Painting My Voice

Record information about the cover song you choose—including title, author, and date. Be sure to include link to blog post.

Smooth Criminal, Glee- Naya Rivera and Grant Gustin (2012)

 

Record Information about the original song– Including title, author, and date. Be sure to include link to blog post.

Smooth Criminal- Michael Jackson (1987)

 

In 250 words, discuss the differences between the original and the cover. Be specific about lyrics, instrumentation, pace/rhythm, vocal emphasis and other considerations.  

The original was built for a movie. In this sense, he was already famous. He had been famous as a child and as a solo artist adult as well. In the beginning, Michael Jackson whispered slightly, spoke quickly and keep it almost secretive. Throughout the song though he got louder and more prominent. His voice is hoarse and some parts get pronounced more sharply. The accompanying music is more technical, it includes synthesizers, drums, guitar and a variety of other instruments.  The general pace of the song is fast. Michael’s version is very funky, and very 80s themed, probably since it was introduced within this decade. There are multiple parts that included pauses in the song for the inclusions of the movie parts, but also for dancing. The accompanying video is very violent, dark, and filled with background people. There is a lot of featured dancing by all the people in the video. In comparison, the Glee version is much different. Although Glee had already been famous for their covers, the two starts, Rivera and Gustin, had not exactly been famous for covering songs especially together. Their version is more pronounced. They been and finish the song very strong, with Rivera taking more of the strong background parts and Gustin doing more of the chorus and lyrical parts. The music that is behind their voices is solely by two cellos, this is drastically different from Michael Jackson’s technological sound. They do sing the songs as quick as Michael Jackson does. Their song comes off as more of a duel between the two sings, this is mostly likely because of what is going in the plot of the episode the song is featured in. In the video, their movements flow with the song in room full of chairs with only them and the cello players. The lyrics remained the same in both versions.

List and define three contextual considerations that shape the mode of the cover song/artist.

1. Context: Instrumentation: difference between the technological sounds and the cellos.
2. Context: Vocals: the addition of a female in a song that was typically song by one male.
3. Context: Context of Song; Micahel’s was in a movie and included aspects of the movie while the Glee version featured a duel between the singers because of the context of the episode.

Choose one of the above contextual considerations and discuss how it may have helped determine the artist’s approach in 250 words. 

The difference in context between the Glee club version and the original song, sung by Michael Jackson is huge in this song. The video is much longer for Michael’s version because of his break in the song for dancing, movie scenes and more. Clearly, there is a story line in the video. He includes other people because they’re potentially movie characters and important ones that needed to be included. His version is also more dark. In the Glee version, the episode relates around a problem with an outside character that involved the male singer in the video, Grant Gustin. Naya Rivera’s character steps in and addresses the problem with Gustin’s character to protect her other friend. This causes the two singers to challenge each other to a duel. I believe this causes a large amount of character within the song because of its ability to make the singers sound their competing. They both sing to their best ability while also doing their own styles and tone. It’s effective for their own purposes to help show their battle between them but it is also good for my analysis. Their dueling duet is completely different from what Michael Jackson does. He stars in it and adds a lot of texture to the song. Rivera and Gustin have different texture, but it works better for their situation. I think the context of the scene makes a large difference between the two. Glee is a duel while Michael Jackson’s version is more dark and involved.

 

In 250 words explain how this connects to the concept of remediation. What changes in the cover song led you to rethink the intent or driving motive of the original work? Was this remediation particularly effective? How/Why? Be specific.

