Senior Writing Portfolio Students
Millikin University
 |
 |
 |
Daniel Richards
biography
Daniel Thomas Richards will graduate with a B.A. in English writing from Millikin University in May of 2007. His research interests include race portrayals in animated media, alternative pedagogies and the role of media in contemporary America. Having just finished a summer of research with Dr. Priscilla Meddaugh that culminted in a conference paper, Daniel plans to continue his study of alternative pedagogies in his James Millikin Scholar project by designing a collegiate course about race in American cartoons.
Daniel currently serves as the Co-Editor-in-Chief of the campus newspaper, the Decaturian, and Fraternity Education Officer for Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia. Additionally, he participates in MENC, University Choir and the a cappella quartet "Second String."
Writing Theory
Statement of Poetics
Concerning the motives or theory for my writing, I find myself less than satisfied with a single concept without proper analysis of the different genres in which I participate. I submit that my long-term motives and theories of writing differ between styles, and in that difference lies a common thread, the eternal binding factor that makes my motives and theories personal.
Creative / Personal—I decided to analyze these two genres together because they have the same basic motive: discovery. Whether self or situational discovery, when I write creatively or for myself, as in a journal entry, I try to scrutinize the “why” aspect of my writing. Why am I writing this short story? Why am I writing down my feelings on this particular subject? The answer is often simple; I want to better understand myself. I find no great means of discovering the self than writing through the thought process.
Journalism—The art of journalism is nothing less than the pursuit of truth. With this concept in mind, I often find myself asking, during a journalistic venture, “How can I know?” (Doug Zemke should be proud). I know through my chosen philosophy of understanding, my epistemological theory: reason by means of empiricism. I ground my journalistic theory in observation. By giving the audience what I see, hear and touch, I am doing my best to present empirical facts instead of interpretation. More so, true objectivity comes not in presenting an unbiased report but by acknowledging the inherent flaws in information gathering and striving to counter them through multiple sources, direct quotes and by taking pride in a job well done.
Of course, interpretation and entertainment have their place in journalism as long as they are distinctly separate from standard hard news. My column, Some Pithy Conjecture, represents that mix known as infotainment. Since many people ask why I write my column in the manner I do instead of using brilliant Aristotelian rhetoric, I suppose I should explain myself. There are enough blowhards in the journalism business, and on campus, that believe they know everything and spout their points of view, well-argued or not, in the media. The problem I have with such pundits is their accessibility. John Q. Average isn’t interested in the political repercussions of a nuclear North Korea if the information is presented in a standard persuasive manner. They will simply yawn and turn to the comics. I attempt to remedy this situation by combining three distinct concepts for my column: humor, politics and satire.
Readers particularly fond of status quo political rhetoric often tell me that my writing doesn’t belong in a credible newspaper. Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Barry and I disagree. Like Mr. Barry, not that I claim to be at his level of ability, I try to find the absurdity in news, politics and life. When I find it, I criticize or mock it to promote change. Very seldom will you find pure invective in my writing. Michael Moore, for example, is often a target of personal attacks in my column, but why would compare Michael Moore to a jazz saxophone player since neither knows when to sit down and shut up? It is my opinion that Michael Moore makes a living lying about people and events. The satire of my comparisons comes in my blatant, exaggerated lies about Michael Moore, the man who makes his living lying.
Although I’m not there yet, I strive to be a distinct combination of Dave Barry and George Will. And maybe Ann Coulter. Maybe.
Academic—My academic writing strives to evaluate a text or idea through the analytical lens of an avid, relentless researcher. Ever the Knight of Infinite Resignation, I strive to question thoroughly and endlessly, ceasing only at the boundaries of my knowledge, and only until I can expand those boundaries into uncharted, exciting new realms.
• • •
What possible common thread runs through these examined genres? One might say the pursuit of truth, and I would be inclined to agree. But I see something else, something historically sinister that I embrace as a virtue: selfishness. No matter what I write, I strive for my best, for my satisfaction. Especially in creative and interpretive journalism, I want nothing more than personal satisfaction. If my audience enjoys the writing, all the better, but if not a single reader finds a thread of satisfaction in work, so be it. Knowing that my personal standards are met is the only reassurance I need that my time writing is well spent.
Writing Sample
My Humble Proposal: For swiftly resolving the problem of freeloading children becoming a burden to their hardworking, self-sufficient parents while expanding personal freedoms
What began as a crazy topic of discussion for several confident, if naïve, high-school conservatives, ended as the defining rhetorical piece of my freshman year in college. My Humble Proposal bridges what I wanted to be in high school—the new Jonathan Swift—and what my new education allowed me to be—myself. Perhaps the structure is awkward and the sentences sometimes flow like a hair-clogged shower drain, but I love this satirical piece if for no other reason than its distinct representation of me. It was the culmination of my rhetorical education, the pinnacle of my ability, yet when I read the finished piece, I was confident I could my go further and compelled to do so. I owe a lot to his essay and to the educators who helped me make it possible. My sincere and endless thanks.
