The importance of being flexible to the needs of your audience

Last Friday, I went to a panel presentation at the Making Meaning Conference. I did this not necessarily because I thought it would be the most interesting or engaging experience in my academic career, but because I had to write do an assignment on rhetorical analysis and this conference was one option for analysis. Trying to find some way to relate to the panel, I decided that since I am interested in medicine, the conference "What is so “Schizophrenic” About that Text? A Disability Studies Approach to the Usage of “Schizophrenic” in Critical Theory and Academic Discourse" would be interesting and applicable to my academic and intellectual career.

The topic above was presented by Elizabeth Brewer from Ohio State University, whom I believe was writing her Ph.D. thesis. First of all, when reading the document I cringed to an extent, just because she was from OSU, but I tried to let college rivalries not get to me; after all, U of M football, although a big part of the college experience, is not something that I dedicate much time to.

Finally, at about 4:20 (20 minutes after the conference was supposed to begin because the first speaker didn’t show), the coordinator warmly invited Elizabeth to the front of the room with applause from her 7 member audience. At this point, with her paper in hand, Elizabeth turned to face the audience, sat in a chair, and her first words were, “I’m just going to read my paper for you.” And so she began. Reading off of a stack of approximately 20 – 30 pages, Elizabeth began to analyze the usage of the word “schizophrenic” in academia.

Of course, I still had some anticipation that the topic would be interesting, if not the presenter’s lack of communication with her audience. But, to my dismay, my hopes came crashing down. Certainly, Elizabeth’s use of a quote at the beginning of her presentation drew the audience into her topic, and she cited many examples and support for her arguments. However, within the first two minutes, I came to realize that I wasn’t going to understand much of the point of Elizabeth’s topic. She continually cited theories from Foucault and someone I think was named Delouse and Guatari. She cited books such as Anti-Oedipus (I think that’s how it’s spelled), and presented her critique of the ideas presented. However, I found that much of the information she presented was inaccessible to the average person. I realize that this was a topic on rhetoric, but one of the points of a good argument is being able to connect with your audience, and she definitely didn’t connect with me. Perhaps if she would have introduced some of the theories with background information or explained the ideas of Foucault, the general audience would have been able to better understand her argument.

However, despite my inability to understand much of Elizabeth’s presentation (or reading, rather), I felt that she showed that she does feel passionately about the fact that the term schizophrenic should not be thrown around in regular conversation in the way that it is. Just as saying “moron” or “that’s so gay” when the literal definitions are not being applied, the word schizophrenic doesn’t have a place in regular conversation. After all, when terms and labels are used out of their intended context, they often can have negative effects on the people who the terms actually apply to. Schizophrenia is part of a person’s identity, and the term should not be thrown. This was my understanding of one of Elizabeth’s arguments or reasons.

On the other hand, the second speaker, Patrick Barry, was a law student at the University of Michigan and his thesis was "What is Walt Whitman Doing in a Supreme Court Case on Loitering? The Role of Literary Allusions in Judicial Opinions." Although law is not a serious interest of mine, I felt that Patrick’s delivered his arguments to the audience in a much more effective manner. Patrick, although visibly nervous at times, constantly kept eye contact with his audience, presented a more personable attitude, and stopped at points in his argument to offer clarification.

Patrick discussed how literary and biblical references in law intrigue him, and he wonders why these allusions make it into the court room when there are so many law books to cite from. He answered saying that when the law doesn’t seem to answer questions to a satisfactory level, judges use literature as a rhetorical tool because it fills in the gaps that law hasn’t. Additionally, he explained that literature offers social perspectives from which to make judgments, and help guide judges in their rulings, even though judges often get the allusions wrong. He presented numerous cases as evidence of references to the bible and women’s oppression and Regina v. Dudley and Stephens. In the latter example, the court utilized Paradise Lost and the story of Jesus dying on the cross saying that just because there is necessity for something like cannibalism when stranded, that doesn’t mean that that necessity is good enough reason to kill another. This made me come to understand that no field is perfect and interdisciplinary references and comprehension can definitely add substance to an argument.