The Glee version of the song Smooth Criminal was not completely different. They did change it to fit their purposes better. Despite that, the lyrics are still the same as the original version, sung by Michael Jackson. I believe that this changes a lot for the intent or driving motive of the original work. When listening to Michael Jackson’s version I do no necessarily get the vibe that he was trying to make a very tense song. After listening to Rivera and Gustin’s version, it is very clear that they are trying to create tension throughout the song. Now that I’ve heard it, I can hear the tension in Michael Jackson’s version. Now, I feel he might have had intent on it being like that as well. I think the Glee version remediation was effective. I enjoy listening to it on its own and it really feels like they are painting a story when you listen to it. The vocals between Rivera taking the background high notes and Gustin doing the fast paced chorus creates a really interesting texture. Their battle is really grabbing and the song makes me want to listen to it more. Then, it ends and I honestly cannot believe it is over. It’s very intense and builds a lot. This makes the song very intriguing and makes the listener want to finish the song and hear the story they paint until the end. Their rendition is very successful because they have the ability to do this.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought of my idea very early on in the process. I had learned earlier in the year that I had a friend, Alexis, had not been vaccinated. When we were assigned the project I knew this is what I wanted to do because it was so relevant. I chose to make a video involving my explanation of the topics I discussed in my paper because I felt they were important. I wanted people to be able to watch it and understand why they should vaccinate. I tried to touch on the important topics that would be able to fully inform someone. I also tried to include information that would not only convince someone to vaccinate, but also to disprove and combat any beliefs they already had about the negative effects of vaccination. I did solicit help from the friend I had mentioned earlier to show my true angle of vision on the entire subject. I also included and interview with my friend Alexis because I wanted my viewers to understand that there really are people out there who never become vaccinated. I then wanted to follow up with the fact that event though she never got sick, she still could have been extremely susceptible to disease.  I completed the video project in my dorm and my friend’s common room because I felt that this was the most comfortable place to discuss. For my single part, I wanted to record in my room because it was the most private place for such a sensitive subject. For my friend, because the topic could have easily been a sensitive subject for her, I let her decide where the most comfortable spot for her was. I simply just record the video, and cropped and placed it on Windows Movie Maker to have more of a flow. I think the video allowed me to present the idea that the topics I’m discussing are real. Like in the situation with Alexis, it is easier to read an essay and disbelieve that what others believe about the negative impact of vaccines is untrue. But when the person who has not been vaccinated is in front of you, it’s harder to believe. My podcast was slightly easier, I did it by myself and I just wanted to discuss how I felt about the project. I tried to include pictures in the visual portion that related to what I was currently speaking about. I also tried to include visual images that viewers could easily understand. I had to include pictures because Window Movie Maker did not allow me to just have audio, so I tried to be as creative as possible with it. I completed the process by pre-answering the given questions and trying to accurately describe how the process of writing my paper went for me. I tried my best to put it in a form that sounded like I was having a conversation with myself because that is an effective way to make a successful podcast.

After the thorough editing of my paper by my peers, I made a few changes. I did a lot of minor edits. Most of my grammatical editing was involved with verb tenses, forgetting letters in words, such as in general typos, or not properly organizing a sentence. Alexa caught most of these issues when she edited my paper on the first day. Later on, Marielle edited my paper again. Because Alexa had caught most of the grammatical errors, Marielle did not have much to edit. She changed the organizational structure the most. She organized my paper in a completely different way that I had originally had it and changed some of the organization based off of her interpreted organization. Overall, my peers did really well. I do not fully agree with the order of paragraphs that Marielle had suggested, but I did take her organization into account. Alexa gave me very good advice on how to make my paper stronger. Her suggestions helped me find better ways to get my point across. When she would change my sentences structurally, her suggestions would be much clearer than what I had originally written. A piece of information that I found in my research truly shocked me was when I learned that Edward Jenner actually had run into a lot of complications. When I first began the research project, I had assumed that there must have been something that went wrong when he began his experiments. I was also surprised to learn that he was met with such hostility but also such large amounts of praise. First off, I did not know that he was given what would be equivalent to a million dollars by the British and that they began their mandatory vaccination policy then. I would have assumed that they would have done it after a few more experiments. I also did not realize that the first anti-vaccination groups appeared here. Overall, I feel my research project benefitted me a lot. I really felt enveloped in the topic and enjoyed it more that I thought I would have. I thought the process was a little frustrating because I felt some steps were in the wrong order, like when we had to create an early bibliography but I was not exactly sure what I wanted to write about yet. Also, some of the blogs we had to write to prepare for writing the paper I felt like did not help me write my paper as much as I had hoped them to. The ‘so what” question was important and I understand the purpose behind it, I just feel it did not help me write my paper or refine my topic. I hope those who read my research paper will take away from it a lot. I hope they consider their choice on vaccinations, and I’m hoping it’s for the choice to vaccinate rather than to not vaccinate. I feel that I provided enough evidence to support why choosing to vaccinate is the right decision.

This is a picture of my notecards when taking notes from sources both on the internet and in my book sources. I use these to organize and write my paper. I created notecards and organized them by topic which would then be translated into paragraphs in the actual paper.

This picture is of Alexa and I editing each other’s papers. She used colored coded pens in order to explain which type of editing she was doing, such as local issues, global issues, where I cited my sources, and where I supported my thesis. This later on helped me to fine tune my essay a little, as I had a decent handful of grammatical errors but also figure out where I needed a little more organization.

