Another Paper Update

Today I finished my essay. After I write this, I am going to edit my paper and print it. As painful as it was for me, I was able to find arguments about the positives of factory farming.

When I looked over the first half of my paper, I found that my biases were coming through in my language. I kept saying things like, "slaughter," instead of kill, as well as other poor word choices. I tried to cut as many of those out as I could, but there are probably still a few contaminating my paper.

Paper Update

Unfortunately I was really busy tonight (one-act rehearsal and band concert), and I made no progress. Actually, that's a lie; I deleted parts of it because it was so terrible. So tonight, I have to write 2-3 pages. I've done all of my research, I just need to put it together, so it shouldn't be too hard.

I'm still bothered by Avery's logic. I just realized that he completely ignored the fact that soy has complete protein. As far as amino acids go, tofu and beef are equal. Beans and rice are complete. Peanutbutter and whole wheat bread are complete. It's really not that hard.

Another I.C. Update

I found a pro-meat source.

http://www.furcommission.com/resource/perspect991.htm

The author writes about the health benefits of eating meat. He argues that the most efficient way to have complete nutrition is to eat meat. Meat has more of the amino acids humans need to build proteins compacted into smaller amounts than in plant sources. Although all of these are available in plant sources, he writes that it would require paying attention to what you eat to get all of them. He addresses all of the health problems associated with consumption of meat like high cholesterol and hearty disease, but says that these only happen when people over-consume.

"Here's what he has to say about meat and the environment:
What about the heavy human footprint on the Earth that environmentalists keep telling us about? Well, it does take more grain per calorie to produce meat and milk than when humans eat it directly.
But feed-grain yields (like corn) are twice as high as food-grain yields (like wheat and rice).
Cattle, hogs and poultry also eat a lot of stuff we don't, like grass, milling bran, molasses, cottonseed meal and almond hulls. Nearly three-fourths of each pound of U.S. beef is derived from something humans can't eat.
When you combine the forages and by-product feeds with the high food efficiency of livestock products, meat and milk turn out to be a fairly good deal for the planet after all.
Besides, the world is becoming increasingly democratic. There's hardly a parent on Earth who doesn't want his or her kids to be among the strongest, most vigorous, longest-living people on the planet.
If we want to tread more lightly on the Earth, the best solution is to produce a lot more meat, milk and eggs from the land we're already farming. The way to do that is by using chemical fertilizers, confinement feeding and genetically enhanced seeds."

This information seriously confuses me. Yes, feed-grain yields are higher than food-grain yields, but they STILL require maintenance. He also mentions using chemical fertilizers, which have been proven to ruin soil over time, contaminate water supplies, and kill off excessive amounts of bugs (which eventually can damage the workings of the ecosystem). He has ignored manure disposal and greenhouse gas emissions in his argument. Everything he says disagrees with every other source I've found.

However, there's a strong chance that by biases are controlling how I'm reading this article. I'm going to work really hard to not let them get into the way of my paper, but the information he uses still contradicts everything else I can find, which makes me kind of worried about the validity of this source.

I.C. Update Again

I've decided to discuss whether or not the environmental consequences of factory farming are worth the cheap prices and wide-spread availability.

Now I'm having trouble finding sources that aren't extremely radical believers in their cause. The books I'm using, Vegan Freak, Vegetarian Manifesto, Generation Green, and a few others, as well as my web sources, PETA, GoVeg.com, and some others all have an agenda. Their statistics seem to match, but they are all trying to achieve the same thing.

On the other hand, the only pro-meat industry sources I can find only discuss why animal rights activist are stupid or they relate somehow to health. There is nothing that defends that the environmental issues are a necessary evil.

I've written the opening paragraph of my paper and plan on writing at least a full page tonight.

I.C. Update

I've been trying to find information on the benefits that come from the meat industry, but I'm afraid that what I've found is pretty weak. This is what I came up with:

1. People like the taste of meat, and people need protein. The problem here is that new research has found that only 10% of your daily caloric intake should come from protein sources because carbs are a more efficient energy source.

2. The factory farming methods, which in the meat industry are the biggest polluters and most unethical methods, allow for meat/eggs/dairy to be produced more cheaply, so they're cheaper for the public.

3. If we didn't keep killing cows for food, they'd die off because they wouldn't be making profit, so no one would take care of them? This has almost no weight at all.

Another problem that I'm running into is that none of these things relate back to the effect of the meat industry on the environment. Maybe weighing the ability to make meat cheap and the ethics of the price that comes at would work, but I don't know if that would be too much of a stretch.

Paper Update

I've decided that the topic I posted earlier will probably be too broad for me to write concisely, so I'm only writing about the impact of the meat industry on the environment.

I checked out a book called "Vegan Freak" from the library. It provides a lot of information about reasons to go or stay vegan, and there is a chapter about the environment. I learned that it takes 16 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of beef. All of that grain had to be taken care of somehow, so a person who eats that beef is responsible for the pollution and waste associated with those 16 lbs. That means all of the herbicides and pesticides that seep into the soil, all of the water used to grow it, and all of the gas used to transport it are multiplied by 16 for every meat meal consumed instead of a vegetarian meal. There were statistics about exactly how much this was, but I can't remember them right now. One that I do remember is that 260 tons of CO2 emissions are released in the meat process (including transportation) alone, to feed a family of 4 for a year. Also, 80% of all the water used in the Western states goes directly to meat processing. The book also discussed the volumes of methane, ammonia, and nitrous oxide released from animal waste not properly disposed of. All of that waste ruins soil and once it gets into the water supply endangers aquatic life and humans.

Proposal Update

So, I just found out today at morning meeting that my original argument is actually already being done. Instead, I've decided to discuss factory farming.

The goal of the meat industry is to cheaply produce meat, obviously. However, to obtain this goal, many sacrifices are made, including the welfare of the animals. Poultry are confined in areas so small they cannot walk, crammed in with other birds. Chickens, injected and fed growth hormones and never having room to exercise their legs, become so weak that they are unable to lift themselves on their own legs. They are kept in such tight quarters that occasionally, factory farmers cut off the ends of their beaks to prevent them from pecking each other to death. They, as well as pigs and cows, often spend their entire lives with no sunlight. They are also typically kept in such unclean areas that huge amounts of waste pile up, and the animals are given extensive exposure to harmful things like ammonia.

