Library was closed!

Today the library was closed!!!!! It was really sad. I think it's because the new wing of the library downtown is opening, which is a huge inconvenience to me. However, i have the newsweek so I have a paper source, technically. I am about to start working more on the paper tonight, although i have a lot of finals to study for.

progress

Today I went through my house and found a newsweek article and several very good online articles to help me start my paper. I wrote two pages about electric cars and ethanol fuel, and i believe the paper is going along very well. Tomorrow I will work more on it, and I will go to the library to get books to help write it. I am writing two paragraphs for each type of fuel, one paragraph with pros and one paragraph with cons.

physics+english?

We talked about alternative fuels today in physics, which i found really interesting obviously because I will write my paper about them. Mr. Napier was having a question day, and somehow we got on the subject of alternative fuels, which i gladly jumped into at certain points, although there were a lot of things that were said that I didn't know about, such as that on the subject of ethanol fuels, there is no clear data of its efficiency because the people doing the research are usually biased in some way. On the subject of Hydrogen fuel, we talked about how the biggest problem is that there would be a delay in pressing the gas pedal to when the car would actualy accelarate, because it needs to allow time to produce the hydrogen. However, this problem could be solved by using gasoline for the primary accelaration. Also, Hydrogen is highly flammable, and since it is a gas, if there is an over production of it, any small collision could, in mr Napier's words, level several blocks.

I found this interesting. I figured I would mark it as progress

Progress?

Progress? i have made no progress.

Ethanol fuels.

thought about it o' bit

wrote a bit of US History homework

will procrastinate till the weekend


maybe.


that's my progress

..... I'd better not get an F for this post....

Ethanol Fuels

I think i will write mine on ethanol fuel, and whether or not it is an issue to keep using gasoline versus trying to find alternative fuels. I am choosing this because it is a real and solveable issue, albeit difficult and disputed. I also find it interesting, and personally believe that gasoline does have effects on the environment that need to be remedied, and the development of alternative fuels is a very interesting proposal and topic for me to research. Writing a paper about it will help me to understand it and possibly ultimately put it into practice.

Health Care

The essay about the health care system is, in my opinion, very persuasive. It begins with a personal example of a man who injured his back, but has no insurance coverage to heal it. This is a good appeal to pathos. This is a good way of opening the essay, although it isnt nessecarily 100% clear what the essay is about at first- but that is quickly explained. The essay then goes to explain why we have a health care problem and what is causing it. There is a shift to the second person, which bothered me at first (because I don't like to read first or second person in formal writing unless nessecary), but then i realized that he was using a very powerful persuasive tool- making a connection with the reader. However, I believe the most effective part of the essay was his suggestion of how to improve the health care system. Because of this, the reader is not left at a dead end, but instead left with ideas and a motivation for change.

in all, i believe this essay is very powerful, and also interesting.

C.P. Ellis

I believe C.P. Ellis's reasoning for overcoming his prejudice was valid, but i don't know if it is possible in every case. I am a believer in that prejudice springs from fear of the unknown, and usually nothing else can really cause such a hatred for no good reason. Groups like the KKK, in the time period that C.P. Ellis was in it, could be very persuasive, and often times, these groups will make it seem like they very personally want to get to know you and appreciate the joining of a new member, as C.P. Ellis describes. He talks about how it felt like an out for him, and how he needed something to blame and through them he found it. This is how many hate groups function. I don't believe that his way of overcoming it is nessecarily always effective, but it is really the only way that it can happen. The only way to overcome a fear of the unknown is to get to know the unknown, and that is exactly what he does. As soon as he realized that the people that he had directed hate at were just people like everyone else, he realized the danger of such hate groups. However, this can't be possible on a large scale, because it is impossible for everyone to be brought up in accepting families. Many families shelter their children from people whom they deem "unworthy" or even "dangerous", and the child grows up witht these notions. The child will not overcome the notions unless an intercepting force steps in, such as one of the very people that the child is taught to hate. If the hatred is not intercepted, the child will grow up, raise their own children, and the cycle will go on.

mainstream

When he claims that the mainstream is a myth, he is talking about how difficult it is to actually MAKE a mainstream. The mainstream is also difficult to define, which is one reason why it is a myth. There are many different "mainstream's" per se, because there are many different people. This is probably the biggest reason it is a myth- because there is nothing that the myth itself can be based off of.
Seeing as he didn't explain his reasoning for very long about the myth topic, I can't say that he backed up his reasoning very well, and he didn't really provide his definition of what mainstream is (seeing as there ISN'T really a mainstream), I can't say that was extremely persuasive.
As I said before, I can't really define mainstream. I guess it would be the fashion and celebrity bombs that hit the TV and magazines.

