Second Paragraph

Municipal Broadband Networks. The term does not necessarily roll off the tongue but it is far simpler than it sounds. Rather than buying Internet access from a private company like Comcast or Time Warner, municipal networks allow consumers to buy their internet access from their hometown, much like their electricity or water utilities. These locally owned networks are quite literally built by the people, for the people. Even better, they are flexible in their implementation. This means that they can respond to the demands of the people they serve more effectively than the one-size-fits-all approach of national chains like Time Warner Cable.

First Paragraph

The Internet is one of the biggest innovations of the 21st century. It has become an essential part of business and a cornerstone of modern socialization. Yet despite its importance to our society, we as a people have allowed access to the information superhighway to fall under the sole control of a small group of enterprising individuals. These Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, owe no loyalty to any person, town, state, or nation. Driven only by profit, ISPs force consumers like you and me to pay exorbitant prices or live without a staple of modern society. There exists a third option however, that has the potential to break down the barriers imposed by ISPs and open new portals into the web through the cooperation of individuals like you and me.

Midterm Reflection

1. What has surprised you about this class?

I was a little surprised by the structure and grading in this class. Traditionally I have always received a grade soon after turning in a product. It is very unusual for the primary course grade to fall under a single final portfolio.

2. Which class period was your favorite?

My favorite class period was the one we spent discussing the Serial Podcast and its merits as an inquiry in the context of our project. The subject matter was very interesting and I found the subject helpful for refining my approach to the main project.

3. Which class period was your least favorite?

My least favorite class was the peer revision period for the annotated bibliographies. While I like peer reviews, the actual discussions were dry. Also, without any particular guidance for discussion I feel like I didn't get as much useful feedback as I did with my inquiry proposal.

4. What’s your favorite thing you’ve read for this class?

I have enjoyed reading my peers' inquiry proposals and blogs that focus on their topics. They have allowed me to keep up with many of the interesting topics that my peers are researching as well as see how personal views are changing.

5. What’s been the hardest part?

The annotated bibliography has been the hardest task in this class to this point. While the format was very simple, its rigid structure was unappealing and made the task far more laborious than other bits of writing that we have done.

6. If your experience in this class so far was a movie, what movie would it be?

Perhaps my memory for movies is failing me but I cannot think of any movie in particular. Frankly, it would be the kind of movie that you'd rather talk about than watch. Sure it can be thought-provoking at times, but it isn't very original or interesting on its own.

7. Do you feel like you’re giving this class as much effort and attention as you’d like to?

I'll be perfectly honest and say that I am coasting through this class. I have already taken several writing and rhetoric classes at the college level, so nothing has been particularly new to me. I don't put nearly as much time into it as I do with other classes, except when an important deadline arises.

8. Is there anything you’ve learned or heard in this class that might affect your life outside of it?

I was already familiar with all of the technical aspects of writing that we have discussed in class due to my experiences in similar classes in the past. The thing that has stood out for me is the culture shock I experienced in this class from many of the opinions and research topics I have encountered from my peers. I am used to a far more liberal culture at Penn State, so the wide acceptance of more socially conservative values was a bit weird at first. I have never been in a class where so many people would have attributed the Bible to being the most influential piece of writing in their life. This is in no way bad, but it has caused me to revise the way I interact people in everyday life.

Improving Writing with Shitty First Drafts

The writing tip suggested in the piece entitled Shitty First Drafts is quite useful to aspiring writers as well as those people who utterly detest the practice of publishing their ideas in printed form. By allowing yourself to freely write, without concern for critics or anyone else, a writer can more ably utilize their full writing potential. There is something very freeing about being able to candidly express yourself in writing. Unfortunately many writers have a tendency to try and edit their work while drafting and interrupt that creative process.

That is something I know all too well. Personally I am my own worst critic when it comes to writing. I will often write, edit, and reorganize my thoughts through several iterations before ever setting a pen to paper, or even engaging in normal conversation. In fact, this last sentence went through at least 4 different iterations before I typed anything. This habit has proven to be very frustrating in the past, and fueled an utter distaste for writing throughout most of my high school and college years. It was only after I started working to break the habit that writing became a pleasure rather than a burden.

So why is the one-and-done approach to writing so prevalent? I think a large part of it ties into the way that we learn to write. A lot of teaching in general these days is devoted to equipping kids with the tools to pass standardized tests. Often these tests consist in part of an essay that requires students to form a full-fledged argument in 1 hour and 5 paragraphs. There are no drafts or revisions, just an institutionalized pressure to be perfect the first time, every time. This turns a free form of expression into a cold mechanical formula that is detrimental to a student's writing capacity in the long run.

At the end of the day we need to drop the standardized test writing and get back to the basics described by Anne Lamott. Not only will people be better writers for it, they might actually enjoy it a little bit more.

