Donate Your Body to Science

Semrau's point is best expressed when he writes: “Quite simply, use what you have until it can no longer function.” I believe that the intent of the essay was to pursuade readers into the idea of giving their bodies to science. His writing style was very effective. He opens up with the idea of recycling and going green, which is something that most people know about. This engages readers to his article, which will be important if he is to talk them into doing what he wants them to do. He also tells about his job, which makes him relatable and trustworthy in that people would approach him. His unique way of hiding details is effective in that it is different. This approach can best be described as a sales pitch in disguise. If it does not appear to be like the dreadful sales pitches Americans have grown to despise, it will not scare the reader away and will be more effective in persuading the reader. Instead of directly telling his audience what he wants them to do, he simply states the positives of donating your body to science. This makes the reader feel less pressured and more obligated to donate their body to science. Semrau persuades his readers by being more approachable and fun; he is relatable and creative in his writing.

Savior of the Nations, Come

The overall theme portrayed is that Christ our Lord is powerful, merciful, and relatable. Luther shows Christ's power in the line "captive leading death and hell". This imagery of holding death and hell captive, as if it were a dangerous enemy involuntarily submitting itself to Jesus, helps one better understand Christ's strength and authority over everything. Christ's merciful quality is expressed through Luther's use of pathos when he writes: "Though by all the world disowned, still to be in heaven enthroned". Writing about Christ's death for us, despite a majority of His beloved children rejecting Him, results in feelings of guilt. Readers feel guilty for denying His bountiful mercy all together. Finally, with diction, Luther shows Christ's relatability in the statement: "Not by human flesh and blood". He says that by God's works, not ours, Christ is human. He is human so that He may have something in common with us and relate to us, increasing probability that we would accept Him because we do not see Him as a distant and dissimilar God. Luther's words "flesh and blood" reveal how material humans are in contrast to God's divine power in creating a human-God hybrid that we can relate to and more easily approach with praise and trials.

Sermon

1. Rev. Borghardt mentions the Christ 22 times in the sermon, using the following verbs: makes, slain, took on, died, rose, reigns, does not push, came, smiles, and lives.

2. While the theme of Rev. Borghardt's sermon is that there is something better than Christians have ever experienced waiting for them when their life ends, Edwards' theme is that sinners will be punished for all eternity without relief. Borghardt talks about heaven for believers as an escape from fear and darkness, enticing nonbelievers to believe, while Edwards goes on about punishment and damnation for sinners and unbelievers in an attempt to scare people into believing in Christ. Both sermons share the same goal, to save nonbelievers from damnation, but both have a very different theme and approach to doing so.

Fuzzy Dice

1. A Michigan law prohibiting items being hung from the rearview mirror of a car might be revised because the original law is not enforced or taken seriously. The original law bans any item being hung from the rear view mirror, while the revised version of the law would only ban large items that obstruct the view of the driver.
2. "'I thought it was legal as long as it's not something that obstructs your view,'Pentecost said recently."
I like this quote because I believe it best summarizes the main points of the article. It shows the ignorance of the general public concerning the law. It also brings to the attention of the reader the idea that not all items hanging from the rearview mirror are a safety hazard, and that only large items capable of obstructing the driver's view should be banned.
3. I am in favor of the revised law, but against the original law. I believe that the original law banning all items being hung from a rearview mirrors is fruitless and ineffectual. A vast majority of cops were not even enforcing the law, and the general public was not obeying the law. The common people did not even know the law was in place. I do believe that people should be able to hang items from their rearview mirrors as long as the items do not get in their line of sight. If these items could potentially distract the driver, the lives of other civilians could be in danger. The attention of the driver needs to be completely focused on the task at hand: driving. Not everyone is capable of handling a large item hanging from their mirror, so to avoid the deaths of innocents, hanging large objects from rearview mirrors should be banned.

Lebron James

1. The point Albom is trying to make very clear is that Lebron James was not targeted because of his race. James went from being one of America's most beloved athletes to the sixth-most dislike athlete as a result of his enormous ego. Lebron lost fans because of his arrogance. He didn't lose all white fans or all black fans, but people of all races were up in arms after he pompously made the announcement that he would now be playing for the Miami Heat. Albom is tired of black athletes blaming all of their controversy on race just because it is easy to do so.
2. I agree with Albom completely. Why should a black man be able to blame the results of his own arrogance on race, while the white man can not hide behind the race issue? The general public needs to understand that just because a black man is targeted, it's not just because the color of his skin. The way Lebron announced that he was leaving Cleveland implied that he believed was God's gift to basketball, and naturally he was attacked for it. Lebron's popularity fell apart due to his own actions, not because he is black.
3. In my opinion, Albom's strongest point comes at the end of his essay, when he references Brett Favre's leaving Green Bay. "By the way, there was similar vitriol toward Brett Favre after he left Green Bay. Ego. Money. Why didn't CNN ask Favre if it was about race?" -Mitch Albom. This quote combined with Albom's assertion at the beginning of his essay, the ridiculousness of black athletes being able to blame their controversy on race, perfectly portrays his point. Brett Favre is a white man, therefore he could not blame his troubles on race, but Lebron James, a black man, can? It doesn't make any sense, especially when the arrogance of Lebron surpasses that of Favre. In his essay, Albom is basically pleading with his readers to realize that just because it is easy to blame such conflict on race, they must take one's actions and ego into account.