Linda

Linda finally manages to go to New York- she has a very small window of opportunity; in fact, it happens sort of as an accident, because she wasn't going to go at first, but then her grandmother thought that Jenny might have caught sight of her, so she tells her to leave. Linda is in Philadelphia for a while and finally in New York- I wasn't completely clear on exactly what happened- she worked for a couple with a baby for a while, lived as someone who was free, and then finally, officially bought her freedom.

I don't understand the questions about mixed emotions- I don't feel like she does have mixed emotions- she seemed pretty sure of her decision. Even when Dr. Flint died, she was no softer toward him. The only thing I can get out of that is that she didn't like the idea of actually purchasing her freedom, or her freedom being purchased period- because it was still the idea about being a piece of property. She wasnt too happy about where her daughter was living, but in the very end they ended up being able to live togther- so, I guess I don't really understand where her mixed emotions would be coming from.

Incidents credibility

It is incredibly hard to pick a passage to blog about, seeing as the entire book is essentially a document of her honesty. However, the passage about her son getting bitten by the dog was particularly resonant with me. She didn't really have a reason to put it in there, other than the fact that it was a very strong memory, because of the effect it had on her child. She wasnt even involved in the event- she was hiding, and she expressed how much she was longing to go to her child. I am obviously not a mother, so i don't really know what this would be like, but I can imagine how horrible it would be to see your child injured in such a way and not to be able to go to him. It, in a way, depicted the sufferings of all the slaves, and how they can't help each other- I guess i am trying to make it into a symbol that it obviously wasn't meant to be, but the fact that she had such raw emotion in the scene adds to its credibility, and evokes sympathy for the slaves- therefore acheiving her goal of rallying the abolitionists.

Incidents

I think that it is extremely important that this book is nonfiction. In fact, that is what makes the book what it is- people can dream up all sorts of horrible things to write about, but in the end, it is still something that someone dreamed up. As I read Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, There are parts of the book that are so shocking or so angering that they make me want to put the book down and walk away. There are parts that, if it were a fictional book, I could say "oh, well this wasnt real; it couldn't really happen" but in the case of this book, I find myself constantly having to remind myself that it was true, because it doesn't seem like it could possibly be- but it is. That is what makes it so incredibly effective. Same with in terms of language- The fact that the language isn't cleaned up makes it extremely raw. Although the author is a very good writer, and the words she uses are not 5 cent words, it is still very obviously straight out of her head and her experiences; her telling the truth exactly how she remembers it.

douglass

The speech by Fredrick Douglass was initially supposed to be a speech about the importance of the 4th of July. However, Douglass, as a freed slave, didn't exactly find importance in the 4th of July, because it speaks of freedom, and there are so many Americans that aren't free. He begins to craft his words into an abolitionist speech. Here he begins to talk about how the whites don't view the blacks as people, but they are in fact people. The interesting thing he does is that he twists the slaveholders's own logic around and shows that because of the laws they have enforced, they are already stating that blacks are people. This is how he appears to logos- he shows the logic and makes the twist of speech in a very understandable manner, even though it would have taken a decent amount of thought to arrive at some of the examples that he made- which in and of itself proves his point, because it shows how intelligent he is, and in a way, he sort of raises himself above the white people instead of equalizing them.
His appear to ethos is easy- as soon as he establishes blacks as being equal to whites, he goes through all of the gruesome and sad things that slaveholders do to their slaves. He then asks, What if this were you? would you like it done to you? Of course nobody would, and that is where he makes the connection with human emotions and puts everybody in the audience on the same level.