This image is of my layout of Marielle’s essay and her organizing mine to the way she believed it would flow well. Her suggestions did make an impact on my essay in certain ways, but some of the paragraphs just felt too out of order for me to change.

Again, this is another photo of Marielle and I organizing each other’s essays to how we saw it fit best. This time I am actually in the picture!

Name: Melissa Gutheil                     Section: 064                                    Date: April 23, 2017

Record the book source that you’ve found, using MLA or APA citation.

Link, Kurt. The Vaccine Controversy: The History, Use, and Safety of Vaccinations. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2007. Print.

Record the problematic question that inspired your research.

Why do so many people oppose vaccines when there is extensive research proving that they help our society and disproving the belief that vaccines do more harm than good?

In paragraph form, discuss how this book will be helpful for your research essay (ex: What argument does it present/ driving questions does it consider? What information enriches or contradicts what you already know about the topic?) Use the book’s introduction as a guideline. Be specific!

Link tries to present his book as one that asks the reader to draw questions on their own. He personally discusses the history, epidemiology, impact, and his own opinion on all of the common vaccines. In doing this, he thoroughly discusses if they are beneficial to society and dives in deep onto how they have changed the mortality rates in developed countries. He discusses the issues many people have with vaccines and their impact on children. In this discussion, he includes evidence of past events where vaccinations have hurt and even killed children. For me, this helps me discuss the possibility for some people to believe that there are negative impacts with vaccines that the public should be aware of. His point and his own problematic question on the subject, saying that potentially injecting children with every vaccine is going to eventually cause adults with weak immune systems.

List three questions that this book causes you to consider.

1. Question: Is the author correct in thinking vaccinations may cause weak adult immune systems?

 

2. Question: Is the debate over negative vaccination side effects valid?

 

3. Question: Should vaccination be compulsory?

List the books that are directly to the right and to the left of this book on the shelf, using MLA or APA citation.

Left: Kitta, Andrea. Vaccinations and Public Concern in History: Legend, Rumor, and Risk Perception. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.

­­­­­­­­­­­­

Right: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Priorities For The National Vaccine Plan. Washington, D.C.: National Academies, 2010. Print.

 

Record the Academic Journal Article that you’ve found, using MLA or APA citation.

Omer, Saad B., Daniel A. Salmon, Walter A. Orenstein, M. Patricia Dehart, and Neal Halsey. “Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases.” New England Journal of Medicine 360.19 (2009): 1981-988. Web.

Record the article’s thesis, including the page number on which it appears.

In this article, we review the evidentiary basis for school immunization requirements, explore the determinants of vaccine refusal, and discuss the individual and community risks of vaccine-preventable diseases associated with vaccine refusal.

Page One

In paragraph form, discuss how this article will be helpful for your research paper (ex: What argument does it present/ driving questions does it consider? What information enriches or contradicts what you’ve discovered in your exploratory essay paper?) Use the article’s thesis as a guideline. Be specific!

This article discusses not only the history of vaccines and the history of people’s apprehension towards vaccination but also why people have begun to stay away from getting vaccinated.  I think it will be helpful for me to included the demographics of people who choose to not be vaccinated. This article goes in depth of discussing the socioeconomic status of both types of parents and provides a lot of studies to see the results of not vaccinating. Also, the article goes on to include the response of doctors and other qualified individuals on the choice to not vaccinate. I think a big part that is presented is the impact on the community as a whole when one individual is not vaccinated, and that will enrich my essay a lot. It is an extremely valid claim.

 

List two questions that this article causes you to consider.

1. Question: If highly prestigious groups like The New England Journal of Medicine can report fully that not vaccinating is harmful, why do people still decide not to listen?
2. Question: How has vaccination changed over the past few years with the introduction of new diseases and more widespread disapproval of vaccines?

In paragraph form, consider what you’ve found in the above book source and article source. Discuss next steps for your Research essay. Also, discuss what other information you’ll need to develop a strong, tension filled, thesis. Finally, explain your current position on the issue.

Going further, I need more information. I really need to study up on the history of vaccines. It is obvious that there are a lot of clear cases of when vaccination has gone wrong, so I would like to fully understand that part. I’d like to find more popular pop culture sources as well, because that is hearing more from the public than just people with extensive education and medical opinions on the topic. That being said, I still would like to find more scholarly articles as well because their opinions are typically very valid and provide strong evidence. Personally, I feel that all children should be vaccinated. I do not believe that not getting a vaccine will save you, if anything it will kill you of diseases we eradicated decades ago. Also, the supposed “side effects” that are dangerous or harmful to children, such as autism, would never be as bad as losing a child to polio. The community is also in danger when a child who is unvaccinated is in their school.

