This roots back to Congress' inability to pass an adequate amount of legislation as polarization also produces gridlock between parties.

One of the few positive proponents to engaging in polarization

I plan to use this paragraph as theory in my essay as it takes the older examples of polarization in American history and compares them to the polarization we are experiencing currently. Blankenhorn proposes a possible explanation to the intensity of polarization today as he claims it has become "less issue-specific and more generalized."

I think this is a very important distinction. By immediately establishing this difference, Blankenhorn shows that the issue is not with disagreement in general, but instead our allowance of disagreement to justify the belief that our opposition is wicked and corrupt.

This is the definition of polarization I plan to use in my research paper.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Just because I do not personally like Chinese food, does not mean I do not value their food and culture. If I decide to eat Chinese food, because of my preferences, I am unwilling to spend a large amount of money because I do not gain happiness from eating it. Why would I spend more than twenty dollars on food I do not even like that much? On the contrary, I value American culture and enjoy American food but I am also unwilling to spend more than ten dollars for a burger and fries. The price in which I am willing to pay for food is uncorrelated to how much I value a culture and I would argue this could extend to other consumers.

This is an example of rap music being used to shed light on social issues such as racial profiling. Even though NWA isn't necessarily saying anything about the problem of police being racist, they are bringing it to the forefront of conversation and getting people to talk about it.

While rap music is still considered regional, we can see a shift here to a more national and unified movement to use rap music for social and political justice.

For many of Mann's paragraphs, his argument is structured by him posing a question, offering a simplistic and expected answer, and then diving into his explanation. This presents a very clear path for the reader to follow throughout the article and helps to acknowledge the reader's preconceived notions before Mann delves into his own take on the idea.

I think this is an important point in Mann's argument, especially to his reader that might be defensive about the whiteness of country music. There are always exceptions to a rule, and by naming the "exceptions" of country music, it further proves the rule. In other genres such as pop and rap, it would be useless to name all the artists who aren't white simply because there are so many in these genres. However in country music, there are a select few which further proves Mann's argument in more objective terms.

While Taylor Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" has been portrayed by the media as petty and dramatic, it still highlights one of Swift's biggest strengths: her ability to relate with her audience. I may not have experienced something as particular as a celebrity feud such as Swift has with other popular icons, however I can identify with her underlying struggle. Swift claims that the media and select celebrities put so much pressure on her to look, act, and think a certain way she had no choice but to become who they said she was. In my own life, I have experienced this same reality of constantly fighting the opinions of others and after a while, it becomes exhausting and your best option is to just give in. Swift is able to pin-point this internal struggle in her single as she allows her listener to see an inside look at her frustration with a situation in which many can relate to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tmd-ClpJxA

A pretty clear example that first came to mind was "Hey There Delilah" by the Plain White T's. While the song is associated with the band, it was written singularly from an experience by the lead singer, Tom Higgenson. He wrote the song to confess his love to a girl named, you guessed it, Delilah. He meets her through mutual friends, and while she has a boyfriend and reciprocates no interest in Higgenson, he still falls in love with her. What results is this song, a personal confession of his desire to be with her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_m-BjrxmgI

As a reader, this statement immediately puts me on the defensive. For being written in 2007, this claim could be considered highly controversial in the music world. Is it possible that in the last ten years, the outlet social media provides for artists to reach their audiences has allowed a few modern-day singers to surpass Rogers in terms of popularity?

I think Herder's concept of authenticity being applied to culture is an interesting idea. For the most part, authenticity in our minds, has been rooted in the genuineness of oneself. However to add this second meaning of authenticity, does that imply we are defined and limited to the culture we come from? Coming from the other angle, is it even possible to completely disregard the culture we come from when establishing our identity?

Taylor makes an interesting point here as he shifts the dynamic of his argument. He moves to assign a great deal of responsibility to the reader by explicitly clarifying the "so what?"of his thesis- due recognition is vital to our being. Here he abruptly brings the reader into the conversation of his argument and makes it more personal by discussing the obligations they have as a human.

Here Rousseau acknowledges the insignificance of the romance novels and in this moment in time, would agree with WW's condemnation of "idle texts." However once Rousseau begins to develop feeling from these novels, it is here he that he breaks away from WW's theory that books written about extravagant stories are always evil.

What an insightful statement! The contrasting ideas of nothing and everything make it not only conceptually appealing to the reader, but articulate an important distinction between experiences and the feelings that come from them. There is a common theme throughout literature and humanity in general of simplistic events that end up leaving us with great emotions. For example, Rousseau's experience with the broken combs was less than extraordinary but the emotions he felt as a result had a tremendous effect on the rest of his life.