In the end, I am glad that I went to the conference, because I definitely learned the importance of using clear examples and the power of quotes in grabbing the attention of the audience. At the same time, I came to understand the necessity to not assume that your audience understands the topic of which you are discussing, and to make sure that any subject specific material that may not be understood by those outside your field of study needs to be explained if your audience is to ever understand where you are coming from. Otherwise, conferences like this (or essays that use similar assumptions) will never be effective except to those that dedicate their lives to the topics at hand.

Are the selves that I follow only the dark ones?

Today, I continued to contemplate which idea of the self presented by “The Self We Live By” is worthy of writing a paper about.

Perhaps it’s naivety, but no matter how much I get confused while reading the TSWLB or while in class discussion, I seem to see merits in all of the concepts of what the self is, especially in those that represent “the dark side.” This makes me start to question, is the self that I live by dark and in despair? Am I attracted to the comfort provided by Whyte’s “organization man,” and will my self be torn away by the tyrant leading to conformity? Or, do I belong to Berger’s idea of what the self has become, subject solely to what others label me as? It seems that being a victim of labels is quite evident in my past. If it wasn’t for my family and friends labeling me as the smarty pants of the family, I don't think I would have chosen to go to college. Sure, I have the work ethic to succeed, but higher education was something I felt pushed into, not something I chose. Then again, is that to say that labeling is a bad thing all the time? After all, in a few months I will have a bachelor’s degree and the opportunity to possibly pursue medical school, optometry school, or another high ranking profession which will provide me with financial security, and hopefully a fulfilling career which I would not have had the ability to do without my degree. However, what if when I was in elementary school I had a learning disability that went undiagnosed and therefore struggled in all of my classes? I perhaps would have been labeled by my peers as being dumb or as a slacker. I probably would have lived up to expectations, barely made it through the rest of my school years, and associated with other kids who had been labeled in the same manner. Would my path still have led to Ann Arbor, or any college town for the matter? I think the unfortunate answer is probably not. Luckily, that was not the case.

Then again, perhaps I am not completely naïve but that in fact many of these theories of the self are true, but it is our age and maturity that determines which of them we follow. I recently applied to Teach for America (which is on my mind right now because I find out in fifteen minutes whether I made it onto stage 2...cross your fingers for me) despite comments from my friends and family such as “do you really want to teach” or “don’t you think that’s a waste of your potential?” Despite their comments, and the label “future money making machine” I feel has been stamped on my back, I have applied to this program because I want to make a difference in these kids’ lives and because I have always enjoyed explaining difficult concepts to confused students. It’s not that I don’t want to become a doctor; in fact, "become M.D." is still at the top of my future goals checklist. However, I want to take a break and pursue a life goal that was always mine and no one else’s. If I was still fully a victim to labeling as I was in high school, I don’t believe that I would have taken this step. But, just because I have moved away from one model of the self, that doesn’t mean that I may not adopt another self. Perhaps now that I have moved out of Berger’s idea of the self, I will move onto Hochschild’s self (or already have), further developing my “true” and “false” selves. In fact, after being prompted in class to discuss which self you are most intrigued by, it is Hochschild’s self which I wrote about. I wonder, if the false self is shaped by social expectations with the intent of catering to what people want, will I develop false selves that protect my true self in my future career as a teacher or doctor? I have always been quiet, but when I am at work I put forward a positive, eager, and boisterous disposition. Perhaps when I am working, my true self starts presenting a false self that does “emotion work,” so that my quiet self can be protected from others. This may be a defense mechanism; after all, if you don’t provide a cheery yet strong self to the patients, they will walk all over you. Then again, is the false self I present at work more closely related to my true self, or is it the quiet, reserved self that I present at school that more closely resembles my true self? Honestly, I don’t know.

Perhaps I am even getting Hochschild’s, Berger’s, and Whyte’s ideas completely wrong; I know that I was completely lost when I first read the second chapter of TSWLB, and still am a little confused about Cooley and Mead. Philosophy and English were never my strong points, which is perhaps why I stuck to what I am good at, math and science. Or, perhaps I stuck with science because, as mentioned earlier, I was living up to what other’s labeled me as, a good science and math student. In the end, I’m happy with where I am, and feel that if it is Hochschild's self that I am beginning to follow, at least I only project false selves in order to protect my true self, despite my inability to know who/what that is.

