So far over the year my writing has a value of a five or six out of nine. This scores are good, but with room for improvement. What I should continue is my thesis which are usually good. Another is the amount of quotes I use, three or more in a paragraph, something I plan to continue. However, I have lost points on multiply essays because I loose focus or stray from the topic I was writing about, so that is one skill I should focus on. Another is the transitions to the next body paragraph, also needing work.

Argument: Identity
Identity is a trick work in our society today with what it truly means to people. People can claim that it is race, or religion, others claim socioeconomics and so on. What is most prevalent in early life however, is social cliques. A clique is simply a type of person. Almost everywhere has the jocks, the nerds, and the goths. As insignificant as they seem, these identifies will define your entire life.
Identify is who a person is, what they are to themselves and what they are to society. Social cliques are groups of people that share common ideals, hobbies, or anything that would connect them in some way. These social cliques can, and do, clash when confronting each other. In a stereotypical way, a jock, person who is muscular and plays sports, will often beat up a nerd, someone who is into math and science, or who beat up a geek, a person fluent in technology. Social cliques have a ranking system to them on who talks with whom and where everybody falls in, usually jocks or popular people are at the top while geeks and nerds are towards the bottom.
Social cliques can be hard to notice for some, usually at the top ranking. If one were to ask a popular clique that there were cliques, they might say no everyone is the same. Yet, they do not realize that they never see anyone that can be counted as a nerd or geek talking to them as they are not on the same ranking. This idea that there is no social cliques and everyone is equal is the equivalent of saying the earth is flat, or that there is no global warming. Social automatically classifies people into cliques by appearance, by speech, and by intelligence. Stereotypically, nerds and geeks are higher intelligence, but dress in different clothes than the jocks, who are usually thought of as less bright. Popular kids are usually very attractive and dress in nicer clothes to compliment their physic. From these societal renderings, people are assumed to be like the clique associated and it is hard to shift from clique to clique without pretending to be a different person. This impacts the way people will see you throughout your life, everywhere from personal interactions, to your job. A once popular yet still attractive girl for the most part does not go for a geek or nerd either because society deems it strange and unfit, or because she simply does not know who he is.
Very rarely in social clique made by the person themselves. The person is defined into a social clique by their characteristics, not by their choosing. Some people manage to live a lie, in which they fake who they are to join a clique they usually would not be placed into. It is nearly impossible for people to change their clique once they have entered one since it is imprinted onto others’ minds that the person is like that clique. Once again, the person is stuck into a clique that generally defines what happens in their life.
People can say that social cliques do not exist, and in today’s society social cliques are evolving into different structures and changing. Nevertheless, social cliques are a part of human nature, defined in our need to find patterns and group things in our lives. Other people may define identity from race or religion. However, in many places there is only one race, or there is only one religion practiced. These places, everyone would be defined as the same and identity would not occur as everyone is only one thing. Social cliques though, occur everywhere you have groups of people. No two have the exact same interest and opinions and so they go towards different paths in life. Schools are most prominent in the display of social cliques as they hold the most diversity of people that is easily shown. In schools you have the academical and you have the sports people, with a variety of groups between from goth, to geek, to neutral, to no specific social clique. This occurs less in a work place as many people from the same cliques gravitate towards similar jobs in the future and similar lifestyles, because of shared interest and activities.
Social cliques are everywhere there are people and define how we are identified by society. Although one may think they are not in a social clique, they are powerless to having others not define them into one. From these social cliques, people’s’ lives are determined as to what jobs they work and to whom they marry. Above any other classification, cliques form in every group of people, and do not need race or religion to form them, hence making them the best at how society defines an individual.

