The Issues Paper: Thesis

My Issues Paper is going to be about adopted children into families that already have children, so here is the thesis:

Although most people would not argue that adoption is good for the children being adopted, there are a lot of potential effects for children that are adopted into families that already have blood-born children because the adoptees might feel like outsiders and alienated in the family.

Resources for Issues Paper

Very well, I must come out and say it: I decided not to do my issues paper on any of the previous topics. I want to talk about adoption. I am not really sure what specific part of adoption that I want to talk about yet, but I am doing my research for it!
My first URL focused on the different aspects of adoption like, who could adopt, who could be adopted, and the adoption process; thus, allowing me to get a better feel for how adoption really works. My Second URL was on a book all about adoption and I hardly got to read any of it, so I just know that it talked about the way parents should handle adopting children because children that are adopted can have many different problems (mentally, behaviorally) and the adopting parents need to know how to handle the situation correctly. My third URL is providing a counter argument to the idea that adopting is always a tricky and hopeless situation; it presents the idea that there are a lot of myths about adopting and that through international adopting, a person can achieve an everlasting relationship with their adopted child with less difficulty than they thought. the fourth URL takes on the target audience for birth mothers.  Birth mothers who give their children up for adoption typically have a very hard decision giving up their child for adoption, and the website goes through the different questions that a mother might be considering concerning giving up her child for adoption. The last and fifth URL focuses on the benefits children receive when adopted into a loving family after having been in a family of abuse and neglect.  The article shows how major challenges in a child's life can be mended through adoption into a loving environment.

Issues Paper Ideas

I was thinking about what topics I could write about for my issues paper, and I am only coming up with a few ideas here and there.  My first idea is about today's morals and how they are becoming less defined.  Research questions I would have for that topic are "What were the old morals and why might they have changed," "In what ways is society's break down of morals becoming less defined," and "Is the effect of loose morals based upon a person's own personal definition of morally correct behavior really affecting anything?"

My second idea is writing about the topic of pets being treated too well.  I think about how several people begin to treat their pets like people: they dress them up in scarves, have paintings done of them, and even get them pedicures or whatever. So, my questions for this topic are simple: Does treating animals like people end up being good or bad for the pets, are real people being neglected from the excess of animal rights activists, and what would make a person forget that their pet is actually a pet rather than a child?

the last idea I had is split between either sexual orientation and whether it is a choice or not, or about relationships and how often times people rush into relationships without thinking about what they are getting into.  Still not sure about that one yet.  Anyways, any ideas or comments are welcome. THANK YOU!

The Rhetorical Analysis Process

To begin, I am going to be talking about the process of writing my rhetorical analysis (as stated in the title above).  So, if you have no interest in reading about my thoughts on this subject, I suggest you read something more interesting... like the actual rhetorical analysis. Writing a rhetorical analysis reminded me a lot of my AP English class in high school, actually.  In fact, I am pretty sure that all of the papers I wrote in my AP English class were very similarly formatted.  Basically what I am trying to say is that I felt a bit more comfortable writing the rhetorical analysis, even though it is slightly more formal than the opinion editorial. 

My actual process for writing the rhetorical analysis (RA) is an interesting one.  I actually really did not want to write anything at all when I got started on my rough draft and it was pretty evident from its content.  I left out a lot of detail and kept really short paragraphs, mostly just making sure I fit in the correct amount of words and getting enough examples to get the credit I needed. My introduction and conclusion were strong, however, because I hold the opinion that those two items must be exceedingly strong before you can back it up with really good evidence.  By the time I needed to write the second draft of the RA I was able to just bust out all the writing that previously could not be found.  The peer reviewing was also really helpful in the process of writing the RA and I enjoyed receiving advice from others who had actually read the paper themselves.  They helped me work out all the last details to make my rhetorical analysis something presentable.

Rhetorical Analysis: The New Domestic Trend

Very often in the LDS religion, one will hear stories of how people not of that faith are truly affected by the “light” that the Mormon people seem to have.  Some would debate whether that “light” is genuine at all, seeing as they hold other beliefs and do not want to give the religion (or members) so much credit.  Despite those indifferences, however, Emily Matchar's "Why I can’t stop reading Mormon housewife blogs" effectively advocates the reading of Mormon blogs to people who may or may not have similar backgrounds or interests to those of the LDS (Mormon) religion. She integrates use of perspective, heavy use of figurative language, and the relationship between logic and emotion in order for the reader to not only feel enamored with, but also reason out the benefits of reading blogs that support a domestic lifestyle. 