Provide a tentative thesis that communicates your current stance on the issue. Remember, your thesis should have tension and allude to your angle of vision on an issue!

Vaccinations have eradicated diseases that devasted communities a hundred years ago. Now, there is debate on whether or not these vaccines are truly saving lives. Do these opposers have a viewpoint worth trying to change the system, or is it imperative that we assume the ideology that all children must be vaccinated?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I forgot to upload this but we had it done on time!

 

Step 1: Embed images and/or video at some point in the blog post.

• Be sure to note information about the advertisement—including title, URL, etc.—for references.

Donald Trump Epic Ad

 

 

Step 2: In 250 words, describe the advertisement.

• Clearly note your observations about the advertisement including its form, its setting, its claims, etc.
• Be explicit about the audience, medium, purpose etc.

The advertisement is loud and slightly obnoxious. The Donald Trump “Epic” Ad truly does what it says in the title, it portrays him as epic. It’s setting is at Trump rallies across America with him speaking and his supporters. One of the places that is specifically named is Mobile, AL. This leads me to think that a large portion of the video is set at rallies in the southern states of the Unites States. In the video, he claims he will “Make America Great Again” claiming to restore America to its former glory so the inhabitant can feel like they can have pride in their country once again. It claims he is the popular vote because he has the majority and that he is gaining the most fame and traction. He continues to claim that America is being attacked by other politicians, that can be inferred he’s speaking about liberals. He basically says that he is going to go on the offense and fix America. His biggest claim is that he is going to create a movement and ensue change in America to liberate the country of their terrible life as it was. The medium is a video with a voiceover that does not always match the visuals. The audience is the American voter pool, mostly Trump supporters, but potentially to persuade those would did not previously have an opinion or were not going to vote for Trump. The purpose was to provide evidence to vote for him in the 2016 Election. It was to inform the public of his “great” actions.

Step 3: In 250 words, analyze the advertisement.

• Use a specific example from your description to examine the commercial’s rhetorical effectiveness.
• Note how the advertisement uses visual rhetoric to “sell” a political view, ideological “product.”

 

The rhetorical effectiveness is supported by Trump’s claims that he is going to cure America of its epidemic that the leaders who had come before him had done. His entire campaign is surrounded by the fact that he wants to “Make America Great Again” and so when he claims that he wants to create change so that he can make his supporters (and hopefully other people he can persuade) feel pride in their country once again. He clearly believes that wholeheartedly throughout his campaign video ad. Trump’s advertisement uses visual rhetoric by including other famous politicians like Sarah Palin. She is well known and her support for the Trump campaign may cause some people to sway their votes towards Trump because they trust her decisions. Trump also uses a variety of diverse people throughout this advertisement. He includes women, veterans, international students and teenagers to help his audience believe he is working for all of these groups of people as well. This works to his advantage since he is well known for problems with these groups. This draws his audience in and they see a kind of social acceptance to liking Donald Trump after seeing people similar to themselves support him. The advertisement also uses news stories as a way to prove his claim that his campaign and ideas are the most popular in America. They back up his idea that Trump supporters are the “silent majority” and that the Trump campaign is popular and also wanted by the American people.

 

Step 4: In 250 words, reflect on the advertisement.

• Formulate a problematic question that connects the advertisement to our evolving discussion of Utopia, difference, digital citizenship, and futurity. Explain how the advertisement highlights a particular policy issue to address this question. Sample questions might include:
  • “How does Hillary Clinton’s advertisement use font and tone to highlight problematic depictions of race and systemic inequality?”
  • “How does Donald Trump’s advertisement shed light on conventional assumptions about gender roles and professional experience?”

 

My problematic question would be: How does Donald Trump’s campaign in the media solve the issues with minority groups, who mostly oppose his ideologies, while also still maintaining some followers who align with those minority groups? Donald Trump highlights the issue by saying “we are going to bring our jobs back” which might not actually solve the issue. By saying this, he is claiming that jobs have gone overseas or to immigrants in America, specifically illegal immigrants. He is stirring the pot a little by addressing this situation.

 

Step 1: Embed the video in your blog post.

• Be sure to note information about the advertisement—including title, etc.—for references.