Analyzing an article using the Toulmin method

For Monday’s blog (I realize I’m a little late considering it is early Wednesday morning), I was asked to do an analysis of the Toulmin method. Considering that I am juggling the idea of aspiring towards a career in the health industry, I chose to analyze a New York Times article entitled, “To Explain Longevity Gap, Look Past Health System.” After all, it seems that many people like to point their fingers at the health system and claim that it is the cause of all of America’s health misfortunes, rather than reflecting on what they could be doing to make the status of their health more favorable.

First, before even utilizing the Toulmin method to analyze the argument, I looked up the author (John Tierney) to verify his credibility. Although probably a fairly respectable reporter considering that he writes for the NY Times, it seems that Tierney writes about many different topics, and doesn’t specialize in health issues. The sources that he uses, Dr. Preston, a demographer at UPenn and his colleague Jessica Ho seem respectable, but they seem to be as the only experts on the issue in his article, with little other outside opinion.

Now, onto the Toulmin method. The first step in analyzing the claim is to find the claim, and in this case the claim is that Americans live shorter lives on average than those in other countries because of reasons other than the failure of the health care system. Although he qualifies that there are problems with the health care system such as lacking in preventative care, he states that the longevity gap is primary due to other reasons. Additionally, he admits that the American healthcare system is flawed in that it is expensive and requires unnecessary treatments, but it is also expensive because people get more thorough treatments and we get sick more often than other countries do.

Secondly, we must analyze the reasons behind Tierney’s claim. One reason that Tierney uses to justify his claim is that life expectancy in America is skewed to the left because there is a particularly high rate of sickness and death among middle-aged Americans. This seems like a legitimate claim assuming it is factual, and definitely supports the thesis. Additionally, Tierney claims that Americans are more ethnically diverse; unfortunately, perhaps I am missing something, but I don’t see how being ethnically diverse, meaning that we have more people from these other cultures with high life expectancies is what is lowering the U.S. life expectancy. However, he does point out the importance of poor lifestyle choices such as the growing trend towards obesity in the U.S. An argument that he depends more strongly on in his article is that Americans were heavy smokers for a long time, and this is also bringing down the life expectancy and is one way that our lifespan is decreased, but not necessarily due to medical care reasons.

Third, we need to analyze the evidence presented. Unfortunately, this is where it seems that Tierney is lacking. I think that it is obvious that obesity and the health complications associated with it don’t require too much evidence, but beyond saying that Americans are fat, Tierney doesn’t really explore this issue. In terms of the life expectancy being lowered by middle aged people with high death rates, one piece of evidence is that per-capita cigarette consumption was higher in the U.S. than anywhere in the developed world for four decades, a statistic that may have a huge impact on bringing down middle age expectancies. Additionally, he added that once American reach age 80, the longevity gap disappears and these people are likely to live longer than as in other countries; although this seems like a great fact, Tierney didn’t cite any source for this information, and one must question where he got this information from.

Finally, we have to ask whether the author examined possible refutations. This is one arena in which Tierney made a decent effort, much better than with factual evidence provided. Tierney says that Dr. Preston didn’t see any evidence for the “much quoted estimates that poor health care is responsible for more preventable deaths in the United States than in other developed countries,” but then again, although Preston didn’t find the evidence, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Tierney also stated that some opponents of the U.S. healthcare system argue that the U.S. only has better cancer survival rates because cancer is detected early in the U.S., but this doesn’t show that we don’t treat cancer well, and in fact early detection is the best protection against the negative effects of cancer, so this complaint seems unworthy. Finally, many people argue that the health system fails in that it should prevent disease, not just be good at treating it. Tierney argues that this is true, but he’s not certain that other countries are doing any better at this (not that he provides any statistics to show this), therefore it is probably not significant. On a positive note, Americans are preventing disease in the U.S. has had the largest drop in cigarette consumption of all developed countries over the last 20 years, but I’m not sure that this is necessarily a merit of the healthcare system as much as it is a merit of changing American attitudes towards smoking.

Overall, the argument had a lot of good points, but there was a significant lack of evidence that makes one question whether there is more evidence than just the facts that Americans used to smoke a lot and are obese or if Tierney’s arguments are just the result of an active mind.

Tattoos--Good or Bad for the "self"?

According to Holstein & Gubrium's book, "The Self We Live By," Charles Cooley's "looking-glass self" has three parts: "the imagination of our appearance to the other person; the imagination of his judgment of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortification." If we take the word "appearance" in Cooley's definition of the self as a physical appearance, tattoos would be a huge part of who our "self" is.