Emily Matchar employs her point of view, in addition to several other’s perspectives, to get a variety of backgrounds that are unified through the “Mormon mommy blogs.”  She refers back to her own firm beliefs/non-beliefs in order to depict the grand contrast of living circumstances of her own life to the women’s blogs she reads.  “Their lives are nothing like mine,” She begins, “I’m your standard-issue late-20-something childless overeducated atheist feminist — yet I’m completely obsessed with their blogs.”  Matchar’s use of perspective helps the reader more fully understand that it is not a requirement to be of the same faith to appreciate the same standards, since Mormon women are so often seen marrying young and having large families—and, are obviously not atheist.  She does not only expound on her own perspective, though, which increases her validity.  She gives examples of other people who have also been enlightened by the messages portrayed in Mormon writing.  Matchar refers to Holbrook (the author of the popular blog Nat the Fat Rat) who says, “Most of my readers are non-LDS women in their late 20s and early 30s, college educated, many earning secondary degrees on the postgraduate level, and a comment I often get is, ‘You are making me want kids, and I’ve never wanted kids!’”  Matchar not only employs her own atheist perspective, she uses the perspective of a member of the LDS religion; and by using Holbrook’s quote, Matchar actually captures several “non-LDS women in their late 20s and early 30s” perspectives, making Matchar’s argument more credible. This second form of perspective helps the reader to feel more comfortable with what is being presented.  The reader is more able to relate and see how the effects of just a simple blog post could make someone who has never so much as glanced at a child with the desire to one day have some, to an avid and attentive person with a wish to know the bond that the blogs present of a mother-child relationship. However, Matchar does not stop there.  She goes on to give another key perspective to her theme: her husband, “a former Saint.”  With information that she receives from her husband on the LDS church, the reader is able to get all the viewpoints that are necessary to believe in what she saying.  The reader is more likely to believe Matchar with the employment of her husband’s character because he has the inside scoop; he has been to the church meetings, participated in LDS programs, and knows the teachings.  Therefore, Emily Matchar has employed the feminist atheist, the faithful Latter-day Saint, the non-LDS women, and “a former Saint” equaling out to one very persuasive literary piece. However, Emily Matchar needs a little bit more than a few different perspectives to effectively convince others of the capability of uniting polar opposite backgrounds to one firm set of simple and sweet truths. 

Of course, Emily Matchar chooses to best extenuate her points through use of figurative language to further convey and distinguish the differences between her and the blogs that she reads.  One of Matchar’s best techniques is her voice in her post.  The somewhat mocking and skeptical tone that comes out every so often such as, “I certainly have no illusions about what life as a Mormon would be like” and, “The bloggers I read may be as happy with their lot as they seem. Or not,” develops Emily Matchar’s character and makes her appear as a real person rather than some unknown entity.  In addition, the use of heavy sarcasm in her tone that comes out in reference to the picture-perfect lives of Mormon women helps the audience understand that despite the picturesque lifestyle portrayed by the Mormon mommies, it is important to know that those mothers have problems just like everyone else. Matchar states, “You’d be a fool to compare your real self to someone else’s carefully arranged surface self.”  This skilled author continues to prove her case through using very well-thought out diction.  She begins one paragraph of her post saying that she “cringes” as she uses the word “uplifting” to describe the feeling she gets from reading Mormon mommy blogs.  It is also evident that Matchar would be using very specific diction in her post since she specifically made a comment on the use of diction in the Mormon Blogger’s posts.  “But as you page through their blog archives, you notice certain ‘tells.’ They’re super-young (like, four-kids-at-29 young). They mention relatives in Utah…” shows that Matchar is very aware of the Mormon Blogger’s use of wording in their blogs, so the audience of her blog can only assume that Matchar would be very conscious of her own wording.  For example, Emily states, “…I do think women of my generation are looking to the past in an effort to create fulfilling, happy domestic lives, since the modern world doesn’t offer much of a road map.” This one sentence is filled with a great sense of word choice.  Matchar does not say “this generation of women blah blah blah,” she says, “women of my generation,” which ultimately lets the reader know that Matchar, as a feminist, is included in the group of women looking for a “fulfilling” life, and that Mormon Blogs are definitely creating a type of world for women to do that. In contrast, however, she states, “And don’t even get me started on the Mommy Blogs, which make parenthood seem like a vale of judgment and anxiety, full of words like ‘guilt’ and ‘chaos’ and ‘BPA-free’ and ‘episiotomy.’ Read enough of these, and you’ll be ready to remove your own ovaries with a butter knife.”  She makes this bold statement in order to shock the audience.  Of course she does not mean the sentence literally, but she is trying to get the point across that Mommy Blogs by other people other than Mormons tend to be depressing and stressful.  When Matchar states, "... you'll be ready to remove your own ovaries with a butter knife," she simply means that after reading those depressing blogs, the idea of having children  will seem like a nightmare.  her crude manner of putting that sentence also makes it more abrupt for the audience to read, making them ultimately reject the idea of reading the non-Mormon Mommy blogs; thus, fulfilling the goal of Emily Matchar in supporting the reading of Mormon blogs. This crude, yet humor-fulfilling example of sarcasm invokes a sense of urgency in the reader.  By reading that bit of irony, they are ultimately filled with a desire to only read Mormon mommy blogs by the harsh contrast Matchar uses to the other blogs that compare; however, Matchar must tie logic and emotion together before the knot is set for the reader.   

