Briana's RCL Blog

I have decided to use Weebly because it seems like a neat website. To be honest, I am still figuring out how to use it and I don’t have a complete idea of all I want to include on it. So far all I have for tabs are Academic Projects (like videos/podcasts/presentations) and Resume. I believe once I figure out everything i’ll put on the website, i’ll split up “Academic Projects” into more specific tabs.

update: Weebly was being problematic so i created my portfolio on wordpress here –>   http://brianamwhite.wordpress.com/

No i’m not really advocating advocacy I just came up with the title on the fly….but wait…it’s making me think now…

Possible Topics:

• Now I like the idea of advocating advocacy. That’s brilliant!
• I could advocate the topic of my persuasive essay- no more WMD (weapons of mass destruction)
• I’d also like to advocate the removal of standardized testing from our education system. We can’t test different & unique individuals all the same & measure their intelligence based on a discriminating process.

Audience:

• for my first topic, the audience would be everyone! Literally…everyone!
• For the WMD idea, my audience would more likely be officials in the govt. & military.
• The audience for the education idea would be those who mandate such things. I’d have to do more research on that.

Medium/Media?

• Well, I don’t know. What I do know is what I will NOT be doing, and that is a paper, powerpoint, or speech. No.
• Maybe a video presentation? All kinds of creativity doors open up with that choice, and I like creativity 🙂
• Depending on which topic I choose, I might want one or two partners. But i’d rather work by myself OR in a very small group. I don’t like working with large groups.

Goal

• My goals are simply to reach those (depending on the topic I choose and the audience it refers to) who are strictly OPPOSED to my claim. There’s no use to advocating to those who agree. Therefore, My presentation has to be creative and unique if I want to change someones mind even just a little bit. However, each topic (except the one concerning WMD) requires more research. 

PersuasiveEssay-VERYroughdraftRCL <– this is my word document w/ my draft, just because below it isn’t double spaced or have colors (like the word document, for organization).

Due to the impending dangers of extreme pollution, extinction, and economic and struggles, we should no longer allow the monopoly and development of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Will write/finish intro at the end.

            The debate of whether countries should have weapons of mass destruction has been in consideration since the world shock of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Even before then, the catastrophic nature of these bombs was foreseen in the U.S. Manhattan project- seen as an omen of impending mass destruction.  It is common knowledge, taught in schools across America, that the Manhattan project funded the creation of the world’s very first atomic bombs. The outcome was a brilliant, albeit alarming, new mechanism of war that sparked flames of controversy all over the world. Any person on the street can tell you why such a weapon, with a horrific and unmatched power for total destruction, is morally wrong and should not exist. Though I agree with them one hundred percent, I am here to give you some facts about why the production of these weapons should cease and why the already existing ones should be removed & disabled altogether.

To understand the sheer destructive power of WMD, one must first understand how they work. Nuclear bombs are not the only type of existing WMD, they are merely the most recent and most controversial. Chemical weapons can kill a human being in a number of ways depending of the specific toxic effect and how it enters the body. * deciding on placement for these next few sentences * The most significant advances in chemical warfare occurred during World Wars I and II. In WWI, Germany was the first to use a blistering chemical agent that caused some 100,000 deaths and over a million injuries (Hampshire). * placement * The debate of whether chemical weapons should be considered WMD is sketchy, due to the fact that their mass casualty effect can be much smaller in scope than a nuclear WMD or biowarfare. However, with the increase of scientific exploration and discovery over the years we have come across the option of developing an abundance of highly toxic chemicals that can be dispelled over great distances such that they cause the eradication of very large populations (Hampshire). The poisonous effects of chemical warfare are caused by inhalation, ingestion, or contact with the skin. As far as we know there are about 70 varieties of toxic chemicals that have been used or stockpiled for use in warfare. The chemicals used for this type of warfare can be choking or pulmonary agents, blister agents (or vesicants), blood agents, or nerve agents (Hampshire). Some cause long- term conditions, some cause slow deaths, and some cause rapid death; all attack the human body in a different and deadly way. (note: argument/persuasive element  will be added to these paragraphs later.  I’m mostly trying to get all the facts down first for the rough draft)

Biowarfare is another type of WMD, and probably the oldest. It has existed in many forms throughout the years. One of the earliest types of biological warfare included dropping rotting, plague infested carcasses into water supplies. However, in recent history there has been a peaked interest in developing and advancing biological WMD; many more countries participate in this development than chemical WMD development.