I can see some situations where a tattoo could be positive for the self. My cousin has a tattoo of a four leaf clover on her back because she says its cute and its a tribute to her Irish heritage. Her tattoo is small, subtle, and on her back, so she can live a professional life free of questions about the tattoo, but still in a public enough area that when she goes out on the weekends, she can show it off and build positive feelings for her self.

In a completely different situation, one of my distant relatives lost her baby to a cruel murder, and that is a negative feeling that will live with her forever. However, by having a tattoo of a cross with her baby boy's name and dates of birth and death, she feels that she can keep positive memories of him alive and when the tattoo comes up in conversation, she tries to remember the pleasant and loving relationship she had with him. I personally feel that something like an "in memory of..." tattoo could have positive or negative influences on her self, depending on how she chooses to interpret other peoples' views of her appearance.

But, there seems to be a hugely negative side to doing something so permanent to your body. In "On Teenagers and Tattoos," Andres Martin makes the comment that some tattoos that say the name of a past significant other can become "the only evidence that there ever was such a bond." But honestly, what if two weeks after you get the tattoo, the relationship takes a turn for the worst? What if that person you loved stabs a knife in your back (metaphorically speaking, I hope)? Then, I assume every time you saw the tattoo or someone commented on it, you might become angry or depressed. Not only would the physical tattoo be seen by others, but the tone of your voice would probably change or you'd just try to change the subject. Then, you may wonder whether the other person thinks of you in a negative manner as too impulsive or ignorant to the possible consequences of your actions and this may bring what Cooley would call a negative "self-feeling." This could be bring a lot of negativity to the inner self, especially if the tattoo was on a exposed portion of your arm where it was constantly seen. Perhaps the negative feedback would one day be too much that one day you would want to get the tattoo removed. But have you ever seen someone who has had a tattoo "removed"? The other day I was walking around the mall and saw a girl in a tank top who had some sort of tattoo "removed" from her back. I put the word "removed" in quotation marks because there were still blotches of ink, and the scarring in the remaining patches of skin looked horrific. Then, this scar would probably come up in conversation anyway leading to more negativity. In the end, a tattoo like this just doesn't make sense to me, and I feel like thinking about one's "self," anyone who thinks of getting a tattoo should really contemplate future consequences.

Furthermore, I don't mean to insult anybody who's reading this, but I find many tattoos to be tacky and meaningless. Many people get tattoos of Chinese words or sayings, but why not just get the saying tattooed in English? My first impression of someone with a tattoo like this is, do they even really know what it says? Just because the tattoo artist tells you that what he tattoos means "happy" in another language, as far as you know it could really mean "moron." Unless someone who reads the language reads it and feels the duty to tell you what it really means, you'll never know. Of course, it you thought it meant happy though, you might think positively of the tattoo, think other people find it to be mysterious or artsy and that would bring positive self feelings. What about when someone has a conversation with you and skeptically stares at your tattoo, would you then start to develop a more saddened self? What about people who get a lower back tattoo and later find out that it is more commonly referred to as a "tramp stamp." This seems like it would have to change how they think other people think of them, and only leaving the person with a wounded self. Is getting a tattoo that the general public finds to be trendy now but may be referred to as trashy or disgusting later worth the possible future damage to your self?

Maybe I am skeptical of tattoos because I am terrified of the process. The fact that someone would poke me with a needle that goes back and forth constantly stabbing me and injecting ink seems totally unnecessary. Then again, perhaps I would feel differently and explore the possibility of getting a tattoo if there was something that I felt more passionately about. To this point in my life, I have been fairly fortunate to have not lost anyone particularly close to me where I would even put a "In loving memory of..." bumper sticker on my car, much less ink in my skin. And although I'm proud of my heritage, I don't feel passionately enough to have the Polish eagle become a part of me I want everyone to see.

In the end, I know that we shouldn't worry about what other people think of how we look, but Cooley's "looking-glass self" is too often too true, and I feel that tattoos can be a great way to build up the self, but only if we're sure that they are something we are proud of now and will always be proud of in the future.

Identities...some less "favorable" than others

Introvert, overachiever, student, tutor, brother, son, researcher, employee, volunteer, friend, Pollock, atheist, optimist, pessimist.