The most important aspect of Matchar’s article, “Why I can’t stop Reading Mormon Housewife Blogs,” is the fact that it unites the ideas of Logic with Emotion.  Several times, Matchar states how perfect the lives of the Mormon women look, when organized and planned, then placed on an online journal.  However, Matchar is wise by calling in all the details of why their lives look so great. “The bloggers I read may be as happy with their lot as they seem. Or not. While some Mormon women prosper under the cultural norms for wife- and mother-dom, others chafe. Utah is, after all, the state with the highest rate of prescription antidepressant use….” The fact that the author calls in facts that should be looked at, she still does not let those completely clash with the housewife blogs.  Matchar simply calls reality into the picture, which is a good thing.  She takes that information and adds it to the formula of why she finds the blogs she reads to be so interesting, and continues by saying, “…the basic messages expressed in these blogs — family is wonderful, life is meant to be enjoyed, celebrate the small things — are still lovely. And if they help women like me envision a life in which marriage and motherhood could potentially be something other than a miserable, soul-destroying trap, I say, ‘Right on.’” The fact of the matter is that Emily Matchar gives the reader the real picture.  Yes, LDS Women do not have perfect lives; in fact, a lot of them could be considered fakers of happiness, but it is the emotions that Emily expresses about how she feels when she reads those articles that truly persuade her readers to follow her example.  Matchar invokes several feelings within her readers.  At one point, they will be laughing because she states something a bit sketchy, at other points she may make others upset with her tendency to be so reluctant towards the actual LDS church. In the end, the audience cannot help but feel at unity with Matchar when she says, “And if [the basic messages expressed in these blogs] help women like me… I say, ‘Right on,’” because it is obvious that despite her differences, she has truly found something of worth and value to her life through the messages of simple blogs by religious women.

Emily Matchar’s argument for supporting domestic Mormon messages could be seen as subtle in "Why I can’t stop reading Mormon housewife blogs," but there is something to be noted in an article that can use persuasion without directly calling others to follow the trend.  She employs several effective examples of rhetoric through irony, perspective, and the relationship of logic and feelings in order to spark the interest of the reader.  Perhaps it is through subtle messages and accounts of personal experience that are most inviting to believe in—especially when the author asks nothing in return.

Huh... That's Interesting

Peer Reviews have always been an interesting experience for me.  You see, in my writing class at BYU, the first peer review we did was a one-on-one discussion where I read my paper out loud to a partner, we discussed it, and then she read hers aloud and on went the review.  I mean, it was a nice experience and everything; I got the constructive criticism I needed.
However, today we had our second peer reviews in class... and it was different (in a good way).  This round we were assigned to groups of 3-4 people and we had to have their papers read and annotated before we ever got to class for the actual review.  I think that I liked the small groups better than the one-on-one deal because it is a lot easier to critcize others in a group.  I mean, I enjoyed both of them, don't get me wrong, but I think that it is a lot more intimidating to tell someone that they did not get their grammar all together in their essay in a one-on-one situation.  Also, with the small groups, reading the essays beforehand is nice because you can take the initiative to look over the actual material and see all that the person was trying to accomplish, rather than just hearing how the author reads it to you.  Heck, they could read very well, but their punctuation could be totally off and the other person would never know. 
Anyways, lots of fun, those peer reviews. Now, off to make sweet sweet sandwiches! :)