Prejudice

I find this article really interesting, because I have thought and even done some research about this in the past. I think his descriptions of people trying to justify themselves with prejudice- and his explanation of how people try to find reason for doing what they do. However, he never really got into the specifics of why people are prejudiced in the first place- by people, i mean humanity. He talks about how a kid can grow up prejudiced because of their family, or their surroundings, but the real question is, why is humanity as a whole prejudiced?

If we go back to what he was, in fact talking about though, I generally agree with him, but i think there is no way to really know for sure why people do a lot of the things they do in terms of that. Some of the experiments that they conducted made very little sense, and i wasnt sure how they could possibly explain the cause of prejudice from them. However, his opinion was well presented.

Jefferson

Jefferson has always been an extremely stylized figure, which is the view of most historical figures. However, I am somewhat disgusted by this piece of writing because it really illustrates the view that he had that black people were inferior, and not even people. However, in a way, it is eye opening. The people during the time period weren't simply racist, but uninformed. In a way it makes me understand why they acted the way they did, because they had never really realized that there were different types of people, and just simply didn't understand that people of a different color were still the same as they were. The people of the time seemed to believe "scientifically" that black people were inferior- their where there "data" was lacking was in the fact that black people were not allowed to be educated, whereas white people were, so of course they were going to SEEM intellectually inferior.

There are many different pictures painted of Jefferson- when I started reading the essay, as I said before, i was disgusted by what he was saying. However, the time period does indeed have to be taken into account, and I believe, from the nature of his statements, that if he lived in a more informed time period, he would not hold these beliefs.

Cora Tucker

Cora Tucker and Willy Loman would absolutely despise each other.

Either that or they'd be utterly fascinated by each other, because they have absolutely nothing in common, except that they are trying to achieve a very difficult goal. Willy Loman concentrates solely on being well-liked, while Cora Tucker completely discards that and concentrates only on pushing her ideas forward. Both of these can be good and bad- Where Willy falls short is in his failure to realize that it takes personal commitment to succeed (in most cases of course), and instead he is relying on the persona that other people make of him in order to get anywhere. Without that crutch from all the other people, or the knowlege that he is "well liked", Willy falls apart. Cora, on the other hand, doesn't seem to ever crumble- but she comes of as intimidating, also, and that's what her major problem is- that she intimidates a lot of the people that she wants on her side, and it doesn't help her case very much. Therefore she gathers a lot of people that dislike her, and work against her. However, Cora still seems to accomplish more than Willy.

Well Liked

I found Willy's stance on individual opportunity very strange... and similar to the dad in "Little Miss Sunshine". (his what it takes to be a winner speech). The two are about equally successful in projecting this view- as in, they're not. Willy seems to believe that the only thing that can get someone ahead is being well-liked. Therefore, a person's intelligence gets them nowhere if they are not well liked. Popularity is more important than work ethic, and the number of people that someone knows is more important than how commited they are. There are serious flaws in this idea. However, there are more people in the world that think like this than I would believe possible. Willy is not alone- and though being well liked does get someone somewhere- that somewhere doesn't tend to last very long. This may be a rather pessemistic view on humanity (not that I am trying to be pessemistic), but often times people depend more on each other than maybe they should, and although having people to depend on is healthy and essential for life, so is building onesself. What Willy doesn't realize is that although having supportive relationships is important, the only thing more important than that is the supporting in of onesself. If a person isn't committed enough to do something by him or herself, that person can't use other people as a crutch forever. This is partially the reason why Willy falls apart in the book, because he has no self foundation to base his success off of- only the constant hope and belief that he is well-liked.

Other presentation post

ok so I'm a little late on this; I didn't realize we needed two.

I thought in general the presentations were all good; I mean, i don't remember anyone who did particularly horribly. One thing to take into account is the fact that almost none of us has had any sort of public speaking course, so we don't have a whole lot of background to go off of. I do understand why public speaking is so scary to a lot of people- someone can be extremely outgoing but still be a bad public speaker, because it takes a completely different type of skill (at least that's what I believe). It was a little bit nervewracking to go without my powerpoint, although I am sort of glad I did because I know I probably would have used the powerpoint as somewhat of a crutch. I don't really like to compare people and how they did, though the ones that stood out to me were the people that sounded a lot less speechlike and more conversational. Maggie and Allie stood out, because it was more like they were just talking about their organizations than making a speech, because to me a speech implies that there is somewhat of a wall between the audience and the speaker ( not that it nessecarily should be that way). Many people tried to include the audience by asking questions, which i think is beneficial. I never really thought of that. Overall, however, I found the speeches pretty good.

