economy after sending immigrants back

I think with this subject in particular—either way you pick, the audience is going to be very hard to convince to believe in your view. Even with statistical evidence, this could all be based on sheer opinion. For this reason, I am heading toward more of Christianity point of view—and helping the Mormon population support some view. Although the Mormon population is a minority, it would really be beneficial to unite a specific sect to vote one way (without breaking the barriers of church and state).