This is not only inhumane, but also unhealthy for the humans who eat these animals. Growth hormones injected into cows, whose milk later goes on sale, are believed to be the reason for developmental problems in small children. All development happens too rapidly: getting teeth at younger ages, growing too fast for bones to become strong enough, and young girls starting their periods as young as 8 or 9.

There are also harmful environmental effects associated with the factory farming. The meat industry is the source of 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. Fertilizers and pesticides used in crops to feed the animals contaminate the water supply through the soil and animal waste. The meat industry uses far too much water, and between that and the land degradation, biodiversity is at risk.

Proposal Progress

For my paper, I'm going to write about how University should have lunch options other than fast food, for multiple reasons. First of all is health. America is combatting a nation-wide obesity problem, and evidence points to heat-and-eat and fast food meals as the primary culprits. Fast food meals have high calorie and fat counts with low nutritional value, and often come in servings far larger than normal people should eat. Second is for environmental reasons. When you order a meal at a fast food restaurant (or have it delivered to you), you also receive tons of unnecessary wrappers, packaging, silverware, and napkins. 170 kids eating fast food every day for lunch generates way too much waste. Lastly, it is more costly to get fast food every day than it would be for University to have a lunch program. Although it may require hiring a lunch staff, the food would cost a fraction of the price for students, and the pay for the new staff, if included in the lunch program, would easily be covered, while the students would still have to pay less than before.

Let a Thousand Licensed Poppies Bloom

In "Let a Thousand Licensed Poppies Bloom," Maia Szalavitz establishes a convincing argument. She makes a casual claim saying that legalizing opium production will provide more benefits than totally eradicating the crop. She adequately describes the problem, proposes a solution, and justifies her claim.

In paragraph 4, Szalavitz provides convincing facts demonstrating the futility of eliminating drugs as a result of ending opium production. By following that statement with another citation about the suffering going on in the world due to lack of availability of pain relievers, she strengthens her appeal to pathos. Not only does the reader feel sympathy toward those who are in pain, but also resentment for the clear availability of the drugs that could put an end to that pain.

Another thing Szalavitz does to enhance her argument is to nod to an opposing idea. By acknowledging the fact that there would be potential problems in the Senlis plan, she shows her ethos appeal. It shows that she considered all options and proves that she isn't a blind believer in her cause.

C.P. Ellis

C.P. Ellis's story about overcoming the racism he'd felt all his life seems credible. Terkel helped him to establish his credibility by keeping that narrative in Ellis's own language. By retaining the dialect, the reader was able to better connect with the uneducated, poor older man. In the beginning, Ellis described his encounter with two young black men downtown, where he put a gun up to one of their heads. By admitting this shame, he strengthens the idea of how big of a change he endured. Sitting down and talking about family and common problems with his enemy, Ann Atwater is what finally pushed him to find that black people are just as human as he is. Although it doesn't seem like a situations that many people would have the opportunity to experience, I think that that is a perfectly reasonable way for a man to change his opinions about race.

However, I don't believe that this is possible on a larger scale. Ellis was distinguished from others because he was actually willing to work with Ann Atwater, even though she was black. When he walked door to door, he found that many white people were calling him a sell-out and slamming the door in his face. This was the same response that Atwater faced walking to the black households. Ellis's epiphany was sitting and having a conversation with a black woman, but based on other peoples' reported reactions, I don't think that they would be willing to o so far. Most of those people are probably the type who would feel more comfortable sticking to their own blind beliefs. As Ellis said on page 521, the people he met in the KKK were mostly individuals who were poor and felt oppressed by the system. They were unwilling to surrender their scapegoat. Ellis faced feelings of inferiority, and for many of these individuals, to deprive them of a more oppressed people than themselves would have caused many to fall into a deeper depression. I'm not saying that this justifies their racism, but it does prevent a complete reverse of societal perceptions of racism or other prejudice.

Myth of the Mainstream

Yoshino writes on page 605 that the concept if the "mainstream" is only fallacy. He states that although you may be normal in one aspect, you will always differ in another characteristic. For example, a straight, white, protestant man appears to be the typical member of the majority on the outside, but maybe he's colorblind, or a hairstylist, or diabetic. Nobody is a true member of the mainstream because there will always be something that puts him or her in the minority.

Yoshino is reasonably persuasive, but I only half agree with the idea that laws should cover everyone and not a specific group of people. Near the end of page 606 he writes that instead of granted gay marriage, the courts should say that anyone can marry anyone. This is an impossible thing. A law that states, "Party A can marry Party B" will always be interpreted as the law that allows same-sex marriage. It is true that nobody is in the majority for every category, but I don't believe that putting this idea in the minds of those who are considered most normal, or anyone, for that matter, would change anything. People would still get away with discharging a man who refused remove his yarmulke or firing a woman with corn rows.

The term "mainstream" is difficult to define. I would define a person in it as someone who has no characteristics that would allow him or her to be discriminated against, visibly or otherwise. A diabetic man is not a likely candidate to be denied any of his rights unless it prevents something bad from happening to someone else.

Incidents Conclusion

At the end of Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Linda is disappointed with Northern life. She finds that racism is just as prevalent in the North as it is in the South, the only really difference being the actual institution of slavery. Although she finds a friendly person to board with, no one is pleased by her presence. In the train, she is not permitted to dine with her fellow nurses, nor will she be served in her room. She is forced to eat with the rest of the black people on the train because the white waiters feel degraded to serve a black woman, and the black waiters want equal service among themselves.