Presentations Yesterday

Yesterday's presentations were good. I'm not sure what else there is to say; Alex set a pretty high bar with his, but everyone else basically succeeded in achieving that standard. It always jumped out at me when someone told a personal story to appeal to ethos, and I particularly remember Alex saying "Now you might be saying to yourself".. to introduce his conditions of rebuttal. That jumped out at me, because i don't remember anyone else addresssing the conditions of rebuttal so clearly, although i am sure that everyone did.

Emerson

Emerson's essay raises some interesting points- namely, that one needs to be an individual and needs to keep that awe of what it means to be human in order to be successful. I agree with him to some degree- however, it seems as though the world is pressuring people to not be individuals to succeed. Many people purposely keep a low profile, or follow what they are told because they are told that it will help them succeed, when in reality, it wont. Many celebrities that emerge on the scene trying to be individuals eventually get pounded into the same sort of stereotype that so many before them followed. However, I think it does take an individual to truly succeed- if someone can not rise above the masses and declare who they are and what they believe, they will not get anywhere. At the same time, there are many people with the courage and intelligence to do this very thing, and get nowhere. Success is very dependant on outside conditions, conditions that we have no control over. often simply being in the right place at the right time is a way to succeed, though of course one needs qualification. Emerson seemed to think that anyone with particular qualities or a particular mindset in the world could succeed- and he is quite possibly right, depending on what it means to succeed. If success is simply having a positive outlook on the world, sure, that is succes. However, I get the feeling that what he means is slightly more difficult- that success is more an outside thing, a money thing, or a family thing- and in that case, having only a positive outlook may help tremendously, and having these qualities may help tremendously, but there is never a 100% garauntee that a person is going to be "granted" with such success.

Thrifty Threads

The nonprofit organization I am thinking of doing right now is Thrifty Threads, which is on 86th and ditch-ish... it is sort of like Goodwill, but specifically exists to benefit the Julian Center (a center for abused women and children). Essentially, they take donations, and the members of the Julian Center are allowed to shop there for free. of course, anyone else can buy things as well. I chose it because it is a place I am familiar with and donate to often, and i think that it is an important cause.

cultural myths

Before answering the question, Dalton does have a point about how the myth should be buried. It doesnt nessecarily do any good, although, it doesnt nessecarily do any bad either, and therefore it is pointless to bury it, seeing is there aren't that many people who truly buy into it anyway- at least, i dont think there are.

However, going along witht he idea that it should be buried; the only way to bury it is to create a new myth in its place. This is difficult, but see, the problem is, you can't disprove it, because not only is that particular myth impossible to disprove (there are always exceptions to everything), but also, there is no way to simply wipe it away. If that were to happen, the memory and the essence of it would still exist and therefore the myth itself would still exist, no matter how many people stopped talking about it. And anyway, what is the point of trying to wipe out a myth? if it is universally understood that it is a myth, who really cares? Back to the original point, though, the only way to get rid of a myth is to replace it with a new one- which would do nothing to better society, unless the myth were a little more "true" (as oxymoronic as that sounds).

Horatio Alger Story

It seems a little bit redundant to say that the documentary is more "real" than the story. Horatio Alger is famous for his "rags to riches" stories, most of these being imaginative and unrealistic. Not that a man couldn't get rewarded in this way for saving a child- it is just very unlikely. In reality, the documentary is more true-to-life. This would make sense, seeing as it is, in fact, a documentary- therefore, completely non-fiction. Seriously though, it is extremely hard for people to make a living in this world- and whether or not spending money to try to cover up the poor helps or not is curious. For example, many people would argue that someone that can't afford a house shouldn't buy nice clothes or a cell phone, so that they can save for a house. However, is appearing less poor part of the way on the road to being less poor? if someone can appear more wealthy, doesn't it mean that they are? That's a hypothetical question- there are several different ways to answer it. I just think that it is an interesting phenomenon, this "dressing up" of the poor. (though of course, it is human nature to fit in)