Below is an outline of the rest of my paper. I have concluded that I may need to cut something out because my paper might end up being too long (I have a lot to say and a lot of information to back it up). Is there any part of my outline that you guys think is irrelevant or should be cut out?

A)   Brief Background of WMD, how they work, & the consensus. (Takes up majority of the paper, the rest are relatively short)

i)              Manhattan Project

ii)             Chemical, Biological, & Nuclear WMD

iii)           World court consensus

B)   Cost & Resources

i)              U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

ii)             Nuclear Weapons Databook project

iii)           Land Area Occupation by WMD & Total Expenses Paid

C)   Biological Factors/Concerns

i)              Species extinction rate

ii)             Repeat of effects of Chemical, Biological, & Nuclear WMD

D) Moral Argument/Conclusion

————————————————-

Websites used:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/extinction-species-evolve

http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/archive/nucweapons/50

http://www.hampshire.edu/academics/22169.htm

http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/global-abolition/nuclear-armed-countries

Summary: What are you planning to write about for your persuasive essay? (Go with your favorite idea at this point; your topic may change.)

So far I have been thinking about writing my persuasive essay on the importance of limiting the production and use of weapons of mass destruction.  I chose this topic because I believe that, even though it isn’t the most unique or newest topic, it is still not thought about enough and more people should be thinking about the dangers and consequences of using weapons of mass destruction.

Exigence/Kairos—Why should this essay be written (or—if you don’t have a clear argument in mind yet–why should this issue be explored)? Why now?

As humans, we are the  most advanced species living on the planet, therefore the biggest threat to us is ourselves. There has been lots of evidence pointing to the premature extinction of humanity due to our own action; of course there are many reasons we would be able to destroy ourselves, not taking care of our planet being one of them. However, I believe people don’t pay enough attention to the impending danger of the existing and coming weapons of mass destruction, as well as the very real possibility of them being used for war.

Audience—Who most cares about this issue? Who has the power to change what you are describing (the student body? University administrators? State government? Which section of the population?)

This is a topic that everyone should be concerned with, as it affects the majority of humans living on the planet (though in particular those living in countries who possess or would be targeted by WMD). However, the target of this would likely be the government officials, the President, those who have any large amount of power over a countries military & weapons.

Results—What is the potential payoff of successful persuasion? (Strike a balance between realism and optimism here.)

In all honestly, there may be no payoff because i’m pretty sure anyone with power over this topic has heard all of the arguments for and against WMD. My goal would be to present the against-argument in a different way to get them thinking (provided an essay like mine would actually reach anyone important). In the very likely event that this doesn’t happen, then my next audience would be all of the youth of today (my generation) since we are the future of America and therefore have so much potential to change the future of this country and maybe even the world. (This is something every new generation is told, and even though most students don’t take it seriously, it is a very real claim. We ARE the future, therefore is is OUR responsibility to make any changes needed to benefit mankind.)

Next step—What information don’t you know about your topic but that you should find out in the next few days?

I actually have very little knowledge on this subject, and only have my opinion and the knowledge I started off with about this topic in order to make my opinion. In the next few days I would have to do extensive research about what countries are currently doing now with WMD (developing, planning to use, etc), I should look up the degree of intensity of these WMD (the one’s we are allowed to know about, anyway), and I would also have to explore the possibilities and probabilities of War in the near future in which these weapons would be used. A few statistics about the deterioration rate of Mankind won’t hurt either, just to show how vulnerable we are (this is know for sure, there is scientific evidence that we are “becoming extinct” at a faster rate than any other species to have ever existed, therefore we are becoming extinct faster than we are supposed to (though it is still a very slow rate; nothing to immediately panic about..unless we wipe ourselves out with WMD, Hence my topic.)