Research Proposal

Colin Garlock

English 191

Jack Hennes

November 5, 2012

Research Proposal

            The topic I would like to explore, in relation to Henrietta Lacks is cancer treatment and how it compares to then and now. Especially how the treatment has developed since her death. Still up to debate whether I would talk about how cancer has changed in the views of Americans and if that has helped with the fight against cancer.

Tentative Thesis: Thanks to the HeLa cells science has made leaps and bounds as to the understanding and treatment methods of cancer. 

Reflection: confronting a fetal abnormality

The doctor did the best he could to adjust his usual way of informing people, trying his best to deal with the mothers customs. The doctor could have handled it better unfortunately he ended up getting frustrated and blurting it out anyway. The problem is ancient customs and modern technology will never get along because of the gap between them.

Welcome freshman DNA swabs, please: Reaction

This another example of how good intentions turn to be something not so good, The
university did everything they could to lawfully complete their goal. The people who were going to be tested by in large did not have much of a problem, it is those select few those whistle blowers who want to stir up trouble. If the University did all it was suppose to and by that I mean clear it with board and inform those their intentions, they should lawfully be able to do this. This is so much better than the case of Henrietta where they just did what they pleased to her. The university approached this in the correct way.

Internet source for Research Project

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189_human_medical_experimentation_ethics.html

This article is about how western medicine is great, but has a dark side human testing. The human testing was usually done to people without there knowledge. This is easily relatable to Henrietta and how people did not inform her, to the taking of her cells. This is definitely is an article that is modern yet still very relevant to the book.

Cell Consent

If I was informed that somebody in my family had cells taken from there body without that individuals consent I would feel violated on that family members behalf. The problem is not with taking that individuals cells, the issue is not asking, I am positive they would oblige to the request. They would want to help research or if they could help in any way they would. It seems to be without asking to take the cells they are using them not for beneficial use but for there own weird science uses. If your out and open with your intentions people would be more willing to give their cells.

            In the case of the Lacks family, it is not enough for them to know what Henrietta did, I think those family members deserve retribution for her sacrifice. It would not be much from each company for them to live better, because her cells have made those businesses so much money.

Final Draft For Rhetorical Analysis

Colin Garlock

English 191 Section 17

Jack Hennes

October 15, 2012

Social Warfare

            Sexual orientation and marital bias is the most recent form of social warfare. It is in the forefront of debate and conversation even though some say that it is an uncomfortable subject. Although an uncomfortable subject there are those out there who fight for and against this topic day after day regardless of how uncomfortable it makes some people. The subject is gay marriage. One man on the frontline of this battle is David Blankenhorn, a writer for the New York Times and author of the book “The Future of Marriage” and was an active member in the proposition 8 court hearings. David says that marriage between same sex couples is not to be condemned, instead to be recognized as a different form of union with similar intentions.

            The article starts out simply enough with the author saying that he once opposed gay marriage on simple principles such as lack of biological ability to create a child, and that the child has a right to be raised by those individuals that committed to each other. Once this is explained David goes on to say that he is a marriage advocate and that it was time for him to switch his views on gay marriage. This ability two realize the facts, think about what he believes and alter his opinion based on those facts speaks wonders on his deduction abilities. Not only was this impressive because its hard to believe that anybody would switch on a topic they were so sure about it speaks wonders to his ethos or credibility in his topic. David was speaking against gay marriage in the courts while proposition 8 was becoming a law to vote over, soon after his opinions changed, as a writer for the New York Times he is aware to how far his words travel in the hearts and minds of her readers. Besides being a writer for the most famous magazine he is a published author on the topic of gay marriage. Aristotle teaches that to believe peoples influential words we have to look at three things one of them being the credibility, whether or not this individual should be trusted and recognized as a person with valid ideas and thoughts. David obviously meets those guidelines as a credible source for people to follow.