Linda eventually obtains her freedom by being bought and freed by a friend of Mrs. Bruce for only $300. Linda has mixed feelings about this because she has become aware of the fact that she is not a piece of property. To allow herself to be bought is to admit to herself and her old master that she is less than an independent human being. However, she is also grateful to finally be free.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl 2

On page 68, in the first full paragraph, Jacobs writes in response to her father's former mistress putting a gold necklace around her baby's neck, "I wanted no chain to be fastened to my daughter, not even if its links were of gold. How earnestly I prayed that she might never feel the weight of slavery's chain, whose iron entereth into the soul!"

I find this statement extremely powerful. Even something that Linda's white mistress would have cherished, and many slaves would admire as a luxury had become a symbol of servitude to Linda. I find her strong desire for her children's freedom beautiful, and this quote really reflects that desire well.

In this whole passage about getting her children baptized, there is an overwhelming feeling of shame, where it should be joy and pride. It shows how everything in a slave's life revolves around her degradation and the constant feeling of inferiority. Even in situations where a white person could have the privilege to experience the air of celebration, the slave is drowning in guilt. One of the things that makes it so powerful to me is her constant reference to embarrassing her parents. She is ashamed of having to use her father's name, and feels uncomfortable knowing that her mother could stand in this place purely, in Linda's mind.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl 1

That the book is nonfiction is very important to completely convey the point Harriet Jacobs was making. Were it fiction, the reader could read it and say, "Oh, that's horrible," but have a clear conscience knowing that the atrocities happened only to the character, not a real person. As a true personal narrative, the reader loses the comfortable cushion of an imaginary world. He or she must face that a real person is telling them what happened. It also assigns a face to the occurrences in the book. Today, the average person can look back at the antebellum south and see something bad happening to a large, nameless mass. Individualizing a crime allows it to dig into those not directly involved and feel sympathy. The personal connection humanizes those who would otherwise be lost in a seemingly distant system.

Using the original language of Harriet Jacobs is extremely important. The reader can't hide behind frilled-up words and stories and still feel that jab needed to really induce sympathy. To clean it up would make milder the evils of slavery, when the purpose of the narrative was to expose them. There is also another important aspect of not changing Jacobs's words. Gloria Anzaldua wrote that you must use your native tongue to tell your stories in How to Tame a Wild Tongue because "[L]anguage is bound up inextricably with ethnic personal identity." Changing Jacobs's words would only rub out some of her personal identity, which is so crucial to a personal narrative.

Election Coverage

Watching the election coverage, I didn't really notice any comments regarding race directed toward Obama, other than him being the first black president. However, I did notice a strong emphasis on "groups" when votes were being recorded. On CNN, whenever they would refer to incoming votes, they would always display a screen with a red or blue bar crossing over a group of people. "White Evangelicals." "Women." "Jewish." "Black." I sort of understand where the interest in knowing that would be, but I also doubt that it is a beneficial thing to publish both when the votes are being counted and when the candidates are actually campaigning.

In both of these situations, it draws attention to the differences of in-groups and out-groups. When a president is being elected, you'd think it would be better to think of Americans as one people, rather than groups of people. Also, during the campaign, pointing out these differences may lead to corruption, or at least misinformation from the candidates. For example, if someone is running for president and is told that (s)he's down on votes from the "Women" group. Now he or she may be inclined to manipulate his or her policies to appeal to the females of the county. Then the candidate sees that he or she is lagging in the "Mexican-American" group. Because of this, all of the population is expecting to be appeased for their specific group needs, most of which cannot be done simply because one president can't do everything he or she promises. On top of that, the divides have been accentuated, and each group now has room to accuse people in their relative out-groups, and in some cases the president, of racism or prejudice. Pointing out the groups really only makes a mess of things.

Confrontation of Race

Recently, a friend's mom (F), who happens to be a psychologist, saw a client who was Muslim (D). F had a lot of uneasy feelings when she saw women who covered their heads since 9/11, and she had a lot of misconceptions about Islam, like the definition of jihad. When they scheduled the appointment over the phone, F noted that D had an accent, but couldn't figure out what it was. Stepping into the waiting room, F saw D wearing her hijab, and was immediately nervous. However, during therapy, F found D to be a beautiful, intelligent person who was actually very nice. When F came home that night, she talked about her experience, but made no effort to discover more about Islam.

D was seeking therapy for anxiety, and there was little talk of anything other than typical psych-evaluation-type stuff. The interaction began stiffly on the part of F, but comfortably for D. As the session continued, F appeared to warm up to D and see her for who she was, not for her own false perceptions. Although F's view changed, I don't believe that the interaction was truly productive. F was able to see that Islam and terrorism are not synonymous, but her more positive view was probably directed only toward D, and not to all Muslims, as demonstrated by her lack of interest in researching.

After reading Wachtel's analysis, I don't see the interaction any differently. F is aware of her prejudiced views and accepts them. Indifference is maybe an applicable word because of the resistance to learning more about something she knows nothing about.

Causes of Prejudice

According to Parrillo, the socialization process is where external influences help to develop an individual's belief system. This could be a teacher or parent to a child, or simply the attitude of a culture on any individual.

I believe that many prejudices are instilled this way. A white 4-year-old will gladly approach a black 4-year-old on the playground, unless otherwise taught. The two will be perfectly happy to play with each other until the parents call them back. Young children rarely seem to be affected by racial prejudices, I think. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the prejudices are instilled by adults or social influences. As children, they have not yet experienced the economic competitions or anxieties that cause frustrations typically leading to scape-goating. I think it becomes a cycle, though: These 4-year-olds grow up to find each other as scape goats, but their prejudices become habit, and their children learn from them to hate the other.

The socialization process seems more to be a vessel for the perpetuation of the prejudice, not its cause. There would have to have been a trigger to spark the initial hate, but then that hate would become a value or social norm. Once a hate has become a social norm, then people learn their prejudices through external influences: students from teachers, children from parents, workers from their colleagues.

