The Only Trouble With Science, Is Science Itself

For this weeks text response, I read the article "Trouble Ahead for Science", by Doctor Kenneth Miller. Right off the bat this articles tone comes across plain and clear; antagonistic, harsh, and slightly sarcastic. Being someone who, in fact, does believe in intelligent design by an omniscient Creator, this article definitely was meant to demean those who believe as I do. Dr. Miller's opening words "American science is in trouble" was an outright insult. The tone of this article reveals that Dr. Miller's intended audience are those who have similar views as himself. This is because it is so belligerent towards intelligent design, that anyone who believes that way, such as myself, would be strongly offended, and likely to stop after the opening sentence.

But, all feelings aside, the author did create quite an effective article, even though an extreme bias can be seen. however, the extreme bias shown by Dr. Miller in his article, seemed to be a little counter-effective. This is because he seemed to show no consideration for the opposition and stated everything so "matter-of-fact."If the reader of the article were of the same viewpoint as the author, or even neutral, it would be very persuasive. The main focus of the article is on the movie "Expelled", and Dr. Miller attempts to counter many of the ideas in the movie. However, having seen the movie, it seemed like a calculated choice to pick on it. Although the movie does revolve around intelligent design, it was done in a somewhat sarcastic and taunting way itself.

In the end, the article was done very well in a rhetorical sense; making relatively good counterarguments, using effective tones, and presenting adequate amounts of documented data. However, the article was written in such a negative manner, that I had a very difficult time reading it, and as you can see, it evoked many defensive feelings. Therefore, this article was a complete failure to someone like me, because it was too aggressive and attacking. If the author would get rid of some insults and decrease the resentful tone of the article, I would be much more likely to respond positively.  

Hip-Hop: The Music of Violence

For this weeks post I read "How Hip-Hop Music Lost Its Way and Betrayed its Fans," by Brent Staples. This article talked about how Hp-Hop music has turned into music about "materialism and murder." (page 299) The main bulk of the article discussed the rivalry between Hip-Hop artists and the violence that has erupted over the years due to provocative lyrics. Staples described a couple instances in which rival artists got involved in violent skirmishes leading to shootouts, and in one case, the two artists were shot to death. This illustrates the violent behaviors of the Hip-Hop industry. The author seems to assert that this violence comes from rappers "embracing violence, illiteracy, and drug dealing as "authentically" black. He claims that this is what has led to the "narrowing of Hip-Hop music." This article seemed to show the violence in the Hip-Hop industry well through examples of violent outbreaks. The only thing is that he didn't seem to explain his title. He never came out and said why Hip-Hop fans have been betrayed. He spoke about how Hip-Hop used to have a wide variety of topics and has now focused on the violent side, but it seems like Hip-Hop music is quite popular in this day and age and many people thrive on the violent topics of the music. Staples ends his article by surmising that the era of Hip-Hop music is coming to its end because much of it is seen as "unacceptable" to the world. This assumption seems to be a little unqualified due to the large popularity Hip-Hop music has with the teenage group.

Dogs Vs. Cats

Which makes a better pet, a dog or a cat? This question is pretty simple for me. Dogs are a thousand times better! There are a myriad of reasons as to why this is true. My biggest reason for being a dog lover is that they can actually protect you if need be (unless you get a midget dog, which I am not a fan of). Cats however, cant even deter someone with a bark. Second, you can actually play with dogs, you can have a game of tug-of-war or fetch, but cats, you can't really do much unless you want to watch them bat around a ball of yarn. You can also train a dog to obey your commands, unlike cats, who just do their own thing no matter what. not to mention tricks! I mean come on, who doesn't want a pet who can learn to speak to you or shake your hand? And whats up with that rubbing thing cats do on every object, living or not, that they pass? And on the serious side, dogs just seem a lot more personable than cats. They carry a strong personality, you can read them and understand their mood by their mannerisms and facial expressions. On the flip side, they can too. They know when you are having a bad day or not feeling well and they will come sit with and comfort you with soft nudges and licks. And when you're excited or happy, they'll jump around and bark to join in on it all. So there ya have it, that's why I will always own a dog over a cat. You may disagree, and that's okay. But if you've never had a dog as a pet, you don't know what you're missing. They aren't just some animal, they're a friend, a part of the family.