Radical Craftivism

It was Sunday morning at 7:00 am about a week before my freshman year of high school. My dad and I were standing in line at the checkout in Walmart. Glancing at the cart, I made some observations (my OCD came in handy for the numbers). School supplies for my sister and me: 10 notebooks, 2 boxes with 24 pens each, three fresh binders, a package of erasers, two assignment books, and two reams of paper (not recycled). Moving on to the groceries, every bit of produce had its own plastic wrapping. Eggs and meat were in styrofoam covered with saran wrap. A Costco- sized package of paper towels crowded the 32-pack of water bottles, and have you ever looked at the ingredients on toilet cleaner? Every item in the entire cart was wasteful and unnatural. This was my epiphany; I had to learn to take care of myself in a world that honors the artificial.

I started with simple things. I planted a vegetable garden and committed myself to wearing my clothes until they were nothing but loosely woven threads. This way I could avoid paying companies to use unhealthy means of growing food and wrap their veggies in non-renewable resources. There was nothing that could be done about the clothes I already owned, but I could put an end to needless purchases. I stopped eating meat to become a direct consumer. My transition into becoming self-sufficient was at first almost entirely motivated by becoming more eco-friendly.

Eventually, though, my clothes wore out. My shoes smelled so bad that I was required to leave them on the porch. My mother insisted that I needed new jewelry. Everything was centered on the idea of making purchases at large corporations, who had bought the product from someone who had paid small Somalian children a dollar per week to make the product. Consumerism disgusted me. Self-sufficiency became more than being environmentally responsible. It was the only ethical choice for me.

I didn't feel the needle pierce my thumb when I sewed my first pillow. It wasn't until I finished that I noticed my hand was stuck to my project and bleeding on the white fabric. Fixing that was endlessly frustrating, and believe me, it was followed my some pretty disastrous projects. However, I began to cultivate my skills. I made my own clothes, pillow cases, little stuffed things for gifts, ext. For everything I made, I got the fabric from shirts that were just going to be thrown away. I stitched patterns and made jewelry that reflected my own identity, creating truly unique things without giving a cent to corporate America.

I believe in absolute independence. I wouldn't say I'm ready to march of into the world wagging a middle finger at society yet, but I think that there are too many people in the world who talk about self-sufficiency without ever achieving it. You have to be able to make a choice without having to compromise your own set of ethics. That's why I make things; I know where every resource involved came from and that no one was hurt so that I could have it. Plus, it's economically and environmentally sound.

Envelopes

I'm doing a project as a fundraiser for Life Impact International right now. Life Impact is a Christian organization that is working on humanitarian relief in Pakistan, Burma, and the Thailand/Burma border. Their primary goals there are to establish orphanages and children's homes/hostels, feeding programs for the poor, development works, and aid to refugees and oppressed women. This is done through the context of spreading Christ's love, but that is secondary to helping the people in need.

My project is selling homemade, completely recycled goods with all proceeds going toward Life International. I've made really beautiful envelopes out of magazine pages that not only look really nice, but also are 100% zero-impact on the environment. I'm going to be selling these for 25 cents each, $1 for five. It sounds expensive for envelopes, but they really are pretty, and the money goes to a good cause. I hope to expand to clothing that I make out of t-shirts that would have just been thrown away, cross-stitched art work, handmade journals with paper I make in my sink out of old newspaper, and possibly other stuff. With one person, it takes a long time to manage these things.

I am also collecting school supplies, gently used clothing, and gently used toys. A current project is supporting and improving a school in Thailand, Burma, and Indonesia. Monetary gifts are also always welcome. Thanks for support!

AP US Test

So it's 5th period, and I just finished my AP US test. I'm reasonably certain that I did really well, but sitting for 4 hours filling in bubbles and writing essays makes my brain feel like a poptart left on the blacktop on a 102 degree day. It wasn't even that hard; I just hate long tests.

Tonight my sister is playing her guitar and singing in front of all the parents in a talent-show-type thing. She's really good and I'm excited to see her play since she's probably the best act, but I'm not really looking forward to watching a ton of 8th graders I don't know do a talent show. Those things sort of lose their appeal when you're not connect with the contestants.

I'm on a loaner right now, and every time I nudge the mouse-thing my text starts typing somewhere else. This is probably the shortest blog I've ever done, and I've been working on it for 20 minutes because I have to make corrections.

Joe's Desires

Joe pretty much just rambles out a chain of desires. Now that he is finally able to talk, he can't stop. Not all of his requests are things that he truly wants, but all he can do is spew words. The words come out of anger, out of desperation. What he really wants is to have his body back. He has been driven insane by his condition.

I would certainly want my body back if I were in his state. I would want to talk with universities, with anyone who would listen, about why I ended up how I did. Or at least, that's what my ideal self would want.

If I really truly were in Joe's condition, my only request would be to die, if I were even in a mental state secure enough to communicate that wish. After years of being legless, armless, faceless, and with no senses other than touch, I don't know that I even could tap. But if I could, I would beg and plead for death.

Garden!

Mother's Day is coming up, which means my dad and I can start working our garden. This year we plan on growing cucumbers, radishes, carrots, green beans, snap-peas, broccoli, corn, tomatoes, and a bunch of herbs. I love planting and tending to the garden. Plus, the vegetables couldn't possibly get any fresher considering you can eat them within minutes of harvesting them. More freshness=more nutrients and better taste. For fertilizer, we're going to steal some of my grandpa's horses' droppings. Fertilizing naturally is important because chemicals are good neither to digest nor to allow to seep into the earth and buried water. However, you need the manure to nitrogenize the ground and give something for the nitrogen-fixing bacteria (which live in the nodules of some plants, esp soybeans) to work with.

Right now I'm growing organic basil in my window sill, and I started a tree. It's only about 4 inches tall now, but it's supposed to grow very tall. I can't even transplant it to the outdoors for two more years.

Imperialism

What is it with mankind's need to conquest? Why does everything have to be about exploiting something to drain it of everything it has?

Anyway...

This is written as a rallying call, not a well-reasoned argument. That tells me that he's targeting the little guys-the Joes-to get them behind his cause. It sounds similar to what Joe was told when he was getting signed up for war. We're absolutely in the right! It's for the greater good! We're spreading democracy! Beveridge speaks only in grandiose terms. Basically, he's trying to get people to sacrifice their lives for the sake of words. Land. Resources. Why do they matter to one person living happily in the Midwest with a home and family enough to make him want to lay down his life for them? Democracy is an interesting word. The Indians are living happily under our government w/o their consent, so why shouldn't the Philippines? He just has a blatant disregard for the cannon-fodder folk he's getting to fight for him or the people already living in the land he's trying to take over. Just like Joe's war-the squishing of the expendable is a necessary evil.