A Well-structured Body..... (Paragraph)

Of course, Emily Matchar chooses to best extenuate her points through use of figurative language to further convey and distinguish the differences between her and the blogs that she reads.  One of Matchar’s best techniques is her voice in her post.  The somewhat mocking and skeptical tone that comes out every so often such as, “I certainly have no illusions about what life as a Mormon would be like” and, “The bloggers I read may be as happy with their lot as they seem. Or not,” develops Emily Matchar’s character and makes her appear as a real person rather than some unknown entity.  In addition, the use of heavy sarcasm in her tone that comes out in reference to the picture-perfect lives of Mormon women helps the audience understand that despite the picturesque lifestyle portrayed by the Mormon mommies, it is important to know that those mothers have problems just like everyone else. Matchar states, “you’d be a fool to compare your real self to someone else’s carefully arranged surface self.”  This skilled author continues to prove her case through using very well-thought out diction.  She begins one paragraph of her post saying that she “cringes” as she uses the word “uplifting” to describe the feeling she gets from reading Mormon mommy blogs.  It is also evident that Matchar would be using very specific diction in her post since she specifically made a comment on the use of diction in the Mormon Blogger’s posts.  “But as you page through their blog archives, you notice certain ‘tells.’ They’re super-young (like, four-kids-at-29 young). They mention relatives in Utah…” shows that Matchar is very aware of the Mormon Blogger’s use of wording in their blogs, so the audience of her blog can only assume that Matchar would be very conscious of her own wording.  For example, Emily states, “…I do think women of my generation are looking to the past in an effort to create fulfilling, happy domestic lives, since the modern world doesn’t offer much of a road map.” This one sentence is filled with a great sense of word choice.  Matchar does not say “this generation of women blah blah blah,” she says, “women of my generation,” which ultimately lets the reader know that Matchar, as a feminist, is included in the group of women looking for a “fulfilling” life, and that Mormon Blogs are definitely creating a type of world for women to do that. In contrast, however, she states, “And don’t even get me started on the Mommy Blogs, which make parenthood seem like a vale of judgment and anxiety, full of words like ‘guilt’ and ‘chaos’ and ‘BPA-free’ and ‘episiotomy.’ Read enough of these, and you’ll be ready to remove your own ovaries with a butter knife.”  Matchar makes this bold statement in order to shock the audience.  Of course she does not mean the sentence literally, but she is trying to get the point across that Mommy Blogs by other people other than Mormons tend to be depressing and stressful.  When Matchar states, "... you'll be ready to remove your own ovaries with a butter knife," she simply means that after reading those depressing blogs, the idea of having children  will seem like a nightmare.  her crude manner of putting that sentence also makes it more abrupt for the audience to read, making them ultimately reject the idea of reading the non-Mormon Mommy blogs; thus, fulfilling the goal of Emily Matchar in supporting the reading of Mormon blogs. This crude, yet humor-fulfilling example of sarcasm invokes a sense of urgency in the reader.  By reading that bit of irony, they are ultimately filled with a desire to only read Mormon mommy blogs by the harsh contrast Matchar uses to the other blogs that compare; however, Matchar must tie logic and emotion together before the knot is set for the reader.   

Figurative Language Analysis- Overstatement

Emily Matchar's "Why I can't stop reading Mormon housewife blogs," employs effective figurative language in order to get the audience onto the same page.  Her use of overstatement is extremely effective on the audience when she says, "And don’t even get me started on the Mommy Blogs, which make parenthood seem like a vale of judgment and anxiety, full of words like 'guilt' and 'chaos' and 'BPA-free' and 'episiotomy.'  Read enough of these, and you’ll be ready to remove your own ovaries with a butter knife." (Italics added in by me.)  Matchar makes this bold statement in order to shock the audience.  Of course she does not mean the sentence literally, but she it trying to get the point across that Mommy Blogs by other people other than Mormons tend to be depressing and stressful.  When Matchar states, "... you'll be ready to remove your own ovaries with a butter knife," she simply means that after reading those depressing blogs, the idea of having children  will seem like a nightmare.  her crude manner of putting that sentence also makes it more abrupt for the audience to read, making them ultimately reject the idea of reading the non-Mormon Mommy blogs; thus, fulfilling the goal of Emily Matchar in supporting the reading of Mormon blogs.