            Credibility or Ethos is just one of the three rhetoric devices, another one of these is Logos or the logic behind the arguments. The most interesting aspect to this genre of argument is that it is difficult to misconstrue the intension of the rhetoric. The only problem is that with social situations it hard to be very logical with opinions and feeling because people are so sensitive. This is were David really shines with his arguments they are easy to follow and logically sound even though it is a subject that is heavy on opinion. The first of the three big points David makes is that “the time for denigrating and stigmatizing same sex marriage is over, that recognizing that same sex marriage and their children is a win for basic fairness.” (Blankenhorn 1) After analyzing this statement it is apparent that his point is that those who are different should not be put down for only that reason. The point is that in our society does not put down on people on the basis for who they are or what they believe, so on that point he is asking why is it ok to put down on them were it has never been ok to do so before. With every other social issue it takes time for the issues to settle and for those who oppose eventually give way to what is right, and David is sitting and waiting for those people to finally realize and switch like he himself has already done. His second point was equally thought provoking and persuading. In one word describes a reason for this Idea to be understood and that word is comity. Mutual courtesy; civility is the meaning behind this simple word. David’s point here is that we must all live together side by side with some level of respect for one another’s lifestyles and choices. No one has the right to limit each other to what we want and believe in, “taking a firm stand and never changing is admirable but bending the knee in the name of comity is not the same as weakness.” (Blankenhorn 1) Some would even say that’s admirable. In any situation compromise and understanding is the only way to get to the bottom of any difficult situation. David’s third point is the only one he prefaces by saying and my third point, which lets the reader, know as to the importance and profundity to the statement. Reading this it is clear that he holds his punches and sets up this article relying heavily on this point as both a persuasive point, and as a defensive wall to battle even the most stubborn on this subject. The third point that he is most happy to employ is the emerging consensus, the bubbling up of harmony in this subject. The point here being that people are already coming around to realize that gay marriage is an acceptable idea and practice. This point relies heavily on the fact that people are generally conformist and want to go with the group and that so far more and more support for gay marriage has been appearing. The younger generations have been in favor for gay marriage although some might say they are wrong on their merits but surely it matters.

            The most surprising aspect of this article was surely the fact that a social issue like gay marriage was lacking in the appeal to emotion. Logos was very prevalent in this paper. Were Pathos or appeal to emotion is very lacking although there are some strong points in this department it is quite surprising how overwhelming the logic is and how lacking the emotion is. The authors point may have been that emotion is over used in this instance and was trying to use his incredible deduction skills in a new way to approach this subject, by shining different light on the subject maybe it would be seen or perceived just as different. The author is however very clear when making a claim on emotion, this is very obvious because his first real explanation using emotion says that the debate should be mostly on the fact that marriage is to promote healthy relationships for children, so in short marriage makes good parents. He goes on to say that the debate is not about this at all that it is about the ludacris idea of accepting gay people as equals, this point is very hard to swallow instantly the ideas of suppressing people for how they feel and the way they are is fundamentally wrong as history has shown. This point was the first example of emotion used so obviously he knew how powerful point this was to use it at the end to make sure people understand how emotional a topic this is. He does not use this for shock value he says this is the case because he himself once argued this same point, and he realized why this was not a logical fight he was fighting with emotion that was fundamentally wrong and eventually switched. This was not his only point in the emotion category this was just the most persuasive. Another strong appeal to this point is that the debate over this subject was to show that the institution of marriage is not as stable as everyone may think, but this has not happened. This shows that people are not even recognizing this concept all they see is to fight the people based solely on the animus and not the issues facts and ideas. Marriage is not so stable each year more and more children are born out of marriage so limiting this based on the fact of children is a weak argument. Arguing that fighting gay marriage will somehow help marriage is not a sturdy argument because if that statement were true then we would have seen the benefits by now. His final appeal to amend this whole situation is by saying that, the fight for gay marriage is a waste of time not only will it eventually become acceptable but that there should be a new coalition of gay people who want to strengthen the institution of marriage and straight people who want to accomplish the same goal, this idea of coming together to solve the problem instead of playing tug of war is the only way to find common ground. When people come together to solve problems has usually resulted in mutual benefit between both parties. And a world were everybody is happy is a utopian idea that is appealing too most.

            The analysis of this article by using Aristotle three examples of rhetoric Logos, Pathos, and Ethos has been very eye opening and has provokes many good ideas for gay marriage. This New York Times writer not always in support for gay marriage but has realized that gay people have every write to marry is obviously a well spoken, and written advocate for this subject and is respected. He evokes emotion by playing at the fact that we are all equal and that if it were up to you as an individual would want the same respect they are asking for. He also made very logical arguments about the implications and intentions of marriage and how that gay people can be every bit as deserving of marriage as anybody else. With any form of social issues eventually those who oppose realize why they are wrong and kick themselves for believing what they did.

Works Cited

Blankenhorn, David. "OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; How My View on Gay Marriage           Changed." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 June 2012. Web. Oct.          14, 2012.

Outline for Rhetorical Analysis

Colin Garlock

Rhetorical Analysis Outline

      I.         Thesis: Those who choose to marry regardless of sexual orientation have the right to do so. It wasn’t there choice to be gay, so why should they be punished.

    II.          Logos:

                              A: Equal dignity of homosexual love regardless of other factors.

                              B: Destabilization of the institution of marriage

·      Divorce rates, marriage statistic, between both same and opposite sex

  III.         Ethos:

                              A. A writer for the New York Times

                              B. Published author on subject of Same sex marriage

·      Often quotes book in article.