American the Beautiful

D'Souza would say that making a few sacrifices on the way to spreading American values is without a shadow of a doubt worth it. However, he says that the reason they lost in Vietnam was because Americans as whole did not see a reason to fight. I think it's interesting how he fails to acknowledge this fact in regards to the war in Iraq. A majority of people are not in favor of the war right now. Also, he talks about how Islamic fundamentalist nations are so behind in technology. Well, the excuse for going over seas was a supposed threat of nuclear weapons, and their "inferior" fighting force has been holding Americans off for years. I have a lot of problems with this guy.

Anyway, not relevant to the blog topic.

D'Souza speaks only in terms of the masses, while Johnny Got His Gun is the story of a single individual. One of my issues with him is the fact that he seems to believe in the logic of the Spanish Inquisition, which is also what the Islamic fundamentalists think. It's worth the fate of the world to sacrifice a few individuals. He believes in what he hates. Johnny Got His Gun is anti-war by talking about how war destroyed a person for the sake of something he barely knew about and certainly didn't understand. The book has a view that war is bad because it damages the lives of innocent boys. D'Souza thinks that war is good because even if a few guys get crushed, it's for the greater good, and they should be proud to have made the sacrifice. I think that if it were he who woke up an armless, legless, faceless torso his opinion would change.

Resistance to Civil Government

Thoreau in his argument that government is cold and not bound by a moral compass described soldiers as hard and unfeeling. They are nothing but machines that have been brainwashed to subscribe absolutely to the cause of their government. Joe, however, in Johnny Got His Gun, is only a boy. He barely knew his reasons for war; all he wanted to do was stay home and take care of his beloved Kareen. As he lay dying, he thinks about all of his explanations for going to war, and not a single one made sense. He was a scared boy, not an insentient block of stone.

On page 841 Thoreau says that it is good for a man to wholly cast himself into a cause he truly believes in as long as it doesn't interfere with the dreams of another. The US government does not do this for Joe. They use their authority to shove him into an undesired environment regardless of his personal objections. His plans take a back-seat to the objectives of the government, and he is told that his life is expendable in the fight for "liberty." The word, nothing more. Thoreau proposes this only as the ideal.

The Handmaid's Tale

I just finished a book that Maddie lent me called The Handmaid's Tale. It's amazing. It depicts a world in which the Bible is taken literally, but this occurs in the future, and the transition is instantaneous. The woman from whom the perspective of the book is written is part of the transitional generation. Her duty is to become impregnated by her Commander because his wife cannot bear children, and because she is nothing more than a uterus with legs, everything that her ruling bodies think she should want is provided for. However, she is trapped. Women can no longer read or own anything. The Eyes spy on you wherever you go, and no one is allowed to leave. Even to leave her home, she must have a pass. All women's skin must be completely covered, but as a handmaid, the main character must also cover her face. Every freedom she once knew is taken from her. She who does not wish to be a vessel of fertility much either be forced to toil in the Colonies, cleaning up toxic spills, or as a whore for the Commanders looking for a more physical sexual experience.

The book is loaded with twists that reflect how complicated human nature really is. It brings religious fundamentalism, misogyny, and basic liberty into question while telling the story.

Go Green!

10 tips for living a greener life:

1. Turn out the lights! When you leave a room, don't forget to flip the switch. If you're doing work and it's light out, but your area gets little natural light, move near a window or work outside to avoid wasting energy.

2. Borrow instead of buy. Gets books and movies from the library, a movie rental store, or mooch off of a friend. If it's something you're only going to use once, there's no sense in wasting the resources. If possible, find a couple neighbors that you trust to share big things like lawn mowers and snow blowers. If a product cannot be borrowed and is a necessity, buy used. If you can't find it used, buy the brand with the most eco-friendly policies and minimal packaging.

3. Write on the backs of used paper for notes. Why consume when there's perfectly usable stuff that you're just going to throw in the recycling bin anyway? Just 3-hole-punch the homework, essays, and assignment sheets of yesteryear, flip them upside-down, and put them in a binder.

4. Cut back on shower time. The average shower uses a little over 2 gallons per minute, which really starts to add up. If you reduced your shower by 2 minutes and showered every night, you would save 1,606 gallons in a year. Skipping days is encouraged if you've done nothing but sit in your house all day.

5. Plastic baggies are your enemy. A sandwich-sized plastic (but preferably glass) container will save you money and keep all of those bags out of the landfill. The average american kid puts 67 lbs of lunch wrapping waste in the landfills every school year (greenopolis,com). When it comes to saving bags, bring a cloth one to the store. Store bags are even more evil that lunch baggies. Also, carry a reusable water bottle instead of using bottled water, or if you have a friend who does drink bottled water, steal their bottle when they're done with it. Refill and reuse that one until it starts to smell bad.

6. Use stuff for as long as you can instead of buying a new one. We don't wear out our clothes in a single school year (though there are some exceptions), but at the start of fall everyone goes out and purchases a whole new wardrobe. Is it really necessary? If your clothes/school supplies/cell phones/whatever are still good, keep using them.

7. Summers coming up, which means everyone starts blasting the air conditioning. Let the house be a little warmer than is comfortable. Turn of the air on breezy days and open up the windows. The opposite goes for winter; put on a sweatshirt instead of cranking the heat.

8. Bike or walk to places within a distance that you are capable of traveling. Invest in a bike chain and avoid burning up the nonrenewable fossil fuels. Not only is it good for the earth, but you'll also find yourself in great shape! If the distance is far, but you know someone nearby going near where you're going, carpool.

9. Eat less meat! When you eat a steak, you consume not only the cow, but everything that had to be fed the cow as it grew up. The resources you consume when you consume meat are huge when you consider not only the grain and water, but also the transporting of the animal and emissions that come from its processing. Granted plant products must be transfered and processed as well, but less so than meat. Eating mostly plant products is being a direct consumer, especially if you grow your own veggies in your back yard.

10. The most obvious one: Recycle, please. It seems like such a simple thing, and yet so few actually do it. If you don't want to pay for the recyclables pick-up, take them to sites. Libraries and schools always have dumpster-shaped containers for paper, and grocery stores often have ones for cans and bottles.

Fencing

Fencing is a pretty cool sport. I'm going to blog about sabre fencing. There are alternatives to it, but sabre is the most physically demanding of the three weapons. Plus, it was my weapon.

Two people face each other in a bout. Each is hooked up to a box with the wires able to retract or extend according to the fencer's movements, and that box connects to a machine that lights up for the person who scored a point. The sabre is connected to a wire, which is connected to the wire coming out of the box and the electric lame. The lame is the fencing jacket, and is covered with a tiny wire net. When one person's sabre touches the other's lame (which is also connected to the wire-covered mask), his/her light turns on. If you know anything about electricity, it's just a big circuit.