Rhetorical Analysis Thesis

Emily Matchar's "Why I can’t stop reading Mormon housewife blogs" effectively advocates the reading of Mormon blogs to people who may or may not have similar backgrounds or interests to those of the LDS (Mormon) religion by use of vivid imagery, heavy allusions, and various settings and perspectives in order for the reader to not only feel enamored with, but also logically put together the benefits of reading blogs that support a domestic lifestyle.

Girls! PFFT!

So, normally I write about random "blobs" and stuff ("blobs" is equivalent to blogs for new readers), but today I will focus on something a little bit different. Why do girls fantasize about things that they would never in actuality want in their life? Take for instance, the Twilight Series: with the new movie on its way to hit the theaters, I think it is a relevant reference. Anyways, back to the point.  I was just thinking about male stars and why girls like them so much.  I am in no way hating on Stephanie Meyers books, of course; in fact, I read the books and I liked them very much. Plus, I really appreciated the way Stephanie Meyers developed the characters so well; however, the movies and the fans are a bit ridiculous to me. 

Everytime one of the new Twilight Series movies comes out, I find myself dreading the audience and posters and everything that I find surrounding me.  I hear girls fighting about "Team Edward" or "Team Jacob" and I cannot help thinking, "hey, that's kind of super lame."  I mean, for one thing, they are not real people: they are fictional characters. For another thing, the actors are just regular people and definitely nothing to be oogling at.  Taylor Lautner, for example: sure, he's built and everything, but-- he was sharkboy and will forever be just that. 

(My best friend and I happened upon a free poster of Taylor Lautner.  Gaze upon the Splendour! GAZE.)

What's more is the fact that girls always fantasize about some man who will sweep them off their feet and whisk them away to happily ever after land. Girls-- you do not want a guy who sneaks into your room while you are sleeping just to hear you talk while you sleep; you would definitely think it creepy of them. 

Anyways, I have no idea why I wanted to write on this subject. I think I just wanted to draw the picture at the top of the page and expound on it. Thanks for reading this rant! :)

Blobbing about Blogs?

I love to rhetorically analyze things; thus, I have decided to do a rhetorical analysis on this blog post http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/01/15/feminist_obsessed_with_mormon_blogs
The rhetoric situation of this blog is focusing on why mormon "mommy blogs" are so uplifting for everyday people who may or may not have religious focuses in their lives. 
1.The author is trying to show that even though her ideas of faith (or lack thereof) are inherently different from mormons, they do not seem to diminish her fascination with the messages that mormons present in their  blogs, and she appreciates their positive attitude; she wants to share her experience to persuade others to read them.
2. The author uses several different tools of logic (logos) to strengthen her argument.  For instance, she says that mormons are so good at blogging because "Church elders have long encouraged members to keep regular journals for the dual purposes of historical record-keeping and promoting spiritual insight, and as a result Mormons are champion journalers and scrapbookers," which only makes sense. The author also uses emotional connection to improve her argument through examples of her personal experience in reading mormon mommy blogs.
3. These tools that the author uses in this blog helps the audience believe that since she has had such a positive outcome with reading mormon blogs, that they too can feel the "uplifting" experience that she has.  Also, the author helps the audience think that in a general sense, people do not have to have the same beliefs, to raise each other up and encourage good morals.
4. The author needs the audience/reader to think, feel, and believe in her blog because she feels so strongly about the subject of being a feminist-athiest, but that she is able to read something by someone of completely opposite beliefs; she just wants to help others know that they can fall into the same category.

All in all, I think this blog is very interesting.  Mostly because I, myself, am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon religion), and I think it intriguing that this woman has been so affected from reading from members of my same faith and feels the obligation to share that with others.  I just think that that is a pretty cool trend of blogging about others blogs-- kind of weird, but still cool. (I'm a hypocrite, obviously. hahaha!)