My Humble Proposal
For swiftly resolving the problem of freeloading children becoming a burden to their hardworking, self-sufficient parents while expanding personal freedoms
Daniel Thomas Richards
Introduction
In every civilization, Western civilizations especially, there are citizens whose sole purpose is epitomized by the word “freeloader”—one who is able to self sustain, but instead “mooches” off others without reciprocating, much like a parasite feasts on its host. These freeloaders weaken society and diminish the personal freedoms and liberties of the “hosts” to which they attach. Whether the hosts of these freeloaders are parents, relatives, friends, or the government, without a doubt these parasites are an inconvenience if not a significant burden. To truly describe the parasites of which I speak, I devised a term which I shall use from this point on: FEITUS, meaning Freeloading Entity Inconveniently Taking Up Space. My term does not apply to those temporarily “down on their luck.” A man who loses his job and lives with a relative for a short period of time does not embody the term FEITUS. A forty-year-old professional couch potato “mooching” off his elderly mother, however, does. These FEITUSes, while not the most pressing problem facing humanity, are an inconvenience easily removed.
My proposal concerning the solution to the problem of FEITUSes is common sense at its finest. After reading my solution, reasoning and plan of action, the American government will have no choice but to enact my proposal.
Before I present my plan and arguments, I must clarify to whom my plan applies. The solution I will present applies only to the parents of a FEITUS. While constructing my proposal, I decided to limit the solution to parents for a few simple reasons. 1) The debate of the government’s role in caring for its citizens is long standing and long-winded. I do not wish to justify or condemn the government’s care for a FEITUS for I have neither enough time nor ink. 2) While a friend or relative can choose to take care of a FEITUS, a parent may find denying care more difficult. Often parents believe they have an obligation to help their child at any time under any circumstances. Now that my restrictions are clarified, I can state my plan of action sans confusion.
Proposal
I have been assured by a dear friend of my family, who wishes to remain anonymous, that her life would be emotionally and economically secure, if, given the chance, she could have aborted her son—a product of faulty birth control—who is the embodiment of the term FEITUS. At the time of her sons conception and gestation, abortions were still illegal, and her only other choice was a “back-alley” or “wire-hanger” abortion, a most unsafe method indeed.
With the emotional, economical, and physical health of my dear friend and every other parent of a FEITUS in mind, I propose expanding a woman’s right to an abortion in two ways: First, by removing any restriction on the age at which an abortion is performed i.e. allowing abortions in every trimester and at any age proceeding birth, and second, by expanding the abortion right to a both parents after the child is born.
Reasoning
While abortion-on-demand is still a controversial topic in the United States, one must be realistic. A woman’s right to an abortion was legally established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade when Roe, a resident of Texas, wanted an abortion. At that time, Texas only allowed abortions to save a mother’s life. The Supreme Court of the United States decided in a seven to two vote that a woman’s right to an abortion was constitutionally supported by the right to privacy ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (The Supreme Court Case). One may disagree with this ruling and attempt to change it, but one must acknowledge the ruling as law until the ruling is changed. I propose nothing more than to expand an individual liberty already established by the U.S. courts.
My proposal shows compassion for the parents of a FEITUS just as the Supreme Court showed compassion for pregnant mothers in their decision. In their ruling on Roe v. Wade the opinion of the court states:
The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying [abortions] altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. [emphasis mine] Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. (Roe v. Wade)
The Supreme Court clearly takes the future of the mother into account as I have in my proposal. While Roe v. Wade justifies my concern for the future well being of a FEITUS’s host, there are ethical questions left unanswered.
Even those strongly in favor of abortion might find disgust in the idea of aborting an innocent human being after birth, especially years after birth. My only response to this disgust is to ask, “What’s the difference?” Current U.S. law allows abortions through nine months. Is a fetus carried nine months (just before birth) any different from a baby only hours old (just after birth)? If there is no difference, can a newborn baby be aborted? A ten month old? Eleven? Where is the line drawn? Abortions at one week, nine months or twenty-seven years are essentially the same and must be treated equally under our law.
To fully understand why abortion-on-demand is essential at any age, one must look at the arguments abortion advocates use to further their cause and determine why people want abortions. Of course, there are medical reasons why abortions are performed, but I am not searching for the justification of necessary abortions, but the reasons for the elective procedures.