Target area includes everything above the hips, excluding hands. In sabre, you can either stab or cut, unlike the other weapons in which you can only stab. There are lots of rules, like right-of-way, that determine whose point is was when both lights come on simultaneously, but I'm not really going to go into them. It's really complicated, and there are too many for me to list right now. A director mediates the bout, and his/her call is final, unless one fencer concedes. If you're incredibly lucky, you can argue until the director abstains from call, but arguing typically just puts him in a bad mood. Screaming after every point is highly encouraged, even if you're not sure the point was yours. You may influence the director, but the real purpose is to scare people and reap the benefits of a much-needed release.

Tournaments are huge. Women's sabre is the smallest event in all age groups, and that averages 120 people per event (one event example is Y14 (age group) women's sabre). Most fence in multiple evens because regarding age groups, you can fence in your own or any above your age group. Events can also be divided by rank (some require you to have at least a B, C, or D rank. You're ranked A,B,C,D,E,or U for unranked). You start with pools, which are groups of 5-8 determined by seed where you fence every person to 5 points. This determines your seed for DEs (direct eliminations). DEs are bouts to 15, where you fence until you either lose a bout or win the tournament. Top 8 medal.

So that's fencing. It's complicated, but it's a lot of fun. Since I left, I've thought about it every day. My coach changed my life, and I am forever indebted to him.

Anorexia

I am not the usual suspect when it comes to eating disorders. What are the characteristics you think of when you think of an anorexic? Of course she's terrified of what people think of her appearance. She cares about making herself more beautiful. About looking better than the people around her because the thinner the better. You know what? I hate those assumptions. I'm extremely self-assured, and I've never particularly cared about what other people think about me, especially my face and figure. Sometimes I'm flat-out arrogant. My anorexia came out of something completely different.

I remember the trigger. In the book Ender's Shadow, the main character Bean observes of the other children that they are fat-never missed a meal in their lives. At this time I was both fencing in every spare second of my time and running track. I looked at myself in the mirror and realized my soft features. I wasn't fat by any stretch of the imagination (this was the strongest point in my life, physically, anyway). Unless you compared me to say, children in Darfur. I've always been extremely sensitive, and I was struck by my very selfishness. Who am I to eat 2500 calories per day when these kids are lucky to eat a full meal?

I wish I could say that my self-inflicted starving was some noble form of asceticism, but I can't. That was the trigger, but my disease was ultimately a symptom of a deeper problem. I have obsessive-compulsive disorder. My obsession? Food. Restricting my intake, specifically. That's just my strongest one, but by no means the only. OCD haunts you at every moment of your life. Without my medication, I don't even sleep because my obsessions will keep me up at night.

So why am I telling you this? Because I am sick of people calling things anorexic when they're thin. It's a serious disease, and it drives me insane. People see eating disorders as something that happen to rich selfish celebrities. It's not, and it would be really nice if people would stop treating it with suck a lack of seriousness.

Also, I get incredibly frustrated when people claim that psychology-related drugs keep you from being who you truly are. Mine saved my life. I don't like taking them. I've tried to go off of them, but I can't. I am physically incapable of functioning properly without my meds. This is not a question of making me feel better; it's a matter of living.

So thats my random blog.

Gender

Gender is an interesting subject for me. Though I lack a penis, in my mind I view myself as male. I prefer male pronouns, though I understand that some feel too uncomfortable to use them and it leads to excessive amounts of confusion. Plus, I am required to keep myself looking "presentable" if I want to keep my hair chopped. Why? Because chopped hair is a guy thing. Because ladies don't wear baggy, ripped pants or flannel shirts no matter how comfy they are. Because young women never go to bed with wet hair and walk into school with stray clumps of hair shooting toward the ceiling. Because girls always give a damn about how they look because no matter how intelligent, sensitive, qualified, or whatever you are, you will still be judged by your appearance, and dammit, I'm sick of that bullshit. This is what is dealt to me when I don't look as nice as the girls who spend $100 per pair of jeans. I've been wearing the same pair of pants since 6th grade; when they get holes, I sew them up. They're still good.

Though the primary influences in my life would argue that the plastic life is the life of a girl, I learned my gender roles from other sources. For as long as I'm stuck with this body, with its feminine curves and delicate features, I refuse to accept that I have to obey the roles. I don't remember where I learned the new and fascinating concept that you don't have to eat what was shoved down your throat. The traditional gender roles have simply always triggered my gag reflex. I've always admired the feminists throughout history, and I've constantly found myself the only representative of my sex in a variety of situations. The only thing I mind about this is that people assume that my gender is in agreement with my plumbing, and it results in conflicts. Special attention is unwanted here. I'm just as man as they are, though I will never be able to make that clear.

You can take back your plaster/make-up, those awkward dresses, those ankle-snapping stilettos. I'm a man whether you like it or not.

Media

The way Ortiz Cofer is perceived both in Puerto Rico and the U.S. directly relates to the media. This is the venue in which the concept of beauty is defined. In each place, her skin makes her stand out because it contrasts with what the people in the area are used to in the media. In fact, her race is defined according to where she resides: white in Puerto Rico, Latina in the States. In the media, those thought to be "pretty" did not have chicken pox scars on their faces, so when he skin became marked, Ortiz Cofer no longer regarded herself as beautiful. The most glamorous people in each ares had more substance to them than skin and bone, and her desired body type was that of Wonder Woman, the paragon of a body filtered through the media. Later, when she is asked out by a white boy, his father says that he cannot date her. The father's view of Puerto Ricans being rats was a media image, though he claimed it was from his personal experience. The way people react to Ortiz Cofer and how she sees herself directly relate to what the media portrays as beautiful.

Same-Sex Marriage

I believe that everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love regardless of sex. Seeing as I am personally affected by this, I am extremely biased, but that is not the only reason. "Making it official" really gives people a more committed feeling. That's not to say that two men or two women living together aren't in a committed relationship just as gratifying as a married man and women, but psychologically, it can be extremely important to some people. Aside from that, there are also huge amounts of legal benefits that come with marriage. In the article we read, there was an example about a woman who was unable to be in the room to support her partner/wife when she was giving birth to their child. Even though the doctors were aware of the fact that the woman was going to be the mother of this child, they would not allow her in because they weren't legally married. Really important issues like death and health are affected by marriage laws. I just can't understand how one person can look at another and say, "You do not deserve these rights because you fell in love with the wrong person, and you are living the wrong life." The exact same quote could have been used when interracial marriage was in debate. Now if you said a black person couldn't marry a white person, you would be ostracized by society.