Discharging a Debt

According to Cose, official investigation, apology, and restitution for atrocious events are essential to the furthering of a community. In the last paragraph on page 502, he writes, "The problem is...that so much was taken and so little given that impoverishment and despair became self-perpetuating." In Psychology we learned about how once a person feels trapped in a hopeless or horrible situation, he or she will remain there, even if there is a clear path out. This idea is passed through the generations. Therefore, if your ancestors were those who were freed from slavery and then deprived of their promised four acres, you are far more likely to live most of your life in poverty, regardless of whether or not there is a clear opportunity. Cose believes that the only way to break this cycle is to acknowledge the wrong-doing and to intervene with the cycle of learned hopelessness, whether it's through monetary reparations or by improving the educational system, giving those trapped in poverty greater opportunity to escape.

It is also important to the society that reparations are made because as Thornburgh stated, "By finally admitting a wrong, a nation does not destroy its integrity, but rather reinforces the sincerity of its commitment to the Constitution, and hence to its people. In forcing us to reexamine our history, you have made us only stronger and more proud." Cose agrees with this concept, as he implies in his descriptions of Tulsa's continued failure to acknowledge the race riots. Several would disagree with Thornburgh's statement, arguing that by looking at our country's past atrocities, we only deepen the wounds they caused, but this is not true. It's similar to what teachers tell us when we learn how to not cheat at the beginning of the year; it's better to fail a test and admit that you didn't study than to ace it because you looked at your neighbor's paper. Obviously it's best not to take either path, but if it comes down to it, reviewing your errors is the only way that you'll be able to grow.

Cose believes that we have to look at our history, both good and bad, in order to advance society. Making amends to them is the only way to ensure that the injured party can continue to have faith in the system, and to ensure that the mistakes will not happen again. As a community, we have to pull up everyone, especially those we have directly oppressed, in order to improve.

Cora Tucker v. Willy Loman

Neither Cora Tucker nor Willy Loman are wealthy individuals, however, one made choices that allowed her to succeed, where the other never did. The primary difference between the two was their interperatation of success. Cora Tucker saw it as personal fulfillment, where Willy Loman saw it as fulfillment in the eyes of others. This is interesting because Tucker lived her life serving society.

Cora Tucker succeeded because she was doing what she wanted to do, regardless of how it would effect her financial status. To her, serving others and fighting for a cause she believed in was her path to happiness. She got the satisfaction of seeing the fruits of her work, for she worked very hard. Being a black woman, who was described as being not particularly attractive or well-spoken, she could not rely on being "well-liked." In fact, she accepted the fact that she was absolutely hated by some, and continued to work forward anyway.

Where Willy Loman failed was his pressure on himself to beat the best man. Instead of working to help society, he worked to advace himself soley in the materialistic sense. He didn't do what he wanted to do; he did what he though would bring in enough money to live as he thought he wanted to. Whether or not Cora Tucker was helping people, she was still doing exactly what she wanted to do. Willy describes Biff as lost, but Willy is as well because he doesn't know what he wants. By sacrificing his desires to the apparent desires of others, he became emotionally bankrupt and lost.

Cora Tucker did what she wanted without caring whether or not society disapproved. Willy Loman did only what society expected him to do, so although he worked hard, he was never able to achieve success. Had Willy wanted to be a traveling salesman with no salary, his monetary lack of success would have been irrelevant to him.

Death of a Salesman and Individual Opportunity

Willy Loman belives that the only thing you need to achieve success is to be well-liked. He says on page 33, "Bernard can get the best marks in school...but when he gets out in the business world...you're going to be five times ahead of him...[T]he man who creates personal interest is the man who gets ahead. Be liked and you will never want." In this scene, he continuously cuts off Bernard, seeing him as an irritant, rather than someone determined to help his son. Willy argues that the teacher could never flunk Biff becuase from Willy's perspective, Biff is a stapping, well-liked young man. In the end of the book, when Willy gets fired, he simply can't wrap his head around the expendable nature of his possition. Willy still values the past, but old history is irrelevant in capitalistic business, so in one swoop, his entire view of the American Dream is shattered. Watching people like Charley and Bernard-the people Willy sees as people who should not succeed in business-reach success, while Willy struggles to pay his bills, finally pushes him over the edge. Death of a Salesman depicts the unraveling of Willy's view of individual opportunity.

Arthur Miller believes that you must reach the American Dream through your merits. Though Willy saw Bernard as a weasily dweeb, it was Bernard who presented a case to the Supreme Court in the end. Charley, also a weasily dweeb, doles out the ultimate humiliation to Willy by not only offering him a job, but by also lending him money so that Linda can think that Willy is still bringing in income. Willy is so proud that he cannot bare to acknowledge Charley knew all along the real definition of individual opportunity. Biff had the opportunity to not fail out of school. He easily could have taken tutoring from Bernard or attended summer school, but he passed it up. Miller believes that everyone has the opportunity to achieve the American Dream, but if you do not sieze it, you will be left behind.

Death of a Salesman Question

How does Willy Loman's insanity and eventually suicide relate to our unit on The American Dream and individual opportunity?

Speeches Oct 14

Today, I was most impressed by the speech on the Julian Center. She did a great job at delivering the speech, and had a nice balance between the appeals to pathos and ethos.

The speech on Big Brothers Big Sisters also made me want to learn more about the organization. Connecting the speech to someone we know made it very strong.

One thing that I have noticed about "successful" speeches are that they have some things in common. The ones that I remember most clearly are those that connected their organization to something that relates to their audience. Things like personal stories or tales of people our age and younger seem to have had the most impact.

I also best remember speeches presented by fairly dynamic speakers. This is probably why the Julian Center speech caught my attention: the speaker used vocal inflections and even body movements to help her make her point. Part of this may have been that I had trouble paying attention to the people who kept their eyes strictly to the paper. Even though I knew that their words may have been eloquent, the presentation of the content was half of the persuasive argument.

Speeches Oct 13

Overall, I think the speeches today were pretty good. I was a lot more nervous that I expected I would be because usually I'm fine talking in front of people. I fumbled around with my words; the ideas sounded fine in my head, but coming out, they didn't quite make it. This taught me to reherse more and to better organize my thoughts more thoughroughly (spelling?) before presenting.

