Drafting the first edition of my thesis statement was more difficult than planned. It was like my mind was speaking a different language. I knew what I wanted to say, or at least I though I did but, finding the right words to convey my message took many attempts. I jotted down several thesis sentences.Every example would slightly turn to a more specific idea. Originally, I wanted to argue how many government officials benefit from the use of illegal drugs. As I probed deeper into my research I started seeing how corrupt the government was when it came to illegal drug use. Then, I personally came to the conclusion that the government could only benefit from illegal drug use as long as drug dealers and users are still in business.Even here, the government’s benefit rest on the “illegal” aspect. Anything legalization or decriminalizing these illegal drugs would prevent the government from capitalizing on their cash cow. Taking in all these ideas and facts I combine the thesis idea that, since the American Government generates so much revenue from illegal drug use, that they will turn to injustice, and illegal practices themselves, to protect their own bottom line. The American government uses the “War on Drugs’ as a way to generate revenue from illegal drug use by exercising illegal and corrupt practices themselves. With this as I thesis statement, I will have to prove and show the reader what types of corruption takes place. To make this a strong thesis I must target specific agencies involved in my argument.
The Reese’s peanut butter squares are a spin off of the original Reese’s peanut butter cups. The marketing team uses the same logo, front and colors to mimic the original Reese’s peanut butter cups.With the hopes of convincing consumers the new Reese’s squares are just as good as Reese’s cups. The intended audience are consumers looking for a sweet snack. Chocolate lovers and young children are targeted more specifically by the bright orange and yellow packaging. The sole purpose of the company is to get people to choose a Reese’s bar over all of the other brands of candies in the aisle next to theirs. Displayed on the package is a half bitten Reese’s square with the text ‘filled with Reese’s peanut butter’ showing. This is done to show how tasty Reese’s peanut butter filled chocolate squares are.
Introduction: My response to both Steven Johnson’s, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” & Dana Stevens “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” Articles
Prelude: So Steven Johnson, a published author and contributor for New York Time Magazine, with no apparent background in the science or physiological fields, outside of his 8th grade chemistry class,recently posted a nearly 20 page essay on how TV makes you smarter. Then in good ole’ female fashion, Dana Stevens shoots Johnson’s entire theory down with a short,sweet and to the point- 3 page response.
For those who haven’t read Johnson’s article, he basically is throwing out the notion that too much TV is bad for you. Johnson claims new, fast paced, and action filled TV shows, such as 24,ER and Alias are actually beneficial for viewers, due to their complex story lines and multi-threading. Simply put, these shows are unpredictable and involve more brain activity then the average same old-but plot different character type shows, like the A-team.
I understand the logic behind Johnson’s claim that shows with more complex story lines and loads of multi-threading can have a higher intellectual value when compared to the less complex and intense shows. However I am not convinced that watching these shows, is actually more beneficial then reading a novel, playing a round of chess, or any other activity.
Now on the other end of this argument is Dana Stevens, who insist Johnson’s theory of intelligence only consistence of improved, “attention,patience,retention,[and] the parsing of narrative threads…”. Personally I agree with Stevens. The only benefits received from watching TV are only used to make you a better couch potato. Johnson failed to prove that their were any legit benefits to watching TV over any other intellectual activity. So for all of those hit dramatics, 24 and ER couch potatoes the truth is watching those shows will not increase your IQ anymore than the person who does not watch TV. In closing I will quote Stevens, theses shows such as ER and 24 are only ,”good at teaching you to think…about future episodes..”. So don’t kid yourself into thinking TV will make you smarter.
Intro 2 Val’z World Blog:
Hi all, my name is Valerie Carden and this is my new blog site titled “Val’z World”. This is where I will be posting my opinions and thoughts on various topics, issues, and current news-pieces, etc. As the name of my Blog suggest, this is Val’z (me) World, so please don’t confuse my opinions, statements or occasionally rants with the opinions of anyone but me. Thanks enjoy and feel free to chime in at any time!