However, though I believe that the government has no right to deny this to a couple for something that they were born being on the basis of religion, I think that a church should have the option of refusing to marry a couple. Separation of church and state means that the Bible should stay out of the laws, but I understand that some people will never be able to get past their prejudices. The benefits of marriage come with a legal certificate. Determining whether or not to preform the religious ceremony should be up to the individual congregations.

Marriage

Wolfson begins this reading with an extended definition of marriage to show how integral it is to our culture, global culture, and historical culture. Marriage has almost always existed, and everywhere there are people, there is a form of marriage. His main points are that marriage is a way to declare to society that you are in a committed, loving relationship, gain indispensable legal benefits, and to feel more as one with your partner.

I think that his definition is logical and complete, but it feels as though the reading is very weighted. Except for the last paragraph, Wolfson writes assuming that all people want to be married. He makes it seem as though without marriage, your loving relationship is incomplete, which though for many is true, there are also many who are happy with their own autonomy within the relationship. He does not push the fact, but to a minor extend I feel like he invalidates the relationships of non-married people with no intent to marry. He also assumes that all who marry have good marriages. I know couples who had lived together for years and broke up within months of "making it official." He doesn't account for the fact that despite claiming unconditional commitment, people do lie, cheat, and abuse.

It Takes a Family

Dr. Horn compares raising a child to boarding a plane. One plane always reaches the destination, while the other makes it most of the time. Santorum uses this analogy to explain why a mother-father family is important. He argues that though it is possible to raise a child with only one parent (the plane that mostly makes it), the child will best succeed in a mom-dad household (the plane that always makes it).

I think it's interesting the Santorum never gives a "why" to his argument. Using the plane analogy, this is because there is both a mother and a father flying the vehicle, but he never says why they fly it better than a single mom or dad. He provides more than enough facts to make his argument, but no evidence of how they do it better other than that's just what he believes. He also fails to account for the fact that if too much attention is given to the child, (s)he'll become coddled and spoiled. (S)he will be unable to fend for his/herself once (s)he reaches the real world because in ever given situation there has been an overly-devoted parent there to hold his/her hand.

Also using the plane analogy, it would seem as though two men or two women could fly the plane just as adequately as one man and one woman. I feel like this analogy undermines his whole argument in "The Meaning of Family." Unless of course, he applies the "liberal marriage" factor that he proposed. By his logic, because homosexuals are in relationships strictly for sexual desire, they would be unable to fly the plane because each would be too preoccupied on pleasing him/herself instead of landing the child safely. According to him, only a married mother and father would be capable of the selfless love needed to fly the plane.

Appearances

Vazquez waits to disclose the fact that Brian and Mickey were heterosexual victims of homophobic violence because she was aware of the fact that the reader would automatically assume that each was gay. In an article that is clearly about violence against the gay community, the reader would simply accept that the article would use examples of gays getting hurt for their sexual orientation. However, the fact that she discloses this fact makes the examples far more shocking. A straight reader would likely be less inclined to protest homophobic violence because it is outside of their little bubbles; it's the stuff that happens out there instead of right here. By informing the reader that Brian and Mickey were straight, Vazquez gives the gravity of her argument significantly more weight. She instills the idea that everyone is a victim, particularly if they happen to be gender deviants. Antigay violence is not only an issue of prejudice against a minority, but also is sets back all motions toward gender equality.

When heterosexuals can be victims of gay violence, it becomes clear that society is not yet prepared to accept "manly" women and "girly" men. It means that to an extent, the genders are expected to stay in the cultural spheres dictated by their sex. Women may as well all be housewives, vacuuming in their heels and house pearls while men go off to do manly jobs and earn manly pay checks. Expanding the horizon of antigay violence to straights makes the lack of equality for men and women, gays and straights, far more ominous.

Transcendentalism

Eustace Conway was not a transcendentalist. He shared many transcendentalist views, but he was searching to achieve a different purpose. Eustace may have had an extreme reverence for nature, but his perception was not the lofty spiritual sort of take the transcendentalists had on it. Yes, he understood that nature was perfect with everything in its place, but he didn't care to ponder its higher meaning. He was utilizing it, both to achieve his goals and to survive. He was at a more gruesome, basic level than the transcendentalists, though he was a spiritual being. Additionally, Eustace Conway lacked the focus on the individual. He wished that society were different, but he longed to be a part of it. His pining after his father's affections, as well as the love of a female mate reflect how his actions were based on things other than self-gratification. If he were not so focused on pleasing his father, he may not have excelled at so many achievements.

I think that Gilbert sees Eustace as more of a pioneer than a transcendentalist. She saw him as someone who wanted to ensure that the wilderness survived, but he was also there to take advantage of its resources and survive using only the skills so that he could accomplish what he needed himself. Instead of finding spiritual truth, Eustace was looking for personal betterment through physical deeds and risky adventures. I agree with this.

Nature-Emerson

"The stars awaken a certain reverence, because though always present, they are inaccessible; but all natural objects make a kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence."

This line means that in order to truly have a connection with nature, one must make himself accessible. No matter how hard he tries, he will never be able to reach the stars. However, if he opens himself to them, they will reach for him. This is true of all components of nature, but today, man no longer has the desire or the care to be a part of the natural world. Man lives artificially; his clothing is synthetic, he lives in climate-controlled boxes, and no longer even has to walk anywhere if he doesn't want to. He is not open to nature because in the modern world, this is no longer necessary. The path to understanding nature is not to scientifically analyze it for its worth; one must simply open himself to it, and allow himself to become family.

"Most persons do not see the sun. At least they have a very superficial seeing. The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and the heart of the child."

This means that as we grow older, we lose the desire to connect with the natural world. As children, we have not yet been conditioned to reside strictly within or fake, synthetic boxes, and instead feel open and comfortable with nature. Because the children are more open to it, they have made themselves accessible. They are ready to experience nature's influence. I actually see this today. If you look outside at the park on a beautiful summer day, I see little kids bouncing around, just happy to be outside playing. Their parent sits to the side reading a book or the newspaper. I recently saw a survey that said one of teenager's biggest criticisms of their parents was their disregard for "going green"-type things, and a piece of me wonders if this is the reason why.