Of all the speeches today, Amy's sticks out in my head the most. She described Heifer International beautifully, and the fact that she made it so personal caught my attention. I felt like she really took into consideration her audience how to appeal to them. There was an excellent balance of pathos and ethos. The emphasis on the fact that the animals' offspring are shared with others was the piece of the organization that really touched me.

Speech Outline

Because someone already claimed Goodwill before I got to class, I had to change my charity to United Way. This is actually a good thing because in 8th grade I worked with my school's community service group to obtain a grant from United Way. We used the money from the grant to have three parties for children (I think kindergardeners, but I don't remember) who were from very low-income families. We provided meals for them because for many the only meal they recieved was the one provided for them by their school. We did crafts and even had a carnival once where the kids one prizes like stuffed animals.

Claim: United Way is a good organization to donate to

Reasons: Because they fund mentoring programs and after-school activities to discourage dropping out, run the Imagination Library to give children access to books, provide training and tools to low-income families so they can get a better job and improve their living conditions, and support local health care that services low-income families, particularly pregnant women, infants, and young children.

Warrent: There is a problem with the amount of poverty in the United States, and it directly relates to development in early childood
Backing: statistics and studies

Rebuttal: It is better to focus on the adults because they are already in undesirable situations. If you help them, you'll also help their children

Qualifier: Because most development occurs during early childhood, it is important to work with young children while they're still impresionable.

Individual Opportunity Speech

For this speech, I want to write about Goodwill Industries International. I have a stronger connection with their store than anything else, but recently I discovered that they do a lot more that sell used clothes.

In 2002, Goodwill started a project created to put millions of people in jobs by 2020. They not only provide for training of the individual for the job, but also they have options for child care services for people who can't work because they have to take care of the kids and have no money for day care. They also work to find careers for people with disabilities. Goodwill provides tutoring services for children who are homeless or disabled. They collect books for these children as well. This gives those chldren better opportunities in their younger years, which may give them the edge they need to find a career in adulthood.

Goodwill is also enviornmentally friendly. By selling used items, they keep them from becoming waste. What can't be made into selling condition is recycled in creative ways. For example, old clothes are cut into cleaning cloths for industrial buyers. I think it's pretty cool to think that that shirt you wore in your 8th grade school photo may be an industrial wipe.

Self-Reliance

Emerson writes that the only way to succeed is to reject society's traditions and work only for yourself. He says that consistancy is unimportant if the change is how you really feel, because to worry about consistancy is to put another's opinion before your own. Even if family disagrees with your beliefs, it doesn't matter because technically everyone is family if you go back far enough. In describing travel, he says that there is no use in travelling if it is only for pleasure because you will get nothing out of it that you didn't already have.

I disagree with what her writes. Success is far more complex than working for yourself to get ahead. Because we live in a social society, there is no way to succeed without respecting the beliefs and traditions of others. You can still disagree with them, but if you want to advance in society, you have to be able to see the basis for their opinions. In a work enviornment, if you offend the boss, you will soon be out of work. If you are unreasonable in social situations, no one will take you seriously, and you will be regarded as a fool.

By putting yourself first in every situation, you lose contacts and relationships, which are essential to getting ahead. Regardless of your knowledge in a subject, there will always be someone who knows more. You have to allow yourself to listen and take their advice or condemn yourself to ignorance and risk losing all that you have built. You can never fully reject the wisdom of your ancestors because without their contributions, the next innovations would be impossible.

Class in America

Although Mantsios mentions mentions the idea of the rich exploiting the poor, I don't think that that concept influences much of his essay. He acknwoledges that the lower class must be poor in order for there to be such wealth in the upper classes, but that may not be necessarily because of exploitation, consciously anyway. The comfort and luxury of being part of the upper class is enough for the rich to justify a willful ignorance of what is really happening, but I think Mantsios implies more that the rich are choosing bot to help, rather than intentionally taking advantage of the poor.

One reason that the rich tend to get richer and the poor stay generally the same is that industry is designed to generate maximum profit. As incomming capital increases, the top (wo)men get hearty raises, while those who actually did the labor get the same pay check they had been getting. Now that nation's wealth has increased, prices on goods also increase. Now the big business is putting even more into the pockets of its CEOs, and the working people can't afford to buy the products they built.

Wow, now that I wrote that out it does sound an awful lot like exploitation.

Mantsios also discusses the issues with internal bias and what people are born as, race and gender in particular. For most, to discriminate against people because of race or gender is an unconscious exploitation. The person isn't necessarily aware of why they treat some people differently, or even aware of their change in behavior. Because there is no way to completely avoid stereotypes and snap-judgements based on people's appearance, there will never be a world in which all people have perfectly equal opportunity.

Money, Success, and the American Dream

Stephen Cruz was able to pull himself up by his bootstraps, but not necessarily of his own merit. He was an intelligent, hard-working man, but that was not why he recieved job offers. e was given jobs because of his Mexican herritage. As he got promoted, he was "made visible." The business could show off its diversity by having a Mexican in a decent position.

This is actually a somewhat similar story to Ragged Dick. Both Cruz and Dick were given jobs based on something beyond their control: race in Cruz's case, character in Dick's. Dick would never had gotten the high-paying job he got had he walked into the office and presented his credentials. Stephen Cruz may have gotten offers were he white, but probably not as many as he did as a Mexican. It looked good to have a "good" minority.

Both Cruz and Dalton bring up the concept of being the "good" minority-of being compared to others of your biological kind rather than the entire group you're working with. From the corporate point of view, it leaves an impression to have a "good Mexican" on your staff to outsiders. It shows how as a business, you've transcended racial predjudice, when really, you hired the man specifically for this image.

Cruz and Dalton argue that the only way for the American Dream to exist is to completely eliminate things that a person can't help when applying for a job. Because everyone has a bias, stories like Ragged Dick will never exist. There is no way for a person to judge another person soley based on his or her merits.

Ragged Dick

When Dick jumps into the water to save that man's son, his reward is an amazing job opportunity. The author is making an implicit argument that the way to be successful is to be in the right place at the right time.