IIII.         Pathos     

                              A. Recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for    basic fairness.

                              B. Children can thrive with same sex marriage couple just as with    opposite.

·      Nations convention on the rights with children.

IIIII.    Conclusion: marriage is an institution with many kinds of obstacles challenges,       but in the end a wonderful thing that everybody should indulge in. In this day and       age people don’t get put down on for what they believe but why should people get put down on for wanting to marry.

                        

Rhetorical analysis

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/political-ad-tracker/index

The use of grainy color, and capturing the look of Mitt and Paul is a motion towards Pathos

Garlock 1

Colin Garlock

Jack Hennes

English 191    

7 September 2012

Technology in Adolescence

            Its hard to believe that I grew up in the age were computers began to develop into a necessity like a car or a house. I always remember having a computer, but never being on it, that device was something I never had an interest in until school. Third grade was the first year I had to use the computer to write. Before that I had spent my time playing games and goofing around, but it changed for the worst when Mrs. Knight assigned a paper on an animal of my choosing.

A quadruped with armor like body spikes and horns protruding from every part of him, like something out of science fiction. Although esthetically daunting, a petite creature with no intent to harm anything except for the ants he eats. The animal was the horned lizard. The research was simple and informative with nothing too exciting. I had all my work together; at the time what I would think is everything anybody could know about this lizard. It was finally time to put ideas to paper.

 I sat down at my computer, cubical number seven, the walls carpeted in a light tan to somehow soothe us as if we had something to be nervous about I would soon find out there would be something. Sitting down there was no padding to the chair a cold hard stump in which to make ideas flow not very conducive for writing. I looked down to find my home positing that I was taught to always use. My eyes looked at the keyboard disgusted, the different tints of black and gray lay on those key staring back at me with a

Garlock 2

kind of solidity as if to say that it could never be fully cleaned. I rested my hands on the keyboard and as the words started to flow I knew this was something I loved to do, and would do it for years. Word after word turned into sentence after sentence, this monolithic task that intimidated me, suddenly gave me wings and the ability to express myself. The page requirement being two pages was drawing near, but my pace had slowed I felt like a bottle rocket quick out of the gate but then over in an instant. I checked my notes, and everything was covered, I looked over the paper as if to inspire me or maybe find something to reiterate. Just as the words too easily became sentences the seconds ticked away into minutes, the deadline drawing near. I watched the screen hoping something would happen but the glow of that computer screen was anything but pleasant I waited as if someone would come and help or at least the lizard would meet me half way and inspire me again.

Time was up I had disappointed myself, from across the room the teacher yelled “who hasn’t finished” embarrassed my hand ascended, I lifted my head up soon after and comfort washed over me it was like a forest of pale opaque hands, I was happy not to be singled out, the whole pack mentality was something that had always given me comfort. I left the computer lab home bound the words Huffy streaking by feeling the breeze through my hair as if liberated by the sweet sound of that bell echoing through those halls. I realized that the stress that paper had caused me at such a young age was not something that I was too interested in. I knew that my life belonged on the road, the sidewalks, and occasional dirt path. Out of sight out of mind was my mentality; I did not have to stare at my paper so there for it was not a problem.

Garlock 3

Throughout the night I remembered the paper was waiting for me at school that lizard mocking me somewhere somehow, the concern soon faded because at that age nothing could hold my attention. Sleep did not come easy that night but eventually I faded into a sweet slumber.

 The day was like any other, the tranquil silence being broken by my mother’s subtle voice, she comes into focus saying those four words that I dreaded everyday “it’s time for school”. Moving slowly upstairs from my cool quiet basement up to the kitchen. I ate, I showered, I got ready for school, the paper never leaving the back of my mind. Time to ride, my Huffy is my chariot it is what gives me the instant ability to transfer myself great distances.

The school has come into sight my enthusiasm for speed diminishes my pace is slow like I am peddling through mud. I bite the bullet and I walk in knowing that the paper will have to get done. I walked sullenly over to my desk and sitting there looking at me is my paper the Horned Lizard by Colin Garlock, it was a miracle. What I had left unwritten my beloved teacher Mrs. Knight had filled the gaps to bring this masterpiece altogether. The day was renewed and my fear for typing papers relaxed, knowing Mrs. Knight was out there helping some other young boy with his project.

This whole experience writing about the horned lizard makes me think about how writing cannot, should not be forced, because writing is an expression and should flow naturally. The other side to that argument is that without deadlines nothing would get done. The Horned Lizard paper is very ingrained in my psyche because in the end it was

Garlock 4

a pleasant experience with only minor hiccups. I have always enjoyed to writing papers and hope for my love to keep expanding and inspiration to come more readily.