Gilbert's Reason: Last American Man

I think that Elizabeth Gilbert wrote The Last American Man partially to spread the idea that being one with nature is the best way to live. However, she does not do this by glorifying Eustace Conway’s life. On pg 264, she records a conversation she had with Conway regarding building a snowman. Conway was unable to even consider making a snowman without taking a pragmatic approach. He spent a long time just weighing the worth of this seemingly trivial activity. He decided that the fun was not worth the cost of time or the carrot for its nose. She instead chooses to glorify the ideal that everyone cannot look past when considering Eustace Conway as a human being. On the next pg, Gilbert writes, "The best man that Eustace can be is the man he becomes when he's alone in the woods." Later, she even confronts him about it, asking him why he cannot just live in harmony in nature and not engage in the activities that cause him so much stress. Every time he has to try to convert multiple people to living his lifestyle, he becomes miserable. Social interaction (when with the average, or even above-average modern American) brings out the worst in Eustace. However, when he is truly communicating with nature, without having to care about how incompetent other human beings are, he experiences his own bliss.

Gilbert does not want everyone to abandon their homes and jobs for the sake of the woods, but I think she adamantly believes in the Pacos Bill/Paul Bunion/Daniel Boone stories of the rugged manhood that can only be experienced outside of the comfort of our boxes. I think that she believes that we would be living truer lives if we could better understand our reliance on the nature around us, and she wrote the book to try to communicate this to people.

Black Boy: Morality

I don't think Richard was ever really taught morality. He was influenced, but was really the one responsible for figuring out what he believed was moral and what was not. On a base level, he learned what not to do because when he did it, he was beaten by his parents. That's not really a question of morality, though; that's just behaving according to the rules of the household. In school, no one really made an attempt to teach him morality, aside from the fact that he as a black man should step aside for the white man. His relatives and a few people at school tried to bring religion to him, but though he wanted to participate, he could never really fully believe. Richard is very much an observer through the book. He's able to step back and observe peoples' actions and their reasons for doing them. I think this is how he was able to assemble his own systems of beliefs. I don't think that Richard's journey to discovering his own sense of morality really relates to the article because he essentially developed it himself.

Comparing Richard's journey to "Schools and Moral," Richard is like the Catholics. Though he represents a minority, he deeply desires others to behave according to his beliefs, such as treating everyone equally regardless of race. However, he's up against the Protestants: white people who assert their authority and the black people who smile and nod. Each time he petitions to a higher power to even gain an ounce of support, the will of the majority reigns. Racism, like Protestantism, was at the time an intrinsic value of American life. To come up against it was futile without changing the minds of the majority.

Wright's Realization

At the end of the novel, Wright discovers that none are living a "human life." The blacks, as well as the whites, were lost about how humans should live, and because of this, both groups were miserable.

I agree with this to an extent. The blacks were certainly miserable. I can't judge how miserable the whites were. It's likely that many knew that what they were doing was wrong, but being raised that way for their entire lives would lull them into complacency. Many would be so convinced of the inferiority of blacks that they would truly believe that their behavior was acceptable-and it was in the time period. I don't think that the whites were miserable because as far as they were concerned, they were acting humanly. They didn't see the blacks as being as human as they, therefore, they felt justified in treating them poorly.

However, there is always the possibility of there being a few tortured, white souls who knew that they were doing wrong but continued to act. These are the people that Wright was discussing. They were trapped within their time.

Artists and Politicians

I disagree that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles. Wright writes that the artists "enhances life by his prolonged concentration upon it," and the politician attempts only to place men into categories regardless of their personal feelings. This is not true because both individuals take on these traits. Books and paintings are often directed to specific audiences. The artist attempt to draw his chosen emotional response from he chosen group of people, which means that he has targeted a category. The politician does the exact same thing. While campaigning, President Obama spoke to audiences, changing his message according to the crowd. Politicians often spend their whole lives trying to understand what the people need to figure out how to change it, just as artists try to discover this and have it reflect through their work.

Wright thinks of himself as an artist, but he is putting men into categories, which is what he criticizes politicians for doing. He believes that an artist is not a politician and a politician is not an artist. This demonstrates how similar politics and art are according to his definition.

One Voice

I think that one voice can move a crowd to action provided some other details. The masses would have to have faith that the person had some sort of power; Young succeeded in causing such a strife because the group believed that he was receiving word from a higher authority. Additionally, the crowd must at least somewhat agree with the person. Not only did Young represent an authority, but also he seemed to be an ardent supporter of something they already believed in. Were he a Republican trying to have influence over the Communists, they would probably have just ignored him.

When speaking of a larger group of people, that "one person" would ultimately not be a single individual. If a group is trying to change the world, it needs a representative to serve as a face for them. Say for the Communists, that's Pamela Anderson. Pamela Anderson will give speeches, talk to papers and TV stations, and sign the books she wrote, but it won't be her who's making people rise to action. The real power is in her colleagues because they are the ones whose ideas she's spreading. Pamela Anderson could know nothing about Communism other than what the true believers have written for her to say into the mic, but whenever people think of the party, they'll think of her. One person cannot be responsible for calling people to action, but the group who is responsible needs a face to put on their message if they want to be remembered.

American Culture According to Wright

In the parentheses on pages 272 and 273, Wright describes how in order for the black man to be on par with the white man, there would need to be a complete social upheaval. He writes that America is too fresh for such a change that is needed to occur. Though America depends on the black man's labor, it has been so long an integral part of American civilization that she will not soon be willing to bend for him.

I am particularly intrigued by the last two paragraphs of this passage. He describes the life of a black man as having a deeper emotional connection to the world in contrast to the flighty, superficial white women he works with. While the girls prance around fantasizing about radios and famous people, he must endure each day with the burden of his race's solitude. That is interesting to me because in a different part of the chapter, Wright writes that African Americans have been turned into the image the whites project onto them. It seems like the reaction to such oppression would have far more variation than that. Wright's suffering bores into his existence, completely consuming him. Others would likely be absorbed by the ignorant, smiling character, becoming nothing more than a shell of a human being; these individuals would feel nothing. Both scenarios would be utter torture. However, I think Wright is correct; America was not ready for the transition. I don't think it's ready now, in 2009, either. Much of what he said in that passage holds true today, though generally to a far lesser extent.

Change

I am unsure of whether or not the change at the end of part one is positive or not.

Wright is finally moving away from the South. He is one of the few who is able to escape the treacherous environment of the South, but in doing so he abandons the only life he has ever known. The factor of the unknown is what could potentially make this a negative change. There are no promises of whether or not life will improve as he moves north, and unless he is able to quickly befriend someone, he will be unaware of the customs of that environment. If he makes the mistake of addressing a white man as any other person when it is not typical to do so, he could still be risking everything. Wright is also temporarily leaving his mother, which although he has done so before, could compound on his sense of being lost. However, if life in the North really turns out to be how he imagines it, then it is obviously a positive change. Ultimately, Wright is just taking a gamble.