Stephen Cruz

The problem with the American Dream is that it is elusive. It it abstract and unattainable, and extremely materialistic. It is defining happiness by the idea of being able to get money- which is possible, more people are going to be happy when they aren't constantly struggling to make ends meet- but what really defines being wealthy, or happy, or living the American dream? just because someone is near the top of the social ladder doesn't make them happy. However, they are defined as living the American dream. I wouldnt really call an unhappy person "living a dream", unless it's a very shallow dream. This is the problem with the American dream- it has become corrupted, and I defend Stephen Cruz's opinion of that. Everything works through big business, and developing, and nothing is privately owned anymore- the "American Dream" can hardly be achieved by onesself anymore- starting a business- etc. Now you have to work from the bottom up, constantly having some sort of power ruling over you. There is little place for individuality or privacy- you are constantly being watched. This is the price to pay to achieve the elusive "American Dream".

Class System

I dont believe that the wealthy really EXPLOITS the poor, per se. Maybe without realizing it- but I think the problem is more that they simply don't realize the importance of the things that the poor do. I think there are some weatlthy that might use the poor as a means to make themselves look better- by either "helping" them or simply by being different. Many wealthy believe that the poor are poor because they are stupid, which isn't helped by the examples with SAT scores, although this isn't nessecarily a question of stupidity as much as a question of proper education. However, many wealthy live without ever really coming into contact with poverty- they see the, as the book puts it, "dressed-up" poor. Therefore, if the rich really exploits the poor, they do it unknowlingly- as in using them to help get richer, help build their companies, "bettering" poor areas by moving in ( and kicking the poor out), etc.

Essays

I guess I will go ahead and analyze the vegetarian girl essay. This writer reminds me a lot of a girl I knew in middle school, because she had the same vegetarian beliefs. However, the girl I knew was a lot more forceful, a lot more intelligent of a writer, and didn't nessecarily care at all what people thought of her argument. The writer of this essay seems to be extremely passive, which isn't nessecarily a bad thing; except that she isn't really arguing- she's just talking. She gets her point across, but the whole letter just seems aimless. She's not aiming to change the beliefs of her friend; she makes that obvious- but what is she even writing the letter for? It seems like they already understand each other's beliefs; so it's not like they need to find any more common ground. I don't have a problem with vegetarians; and all of her reasons are very valid- but she's essentially not attempting to- and therefore failing to- make any sort of difference. I believe that if she were writing to a different audience, and writing just a slight bit more forcefully (without the whole "now i know you'll never actually change your opinion about anything"- I can't tell if she's trying to convince him not to hate her for her beliefs, or if shes challenging him to change them by saying he can't) then it would be a much more effective essay.

Visual

There is a very cliche saying that goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words"

in some cases, I wouldn't call that true. There are powerful pictures, and powerful pieces of writing; and there are also weak pictures and weak pieces of writing. In a general sense though, we are becoming a very visual society. a good picture can be extremely powerful. The censorship in the news is a perfect example of this- people can shape our ideas by showing very extreme pictures of something and little or no pictures of something else that they deem less important. A picture in and of itself can shape an opinion. However, it is very easy to get burned out on pictures. If a very powerful picture is shown too often, or too many extremely gruesome pictures are shown frequently, a person will get used to them, and therefore will no longer be moved. This is why although pictures are imortant, they have to be used sparingly, and dispersed within a good writing argument. This is the most effective way to use a picture to prove a point.

There are some that i dont agree with. for example, promoting being a good pet owner by only showing pictures of dogs that are neutered. I understand in the instance of the choke collar that the book mentions, but i believe that there is an extent in which some restrictions can violate freedom of speech. However, that is a discussion for a different day.

Ethos and Pathos

I wouldnt say that a writer has a "responsibility" to appeal to Ethos and Pathos in and of itself, because the writer has a right to make any sort of piece that he or she wants. However, creating an effective ethos and pathos is essential to creating an effective piece, because if a person doesn't have any reason to believe the writer, the person won't.