We all have a lot of identities. The list above includes just a few of mine that come to mind at the particular moment. I am more proud of some identities than others. In fact, some of the identities that I listed above, I considered deleting off of my list, but that wouldn't be a factual representation of myself and I feel like I would be cheating my blog "followers" from an opportunity to see a few of the my less explored identities. I fear that some readers may have been put off when they saw atheist on the list and they may hope that I don't explore that identity. But, considering that it's one of the identities that I personally question and explore on a daily basis, but rarely share with others, I feel that it needs some exploring, so here we go...

As a science student, I can state with a fairly high confidence level that most of the authors of the biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, and other science books I have read recently share my view on the concept of a higher power: that there isn't one. I'd be most content to believe that there is in fact a God, as my neighbors, friends, family, and classmates have tried to convince me to believe. However, I just "can't wrap my head around it," as stated by Jack Nicholson at the start of "The Bucket List." Additionally, I don't understand how so many religious people in my life can expect me to just take their word for it that what they believe is THE truth just because they and their parents say it is. Some say, "you should read the bible," but isn't the bible after all, just another book? When I offer my religious friends a book on human evolution to skim through, they automatically reject my offer, but yet they expect me to explore the theory they believe to be true. Did you U of M students see the pastors (or members of the church, I'm not sure) on the corners of campus this morning offering out their new testaments? I normally take their little booklets or kindly say "no thank you", but I question, would they be as cordial if I offered them a scientific paper which studied the concepts of the Big Bang Theory? How about if I handed out an article that discussed the fossil record and used methods like radiocarbon dating to determine the evolutionary road that has brought about the existence of the species referred to as Homo Homo Sapiens? Why does it seem to be a one way street that I, as an atheist, have a moral obligation to read the bible, but you as a Christian (not that all readers of this are Christian) don't have to, and won't even flatter the idea of, reading an article by Milford H. Wolpoff (a professor in archaeology at the University of Michigan) published in Scientific American? I'm not telling you to adopt the beliefs that I have. And, honestly, if you already believe in a higher power, the likelihood that one of these articles is going to change your mind is pretty slim, probably about as slim as the chance that you're going to change my mind. But, at least if you read it, I'll be more willing to read the articles or testaments or psalms you propose for me to look over.

On another note, what do these identities mean for me in my professional life and endeavors. Being atheistic may not go on my medical school application, but does that mean that lacking religious beliefs won't affect me in my medical studies. How about the human side of medicine? What if I have to diagnose a patient with cancer? I've already encountered the problem in a Hospice setting of not being able to recite the phrase "Give us this day, our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses..." while sitting next to the nurse who brought hope to her patient that there is a life after death. In a way, I felt inadequate, unable to provide that type of comfort to her. If I knew the prayer, would it be awful for me to recite that prayer or tell a dying patient that I believe in God and that will be passing to a better place, even though I truly don't believe it? What is morally right?

OK, I'll get off the religion sidetrack. Other identities to consider for studying medicine, or even just applying to a medical school, are many. Being an introvert isn't normally regarded as a positive in interviews, but that's an identity that isn't normally writted on applications; hopefully by the time I'm offered an interview I will have taken that particularly identity to the gallows. Among the positives are student, tutor, overachiever, employee, and researcher. But, are these really all that positive? Do they meet up to the medical school standards? How can I, someone who studied to get A's in every class, was a tutor, worked in a lab, volunteered a little, and spent the rest of the free time relaxing or hanging out with friends compare to the applicant who volunteered in 10 different health care situations, was president of their fraternity/sorority, and was active in numerous organizations while still maintaining a reasonable GPA? Of course, from the application the admissions committee may think that the other student may have better leadership skills; but, does that mean that I with less on-campus involvement and less volunteering wouldn't be a good doctor? Just because I spent less time volunteering, does that mean that I should be a scientist who works with tissue cultures instead of a physician who probes the human mind and body to make a diagnosis and go forth with a treatment? Does less on campus involvement really mean that I should avoid the medical field? It seems to me that at least some in the field say yes, or at least say, "build your resume and come back in a few years." Perhaps instead of measuring the quality of the experiences, more emphasis should be on the quality. Instead of expecting a list of 10 different places I volunteered at, maybe it would be better to give you the phone number of, or a letter of recommendation from, the volunteer coordinator who watched me offer a comforting presence and a warm (although unfortunately sweaty) hand to a ninety year old woman as she gasped for her last breaths of air. After all, I know plenty of people who volunteer at the local hospital and don't do anything but stock carts and read their favorite novel while watching as patients go on uncared for.