Subservience

As much as it goes against my core beliefs, I'd have to say that there are instances in which one must accept a subservient position. Richard Wright, as a black man in the South, would have to conform to the world the white people constructed for him lest he endanger himself and his associates. It has been proven that such powerful things as racism can be overcome, but not for one single man. Wright can see all around him people just wanted to fall in line and obey. Harrison is perfectly willing to fight for $5 even if it means he's a puppet to his white coworkers. Griggs encouraged Wright to ask as the ignorant, complaisant black man the white people envisioned him to be. Without a single ally on his side, Wright would have no hope in overthrowing the conglomerate force of Jim Crow, even if only for a brief moment that he could obtain a glimpse of opportunity. He is given a choice: he could either be content being a second-class citizen and try to work his way up from there (a la Booker T. Washington), he could leave the South, or he could die.

Even outside of the 1920's South there are instances in which subservience is necessary, but only when there is clearly an intellectual barrier. As a student, I am subservient to my teacher simply because I do not know as much about the subject as he or she does. However, today that subservience is (*cough yeah right cough*) never based on anything other than merits or experience assuming that all had equal opportunity.

Coping With the White World

By saying that he had begun "coping with the white world too late, " RIchard meant that he had not been accustomed to being subservient to white people at an early enough age. When he was young, his mother never discussed race with him, and he rarely had encounters with whites. The idea o being a second-class citizen is something that has to either be born or broken into a person; he can't simply change his habits after he's become a young adult.

This is shown when he is walking out of the hotel with a black, female, coworker. The white security guard touches her inappropriately, but the woman makes no move to stop or reprimand him. Richard is aghast by this, but she replies by saying that it's just the way it is. She is not nearly as offended as Richard because she has grown up in the face of white prejudice.

Again this is shown while Richard watches his peers steel from white people. They steel partially because they need the resources, but also because it's their way of hurting the whites. Richard abstains from this practice not because he's morally against thievery, but because he can look at the behavior from a distance and understand that it doesn't matter. It plays into the system more to resort to petty theft because it means that they are not thinking on a higher level. He has not been conditioned to see little victories against white people as the only way to get something from them. He wants more; he wants to be able to honestly stand up for what's right, which strongly contrasts with what his complacent peers believe.

Valedictorian Speech

Wright was absolutely justified in refusing to recite the pre-written speech at his graduation. The only reason he was asked to read the new speech was because the principal wanted to please the white audience members. The fact that it was Wright's ambition to become a writer only made that request more insulting. It was within his rights to be able to reflect on his personal feelings as a student at this school rather than spit out what was designed to impress the audience. As Wright said on page 177, though the principal's speech was more lucid, Wright's said exactly what he wanted to say.

However, just because it was morally the right choice doesn't make it the smartest option. Throughout this book, Wright has been getting into trouble with authority figures. Normally I would see his resistance honorable, but under the circumstances he was in, it would be safer to make friends. Without a single ally, to rebel is only to willingly sacrifice without getting anything out of it for anyone other than your own sense of pride. Had he a friend who agreed with him that it was wise to recite his own speech, I think that it would have been better.

Uncle Tom

In chapter six, Uncle Tom asks Wright the time after he has woken him up by making noise in the kitchen. When Wright tells him, he asks if that's correct, to which Wright responds, "If it's a little slow or fast, it's not far wrong." This greatly offends Tom, and after yelling at Wright, he promptly goes to the back yard to make a switch.

Wright is angry with Uncle Tom because he knows that he has done nothing wrong. He writes that he does not want to be beaten for speaking as he does to everyone else, and he fails to understand why his response enraged Tom so. I don't understand why Tom got so mad, either. A part of me wants to liken him to the dog in chapter seven that the workers through bricks at so often that he developed a mean temper, but that's probably completely off.

Anyway, later in the book, Wright writes that he refuses to bow down to an authority that he doesn't agree with, and he eventually comes to question this. Every time he asks to many questions, he is scolded or punished. However, the fight with Uncle Tom comes before he is debating his judgement. He was angry because he knew fully well that he was innocent, and if he wasn't, he was completely unaware of what he did wrong.

Sharing Writing

After sharing his story, Wright feels gratified, despite the fact that in his family's world, there was "nothing more alien than writing or the desire to express one's self in writing." In fact, I would say that that's one of the reasons he feels so gratified. Through his entire life, especially in the period of life he's in in chapters 4 and 5, he has been prevented from expressing himself. When he is in an environment where he's allowed to, hunger and poverty prevents him from doing so. At the times where physical demands have been met for the most part, he has been forced to succumb to Granny's will. Under her roof, the only written words that aren't blasphemous are found in the Bible. By jotting down his story, Wright is finally able to do something that is strictly for himself.

However, sharing it is what makes it so valuable to him. For his entire life, Wright has not been encouraged to develop his intellectual skills. He is either uprooted too quickly or is in an environment not conducive to learning. When Wright finally shares a piece of work that he made and sees that his audience is impressed, iit is the first time that he is able to really take pride in something that he has done.

Paralysis

When Wright initially learns of his mother's paralysis, he reacts coldly. He immediately understands that he can no longer be as a child anymore, and he also feels a need to distance himself from her in the event of her death. Additionally, her illness exposes to him the dependancy that he resented so much. I think that he subconsciously realized how much of a child he was at the moment that he had to surrender his childhood.

After staying at his Uncle's house for a while, Richard begs to return to his mother. However, when he gets there, he writes, "I ached to be of an age to take care of myself." It's as if longs to be free, but on a deeper level feels the bonds of family and childhood.

When treatment failed, Richard began to emotionally cut himself off from his mother. If this were of an historical account, that would likely be because he was taking protective measures for himself in case he lost her. However, he then writes that his "mother's suffering gew into a symbol...[for] all the poverty, the ignorance, the helplessness, the...hunger-ridden days...the uncertainty, the fear, the dread; the meaningless pain and the endless suffering." By removing himself from he mother, he emotionally detached himself from both his suffering and the suffering of his race that had no cause. There was no way to deny its existence, but hardening himself to it could help him bear the pain.

"Cultural Heritage"

Richard Wright describes his prejudice against Jews as his "cultural heritage." In Sunday School he was taught that the Jews were "Christ killers," and therefore the children were justified, sometimes even encouraged, to persecute them.

At the end of chapter 2, Wright has just begun to grasp the concept and consequences of the racial struggle. However, at the time he was learning to hate Jews, he did not yet comprehend what was really happening. The adults in his life did. Black people always saw their race being discriminated against in every aspect of life. They could find only menial jobs, and the pay was significantly less than a white person in the same position. Poverty was everywhere, as was danger. The Jew was a white man who could rank below the black man. He was hated by others, just as others hated the black man. A persecuted population will often seek out a lesser population to persecute because it will feel like things are being evened out. Wright's Granny was an extremely religious Christian, and so calling the Jews "Christ killers" could sound justified.