Had Dick not decided to take the day off, he would have still been working as a shoe-shine. Although he didn't know of the reward in store for him, when he jumped into the water he determined his destiny. Without doing that, he never would have gotten the job offer, or any job offer for that matter, considering the hard times.

There is another implicit argument in the story as well. One must be ready to take the initiative and be prepaired to do something without expecting a reward. Dick didn't know about the reward; all he knew was that he was a good swimmer and the boy needed him. Someone else could have easily beat him over the side of the ferry, but Dick didn't even pause to think about it.

Dick was in the right place at the right time and was ready to put his life on the line for a total stranger for nothing. For this he was heavily rewarded, and was given a job opportunity far greater than what he had been looking for in the first place.

Visual Arguments

Whether or not visual arguments are more pursuasive than written arguments depends on the audience,the message, and the way the argument was produced. If society is already moving towards becoming exclusively visual, you probably don't need to worry about the audience since they'd already be getting used to it.

Today, most arguements are already visual; they're all implicit. Women who are naturally beautiful selling makeup will sell more makeup than average-looking women. People respond more readily to it because they don't even realize why they've decided to by the $30 eye shadow instead of the $5.

Visual arguements often appeal more to pathos than written arguments. If I were to tell you that 91,000 Ugandans died of AIDS in 2006, it probably wouldn't have the same effect as showing you the photo of a young girl with the disease. Although the number shows the greater catastrophe, the photo makes it personal for you.

One thing that makes the visual arguemt weaker, however, is the fact that if you don't encode it, the iconic (visual) thing your sensory memory percieved will only stay in your mind for .5 seconds. Echonic (hearing) will stay for 3-4 seconds. If all arguments were iconic, people would stop encoding them into their short-term memories, making them all less effective as a whole. Visual arguments are most effective in a world where most arguments are not visual.

Ethics of Pathos and Ethos

Ethically, an author should be responsible for using facts as well as appeal to ethos and pathos. Without the facts, the argument becomes no more than propaganda. Arguments that are soley pursuasive can be extremely dangerous.

The media does not adhere to these ethics. Whenever you see an ad for a car, you also see an ad for a beauttful woman. The ad either says, "If you buy this car, this beautiful woman will want to ride in it with you," or, "If you buy this car, you will look like this beautiful woman." Although the ad itself may contain factual reasons to buy the car, psychologists have done studies that say if you show people ads of two comparable cars, one with a pretty woman in it, people will always say that the woman car is superior, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. This implicit pursuasive argument could be considered unethical.

The government is also guilty of this. Campaign ads will often highlight a negative personal aspect of a candidate, rather than a flaw in his policy, and will flash unflattering photos of the target while the voice speaks. By pointing out personal flaws instead of holes in the candidate's policy, the person who wrote the ad targets the typical at-home voter who is more likely to be swayed by drawings of the characterists of a person. Someone running for office who looks good on stage will attract higher audiences. By putting picture of the person mid-yawn or sneezing, you show their human side, which puts light on the fact that they are not a god who can solve everybody's problems. The government also uses unethical pursuasion in ads to recruit for the military. When you see those ads with the great noble music in the backround, you think brotherhood and honor. The ads never show fresh-out-of-college boys dying.

Skateboarding

David Langley uses similar arguing techniques as Michael Levin. He provides sitations in which most people would have to aggree with him, but also makes some assumptions that others may not share.

In the first line of paragraph 9, Langley writes, "Of course, most adults probably don't think skateboarders deserve to be treated fairly." Although there may be some adults who believe this, for most that wouldn't be a conscious opinion. The primary concern on the adults' minds would probably be saftey, for both the skater and other pedestrians. Langley does not once acknowledge safety outside of his descriptions of skate parks. Something that weakens his argument is the fact that he has made the assumption that the only reason adults object to skateboarding is because they think all skaters are "half-criminals."

When describing the benefits that skating brings to society, he writes based on the assumption that all skaters will use their boards as foremost main form of transportation. Yes, skateboarding is cleaner than driving a car, but perhaps the person will only use his skateboard when practicing. If he uses his car at all other times, he's not done any good for the enviornment.

Like Levin, Langley twists the argument to show how the only bad guy is the person who disaggrees with him. In the last paragraph, he writes, "Here's how cities can treat us fairly." This implies that the cities are the only ones who need to improve. He completely ignores the fact that skaters can be responsible for damage, too. What makes his argument stronger than Levin's is that he used a real, personal situation rather than a hypothetical one. He was able to reason that the cities have a need to change now, where Levin writes that there may be a future sitution in which torture may be a feasible course of action.

Pseudo-Arguments

The book describes multiple forms of pseudo-arguments, and I have to say I've had experience with all of them. In particular, I have intentionally put myself into the position of fanatical skeptic on multiple occations. For three years in middle school, I argued with a friend about whether or not a tree falling in the middle of the woods would make a sound if there were no one there to hear it. Cliche? Yup. Pointless? I guess. We didn't really have anything else worth talking about. With another friend, I argued whether or not I existed. I'm pretty sure that I do exist, but there's really no way of proving it. I find watching other people trying to prove what cannot be proven entertaining.

Because I do this so often, it's hard for me to imagine a fanatical skeptic who truly believes in what he is arguing. However, I have encountered many honest fanatical believers. Unfortunately, I think that I draw the fanatical believer out of people when I'm being the obnoxious skeptic. Typically, a fanatical believer does not expose himself as such until the other arguer makes a point that the believer can't find or doesn't want to think of a point against. Parental arguments that climax with, "Because I said so," are good examples of this. The most common one I deal with is when it's 7:30 pm and homework is done.
"Mom, can **name** come over tonight?"
"No."
"Why?"
"Because I said so."

Pseudo-arguments are probably more common than real arguments in the teenage world.

Pathos

Pathos is a powerful rhetorical device because emotions can often be far stronger than facts. If you were to hear on the news, "There was a fatal car crash on 86th Street caused by a drunk driver," it would probably not induce the same feelings as, "A wife and mother of two was killed in a crash because of a drunk driver." The latter would make you feel the need to prevent drunk driving more strongly because it has caught your sympathies.