Synthesis #1.1 (Politics)
Different times, different reasons, different people, yet every politician follows similar devices and traits to talk to the American people. Abraham Lincoln, the man who started and ended the American Civil War. Ronald Reagan, who stood against the Soviet Union. George Bush, who guided Americans through our darkest hours during September 11, 2001. Hillary Clinton, who has been accepted for presidential nominee. All of them use word choice, repetition, and imagery to strengthen their speech.
Word Choice is huge in their speeches for connecting them to the audience, or to give credit where credit is due. Lincoln used word choice having connected himself to the audience while giving credit is combined seamlessly in, “[i]t is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced,” (Lincoln). Lincoln connected himself to all of America through the use of, “for us the living,” which made both sides take a moment to come together and grieve for the dead (Lincoln). This showed that the North and the South was not all too different like they believed. The President then goes on to give credit to the men that died in the Battle of Gettysburg, making the families grateful to Lincoln for his caring words to their dead sons and brothers. Ronald Reagan’s use of word choice acted differently than Lincoln’s. In saying, “I pledge to you that we will maintain,” Reagan first shows how he understood that Berlin was not America using “I” and “you,” but then connected Americans with Berliners with the use of “we,” (Reagan). This change in word choice built his pathos by having shown how Berlin and America are separate but together are could make the world whole again. Reagan gave credit to Berliners with, “Berlin a message of hope,” which pulled Berliners to listen with greater passion having built pathos again (Reagan). George Bush was president when September 11th occurred and grieved with the nation, having brought Americans together when they needed it the most. To bring Americans together Bush used word choice similar to Lincoln used such as, “[w]e have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers,” (Bush). Bush consistently used “we” and “our” to show that the brutality against Americans had affected everyone including himself (Bush). Then Bush continued and gave credit to the rescuers, and to everyone who supported America, which built an immense amount of pathos as people tend not to feel so alone when they heard that the world was grieving right there with American (Bush). Hillary Clinton used word choice the same way Ronald Reagan used his. This is in, “[s]o I want to tell you tonight how we will empower Americans to live better lives,” which holds the same, but different strategy (Clinton). She then connected the audience with the sharing of said knowledge, which made the audience feel more powerful from greater knowledge. Through word choice, the politicians connected themselves to their audience to create a stronger bond, which was boosted with repetition.
All the writers share repetitions within their speeches, reinforcing their statements. In the Gettysburg speech, Lincoln proclaims, “we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground,” adding a power to the words (Lincoln). That power was the power of God, and how the people who had not fought could not make Gettysburg field any more consecrated than it had already been by those that died. The repetition builds to a climax, which Lincoln uses to control the nation’s emotions. Reagan repeated “let us” through the fourth page of his speech (Reagan). Reagan used repetition to plead with Mr. Gorbachev to open the Berlin wall so that the world could reunite again. Reagan’s repetition made it clear to others that Mr. Gorbachev was the reason that East Berlin was cut off. To Mr. Gorbachev the repetition showed that everyone wanted to connect to East Berlin because of the “us” and that only he could allow that (Reagan). As Bush gave the state of the Union address after September 11th, repetition was another device he used to strengthen wounded America. When Bush said, “[w]e will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail,” he brought strength to his words. This strength empowered the American people with his decision to find the perpetrators of the attack, getting people to his side while having turned their grief to anger. Clinton used repetition to build a stronger connection between her and the voters having said, “to work closely with our troops and our veterans,” (Clinton). This repetition emphasized that the troops and veterans are not just with the voters but also with her, and that she worked closely with them, all of which makes voters want her more for president. In the speeches, all use repetition with word choice to create a more powerful message to the audience, building their argument.
However, all the politicians used imagery to make their opinions more memorable to people. In Lincoln’s concise speech after the bloodiest battle in American history, he gave words meanings and imagery that still reverberate throughout time. One of the famous ones being, “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth,” in which he invoked more than emotion. Lincoln had the people of America think of their nation, a nation they control, and imagine it gone forever. The people whom the government controls, yet is controlled by, lost because of the war they were fighting. This powerfully imagery made many want the war to end, and for the war to end was Lincoln’s wish since its’ start. Reagan used the same emotional gripping imagery when having spoken to Berliners with, “a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar,” (Reagan). Reagan was referencing the Berlin Wall that divided the city, the country, the world. This imagery of a scar brought ideas of pain and suffering from past wounds, and this was exactly what Reagan wanted envisioned to get Berliners to demand the wall being torn down. Bush’s speech was filled with imagery from the depressing memories of the towers, to the uplifting that the world gave America. Bush gave thanks through, “America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate,” (Bush). This quote comforted Americans as they heard that cities across the world was showing their support in America’s darkest days, having helped to unite them against the enemy. Clinton’s use of imagery is less prevalent but she did use some to get a point across to the audience. One point in particular was, “our economy isn’t working the way it should,” which gave the image of a motor making a strange noise, or even smoking when it should not be (Clinton). This imagery just added some spice to her speech, so that it was more interesting for the audience. Nevertheless, all the politicians use imagery to add to their argument in some way, many to increase emotion.
Politicians use word choice, repetition, and imagery in their speeches to build up their argument. They use word choice to connect with their audience, and usually give credit to a person they speak about. Politicians use repetition to get their point across, and to strengthen it so it is remembered. Imagery is used so that the audience remembers more than just the words, but the thoughts and emotions they had. Good politicians share these traits so their argument not only sounds better, but also is better.