In the end, we all have numerous identities and chose which ones we want to display in different situations. In some situations it is difficult to present the identities that we feel define us the most just because of the ridicule and negativity we anticipate.

To be honest, I'm kind of tired (so please excuse me if I rambled or had discontinuous thoughts)and I feel that this entry is getting a little too long, so I'm going to stop here. Goodnight bloggers!

English 225

Hi bloggers! My name is James David and I am a senior in the college of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LS&A) at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. I am majoring in biochemistry and just got my concentration release; therefore, despite the semester just starting a few days ago, I feel like I am accelerating towards the finish line of my college career. So, while I have the chance, I will reflect a little on my past and project my eyes toward the future, allowing you and myself to examine where I've been, and hopefully where I'll go.

I grew up in Allen Park, Michigan, which is just about a 35 minute drive west of Ann Arbor. Allen Park is a particularly quiet neighborhood just about 5-10 miles south of Detroit, a city which the media, and unfortunately also the crime statistics, have come to display as a dangerous fungus that has the potential to spread and bring decay to its surrounding communities.

My parents both worked in the automotive industry and have recently retired, so all of the hype in the news of the automotive companies and saving them hits close to home for me. This is particularly evidenced by my mother's magnet on the back of her car stating "Out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign!"

While I was in high school, I was particularly involved in after school organizations such as being vice president of our chapter of the National Honor Society and as a member of the Key Club, the high school division of Kiwanis. I also worked at an after school day care program during my junior and senior years of high school, a job that was rewarding but often with many obstacles.

My road to college started out somewhat rocky. Neither of my parents nor any of my five half-siblings, all of whom are older than me, went to college. Therefore, determining where to look for scholarships and how to apply to college was completely novel to my family, and I only applied to only one college with little knowledge of the school (thank goodness I was accepted!). Frightened by the horror stories of my friends' siblings who went to college and chose to live in a dorm with a randomly assigned student, I chose to live off campus, a choice made by approximately 1% of my fellow students. Additionally, I went home nearly every weekend my first year, which is not recommended and I believe it made the transition to college that much more difficult since going home every weekend also meant having to say goodbye to my family every seven days. I overcame additional complications as a first-year student, but nothing worth noting here.

After three years of undergraduate education, I believe I have finally decided what it is that I "want to do" for the rest of my life and that is to pursue medicine. Of course, considering that most medical schools began their rolling admissions schedule at the start of the summer, and the fact that I don't want to make the leap to medical school just yet, I will be taking a break from school. I am applying for a position in the Teach for America program, and if accepted I will take two years off to teach in a low-income community to "Help Ensure Educational Opportunity for All," as their website states (teachforamerica.org). Alternatively, if I am not accepted into the program, I will pursue certification as an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) to provide me with more patient care experience.

Finally, I would like to discuss why I would appreciate your reading of, and commenting on my blog. I am normally not afraid to share my opinion, at least in written media, even when my opinion differs significantly from that of my peers. I am not afraid to examine the dirty laundry, even if that is within my own family. I will try to examine current issues which are controversial, hopefully in the medical field, but in other spheres of interest as well. Additionally, having come from a blue collar environment, I am a hard worker and have had many experiences which may give me a fresh, interesting perspective on some issues. I have worked as a caregiver at a daycare, as a receptionist at an ophthalmologist's office in northwest Detroit, and as a study group leader on campus. I have volunteered at a soup kitchen and a food distribution plant for the poor in the ghettos of Detroit, volunteered last semester (and continue to do so again this semester) once a week from 10PM - 2AM at Arbor Hospice with patients during their last stages of life, and have volunteered in many other spheres which have made me look at financial despair and death in a way that I couldn't have imagined before.

I apologize if this was an inordinately long first blog entry. Though long winded much of the time, I will try to be more concise in the future. Finally, I hope you will find my insights to be as interesting as I will find yours to be while reading your blogs this semester!