Most people see raw facts as boring and will often skim over them. By connecting to pathos, the person presenting the argument draws the reader in and allows him to be more deeply engaged in the argument. The reader has a reason to become involved with the writer because he feels a connection. Connecting to pathos encourages the reader to think more deeply about what is being said in the argument, which is more effective in cooperative inquiry. The reader will form his or her own opinions based of what he has read. It also is beneficial if trying to pursuade the reader to seeing your side of the argument because he will sympathize with your views.

Torture

Torture should not be legal under any circumstances. Although Michael Levin writes a convincing argument, he was able to do so by over-simplifying situations and results. Capturing someone who is known to have all information about the attacks is highly unlikely, and if (s)he did, he would probably be important enough to the operation to either withstand the torture or lie. The entire argument is writen under the assumption that everything will work according to plan.

Even if a line is drawn on where torture is no longer an option, to torture one person will set a precedent. It has been proven that when a society first allows something like this, everyone follows prodedure, but over time the line begins to stretch. Eventually there is little to no discretion when it comes to utilizing brutal and unconstitutional methods of extracting information.

There isn't a guaruntee of catching the right person. It's unlikely that we'd even be able to narrow it down to ten people. So what do we do with those extra nine? Personally, I'd rather die than live knowing that my survival is directly the cause of the suffering of nine innocents at the hands of my government.

Levin describes not being willing to "dirty their hands" as cowardice, but I disagree. Only a coward has the guts to torture a defenseless person, no matter how evil the victim is.

Biotechnology Foods

Genetically modifying foods is neither healthy nor necessary, and all genetically modified foods should be labeled. Natural selection has allowed the plants we eat today to survive for as long as humans have; there's a reason that they are the way that they are. Today, we pump hundreds of unnatural chemicals into our bodies every day, but for the most part, these chemicals are listed on the labels. Although it is said that these are tested for safety, none of the arguments specify in what amounts and for how long. It is also unclear whether or not they tested for adverse effects in pregnant mothers and new babies. Hormones in cows were said to be harmless, but in young girls particularly, drinking the milk has been proven to cause rapid growth and development, as well as early menstration.

The "Focusing Debate" argument on page 42 brings up the fact that there are many starving people in the world. Right now, we use up more of agricultural industry in maintaining the meat industry than we do in feeding ourselves. It takes more energy to produce half a pound of beef than it does to feed a family of five a full vegetarian meal. If feeding the starving people of the world were really a priority, reducing the meat industry would be far more effective than using biotechnology foods.

That biotechnology should be used to increase health values of foods is a sad statement for American society. If people ate healthy, blanced diets, there would be no need for increased vitamins or decreased saturated fat. Besides, biotechnology being used to decrease things like saturated fats is actually less healthy than eating the saturated fats. A saturated fat is a hydrocarbon chain with its maximum amount of hydrogen, which is what allows it to retain a solid form at room temperature. An unsaturated fat is also a hydrocarbon chain, but it is missing some hydrogens. To reduce saturated fat, hydrogen is added to unsaturated fat, indroducing trans fats.

The very fact that people are worried about people not wanting to buy products that have a biotechnoloy label on them indicates that there is a reason to be worried. This sounds like an argument used by big business to avoid a decrease in sales. As consumers, we have the right to know what we are buying and into whose pockets the profits are going into.

Argument Genre Comparison

The cartoon on page 1 and the ad on page 24 depict two very different points of view. Both are effective, but how effective they are depends on the audience.

The cartoon shows a fat man telling a starving man not to consume the genetically modified food. To a glancing reader, this would probably have more impact than the advertisement. It makes the point in a very concise manner, and it is designed to pull on the heartstrings of the sympathetic. Regardless of my own opinions of genetically modified food, this certainly caught my attention. In trying to pusuade an audience, the chosen genre is excellent if targeting the fast-paced American. However, the argument is also hurt by the genre. It fails to acknowledge the gray area in the argument, using exclusively pursuasive arguments, rather than truth seeking. When faced with a situation of giving a man genetically altered food or letting him starve, no one would even stop to think about it. It's not a practical way to end world hunger, but that's an entirely new argument. A person who would pause to think about the cartoon would realize this, and it would suddenly lose much of its meaning.

The ad also suffers from the problem the cartoon has; its content is rooted exclusively in a sinle opinion. However, it does give more evidence to its cause than the cartoon does. The photo draws attention from passer-bys, and the brief article beneath it succinctly summarizes the agenda of whoever posted the ad.

Although both genres are primarily pursuasive arguments, the ad is more pursuasive because it presents the information in a way that makes it appear as though it has more truthful evidence. Whether it is more truthful is debatable, but it is more likely to alter peoples' opinions because of how the information is presented.

Implicit and Explicit Arguments

I would argue that implicit arguments are more powerful than explicit arguments. An explicit argument blatantly says, "It is bad to die for your country," or "It is good to die for your country." Although its point is clear, it lacks the subtlety and emotion that can be portrayed in an implicit argument.

The poem on pages 5 and 6 shows the audience how wretched it is to be in war. The audience is allowed a glimse of how similar being sent to war is to being sent to the slaughterhouse by your country. In the photo on page 5, the audience feels pride in their country and sees the glory and dignity of a uniform.

What these have in common is that they both draw on peoples' emotions. Although the saying is that knowledge is power, I believe that emotions are far more powerful than understanding. When recruiting fresh blood to go to war, the army doesn't use facts; they use images of honor and prestige. Whether the actions are noble or not is irrelevent if the young perceive them to be.

In psychology, we discussed the power of the subconcious. Both men and women are more likely to buy a car if the advertisement shows a pretty girl in it. For the most part, both genders will deny it, but it's true. Implicit arguments work the same way. People will be drawn to a photo depicting the honor of patriotism, and they will feel pain when reading a poem depicting the horrors of war. However, if you were simply told, "There is glory to be had in fighting for one's country," a normal response would probably be, "Why?" If you showed that same person the photo on page 5, there would be no question. The photo says all that needs to be said.