However- and this was actually the question I was supposed to blog on- IN appealing to ethos and pathos, the writer has the responsibility to be real. This would mean, the only true way to appear credible is to actually be credible, and the best way to appeal to a person's emotions is not to bring them down or to shock the person into changing their belief. The Government and the media both have a way of not living up to those standards; because everything is so extreme. Because people are free to make claims (which is not a bad thing in and of itself), people will make all sorts of claims- and many of them are not well backed up. The media uses flashy images and news about people- most of it untrue- in order to gain money and attention. The government isn't really all too different from the media, because politics is essentially the attacking of one group in order to appeal to another (which is obviously not right- and why it doesnt live up to the responsibility). Many political arguments are not well backed, credible, and many of them are very stinging. However, sometimes they are presented with a false sense of appearing so, and though they are not truly credible, they appear to appeal to ethos, and so on.

Pseudo arguments

A pseudo argument in the real world would be a statement without any backup. Either that, or soemthing that is just simply debatable. The example used in class was "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla" which is just an opinion. Any opinion could be called a pseudo-argument, depending on the way it is expressed. Therefore, all world and national politics are pseudo-arguments, because they are all opinions on how to make the world run better. Of course, polititians give reasons as to why their view points are "better", and it could even be arguable that politics does have a true right and wrong, its just that nobody really can say what that is. If the entire world were polled about chocolate and vanilla ice cream, whichever one that wins could potentially be the "correct" argument, but even that is arguable. Therefore, in a way, all arguments could be said to begin as pseudo arguments- it is the back up and the process of getting a point across that differentiates it.

pathos

The idea of "pathos"

well.

As I have not been able to pry out of my brain since some distant etymology class, "path" means feeling.

Pathos therefore, in a form of rhetoric, would mean to appeal to a person's feelings or emotions. i.e., using the "guilt trip" method. However horrible that sounds, it is, in fact, a very effective form of argument. Okay, to appeal to pathos doesn't nessecarily mean sending the reader on a guilt trip. It could be the opposite- appealing to someone on a personal level, using human examples in order to stir a person's anger or agreement. However it's used, it is essential. It's sort of like saying "millions of people were killed in the holocaust", as opposed to telling the story of a few individuals and what they had to endure. In forms of sheer numbers, of course the killing of millions of people seems worse- but it is, alas, sheer numbers. There is no personal level, and without a personal level, there is no argument. People are going to much more touched by the story of a life, because they have their own life themselves, and all humans have something that they can connect with another, even if it is down to the level of simply sharing the same set of emotions and feelings.

The case for torture article makes a (in my opinion) rather futile attempt to appeal to pathos. He does try to send his readers on a guilt trip and make them look twice at themselves, but he sort of ends up looking bitter in the process. However, his attempt is more effective than if he had never even tried at all, and had only used facts and statistics.

Therefore,

pathos is important.

In fact, people may argue with me, but I think it is the most important, because before a person can look at the facts of an argument, they need something that will catch their interest and appeal to them first, and that is exactly what pathos does.

thank you and good night.

-Tina

AP Exam

This will sound very strange, because the blog I am supposed to write was supposed to be "what scares you the most about the AP exam?". it seems very anticlimactic for me to write "nothing". I am not trying to be smart, or "fearless", or whatever else- it just, well, doesnt really intimidate me. I am taking a class to prepare for it, am I not? Some people go in and take the exam without ever taking a class. In fact, (this is why one of my good friends is morally opposed to taking AP classes) the class is tailored to the exam. Therefore, I should have nothing to fear. Most of us have been thoroughly trained in English and writing ideas most of our lives; much of my 7th and 8th grade classes were spent talking about rhetoric and argument; in fact we even made a small book of literary devices.

not to say that an AP English class is anything similar to a middle school one. However, English is the primary tool that humans use in every day life. Everyone posesses the ability to decipher a piece of writing; just not everyone is trained how to do so. That's what this class is for.

therefore, I am not intimidated by the AP English exam

although,

i am a little worried about handwriting those esssays.....

mainly just for the sake of the poor examiner who has to try and read it.