Common sense tells us that you have to know someone before you are able to love them but I think that Rousseau highlights the only except to this rule. With family there is this sense of obligation to love those you are immediately related to, simply because of blood connection. Regardless of the fact whether you know them or even like them, there is a family bond that still exists.

Gautier was a French officer for the Continental Army in the United States during the Revolutionary War and then served in the French army during the revolution there.

Perhaps WW's disdain could be extended to the romance novels Rousseau reads with his father as a young child. Even though WW condemns these types of texts as "idle and extravagant," it is worth noting that such readings are what taught Rousseau how to feel, which ultimately characterized him as a person and as a writer. Is it possible that Rousseau would slightly disagree with WW's claim here that these styles of text are inherently bad?

After rereading this, it reminds me of the scene from Rousseau's confessions. This line mirrors his experience of developing adult emotions or as Wordsworth would say, "essential passions of the heart" through a quite simplistic event, reading romance novels with his father. Rousseau gained a great deal of maturity from this experience as he claims the emotions he was exposed to shaped him for the rest of his life. In this case, "a better soil" for Rousseau would be his mother's romance novels.

2) The previous three sentences serve to rhetorically highlight more specifically the different types of opposition the radical feminists face. Their ideas primarily clash with the transgender community but they also have the opposition that comes along with being a feminist. These sentences give a better idea to the reader that it isn't just one group of people that disagree with them.

1) This sentence is perhaps a reference to Rachel Doleful, the caucasian woman who tried to assimilate into the African American culture and faced a great deal of criticism. There is a similar argument shared between this article and the events surrounding Rachel Dolezal. Just like radical feminists believe transgender women should not be able to receive the benefits from being female, many people were upset Dolezal was getting to reap the benefits of being African American without having to experience any of the related struggles.

This repetitive sentence structure is used by Foucault to emphasize how commonplace the act of confession has become in the daily life of man.

Foucault offers some valuable insight here as he suggests that confession has become too accepted as truth because we are bombarded with confession so often when in reality, it is a way for us to be controlled.

I can't help but think Foucault is referencing the act of confession in the Catholic church, suggesting that the priest is gaining power over the participant by listening to their sins. This might be a stretch but the scenario could at least demonstrate the principle Foucault is explaining in the text.

During our class discussion, I found it interesting how similar WW's argument is to that of George Orwell's in "Politics and the English Language." While WW is discussing poetry and Orwell is discussing political language, they both criticize the english of their time and advocate for simpler language that the common man understands. Orwell's essay is published more than one hundred years later and is speaking on an entirely different topic, however their two arguments run so parallel is it apparent that the over complication of language is a problem that is reoccurring throughout time.

one) This request is one that could still be made of our society today. How often do we judge not only poems and literature based off the predicted judgements of others but also music, art and other personal preferences? Social media could be to blame for this continued trend.

three) By referring to the works of his day as "general evil," WW goes beyond just expressing his disdain for the various writings in his time. By associating evil with the other works, he makes it clear he is not just talking about his personal preferences but instead condemns the popular works in a more final claim.

two) Before WW begins to explain his main reasons for his purpose in verse, he addresses the "so what?" portion from his thesis. He explains that this preface matters because many people are going to be disgruntled with the work he produces in terms of what they expect from him. He contrasts his style with the "gaudiness and inane" writings of his time and uses this idea later to reveal why his verse and the works from the past should be defined as real poetry instead of the writings popular at the time. These few sentences are important because it is here that WW addresses the reasons for the preface and his explanations.

During our class discussion, I explained that my initial thought about this quotation was its application to people. Conversationally, one might use the word fake to describe someone who is perceived as “too nice” or “too outgoing.” In this case, the user’s definition of authenticity is based solely on their perception of what they believe is genuine and what is fake. However, in this quotation, the speaker makes the argument that even though they are deemed “real” by the evaluation of others, they are still in fact faking it so much that they should be considered beyond fake.

Kenzie poses the question, “Where does the line between fake and beyond fake begin?” While there might never be a full answer to this question, it is worth considering that all humans could possibly be beyond fake. The persona we allow strangers to see is different than the persona we allow friends and family to see and even that is different than the person we truly are. In this sense, even if the people closest to us consider us “real,” to some degree, are we not still hiding a part of ourselves that no one will ever know? In this sense, humans are then “faking it so real,” making us all beyond fake.

How many units will there be in total?