Abortion proponents argue that the government does not have the right to determine what a woman does with her body; thus, if a woman wants an abortion, she can have one. I understand the premise of this argument, but at the same time, I am perplexed. Obviously, the issue cannot be simply what a woman does with her body. Americans allow restrictions on their bodies every day. One cannot do drugs, sell one’s organs, run around naked, sell one’s body for sex (in most places), or intentionally put one’s self in harm’s way—i.e. seatbelt laws, speed limits, etc. The reason so many women want abortions-on-demand cannot simply be for “abortion’s sake” as the “my body” argument would have one believe. The idea of abortion as intrinsically valuable seems a bit far-fetched to me.
According to a study by Akinrinola Bankole, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, 91.8% of abortions in the U.S. (between 1987-88) were performed due to some inconvenience to the mother’s life (i.e. job disruption, cannot afford a child, wish to postpone childbearing, relationship problems, etc.), while only 8.9% of abortions were performed due to danger to the mother’s life, danger to the fetus’s life, or other reasons (Bankole “Reasons”). The vast majority of women receive abortions simply because they do not want the inconvenience of a child. If such a large number of women receive abortions due to inconvenience, this must be the real reason abortion proponents fight so desperately for the right to choose. I now ask, “Why not extend the right to an abortion beyond birth? Is a fetus lying dormant in its mother’s womb more of an inconvenience than a FEITUS lying dormant in its mother’s living room?”
I shall now briefly turn to the second part of my proposal, which would allow both parents the right to an abortion. This part of my proposal seems rather necessary once the true reason for abortion has been established. Obviously, a FEITUS is as much of an inconvenience to the father as to the mother. If the mother of a FEITUS passes away, for example, the care of the FEITUS rests solely with the father. I contend that if the FEITUS is an inconvenience, the father has every right to an abortion. Opponents of my proposal will be hard pressed to find any logically reasoning why abortion rights should not extend to fathers. Moving on…
Plan of Action
The United States Congress must pass a bill extending abortion-on-demand beyond birth and allow a father the right to an abortion. Once the bill is signed into law, a new era of personal choice will begin. Either parent, when faced with emotional, physical, or economic hardship due to a FEITUS, can simply call a licensed physician and request an abortion. The physician must carefully evaluate the parents and the FEITUS, determine if the abortion is safe, and use ONLY United States approved abortion methods. (To deter from the approved methods may result in cruel or unusual punishment for the FEITUS.)
The following procedures are approved methods of abortion in the United States:
(Tip: Before a licensed physician performs an abortion in your household, please be sure to lay down plenty of plastic. Some of these procedures are potentially messy.)
Digoxin Induction: Once the FEITUS is asleep, the certified physician uses a large needle to inject a lethal chemical into the FEITUS’s heart. To save money, I suggest using any household chemicals such as bleach, ammonia, or paint thinner.
Saline Abortion: This method closely mimics the previous method, and differs only in chemicals used. The doctor uses a needle to inject a saline solution into the FEITUS’s lungs causing severe burning and irreparable damage to the organs.
Abortion by Neglect: The FEITUS is simply cut off from food or water and allowed to starve to death. I would suggest allowing the doctor to first sedate the FEITUS making this process much easier. (See Terri Schiavo.)
D & X Method: In order for this method to be used, the FEITUS must be heavily sedated. Once the FEITUS is unconscious, the physician uses scissors to open a hole in the back of the FEITUS’s skull. A vacuum, preferably a Wet/Dry ShopVac®, is used to remove the FEITUS’s brains (How Abortions are Done). If you do not own a ShopVac®, any Hoover® or Oreck® will do.
Thus far, I have used the term FEITUS only to describe individuals living at home as a burden to their parents with the potential to get up off the couch or out of bed and go to work. I see no reason why the term and, thus, my proposal cannot be extended to include those without the potential to be functioning members of society. Those living in a vegetative state, dying of an incurable disease, and the mentally handicapped fit all the criteria to be termed FEITUSes. In the same way a mother or father may abort their couch potato son or daughter, parents should be allowed to abort any other vegetables they have living at home or burdening them elsewhere.
Conclusion
I assure you, with utmost sincerity, if this proposal is enacted, I have nothing personal to gain. Currently, I am childless and hope to stay this way for quite some time. In composing this modest proposal, I wish only for the betterment of society and the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. I submit my proposal for judgment by man and God, and I know both will make the right choice, the only choice in their judgment of my work.
Works cited
“The Supreme Court Case.” Women and Children First. 1997. 3 Dec. 2003
<http://www.roevwade.org/court.html>
“Roe v. Wade.” Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. 22 May 1997. 3 Dec. 2003
<http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/index.html#rop>
Bankole, Akinrinola and Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas. “Reasons Why Women Have
Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries.” The Alan Guttmacher Institute. 3
Aug. 1998. 4 Dec. 2003 <http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html>
“How Abortions are Done.” Westside Pregnancy Resource Center. 1 June 2002. 4 Dec. 2003
< http://www.w-cpc.org/abortion/methods.html>
© 2006 Randy Brooks, Millikin University • Last Updated October 30, 2006