Fencing in Memphis

Waiting for the officials to post the pool assignments is complete agony. The only more agonizing thing is waiting for the direct elimination assignments to be posted. Those show the results based on how you and the other 120 fencers did in the pool. Fencing tournaments are long. They literally take up entire weekends depending on how many divisions you fence in. One event will take a whole day, most of which you spend waiting for your next location to be posted.

At the Memphis NAC, I was placed in a pool with six people including myself. They were the best fencers in the cadet age division (15-17 years). That’s pretty scary when you’re 14 years old and have only been fencing for less than two years, while they’ve been training since they were six. Basically, I considered myself doomed. I remember telling my mom, “No promises.”

First bout was called. I was on deck to fence a girl who had beaten me very badly two tournaments before this. First bout was done. “Elmo and Savage (last name changed) on strip, name and name on deck.” Deep breath. If I lost, it wasn’t that big a deal. I hooked up my cords and touched her with my saber to make sure her gear worked, too.

“En garde, ready, esgrime!” Two advances, one retreat, parry-repost. My point. She rubbed her wrist. I had hit her too hard. That’s what I was known for in the fencing community: big athletic goggles and hitting really hard. I won the bout 5-0.

I won every bout in my pool, mostly 5-1’s and 5-2’s. Between each bout, my mom would text my dad, who was at work. Normally my dad handled the fencing tournaments, and I liked it that way. Where my dad would say, “Get your head out of your ass!” my mom would say, “That’s okay. You’ll get her next time. Have some water.” Nothing is more enraging than a sympathetic mother when you’re trying to keep in the fighting mode.

Coach didn’t watch me fence that tournament. I don’t remember much about the direct elimination (DE) bouts. When I finished the pool and had two hours to wait for the DE’s to be announced, I casually walked back to where my team’s stuff was. Coach asked me how I did. When I told him that I won the pool, he responded in his thick Russian accent, “What, what does this mean?”

“It means I didn’t lose, Coach.” He sat down on my bag wearing his nice suit, not caring that it was caked with (and smelled like) two years’ worth of fermented sweat. He didn’t want me to know it, but I could tell he was pleased.

Connections

One of the things that I've really enjoyed in this class so far is how everything is related. In the summer reading and the first essay we read I was sort of picking up on the connections between the readings, but didn't really pursue any ideas because of it. I guess I just figured that we were moving on from topic to topic.

After the second packet that we read and the following class discussion, I was starting to realize something. All of these readings actually relate to eachother! That got me excited, and I started looking for how things connected.

I didn't expect the direction that we took on The Great Gatsby. To be honest, I've never really liked that book, and I assumed that we'd talk about all the "Money doesn't buy happiness" cheezies that we did when I read this in 7th grade. Once we started talking about the concept of the green light, I had to rethink my perception of the book. I guess because the first time I read it I was in second grade and the second time was really just done to get the summer homework finished, I wasn't looking for anything like a futile grasping for an unreachable goal. Now I regret not reading it more thoroughly. I think that I may have enjoyed the book a lot more if I had.

Language

Language evolves over time as new things are introduced and old things fade away. The word "blog" didn't exist ten years ago. "iPod" has become the generic term for any MP3 player. However, if I told you to get off the davenport, you would probably slap me. Words cycle in and out because they have to keep up with the rest of the world.

Your personal language changes all the time, even if you don't realize it. If I started refering to the sofa/couch/divan as a davenport, and Maddie liked the word, she may start using it. Annalee picks it up off of Maddie. Suddenly, three people are saying davenport, so obviously it's a cool word to say. Now everyone is saying "davenport." People pick up on new words all the time, and as more people say them, even more people will start to use them on a regular basis.

In the future, Chicano may become a more standard language in the Southwest. Anglo children will play with chicano children, and naturally it will become part of every day life. However, some of these kids may have parents who do not want them to speak Chicano English. Situations like this cause people to change their language based on their enviornments.

I do not speak to my parents like I speak to my friends. My friends make fun of each other and themselves in ways that an adult may interperate as offensive. Words choices with friends may be a little more blunt, though it's all in good humor. A parent would punish their kid for disrespect if (s)he said to them what (s)he said with friends.

Language is your identity, but like your identity, it changes. No piece of your language is ever entirely left behind, it just adapts to the changing enviornments.

Profound Experience

My family went on vacation to Dustin, Florida. We went with two other pieces of our family and rented a house together. Combined, we were five adults, five teenagers, one toddler, and one baby. The toddler, Colin, had a sort of attatchment to me. He followed me around everywhere, and if he didn't know where I was, he would walk around the house saying, "Abby, Abby, Abby," until he found me. He understood almost everything you said to him, but he rarely spoke and had trouble forming words.

Our house had a pool, and Colin and I were swimming. Colin couldn't swim, but he had mastered getting around on his inflatable fish. In the pool, there was a sectioned-off area that bubbled, but wasn't any warer than the rest of the pool. Colin decided he wanted to play in the bubbles, but once he got there, he got scared. I was trying to help him get into the other part of the pool again, but he was wet and wiggly. I couldn't hold onto him. He fell into the pool face first, and the way the pool was designed, I had a lot of trouble getting to him. It was probably only about six or seven seconds, but they were the longest six or seven seconds of my life.

I got him, and he was scared and angry. The thing that struck me was how quickly he forgave me. A minute later, he was kicking around on his fish, sticking his toes out of the water saying "MY TOOOWWWSS!!!!." We played for a while, and my uncle/his dad, Randy came out. "Abby bot awah up my nosh!" Colin proudly yelled. Abby got water up my nose. It was like he was bragging about it. All night he walked around the house saying that.

Older people have a lot of lessons they could learn from toddlers. I can't say I've met many people over three who would forgive so quickly about anything. I was still feeling guilty long after he'd forgotten about the whole thing. It really made an impression on me.

Something

Wooo! This is my first post.