Rhetorical Analysis of Creativity Inc. by Ed Catmull
Creativity Inc. is a book written by Ed Catmull with help from Amy Wallace on how to build a creative environment. The story starts with Ed Catmull as a kid, then builds off that, talking about his college and early job experiences. A progression of how he builds Pixar comes next. The book ends with Catmull controlling both Pixar and Disney Animation. Catmull’s main argument is how to build a creative environment, and uses ethos, pathos, and imagery to support his claim.
In Creativity Inc. Catmull uses imagery to build his argument. In his college years he talks about the college class he loved in which he would later base his company off of; the same class that built the entire Adobe system including the PDF formatting, as well as Netscape (Catmull 12). This early on ideal of a creative environment shaped his to strive on building them with every company he encountered, including his own Pixar. “When it comes to creative inspiration, job titles and hierarchy are meaningless,” is what Catmull states when talking about West One’s meeting table (4). What Catmull means by this statement is that everyone can have an idea that is creative and new, not just the experienced writers and directors that sat at the center of the long narrow table. This breaks the stereotypical of who should speak and who does not matter that comes to mind when thinking about a movie production. Ed Catmull writes and repeats the influence of the flow of a place, either building the creative process or destroying it. One example of how flow destroys creativity was Disney Animation Studio, “imped[ing] the collaboration and exchange of ideas that Steve, John, and I believed was so fundamental to creative work” (253). Even doorways can “creat[e] a sort of gated community kind of vibe,” which expresses how important the flow of a building is to people being creative (253). However, the perfect building is not everything needed for creativity. Catmull explains his idea of how people must create their creativity with having “place[d] one foot on either side of the door — one grounded in what we know, . . . and the other in the unknown,” and by doing this, people are capable of making new things, but not fearing to fail at making new ideas (184).
Ethos builds from Ed Catmull’s life experiences in Creativity Inc. “When I was a kid, I used to plunk myself down on the living room floor . . . every Sunday and wait for Walt Disney,” showing how from a young age, creative ideas were all around him (7). Once they found a problem within Pixar where people felt like “second-class” citizens as some of the higher ranking jobs treated people lower ranked than them as if less significant, it became a major concern to not let happen again (61-64). On the other hand, it was an enlightening to a more creative environment through “honesty, excellence, communication, originality, and self-assessment [and] really committ[ing] to them,” showing how Catmull builds credibility through his failures (65). One thing Catmull had Pixar do that stood out from every other animation company was that he would have people go on trips to learn details of a Paris restaurant for Ratatouille and interview chiefs, along with other projects (196). Ed Catmull proved himself enough to Disney that he “walk[ed] through the doors of Disney Animation, entrusted with the mission of reinvigorating its people and helping them return to greatness” (248). With one of the world’s most powerful and influential Animation companies asking if Ed Catmull could take them and fix them, it goes to show how trusted and credible Catmull is.
Creativity Inc.’s use of pathos boosts its argument of creating a creative environment. Catmull talks of his “boyhood idols,” Walt Disney and Albert Einstein, and how they are the “two poles of creativity” (7). This look into Catmull’s childhood connects him to people through remembering their past, and is a little humorous imagining an eight year old reading “every Einstein biography [he] could get his hands on” (7). Catmull changes to a darker tone in chapter four when an accident occurred where a couple “left their child in the car in the broiling Pixar parking lot” (73). The child was okay, but the story was about how hard people at Pixar worked to finish Toy Story 2 in nine months, when more animations take two to five years. Pixar did this because everyone was motivated to prove Dinsey wrong and finish the movie on time, which they did, adding to the numerous achievements they have compiled over the decades (73). After the pain though, celebrations occurred having “pulled off something important, something that would define Pixar for years to come,” adding the powerful feelings of accomplishment and success to the story (74).
Creativity Inc. was written by Ed Catmull to explain how to have a creative environment. Using imagery, Catmull paints a picture of what not to do, and what is good for creativity to flourish. Through ethos, Catmull gives himself credibility as a highly respected person for managing people through his experiences he describes. Pathos is used to keep the reader stuck to the book with some humor, and yearn to know if Pixar succeeds or not. Ed Catmull sums up Creativity Inc. to “loosen the controls, accept risk, trust our colleagues, work to clear a path for them, and pay attention to anything that creates fear,” (295). And with that beautiful proclamation, Creativity Inc. ends the answer to building a creative environment.