Torture

This is a particularly hard entry for me to write, simply because I don't have an opinion on the subject. The essay was very well-written and persuasive, and I don't like to think of myself as being swayed easily by argument, but the idea of torture as a device to prevent people from being killed seems valid. There are some circumstances that it should never be tolerated, such as, as punishment, because it can't change what has already happened. Also, often times, if a person knows they are going to die anyway, they will lie. In fact, I've always seen torture as a very unreliable way to extract information from someone, because the only threat one can use besides death is more torture, and if a person lies they will likely be killed anyway, or they will be killed after there is no need for them anymore. At least, that's what years of dramatic movies have taught me. For that specific reason, I don't believe that torture is the best way to go. However, I understand the argument behind it, and why in some cases, it would be effective in preventing disaster. However, I dont think that torture should ever take the place of investigation.

Ads

The way an argument is presented is an extremely powerful tool in putting forth the opinion. That having been said, the two pictures in the book were presented in two very different ways, although they were both criticizing the "other side". The comic presents a moral dilemma, and creates an animosity toward the man with the corn, making the point that witholding genetically engineered foods is witholding food for the poor. This is valid, seeing as another part of the argument is that there isn't enough food in the world without genetically engineering it. This argument isnt nessecarily true, because the fact that people can't get food has more to do with money and the way things are produced than sheer numbers, but that's beside the point. The other picture in the book was an ad against genetically engineering food; or at least informing people what is in their food. Personally I think that it is realistic and should be required that all food states what is in it (I think by this time it might be required, though I'm not sure), but although the argument isn't as strong as the opposite side, it presents a more realistic and more accurate point. For argument's sake, comic on page 1 is stronger, because it really does make the reader stop and think- however, the strongest argument isn't nessecarily the correct one, which is why it is always good that both sides are looked at impartially.

Arguing

There is a clear difference between an implicit and an explicit argument. though an explicit argument seems like it would be the most effective- something such as a political debate, or even less obvious than that- a poem that states something controversial; that TELLS its opinion. However, an implicit argument is something that is less stated, more implied. Something such as a picture, or a poem that explains a life experience could be an implicit arguemnt. An implicit argument doesn't state; it implies- it strikes the viewer, gives them some sort of emotion, before they even realize that they're being "argued" with. A good photographer is generally very good at achieving this, because photographs are exempt at moving people. Often times, there are things that could fall on the line- such as a poem. Different people could percieve differently whether or not it is an implicit arguemnt or an explicit one; it all depeds on the way the reader percieves it.

Memory

My 6th grade year was my first year in the Sycamore Symphonic band- for a middle school band we were actually decent. We traveled- more for fun, but there was always a bit of competition added in. The aspect of the trip that stays impressed upon my memory, however, was on a dinner cruise one night. I ate dinner with my friends, a group of girls that I usually hung out with. One of them had a “boyfriend”, (we'll call her Anne) , and she danced with him. It was a big deal at the time, and although boys weren’t necessarily the first thing on my mind, I recall taking a sideways glance at one named (we'll call him Sam) and thinking that maybe later I would ask him to dance. His friend, (we'll call him William) , sat a little ways down, making some humorous, sarcastic comment. I took no notice, and walked off the boat with some of my older friends- the 7th graders. We spit over the sides, chugged sugar packets, and made jokes on the front of the boat. When the dancing started, however, I wandered back in the room to find my friends jumping sporadically in all directions and swinging jackets. I joined in, of course, in the party on the top of the boat. However, as it began to get dark, people migrated inside, and though I went with them for a little bit, I found myself wanting some time alone to just absorb the peace of floating down the river. I climbed up the stairs to the top of the boat, where rain was starting to fall in deft little drops all around me. It didn’t faze me; it wasn’t enough water to make me cold. I put my hands around the cold metal of the handrail and gripped, sailing through the air as if the boat never existed. The sound of footsteps brought me out of my trance, and I turned to see William coming to a halt a few feet in front of me. He gave a hint of a crooked smile, and then looked shyly down at the ground. The gesture was so unlike his confident, sarcastic personality, that it caught my attention. “You look different without your glasses” he said simply, barely glancing in my direction. My mind hadn’t registered enough to have jammed yet, and laughing, I quickly explained: “I hope I look better without them.” William said nothing- or if he did, it was carried away by the wind. We stood in silence for a few minutes, feeling the rain blow across our cheeks, until William said something about going back inside. I agreed, a little too readily, and followed him down the curved stairs into the room where the dance was going on. I didn’t talk to William again until a little bit later, but at that moment on the top of the boat, my entire world was thrown into disarray. It shocked me that a comment so innocent, a compliment that was barely even a compliment, forever changed the way I saw this person- and so many people after that. It was an event, however small, that has one of the largest imprints on my memory.

