When first seeing the graphic of Bush and Obama, I was very confused and stared hard at the transformation made from one individual to the other. However, the first thought in my mind was about Obama’s race. I remembered a big commotion about Obama being part “white,” and the picture reminded me of that nonsense.
Once looking at it again, I believe that the graphic is used to represent both leaders, especially because Obama was inaugurated after Bush. During presidential terms, both leaders had hatred and admiration. Both men had differences, making themselves an individual, represented by the two ends. However, there are similarities in them, political or not, which is represented by the center mixed picture.
I had also noticed that the two men had originated from different political parties. The graphic could also be a showing that the political parties, and their representatives are not to different. All parties sprouted from one start, just as all people are individuals, but still human.
I also think that my comp professor chose this graphic to represent the blog because of the possibilities behind the image. The maker intended it to be interpreted, and that is what my comp professor wants us to do throughout this semester. He wants us to use our intuition to be able to analyze meanings or results that are not “on the surface.” This makes this graphic, which is also related to current times, a perfect representation for the spring blog. Just as the image has many possible interpretations, so does everything else around us. The only limit is where your mind draws the line.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Stephen, thank you so much for posting an early draft. I appreciate this opportunity to respond with notes 1) while your new classmates are trying to decide how much time and effort to spend on this first assignment, and 2) while there’s plenty of time for you to react with revisions.
I won’t ask if this is your first, second, third, or subsequent draft because the question is irrelevant. Every draft needs a rewrite, and I will never compare your new draft to a previous draft. That’s your job. Mine is to react to the one before me on its own terms.
P1. Your first paragraph is primarily reflective. “I was confused” is a good indication that this analysis will regard your personal reaction to the image. But your “confusion” is unclear. “The transition . . . from one individual to another” is nothing to be confused about, is it? Or if it is, why is it confusing? Do you mean that you immediately recognized the faces at the edges but were unable to identify the three guys in the middle? You might mean that, but you don’t say so. Or did you intuit immediately that the image array was transitional from one president to the next, but you were confused why someone would want to produce such an array? You might mean that, but you don’t say so. As always, decide what you mean, and then say so.
Yes, I have spent a paragraph on your first sentence. You remember how this goes, Stephen.
Your second sentence doesn’t make a claim at all. There cannot be a thought in your mind “about race.” Your third sentence clarifies that your thought was a memory that the electorate was confused about Obama’s racial identity, a very specific thought, which makes your second sentence unnecessary.
Do I mean that you can never transition from the general to the specific, as you’re trying to do here? No, I don’t mean that. But, instead of saying: I had a thought about race, which is wasteful; you could say: My first thought was that the series of images was a commentary on Obama’s race.
My favorite claim of this paragraph is your word “nonsense.” It’s brilliant, really. In one word it dismisses a controversy that kept us busy for half a year and signals that you disparage the maker of this image if its purpose was to make Obama’s race an issue.
P2. I have no idea what you mean by your first sentence, Stephen. Of course the graphic “represents” both men since it presents their recognizable images. Why does that require a second look? And why “especially because”? Would it not represent them if Bush had been elected second?
You don’t mean they “had hatred and admiration”; you might mean they were “both hated and admired.”
“Both men had differences” is unclear too. You might mean, “the men had their differences,” but only if they argued. You might mean, “the men were very different presidents,” even if they never addressed each other. But when you say “Both men had differences,” you mean they both differed with someone else, not with each other.
Most likely you mean they represented two ends of one spectrum. They don’t need to be individuals to do that, but it doesn’t hurt. Your last sentence indicates they’re not entirely opposite ends of that spectrum, so your more nuanced position might be that to their supporters they represent two extremes, but that you sense their similarities. If that’s what you mean, then you have some sympathy with the maker of the image, who seems to have given you a graphic representation of how the two presidents’ policies or personalities “meet in the middle.” Does that make sense?
P3. Decide for yourself about this paragraph, Stephen. It nicely echoes what I think are your observations in P2. But the clearer P2 is, the clearer P3 will be. Please note that you can’t have “noticed” from the image that the men are of different parties. You would certainly reflect on that fact while looking at the graphic, but you can’t learn it from looking. In your last sentence, are you making a personal philosophical point, or surmising the point of the graphic, or both?
P4. I don’t want to say much about why your professor selected this image since I want that to remain a matter of speculation, but your position is certainly reasonable.
Please note and eliminate the use of 2nd-person language in your last sentence. P4 is consistently 1st person, like the rest of your draft, (I think . . . , my professor wants us . . . , everything around us . . . . ). So your last sentence—apart from the total ban on 2nd-person language, period—should read: The only limit to our imagination is where our minds draw the line.
General note: Your tenses probably won’t survive to the next draft, but watch out for them if they do.
1. When first seeing . . . I was confused.
2. Looking at it again . . . I believe.
3. I had also noticed.
4. I also think.
Those are difficult timeline transitions. I’d be happy to clarify.
Overall: Stephen, this is an entirely worthy draft that covers a lot of material concisely (the race question, the differences/similarities between parties and presidents, the controversial nature of truth)! I recommend your classmates study it carefully as a way to sort out their own reactions and learn from this opportunity to see the feedback process “up close and personal.”
Thank you again for being the brave beginner.
Thank you for the quick feedback, professor.
I normally rewrite over the draft, but because I’m the first one, I’ll leave the first draft above (just for now) so that others can see what you had originally commented on.
I’ve rewritten my draft, please provide feedback.
—Requires feedback, DSH
Also, I attempted to fix the tenses from your General Note, however if I did similar ones again, please help me clarify.
Thank you. -Stephen
At first sight of the graphic of Bush and Obama, I was very confused and stared hard at the transformation made from one individual to the other. I have seen pictures of both presidents countless times, but never a morph between the two. However, my first thought was that the transition was aimed to emphasize Obama’s race. Once seeing the morph, I remembered the big commotion about Obama being part “white,” which was complete nonsense.
My second thought was to believe that the graphic is used to represent both leaders because the morph transitions from Bush to Obama, since Obama was inaugurated after Bush. During respective presidential terms, the leaders were both hated and admired. In the graphic, the ends show that the men differed from one another, while the center mixed picture shows that they had similarities.
I then realized that the two men originated from different political parties. The graphic could also be showing that the political parties are not too different by using the two most recent representatives as the “face” for each party.
I think that my comp professor chose this graphic to represent the blog because of the possibilities behind the image. The maker intended it to be interpreted, and that is what my comp professor wants us to do throughout this semester. He wants us to use our intuition to be able to analyze meanings or results that are not “on the surface.” This makes the graphic, which is also related to current times, a perfect representation for the spring blog. Just as the image has many possible interpretations, so does everything else around us. The only limit to our imagination is where our minds draw the line.