Rhetorical Analysis of Proofiness by Charles Seife
Proofiness, a book written by Charles Seife, talks of how numbers can be used to lie to the public. The nature of numbers hold upon us with our conscience believing they hold authority. The author explains a variety of strategies on how numbers could fool people. Seife goes on to tell of who uses such strategies to influence the public. Charles Seife’s Proofiness builds up ethos, pathos, and logos throughout the novel before destroying them in the end.
Proofiness establishes its credibility from Charles Seife’s numerous degrees in mathematics and journalism (“Charles Seife – NYU Journalism”). Ethos is built up when the reader looks at all the research Charles Seife did on how we are lied to with numbers (Seife 273-286). The ethos is furthered by the detail the author goes into with examples of proofiness. An example of this was the “McCleskey v. Kemp” Supreme Court case, where Georgia’s death penalty was called into question as unconstitutional punishment (213-216). However, the ethos is diminished with other examples Charles Seife gives where he writes until he begins ranting of the subject and loses control and then his credibility control. One such time is the beginning of chapter three where he starts to rant about how NASA does not protect their people and that the Challenger Disaster could have been averted if only NASA had not thrown caution to the wind (69). NASA is a highly respected government agency with only the best people in their fields coming to work there; without referencing to one of NASA’s many triumphs, Apollo 11’s Moon landing or Curiosity rover come to mind, he flaws his work with cherry-picking details. The book holds a large amount of credibility in the beginning, but Charles Seife lets proofiness get to himself and starts to do exactly what he preaches against in the book.
Pathos is used subtlety in Proofiness, however when used, it is used passionately. In the beginning of the book, Charles Seife uses humor to make the reader laugh a little and want to continue reading. His use of irony in, “[t]his is why Potemkin numbers are so common: 78 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot,” (18) draws the reader in while adding to his point about Potemkin numbers. However, in chapter two Charles Seife starts to become more argumentative and criticize peoples, such as the scientist that connected brain tumors to NutraSweet where no connection existed (45). As the book progresses his tone becomes increasingly malignant towards others. The beginning of chapter three starts with President Nixon’s speech if Apollo 11 had failed and killed all three men on board, criticizing NASA of their carelessness for risk (67). Once Charles Seife started chapter three, his pathos took a nosedive as many readers went from invigorated with his explanations to appall with his criticisms of everything. The emotion of hatred for those that lie and cheat against the public backfired once he attacked trusted peoples, and that hate turned towards him. Later in the book, Charles Seife talks about politics and how politicians are always lying to the public; most of the educated public knows not to believe a politician with what he says at face value already. Nevertheless, he spends ten pages on Gerrymandering and how it is used to cheat by politicians (174-184). This rant, if controlled, could have been a quick explanation of the simple concept with the three images, then an explanation of how politics uses Gerrymandering, all done in half the pages he took to rant on and on over Gerry from Massachusetts and his malicious ways (174). Proofiness may be based on accurate facts, but from his argumentative tone, he loses the ethos and pathos he builds up.
Proofiness is written comparatively to a proof in math; and in doing this logos does not flow correctly. In a proof, one puts the logic and reason they plan to use down first, such as a=b, or let angle c measure to ninety degrees, then one would solve the proof with the reasoning laid out before hand. Charles Seife does the same in Proofiness, where he writes about “cherry-picking” (26) or “apples-to-oranges” (31), and describes them with small examples only to use them much later in different chapters. This set up can be confusing for some readers, having to refer back to the beginning chapter to comprehend what is happening in the last chapter. It ruined the flow of the book for any who were overwhelmed with all the meaning in the first two chapters. Not only that, but the chapters themselves seemed very indirect to each other which cut at the book’s logos; such as chapter two “Rorschach’s Demon” (39-66) jumping to “Risky Business” (67-90). Sometimes when reading it seemed that Charles Seife was just expanding his ideas to fill a book, or that he was picking species occurrences that showed proofiness for his book, and example of cherry-picking in itself. Proofiness uses facts and logic to win the argument that people do use numbers to lie all the time, yet the book’s structure pulls people from the logos, hence belittling it.
Proofiness by Charles Seife establishes ethos, pathos, and logos in its beginning, but unwinds itself as the narrative progresses. Ethos is built from Charles Seife’s great achievements in mathematics and journalism, but is demolished from his constant argumentative tone. The pathos of the novel builds hatred for the tools used to create proofiness, yet switches to displeasure for Charles Seife and his writing. The book’s logos is strong with facts and hard evidence of when people used proofiness, however his use of proofiness undermines his argument and labels it void of true reason without the other side. Charles Seife wrote Proofiness with the mindset to make it known people are lied to, but under the surface of that truth all else becomes less clear.