Hunger

Wright is hungry for attention. From the first chapter, it appears that he has never had a truly constructive relationship. On page 16, he writes that he associated his hunger with his father. This was directly after his father abandoned him. The hunger persisted as his mother worked long hours and could not care for her children. His need for human interaction is expressed in his exploration of saloons and bars. At first he resisted the men, knowing that he was breaking the rules, but as he drank, even as a 6-year-old, he was able to find release and affection by doing as the drunkards asked. When he learned obscene phrases from the older students at school, Wright lashed out and wrote them across the windows of the buildings around his house. Actions like these are common among children who do not get the attention they need at home;negative attention is better than none at all. It is reflected again when he associates "hunger and fear" with the orphanage. The orphanage was where he was again abandoned by his mother. Wright's hunger for a caring figure manifests itself as physical hunger. No matter how much he eats, he would be unable to quiet his gargling stomach, unless the food was given to him out of love by a trusted person.

Against School

I believe that school is a necessity for childhood development in the modern world. Gatto discusses only the factory-like mongo schools, and I found it hard to even take his argument seriously after his first couple of paragraphs. When a teacher is engaging, the students automatically become engaged. Regardless of how interested they are in a particular subject, the teacher can draw them into the lesson. If the teachers are just as bored as the students, they either need to change their curriculum or find a different job.

The historic examples of unschooled individuals may seem like a good foundation from his argument, but these were extraordinary people. Many of those whose names are now extremely well-known came from wealthy families who had time to teach their kids how to read and write. The majority of uneducated people, both then and now, spend their entire lives doing labor only to disappear from history forever.

Today, I would expect a leader to have had elementary school, high school, college, and hopefully graduate school. School is needed to provide basic understanding of basic concepts, like math and history, but also it provides a social foundation. Where would a future political leader practice his or her executive skills if he did not have an environment to work off of? A school gives him or her access to resources and presents issues that he would be able to try to solve. Even if we're talking about artists, this is true. On page 155, the quotes says that the educational system is designed to "put down dissent and originality." An artist or a writer would have resources that he or she might otherwise not be able to obtain without the school. He would not only have materials, but also influences to inspire his ideas. Peers, teachers, and books provide a constant flow of information with which a student can develop more sound opinions about issues, including dissenting theories.

Lastly, without a basic knowledge of things, nothing can ever progress. Students need to learn first year biology so that they may build upon it until they reach the intellectual glass ceiling. Until that point of knowledge is reached, a person cannot hope to discover something further. That applies to any subject, but particularly science. School gives kids a place to discover what they truly want to learn more about, helping them to make educated decisions of what they want to do with their lives.

Extracurricular Education

I chose my high school based on the value of its extracurricular education programs. Yes, academics played a minor role, but I selected based on the assumption that I would be able to find a rigorous program at almost any high school. I believe that the majority of learning in grades 9-12 occurs outside of the conventional classrooms. Precalculus is important, but I think that while you're just sitting watching a teacher write stuff of the white board, you're not learning much that will be useful when you reach the real world. Even if you're an engineer and need to know a lot about math, you won't be very successful if you can't work with others or express your ideas. P.E. helps teens learn to support each other; those that are good at soccer often stop to help those that aren't. If you have to do pull-ups assisted, you really have to trust the person spotting you, and you have to communicate about how you're feeling. Art allows you to explore your creativity. Not only do you have to learn what you're feeling, but also you have to learn how to express that feeling to any stranger who walks by your painting. Clubs are valuable because they encourage learning after school hours and help in building intimate relationships and self-esteem. I value my extracurricular education because there is so much in the world outside of UHS that doesn't relate to things you can learn in a text book.

Rhetoric Presentations

Many of the pieces of rhetoric people found were interesting, but a few stood out to me. The photo of the two boys on the basketball team was something that I wouldn't have even thought to take a picture of. I guess I'm just used to seeing them wearing ties on game days because it never occurred to me that that it was a form of rhetoric. I also liked Annalee's interpretation of the window sill at our school.

Something that this project showed me was how often we are exposed to rhetoric that we don't even register as being rhetoric. The window sill is just something I sit on to do my homework, and I see the basketball team wearing ties all the time. If I'm in Carmel and I drive by a brick McDonalds, I might think, "Huh, that McDonalds is posing as a friendly place to hang out," but nothing much more.

Framing Class

I think that the question of whether the media mirrors or shapes society is sort of a chicken or the egg question. To appeal to its viewers, the media would have to display things that its targeted audience would accept and be comfortable with. If people didn't relate to the images being projected, they would have no interest in the product/show/whatever. However, that comfort level is not always indicative of reality. For example, professional models sell body care products. People don't generally look like models in real life, but they want to see beautiful products on TV. Maybe that product makes you beautiful like her? You should buy it and see if it does.

The same principle works for social inequality. Being rich is good, and if you have a lot of junk you will feel fulfilled because you'll have everything you'd ever want. Being poor is bad, so if we depict homeless people as inebriated losers, we'll feel better about ourselves. This is the big guys selling to an audience. We fear poverty and want to emulate celebrities, so it makes sense that the class extremes would be portrayed that way. Class depictions in the media may not consciously alter our perceptions, but I think they do help subconsciously stimulate stereotypes. In movies, the homeless guy is always a shabbily dressed black male, so when people happen to see someone who fits that description, they automatically lock their doors, even though he could just be taking his recyclables out to the curb in his pajamas. On the other end of the spectrum, all people who dress nicely could be perceived as selfish and conceited.

I do believe that watching TV leads people to rack up more credit card debt. Commercials show the sexiest brand of car they have, and when you walk in the door, you want THAT car, not that junker that's half the price. Ads encourage impulse buys: "Hm, I'm hungry. Doritos sound really good right now, but all I have in the house is celery. I'll go out and buy some Doritos." However, desire to emulate the upper classes is not a new thing. Even before the American Revolution, the "middle class" was always searching out the stuff that will make them feel richer than their neighbors. I just think that being constantly exposed to advertisements triggers this yearning more strongly.

Rhetoric on the Town

My first photo is of a place called Marsh Hometown Market by my house. This used to be called LoBill. I think the area I live in is pretty nice, but I do have several friends who call my area the ghetto (ahh, private school). It's not an unsavory place, but it's no Carmel or Zionsville. Hometown Market sure sounds more welcoming than LoBill, and it also doesn't sound like it's a discount Marsh outlet (which it is). I guess this new choice of visual rhetoric worked because I see a lot more cars there than I used to.