Tuesdays class

I've always enjoyed English classes. Most people I know think that is strange, but it's true. It's because of the thought process and the ideas that are presented- I've always found it interesting that I can read something, and have a certain interperetation of it, or sometimes no interperetation of it, but after a class- AP english, and Mr. Priest's class last year- can walk away thinking something completely different. Most of the time they are conclusions that I would come to on my own if I were to sit and think about it for a while, but sometimes the interperetation of the teacher is completely different from what I had taken it to mean myself- in which case it is interesting to see two different interperetions. That kind of leads into the story we read for last night- the interperetations of a memoir. When Hample first states her "memory", she has written it in a way that fills in the empty spots in her memory with things that she wanted. This is perfectly okay, but of course inaccurate. Not that most memoirs are truly accurate, because the human memory isn't nessecarily accurate. However, what is important is what is taken away from the piece; the overall message that the piece delivers; the interperetation. This is why Hample explains her inaccuracies, even though explaining them causes the overall illusion of the piece to be destroyed.

Fuentes

The purpose of why he wrote this essay is hazy, as well as the other points. It is possible that Fuentes wanted to clear up some things about why he began to write, and escpecially why he writes in Spanish- which he said, literature-wise, is struggling. It is true that English is a language that is very kind to writers, and it is admirable that a multilingual writer would choose to use Spanish. This says something about the audience most of his writing is directed to, becaues obviiously most of his writing is directed to a Mexican audience. However, this essay obviously isn't, which is curious- why would he do most of his writing in Spanish, but write this essay in English? it's always possible that the essay was directed to explain the fact that he wrote in Spanish to an audience that generally speaks English, but what would be his reasons for that? In reality, what he's done here is confusing. His style is autobiographical, which would make sense because the essay is an autobiographical essay, but it gives truth to the situation and helps him to explain himself, although his motives behind writing this essay are rather unclear.

storytelling

Storytelling is the only way to relay something that has already occurred. Books, tv shows, movies, even conversation- it’s all stories. A drawing is a story. This is what makes the woman’s quote in the piece so significant. It is extremely difficult to interpret. “I could tell you stories”, as we talked about in class, can mean one- or more- of many different things. The two that jumped out at me the most, though, were the “unable to give justice to reality”, and the idea that she could have been a liar. These are completely opposite interpretations in a way, but both perfectly realistic. However, what really strikes me is the idea that she could be trying to explain her real past with a fabricated story- such as Fitzgerald did with The Great Gatsby. The woman, who never starts her story, and who decides that she isn’t going to tell it, is different from Fitzgerald in the sense that she chooses not to disclose the information that she obviously has the choice to disclose. The idea that the story wouldn’t give real life justice applies, too, because the interaction between she and her husband is something that the narrator has never seen before, and it is reason to believe that there could have been a wonderful story behind it that no one is articulate enough to tell. Often times this is the reason why facts and stories can get distorted so much.

Wednesday's class

I found wednesday's discussion extremely interesting. Although I have read The Great Gatsby in the past, the discussion covered a lot of things that I haven't thought of before- such as, mankind's eternal struggle for the symbolic green light. Also, the similarities between Nickel and Dimed and The Great Gatsby are much more than what I had previously thought; the entire theme of creating a face to appear well off and rich was something that hadn't crossed my mind (at least in the case of Nickel and Dimed), but as we discussed it, i found it more and more to be true. In all, the classes and discussions on The Great Gatsby have been very interesting and enlightening, and it causes one to realize how a mediocre story on the surface (and on the surface, the story is pretty mediocre) can be changed into a great work by the use of symbolism and interpretation.