Opinion Editorial Process Evaluation

I'm not particularly sure if I have any real genuine thoughts on creating my opinion editorial concerning the subject of awkardness.  It was interesting to see how much a paper could develop with each round it went through and how much each level required for input.  I mean, the rough draft was REALLY rough and I did not take any time to edit it at all, because that is what instigates a quality rough draft paper, right? So, editing that definitely took most of the work. It was nice to get feedback on how to make the paper much more appealing, as well as how to be more specific. I enjoyed the comments people would make as they read the paper each time, so I could fix it as well. However, I have always enjoyed writing; it just seems to be a good way to spend time, so I do not know if I would say that I felt out of sorts when writing about something that I wanted to write about.  Then, the polished rough draft was nice just to get in some cleaner editing and revision.  I enjoy taking the time to get all almost all of the spelling errors or punctuation corrections, as well as getting other people to read it so I can fix any unanswered counterarguments that they might see and I had never thought of.  I tend to notice that other people have good advice because they all think completely differently, so if I want to appeal to a large audience, it's good to get their opinions beforehand.  Any who, by the time I got to the final draft of my opinion editorial, I only had to focus on minor punctuation corrections and sprinkling in better wording for the "Awkward Blob."  My favorite part of this process was the pictures, though; they were just hilarious to make and I think they really help the argument I'm trying to portray.  Plus, they add humor, which is always good. I want people to think I'm funny!

The Awkward Blob

People are an interesting sort of specimen. In all my years of wisdom and learning (18 years, if you really want to know), I have never met another species as intriguing and as complex as humans. They are able to express so many emotions, develop so many sets of skills,  make advances in all the world’s innovations, and so on and so forth.  In all the successes of the Homo sapien, however, I find the most fascinating one to be the natural, yet somehow unnatural, capability of people to take any situation and make it exceedingly more awkward than it has to be by means of stiff silence, inappropriate moments of speech, or the making of gestures that are--well, just odd in the sight of others. However, it has been my understanding that people do not have to excel in the expertise of gawky behavior; in fact, it would be beneficial if more people would not allow themselves to participate in it.

There are several different locations and groups in order to find oneself in a situation of exemplified awkwardness.  College is a particularly good place to recognize these perfected moments of discomfort. (*Note that I mention college because that is where I am in life right now.)  Alright, so imagine going to class (especially the first day of school.) 

You want to make friends so you take a seat in a pretty good location--just in the middle of everything--in hopes that someone will sit beside you.

In a few short minutes you realize class has started and the closest people to sit next to you are exactly one seat away in distance.  Since they are not directly beside you, no initiating conversation has been made nor introductions placed; and as you look around the room during the class discussion, you are constantly reminded that you feel weird about the glances you are making with those two people that you never really got to meet.

This is a typical situation for any gathering amongst strangers in an auditorium-like setting; in fact, it is very similar to my first day of college.  The situation provided, however, is not necessarily the first person’s fault ( the one who sat down and found themselves with a radius of empty seats surrounding them).  While that person could have taken initiative and said, “Hey, come sit by me! No need to be shy,” the people coming in and taking seats exactly one seat away seem more responsible.  Their thought process, no doubt, is concerned that by asking to sit by someone, they would magically cause some worse situation, than sitting next to a stranger. Now, I understand that in reality people are not perfect, and some even like their space when it comes to sitting in a crowded room, but that is certainly no excuse for negligence.  Of course, we find ourselves on both sides of the awkward situation: sometimes we’re the one making it awkward, other times the opposite party is making it awkward, and in really great situations--it is a group effort! My question is, what’s so hard about just talking to people and being friendly? It really is not that difficult, and I am positive the results would only be beneficial. Of course, not every single person chooses the shy route when found in potentially disastrous atmospheres.