Audience and Writing Style in Technical Debate

As some of you now know the focus of my inquiry has been the preservation of an open internet through the breakup or weakening of internet service provider monopolies. Specifically I am focusing on the creation of municipal networks to create real competition, but this is not all that unrelated to the broader net neutrality battle that is currently being fought in Washington DC and abroad. While the positions and questions raised in this debate are often nuanced and steeped in both rhetoric and ideology, the whole thing can largely be simplified down into a fight between market and government forces.

The Atlantic is a well-known and respected publication in the US. When the net neutrality debate was renewed after a SCOTUS decision overturning the FCC's Open Internet Order, The Atlantic released this article providing a brief history on the debate. The language is clear and easy to understand and care is taken to explain some of the more technical aspects of the debate in order to make it more accessible to a broad audience. While a lot of sources are referenced throughout, this piece serves as more of a primer for people new to the topic than an in-depth inquiry into the net neutrality debate. It is also worth noting that while both sides of the debate are discussed, more emphasis is placed on the pro-FCC/neutrality side that appeals to the moderate to left-leaning audience.

For an alternate take on the ISP monopoly debate I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal  via the university library databases. For context the Wall Street Journal generally takes a more conservative and pro-business stance on issues and is generally written for a investors and other white collar workers. This shows in an article that relies more heavily on statistics and dollar figures than its counterpart in the Atlantic. Less time is spent explaining the more technical financial concepts it references because the intended audience is one that is already quite familiar with finance. It also takes a far more pro-market stance and engages in a lot the ideological rhetoric that has plagued the broader debate at the national level.**

I know that this particular blog post hasn't been the most exciting, but I think there is one key takeaway in all of this. Audience matters. Due to their different intended audiences both publications have adapted their writing and editing in order to maintain the wide readerships they have today.






**As an aside the WSJ article was an opinion piece written by the executive director of the Progressive Policy Institute, a progressive think-tank. I find it odd that he is so openly critical of the same municipal solutions that many other progressives so actively support.

Serial: An Inquiry into Memory

I first came across the Serial podcast in October 2014 while listening to This American Life on my way to work. I found the story it tells to be enthralling, yet somehow let it fall to the wayside due to stressful nature of my work at the time. When I saw it assigned for homework I was quite happy to have a reason to dive back into it.

What were you doing at 12:30pm last Friday? Three weeks ago? Fifteen years ago? I'll be honest with you, I can hardly remember what I had for lunch today let alone specific details about where I was and who I was with. Yet in the case of the Serial Podcast, the entire story is in those kinds of details. Ultimately the Adnan Syed case, still working through the appeals process after 15 long years in the US court system, boils down to what occurred during a 21 minute window in the middle of an otherwise ordinary January afternoon. Sarah Koenig's inquiry into the case has brought new life, and more importantly new doubt, into a case that had otherwise been considered resolved for the last 15 years.

Serial is a prime example of how the inquiry process should be approached. Despite the emotionally charged nature of her investigation, Koenig is able to take a meticulously impartial approach toward the facts and materials surrounding the case. As you progress through the series you can often hear from the tone of her voice that she very much wants to prove Adnan's innocence, yet she does not allow her personal feelings on the case keep her from evidence and lines of inquiry that point to his guilt. This is ultimately what makes Serial so enthralling to the listener. Every bit of information serves to make the situation seem even more uncertain. But the inquiry process is more about discovery than merely finding an answer.

Sometimes the first answer you get isn't the correct answer. However, without critical inquiries you might never know the difference. Koenig's inquiry has certainly brought evidence to light that might have significantly altered the original outcome of the case. It has also recently led to a key witness, Asia McClain, coming forward and releasing an affidavit on January 15, 2015 that may very well decide his appeal. We will have to wait and see though.

Academia and the Rhetorical Situation

While reading the article about academic writing I was struck by a theme that the author repeated on several occasions:

Academic writing and research may be knotty and strange, remote and insular, technical and specialized, forbidding and clannish—but that’s because academia has become that way, too.

 In effect Mr. Rothman's point was that we should not expect academic works to appeal or address a larger base because they are intended for academia. In the rhetorical context of academia, it makes sense to write this way, but I think Mr. Rothman is overlooking the real issue at hand in his defense of academic writing. Academia has largely isolated itself from the rest of our culture has worked itself into a self-perpetuating cycle of pandering to itself. This separation of academia and mainstream society can have dire ramifications when the people shaping public opinion and policy are not the same people who have the necessary knowledge to draft such policy. We can see examples of this in places like environmental and economic policy, where the people engaging in the rhetorical situation often misrepresent academic findings for personal and political gains. Meanwhile the academics who have devoted their careers to the very same topics do little more than sit back and grumble among themselves about how their findings are being misused or ignored. Ultimately I find myself agreeing with Nicholas Kristof in many respects, although I think that the problem goes beyond simple outreach. There needs to be a cultural change within academia and a shift towards opening up its vast wealth of knowledge to the public.