Second, I have a Taco Bell. Just an ordinary Taco Bell right across the street from Marsh Hometown Market. I included this because everyone knows that Taco Bell is not Mexican food, and yet it still makes an attempt at looking a little Mexican on the outside. It has imitation adobe exterior in a sort of curvy shape.

After this I drove to Zionsville. There's a Burger King attached to a Village Pantry here. They've got wood slat-type things covering the outside. The signs aren't anything like the flashy neon lights you usually see on fast food and convenience stores. The Village Pantry could almost pass as a local market type thing.

Right above Tasty's Gift Shop (which I took a photo of) is a large billboard with a baby cradled in somebody's hands. The words read "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Regardless of your opinion on abortion, you will probably acknowledge that a fetus looks nothing like the baby that eventually comes out. However, fetuses aren't nearly as cute as the finished product, so whoever paid for this billboard chose a baby.

I took a few other pictures, but these are my best ones, I think.

Under the Sign of Mickey Mouse

Gitlin says that although there is incentive for companies to release their media on a global scale, it would not be able to succeed if there weren't a desire for it in other countries. He writes that American goods represent being part of an "empire of informality," but also that it's not really America that's spreading; it's just entertainment. The formulas for entertainment are universal, and people of all culture enjoy taking part in it.

However, I disagree with him. Yes, I think it's possible that many people take part in these forms of entertainment because they're just fun, but the fact that they are there is indicative of a more veteratorian idea. The only aspects of America that spread are massive corporations, which ultimately represent the loss of individuality even within American citizens. By moving in to new cultures, they risk creating a homogenous world. Diffusion of ideas across cultures is often a good thing, but with an empire like the United States, the exchange is pretty one-way. Just as Walmart drives away local business in the surrounding areas here, it does the same thing there. Sure, the movies can be fun, but I also don't think it's the place of an American giant to destroy small businesses around the world in addition to those on our own land.

Save the Words!

A friend referred me to the site SaveTheWords.org. Here, you click on words and they give you the definition. If you like the word, you adopt it. This means you have to try to use it as much as possible to prevent it from phasing out of the dictionary. For anyone who's read Feed, it's essentially what Violet's dad does. So to get the word out, so to speak, here are the latest words I've adopted lately:

Veteratorian: Subtle

Temerate: To break a bond or promise

Keleusmatically: In a demanding manner

Check out the site!

Two Ways A Woman Can Get Hurt

According to Kilbourne, it is dangerous to depict women and men as sex objects because treating a human as a thing instead of an equal makes it far easier to exploit him or her. However, objectification of women is far more dangerous because "there is a context of systematic and historical oppression." Oppression of women is by no means a new concept, and allowing it to be perpetuated by the media only confirms that it still exists. Not only does it confirm it, it reinforces it. Even if on a subliminal level, women develop the notion that they are inherently submissive to men, and they are powerless in a struggle against them. Conversely, men are told that it is their place to force a woman into her proper role, and that if she denies him, she isn't really serious.

Although I mostly agree with Kilbourne, I think that she may have been reading too much into a couple of these ads. On page 432, there's an ad depicting two young girls. I could kind of see the sexual aspect, but I see equally two girls playing dress up and pretending to be models. As a little girl, I probably did that once or twice. I have the same opinion of the "Very Cherry" ad. Both my sister and I had cherry-covered dresses when we were little, and I bet if I scrounged through my sister's lip gloss drawer I could find multiple Very Cherry tubes. Yeah, cherries can represent other stuff, but to a little girl, it's just a cute fruit. For the next ad, you see toddler bums all the time. For most people, they represent youth and freedom, not sexuality. I also thought it was pretty clear that the shadow boxer was boxing with his own shadow.

Obviously many of these are offensive. The Prada ad with a looming unseen character is terrifying. Blatantly tossing a naked Kate Moss onto a couch and tying up various other girls is extremely sexual, scantily clad females begging for the attention of a man who buys their product is absurd, but using images of attacks to promote a product is outlandishly inappropriate. Although the sexualization of women in ads bothers me, actively promoting violence against women can in no way be interpreted to be a good thing. It's just... unbelievable.

Why is football so boring?

"Men can take anything except the taste of diet cola...Pepsi Cola: the first diet cola for men."

Every single one of the commercials I've seen so far has been directed an men. One guy crunches a Dorito and that hot girl's clothes magically go away. Mr. Potato head gets some relief from his nagging, nit-picking wife when her mouth pops off. Check it out! If you use GoDaddy.com you can put two sexy females in a shower together.

Another observation: all football fans must love beer. Seriously, every other commercial is for beer, and all of those make sure you know one of two things. 1) Drinking this type of beer will give you super powers, or 2) Drinking this type of beer will enhance your manliness. If they don't talk about either of those, they mock men doing unmanly things. I would be lying if I said I wasn't amused by them, and they do a good job at catching the attention of their target audience, but still.

The manipulation techniques used in these ads are almost irritating. I've been reading a bunch of feminist books lately (by the way, I highly recommend Insurgent Muse by Terry Wolverton), so I've been hyper-aware of women being sexualized in the media. It seems like if a product were really that good, it wouldn't need to be supplemented by asserting manliness or depicting an either annoying or underwear-clad woman. The lack of originality is disheartening.

I'm probably also overly critical of this because I don't like watching football, so while they're playing, I'm dwelling on the ads I just saw.

The Bias of Language

Last semester, we discussed how language was the only medium through which humans could express their lives. Stories are necessities if we intend to leave any impact on the world behind us. The Bias of Language, the Bias of Pictures affirms this. It states that no matter how good a reporter's intentions may be, he will never be able to conceal his emotions from an event. Because events are, in essence, abstract, nothing concrete could possibly capture them. There is no such thing as an unbiased word.

Even if an unbiased report could be made, the inference of the reader would prevent it from actually being solely descriptive. The article provides the statement, "Manny Freebus is 5'8" and weighs 235 pounds," and then indicates that it is meant to be a "pure description," involving no, "judgments or inferences." The moment the reader comes across this sentence, and idea of Manny would pop into his head, and it is likely that he would imagine a man who eats an unhealthy amount of food. Unless the story is actually about Manny's glandular problem, the reader will assume what he will and get on with his life.

The article then goes on to say that a picture captures only a specific moment in time. I disagree. A picture can be a complete fabrication just as an oral report can. With today's modern technology, I could take a photo of Aladdin dressed as Big Foot in the forrest and sell the picture, allowing the buyers to assume its truth. Pictures can also aid a fabricated story. A photographer in favor of the war in Iraq could find a photo of a soldier lifting a young child from a bloody scene while one against it snaps the remains of an American soldier. Photos are equally as emotive as words, and have equal capacity for bias.