While shyness definitely plays a role in the transpiration of clumsy events, the results of people who have no filter for when things are appropriate or not seem to provide much stronger cases of repulsion and disbelief amongst an audience.  What I mean by this, is that there are many times that people talk because they do not want things to be weird. So, they give away more knowledge than what people actually want to hear, leaving their listeners in a perturbed state. I once experienced this in group function at church, and I am not going to lie to you, I am amazed at the amount of information people will share with others.  So, my church group was having an activity one night and we were at the part where one group of people have “the spotlight,” which basically means that they present something to everyone else so we get to know a little bit more about them.  This particular group consisted of 3 girls asking 3 boys several general questions about themselves (like one of those old, lame game shows). Everything had gone alright, you know, questions about what their best date was or whatever other marriage-related topics they could think about, until the last question came up. One of the girls spoke up, “What is your most embarrassing moment?” DOOM.  The first two boys had decently bad experiences, but nothing too terrible, and then “Patchy” answered (his name is not really “Patchy,” of course. I’m just protecting his identity). Of course, he felt inclined to tell us his actual most embarrassing moment: him eating some foreign food that inevitably did not agree with him, resulting in him having an explosion of diarrhea while cooking dinner the next night.  That’s right--no filter whatsoever with “Patchy...” and I’m not just referring to his toilet.
Besides the challenge of one-sided awkwardness, I think it is safe to say that awkwardness can come equally from both sides.  Whether it is a date where you quickly discover that you share no interests at all with the person, or a situation I’m sure I have experienced: walking into someone, muttering some unidentifiable words because you were caught off guard, and both of you confusingly make movements you had no idea your body could make, in order to move out of each other’s way and get back onto the path to your destination. These moments are pretty common, though, and while we may not put much thought into them, they are still very apparent (and very uncomfortable). All in all, classic, bumpy, inescapable routes of the common person. 

(Check out this site for more REAL awkward moments from REAL PEOPLE! Include your own moments, if you would like as well!) http://www.theawkwardmoment.com/

There are those of us, however, who can break the bonds of social entrapment; whether it is a natural gift or the product of self-motivation, I do not know, but it is possible. I have witnessed the talent of several people, who simply are immune to shyness or overbearance.   They go to a party and completely open themselves up to people they have never met before, they go to school their first day and initiate conversation with whomever they feel like talking to at that moment; however, most importantly, they talk, and they do it without saying something out of term.  The leading cause for socially awkward situations can most often be pointed out specifically to a lack of conversation.  Now, there are also plenty of cases where people say too much (we’ve all had that experience on one side or the other); but for the most part, this is true.  Whether we, as people, are afraid of receiving judgement from others or just feeling inadequate, our efforts at avoiding awkwardness fail us with every word of silence we do not take the courage to break.  


So, why continue in pointless attempts at a graceful facade, if they are not working? Take a chance and sit next to someone you have never met before.  If you are afraid of human contact with strangers, pretend like you have never felt afraid a day in your life.  You have immeasurable capabilities. When walking by someone, just smile and say, “hi.” There’s no doubt about it; the human race will find itself stumbling less on the path of life when the people stop looking at their own two feet, and look up from the ground to talk with each other.  

The Conceited Porpoise (This Title has No Relation to the Topic)

Ever find yourself getting paranoid over things? (Please, do not respond to that question.) Let me expound on that thought, though. I notice, sometimes, that I haven't had something happen in awhile, and then that topic/thing starts popping up everywhere. For instance, this summer I went with some friends to go on a river float and one of them mentioned the fact that they bruise easily.  I had thought about it for a second.  "I don't really bruise that often," I proceeded to comment.  Little did I know, then, that I was later going to fall in the river and get several bruises on my leg, as well as, get 2 huge bruises on my arm the next day from climbing up a stairwell (long story, but there's one of the two bruises below). 

Needless to say, I was surprised after receiving so many apparent injurious bruises, that nobody called me out for being a "bruise-easy hypocrite."  Of course, I am not sure if people want to point out bruises on a person, especially if they are to the point that they look as if someone was beating them (touchy subject, I won't expound on.) 

BUT IT DID NOT END THERE! Yeah, I thought that it was kind of weird to get bruises after thinking that I rarely get them, but seriously. Now, it seems like I cannot go an entire week without getting a new bruise to replace the last one to start fading. I honestly believe I have had about 17 bruises in the last 2 months, not even joking. I just got my newest one from volleyball last Friday. 

I think it might continue on forever at this rate. It is actually a VERY big deal.  (Actually, it really isn't.)  Anyways! So, enough about my silly little bruises and observations. I would like to hear about YOU.  Have you ever had a similar situation to this? Not necessarily the bruises thing, but just something that involved you noticing some particular object that kept appearing in your life? Maybe you would always run into a certain cat every day or end up parking next to the same type of car all the time... who knows! Just, SHARE IT! :D

My Purpose

So, I just wanted to let any future "BLOB" followers (that sounds gross) know that the purpose of my blob is just to relay any thoughts I may have been thinking. I might share tips on how to look more attractive, create fun little cartoons to depict a story, or just share whatever is on my mind at the time. So, if you're not interested in that sort of conceited purpose, then you should definitely follow me!