A Haitian Warlord Meets His Match: Hurricane Matthew
New Your Times
Azam Ahmed 19 October 2016

Who: Guy Philippe
What: People starving but no help comes
Where: Pestel, Haiti
When: 4 October 2016
Why: Hurricane Devastation

In the city of Pestel, Haiti, many are starving from the recent hurricane that hit the country earlier this month. Guy Philippe, a rebel leader of the area, is now faced with the situation of 80% of his 80,000 people starving and homeless. A traitor to his government, for ousting the last president, Philippe pleads that aid groups will send food to his starving people. Stating that he will go so far as to say, “I will go to jail so that people can eat here,. Or I will leave for however long it takes. Just bring food here.” His armed forces, he says, could easily take the food but refuse so that his people are not titled as bandits.

My opinion is that governments and aid groups should provide his people with food, being as they did not commit the crimes he has.
I learned that the hurricane in Haiti is worse than the news has ever said.
This information affects the people of Haiti and the relief groups that was helping them most.

What plans do you have for your people?
What happens if no help comes to help?
Would you really jail yourself for your people?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20

During this experiment we examined how catalyst break down hydrogen peroxide. At first we experimented on how catalyst affects H2O2 normally. Then how it breaks H2O2 in different time intervals. We discovered that after boiling the catalyst it denatures and can no longer function. Having accidentally boiled the catalyst in a plastic test tube, we had to redo those lab procedures. Beyond that the lab went smoothly, besides the ever-so-likely chance that we measured something inaccurately from human error.

Protest Started by Colin Kaepernick Spreads to High School Students
New York Times
Julie Turkewitz 3 October 2016

Who: Vicqari Horton and others
What: Kneeling to National Anthem
When: October 1 2016
Where: Aurora, Colorado
Why: Protest police brutality

On Saturday during the National Anthem, Vicqari Horton and others on his football team knelt down in protest. After Colin Kaepernick knelt at a NFL game, high school football teams have started to across the nation. All of them protesting the recent police shooting against blacks. Some have encountered the violence personally, through family, friends, or even themselves. Many argue over this new act of protest with support or hatred towards the students.

My opinion is that this form of silent protest is well put where it is very noticeable yet does no harm.
Others are following the the foot steps to support black lives against police brutality.
This affects everyone, but especially blacks, with police violence and a change needed in the police interactions.

How do you think kneeling shows protest?
Will you kneel again?
What do you want changed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/