Heinz Ketchup Game Day 2016 Hot Dog Commercial “Wiener Stampede”

 

 

Step 2: In 250 words, describe the advertisement.

• Clearly note your observations about the product including its form, its setting, its claims, etc.
• Be explicit about the audience, medium, purpose etc.

The “Wiener Stampede” is a video advertisement shown on TV during football games.  The advertisement is set in an open field. They are making claims that hot dogs must go with a side condiment, specifically Heinz’s, to be enjoyed. They refer to the hot dogs with Heinz condiments as having “great taste” and it can’t be resisted. The audience for this commercial was specifically marketed in the beginning for football watchers, as it was first shown during Game Day 2016 and also the Superbowl. But later it was shown on regular TV to any viewers, so anyone who eats hotdogs would be willing to match it with Heinz condiments. In the background, music is played with the lyrics “can’t live, if living is without you” which is a note to the fact that Heinz condiments and hot dogs cannot be enjoyed separately. Also, the Meet The Ketchups addition also tries to show the audience that there is more than just your plain old ketchup and mustard. There is also a comedic element by using wiener dogs as “hot dogs’ and also the young kid meant to be the ketchup packet. The purpose is clearly to sell their Heinz condiments, all the different flavors and kinds they offer, and drive home the idea that people who eat hot dogs should definitely be pairing it with Heinz products. They want to create an idea in the viewers minds’ that they must enjoy these two things together as it will create a better eating experience.

 

Step 3: In 250 words, analyze the advertisement.

• Use a specific example from your description to examine the commercial’s rhetorical effectiveness.
• Note how the advertisement uses visual rhetoric to “sell” a product. For example: what is the advertisements tone? How does the camera’s gaze determine shape the viewer’s perspective/angle of vision? What is the commercial’s subtext? Etc.

The music in the background really sells the product and the idea that the condiments and the hot dogs need to be enjoyed together. The music is a song entirely about needing to be together or else the singer cannot live. Which is how Heinz wants the viewer to feel about their condiments. Also, the music can play a large role in buying the product in stores in other ways as well. The song is extremely catchy. When people have that song in their head they will always remember it as the “wiener dog commercial” and maybe be more inclined to remember and purchased Heinz’s products because of that. Simultaneously, whenever they hear the song the commercial may pop into their head again, inclining them to crave and hopefully later purchase Heinz products. The music is used as a background element that maybe the average viewer would not notice as a technique to sell. The speaker’s tone of the quick text that is said toward the end of the commercial almost feels relatable and like your average person. The want you to relate to the fact that “it’s hard to resist great taste”. It feels like the speaker is almost asking for your opinion as if they’re saying, “it’s hard to resist great taste, right?” so the viewer could be like “yes it is, now I need a Heinz ketchup with my hot dog.” The angle of vision shows the wiener dogs running to the condiment at a faced paced, saying they absolutely need to be together and cannot be apart.

 

Step 4: In 250 words, reflect on the advertisement.

• Formulate a problematic question that connects the advertisement to our evolving discussion of technology, community and popular culture. Sample questions might include:
  • “How does Old Spice’s advertisement use comedic imagery to parody popular representations of masculinity and desire?”
  • “How does Microsoft’s self-aware advertisement shed light on unconventional uses and audiences for its version of augmented reality?”
• Discuss how the advertisement addresses this question using some of the terms we discussed during Monday’s class. For example: Arrangement, Scale, People, etc.

 

My problematic question would be: How does Heinz’s cute and comedic advertisement use music and wiener dogs to draw the customer in and relate hot dogs and Heinz products together effectively? The advertisement uses tone very well to allow the consumer to draw their conclusion that Heinz and hot dogs instinctively go together.

 

I can’t remember any of the other terms…

 

 