How to Seem Creative

Today, while pondering over typical college work (lots of reading), I wondered what denotes the level of creativity in a person. I mean, I have received the gratification of being placed into the class of "creative" people; but honestly, I do not know why. I assume that 'creativity' denotes originality of a thought or concept. Maybe this is why I do not consider myself all as creative as other people. But, who are the truly creative? Are they the ones that hype up on crazy drugs and paint some intense abstract art?

I do not typically indulge in drug use, though (actually, I never do).  So, how would one go about earning the title of 'creative?'

Well, I think for one, most people only occasionally have extremely creative ideas that are not influenced by any outside forces.  I can admit to being influenced by many different things to exhibit creativity of some form.  For instance, imagine going to a party.  You're snacking on Doritos (the best flavor, of course; use your imagination) with friends and a battle of wits breaks out amongst the group.  You were at a party last week and a similar situation took place where one of the members of last week's party outsmarted you.  Nobody at this party was at last week's party, so what do you do? Well, DUH. You use something similar (if not, exactly the same) to what the clever person at last week's party used on you.  This way, you appear much more clever than anyone else there, and you redeem a few, "Wow! You're so creative!" compliments, as well. 

So, if you ever wonder why you do not seem as creative as other people, you now know that they probably are not all as creative as you think. 

Only Blob

This story begins like any other: BRAIN VOMITING.

That is not really how it begins, but it's a start, I suppose.  So, let's start with the real story:

Kelli is my name. You know, the one that my parents gave me, after the street I grew up on as a child (that's right, they ran out of names).  So, I had the normal childhood: one in a family of nine children and two parents; wanted to grow up to be a vet, but realized at a young age that I did not want to attend TEN YEARS of education beyond high school; and experienced several strange occurrences of karma for being a bratty child (like breaking the exact same arm as my sister 5 minutes after making fun of her for breaking hers).

As a relatively normal person, it is evident that I would follow the route of normal people.  The "normal" people I knew, all went to college; thus, I went to college.  After getting credit for first year english from my AP English class in high school, I figured I would get out of a class, but upon my arrival to college, I received the unwelcome news.  The school basically mocked me as if to say, "S-U-R-P-R-I-S-E! Your communications major requires you take the first-year writing with or without AP credit, sucker!"  I was fine with it because I like writing, and soon discovered my specific writing 150 class would be focused on blogging, as an experiment-- that's right, BLOGGING.

Of course, who wants to just fit into a category of people? (That's a rhetorical question.) I don't want to be just another "blogger."  Instead, I decided to take the route my teacher, Christopher, suggested by accident while stumbling over some of the words in our course syllabus describing what was supposed to be, "the academic blog."  Thus, "The Academic Blob" was born.

The trend will catch on; people will be "blobbing" all over the internet.  After all, who would not want to be able to tell their friends, "yeah, I blob a lot?" (Another rhetorical question.)  I am not 100% positive, but I am going to go with my gut feeling, or woman's intuition, or sixth sense, or whatever other kind of powers I could obtain to say that the likeliness of "blobbing" becoming popular among crowds has a 99.99723% chance.

SO, obviously this "blob" has a purpose besides brain vomit and blob fish with horribly done Microsoft paint skills editing (did that sentence make sense?);  it is to correlate how blobs and brain vomit can come together in order to unify the specific point that there are several problems in the world that can easily be voiced by means of opinion editorials.  Sure, I do not exactly know how to define opinion editorials, but I am sure that wikipedia will do a fine job in the meantime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial

Anyways, back to the subject of problems.  What are problems? How does one solve them? Well, that has yet to be answered, BUT! Coming to a university campus setting, I have been able to find several small problems within the young adult committee. The main one: going to a class with lots of people and managing to be awkward enough so that the entire room feels stuffy. Any idea what I mean by that? Well, to put it simply in ANY given situation with ANY type of people (pretty, young, old, sci-fi readers, etc.), the strangers will most often arrange their seating so that they never sit next to anyone they do not know (unless seats are low) AND they avoid talking to each but regularly make eye contact with the stranger as they peer around the room in hopes to find someone they know or someone they find attractive.  It is basically the most unsatisfying feeling I have ever dealt with in my life. Definitely an opinion editorial I could expound on. That is... if anyone is interested to hear more? So, I think you have got to take this moment to ask yourself, "Can I handle this amount of truth?"