Remember the Titans

Gunther Spore
Mr. Kubiak
5/19/2015

The Greatest Movie of All Time

Literature I believe is the transfer of words in an artistic form from one party to another. This can be done through books, movies, TV shows, speeches, or debates. I believe literature does have a place in society. Literature is a cornerstone of a well cultured society and allows for people to express ideas and ideologies in a civilized and different manner that without literature would otherwise not allow them to without literature. 

The best piece of literature I have ever encountered in my life is the movie "Remember the Titans" directed by Boaz Yakin. This movie is literature because it artistically portrays a story about a football team that overcame racial differences, during a time of racial strife, to go on to a undefeated season. This is meaningful to me because I think this movie shows what times were like during the time period an how a group of young men were able to overcome racial differences even when society was telling them the wrong thing to do. On a deeper level, the movie shows a relationship grow between two players, one white and one black. Julius and Gary start off the movie as bitter rivals and as the movie progresses we see the two build a long lasting relationship. As the two leaders of the racial groups, Gary and Julius, it is ultimately this relationship that is the most important in the movie because it is not until Gary and Julius overcome differences is when the whole team comes together. Towards the end of the movie, Gary gets in a car crash after a big game and paralyses himself from his lower back down. This is an emotional time for the team and acts as a building experience for the team going into the championship game. At the end of the movie the Titans end up winning the championship game, and the movie ends with a telling of what happened to all the players. Unfortunately Gary died at a young age and the opening scene and closing scene is of the players and coaches walking in unison at Gary's funeral, a very strong emotional ending. 

1. I learned this year how to be a better writer and how to better analyze arguments and different rhetorical devices that authors employ in their writings.

2. I'll take on my improved writing skills to help me write essays next year. Ill also use the rhetorical devices I used and studied this year to improve my writing next year.

3. I struggled with picking up rhetorical devices at first and how authors employed them. I also struggled with grammar and punctuation in essays and my writings.

4. I thought there was a good mix of material. I felt prepared for the AP exam.

Rhetorical Situation

Gunther Spore
AP English 3
Mr. Kubiak
6th April 2015

Open Carry

     The issue I have decided to explore is the open carry law in Texas. As a gun owner and being a year shy of voting a straight republican ticket I thought the issue would be a good way for me to increase my knowledge of an issue that I feel very strongly about. In this essay I will focus on concealed carry vs open carry.

      The issue I will focus on in my research paper is open carry vs concealed carry in the state of Texas. I will, in 6 pages, explain the legal cases surrounding open carry in the late 1st decade of the 2000s, compare and contrast open carry laws with concealed carry laws in Texas, and finally explain some of the potential outcomes of an open carry law. This law is something that all Texans should feel invested in, it is very close to being finalized and passed through the Texas house. The issue of open carry is an issue that is in need of deliberation and education for all citizens. In Bitzer's essay he states “Any exigence is an imperfection marked by urgency, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be”. Open carry meets Bitzer's definition of exigence. It is something that needs a debate and common ground has to be met on both sides of the issue.
       Every single Texan should be invested in this argument, the bill SB17 could potentially affect every citizen in Texas. To narrow my focus in the essay I will write to are the middle ground people. I do not wish to convince them that one side is better than the other but to offer the arguments of both sides and allow them to make their own decisions about the issue. I also seek to give an alternative to open carry that has in some peoples opinions better results than open carry, concealed carry. Both sides of the issue, Pro open and against open carry use different areas to argue for their cause. Those against open carry use experts to argue against open carry, "police chiefs and self-defense experts profess their belief that concealed is the best means of armed defense" (Reece). While the pro open carry use the constitution as their argument for open carry laws as well as guns are crime deterrents "However, by carrying your firearm openly, you may deter a crime from happening in the first place" (Group).

Group, Kos. "Why Arguments for Open Carry of Guns Makes No Sense." Why Arguments for            Open Carry of Guns Makes No Sense. N.p., 13 Dec. 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.

Reece, Kevin. "Pro and Con Arguments over "open Carry" Legislation."KHOU. N.p., 3 Feb.        2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.

Metaphors

Gunther Spore
Mr.Kubiak
AP Eglish 3
2/9/15

Metaphors

In Neil Postman's, "The Medium is the Metaphor", Postman makes a lot of claims and asks questions that are intended to make the reader think about his argument. Postman does this to allow the reader to reach his way of thinking without blatantly telling the reader what to think. On page 15, Postman asks a series of questions to the reader, designed to make the reader question how much images impact our existence: “Where do our notions of mind come from if not from metaphors generated by our tools?” Postman’s point is that images tell us what the mind is like. Without images we could not comprehend what the mind is actually like. By using metaphors/images such as “genetic codes” or “biological clock” we are able to understand what the mind is like. This brings us to Postman’s concluding thesis “Our metaphors create the content of our culture”, after reading Postman’s essay I would agree with his thesis.  Some strong points he uses to sway the reader is that we cannot see intelligence or human nature as a physical object but instead we use language to visualize such abstract things. Postman’s then uses logos to further explain his argument to the reader. Language=media=metaphors=content of our culture. Postman’s weakest points I believe is when he brings up a point to the reader but then does not fully go into the topic to make sure the reader understands it. For example, when Postman talks about time and God he brings up a valid point about humans becoming ignorant of God: “the clock may have had more to do with the weakening of God's supremacy than all the treatises produced by the philosophers of the Enlightenment”. Postman unfortunately does not explain what he meant and it leaves the reader feeling unsatisfied.  I found Postman’s style of arguing very similar to Gwen Wilde’s “Why the Pledge of Allegiance should be revised”. Like Postman, Wilde uses a lot of examples as well as numbers to make a rational logos argument. Wilde uses examples to make the reader think about the historical arguments for why the pledge should be revised. In addition to examples she uses numbers to show the reader a logos point of view on the issue: “70 or even 80% of Americans say they are affiliated with some form of Christianity”. While Postman does not use numbers he organizes his words into an equation effectively making a strong logos argument.

Protecting the First Ammendment

Gunther Spore

Mr.Kubiak

AP English 3

17 January 2015

Blog #1

My opinion on the first amendment is that censorship of what people say out loud or write in books is wrong. I do not believe that the government should have anything to do with regulating what people say, no matter what they are saying. I do believe the government has a legitimate duty to regulate commercial speech to protect consumers but other than that I do not understand why our government would censor what people have to say. Even hateful speech has to be protected because it is someone’s opinion, if we start to censor what people have to say, no matter how evil it might be, then it opens the door for censorship of everything. The argument brought forth by Derek Bok was particularly interesting to me. In his case a confederate flag was hung on a college campus, insulting people who believed this to be a symbol for slavery. Some members of the community demanded that the school make the people who put the flag up take it down: "To disapprove of a particular form of communication, however, is not enough to justify prohibiting it" (Bok 70). I think this quote is spot on, too often today people’s feelings get hurt by what other people believe so they try to have them censored. The problem with censoring one action is where do we stop? If we ban what is said in books or online why don't we ban people on what they say? In my personal life I cannot think of an instance of when I was censored for posting something online via Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram. I have had friends though that have posted stuff about the rivalry between Strake and STH that have been called into the dean’s office and had their post asked to be erased. As a minor and a student, I can see our schools stance on the subject of what gets posted online, but that being said I do not agree with it. For our school to monitor us in an area that has nothing to do with school is creepy and intrusive to me. Part of the process of forming young men is learning that your actions have consequences and it is better to learn that lesson growing up than when you’re in the real world, and for Strake to censor what we say online is depriving us of that lesson.