Most famously, our history has been plagued with literal plagues and other deadly diseases. In the 18^th century alone, over 400,000 Europeans are dying each year from Smallpox (Bizarre). Smallpox, a contagious deadly disease spread from person to person and caused fever and a very recognizable skin rash (Smallpox). Polio would paralyze 10,000 children, while rubella would cause birth defects and mental retardation in about 20,000 newborns. Measles, as disease rarely seen in modern-day, would infect around 4 million children and kill just around 3,000 of those per year. Diphtheria was the most common cause of death in school-aged children while pertussis killed thousands more. A bacterium known as Haemophilus influenzae type b was known to cause meningitis in about 15,000 children a year and cause irreversible brain damage (Largent 20). A British physician set out to change this. Edward Jenner noticed in 1796 that milkmaids tended to never have smallpox. Noticing that they were frequently infected with cowpox, a less harmful disease, he took the pus of a cowpox sore and injected it into an eight-year-old boy. Afterwards, he exposed the boy to smallpox to test if he truly gave this boy immunity. This was the beginning of vaccination. Jenner published his work in 1798 and immediately began vaccinating others. Jenner was paid what would be worth around a million dollars now and the United Kingdom adopted a mandatory vaccination policy (Bizarre). In modern day, by the age of six, children should have received around thirty six immunizations with of fifty vaccines. In 2007, around 90% of two or three year old have received their MMR, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b, varicella, and pneumococcus vaccinations (Largent 15).

Despite the life-saving abilities of vaccines, opposition to vaccines keeps growing exponentially. In 2012, only 80% of two year olds had received their important vaccines like their MMR, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b, varicella, and pneumococcus vaccinations (Largent 15). After Jenner had inoculated the young boy, he received many critics. One of those critics being William Rowley, claiming that injecting with cowpox would cause the patient to acquire cow-like features (Bizarre). But, Jenner’s experiment did not run as smoothly as hoped. He transferred diseases like syphilis and did not write all his failures down (Link 44). Once Jenner’s new vaccination as out, he immediately began receiving opposition from group formed specifically for anti-vaccination. These included the Anti-Vaccination Society in 1798 and the London Society of the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination in 1800. At the time, they had claimed that vaccinations were against God’s will, the human body could be contaminated from the animal vaccines, mandatory vaccination violated civil liberties, and that the vaccinations were ineffective. Overall, these reasoning’s tend to parallel what parents are claiming with today’s vaccines (Kitta 11). 40% of American parents have begun to opt out or delay their child’s mandatory or recommended vaccines. In areas like Ashland, Oregon the number of school-children not receiving these vaccines is as high as 66.7% (Largent 18). Only 40% of informants in one study believed that vaccines actually do increase immunity to diseases, while the other sixty percent attributed it to other factors like sanitation, acquisition of clean water, new advancements in drugs, and improved diets (Kitta 109).

It is so easily and often said. Asking whether or not a position paper is important, and if it’s relevant to everyday life. Why should I care about your research paper? How does it affect the average person? Well, that’s what I’m here to answer. Vaccinations begin practically at birth itself. Entering high school, students must be vaccinated in order to attend. Again in most colleges and universities, vaccination requirements must be met in order to attend classes.  Clearly, vaccination is an experience almost every person in any first world country will experience. Vaccines save lives. It’s as simple as that. But yet still many people decide not to get vaccinated. Why? Well, there are many reasons, some of them are religious while others are purely decisions made out of fear. It’s hard to understand why someone would be afraid of a vaccine causing chronic diseases. But this can be easily explained. There is no way to understand why someone would believe some absolutely absurd myths. It’s impossible to fathom how someone could conjure up an entirely false rumor, but yet still it is widely popular. Growing major traction, many people believe that a child can contract autism from a single life-saving shot. It is absurd.

But why does my approach matter? Why does the way I would like to write my paper matter? I’m hoping that it’ll reach an audience in a different way than other viewpoints. I would like to discuss the history of vaccinations while also discussing the history of where the oppositions of vaccinations begun. I think this will allow readers to care a little bit more than a different article. I believe this because readers like to be informed and to understand the information rather than just be told what is true and what is not. I would like to give the reader the opportunity to think for themselves. In doing this, the reader can now process the information on their own and draw their own conclusions. I believe this will drive my point home because when given the cold hard facts about the emergence of the hostility towards vaccinations, it is easy to realize the autism argument has no validity.

My paper will be different than the majority of sources I use because the sources are definite. I would like my paper to be more of a discussion or conversation. Although personally, I do believe that there is no question to vaccinating, I want to give the reader a chance to think on their own. Most sources I will include will not do that. They will present information to the reader as a definite.

The problematic question I would like to propose and eventually begin to answer would be whether or not we can fully assume the ideology that every child must be vaccinated to the fullest successful degree. Sure, people will always continue to have their doubts about the safety of a vaccine. I would like to begin to reverse these doubts. I want to provide comfort and support to the people by explaining that vaccines not only do not harm you, but they will save your life. I want my thesis to propose the idea that maybe it is okay if we implemented more rules pertaining the requirement of children to receive vaccines.