Walt

The top of the article makes the strongest visual argument, where it has the words, “why people think Walt Whitman makes chocolate candy.”  The name “Walt Whitman” is in a decorative font as if it were the logo for the name of a candy brand.  The image is essentially degrading or showing the pitifullness of the youth population that would make the mistake of thinking Walt Whitman was a candy company.  The imagery immediately points out the flaw in society that the arts are not stressed enough in schools.  Whitmans is actually a chocolate company, so the visual argument is almost a satirical situation where the author goes along with the misconception of Walt Whitman being a candy maker. 

The written part of the article does not make much of an argument outside of the first and final few sentences.  It is basically an article about Walt Whitman, his career, and what he did for poetry.  The article does not do a good job of convincing the reader that poetry or even Walt Whitman’s poetry is of great importance.  At the very end, the article claims that exposure to art enhances math and science skills.  This might be convincing and a good way to appeal to readers, but there is no evidence at all surrounding the sentence.  The article then claims that the kids would become more well-rounded adults.  However, that statement is based off the previous statement, which wasn’t supported.  So, the statement about adulthood is not backed by evidence either. 

The article contains other visual arguments that are rather humorous but not very convincing.  One image shows a chocolate with a bite out of it and says “too much of this won’t give you a stomach ache.”  The image is funny and slightly insulting to anyone that had made the mistake the article condemns.  The final visual article does nothing more than propel the current problem of lack of art.  It shows a brain divided up into pie shaped regions.  The smallest of the regions is labeled art.  That “chart” says nothing except for the obvious problem.  In other words, it lets people know what is wrong, but doesn’t let them know what the consequences might be or why it should be fixed.

Lifeboats

The main point that the author gives about lifeboats being a metaphor for the world is that life boats simply cannot carry everyone.  If you fill the boat beyond its capacity, it will sink, thus ruining everyones lives.  I can add to the metaphor in terms of the food bank.  Continuing to provide poor countries with food aid will keep the population up and allow high birth rates to continue.  Doing this would be like continually supplying oxygen tanks to those in the water who had grown tired of treading water.  It solves the problem immediately but keeps those in the water in a dire situation.  It has no relation to the metaphor, but the author feels that food banks are only for the benefits of large businesses by extracting tax money.  The immigration issue is similar to controlling who you would let onto the lifeboat, or whether or not you would let anyone onto the lifeboat at all.  Letting people on will simply bring down in some way or another those that are already aboard.  It would work at first but as time goes on, it would build up to a point where the population would struggle.  The author seems pretty content with allowing the troubled conditions of the the poor to check their growth until it is equal to that of the rich.  The rich are able to sustain themselves, but contributing to the poverty of other nations will only create more people in poverty.  This is due simply to the high birth rates of the poor.

RA #3

Matthew Quirk wrote an article for The Atlantic called “Blowback” which is, let’s say, a bit “quirky.” The reason it’s quirky is that it gives an entirely well researched article about wind power and then gives a final opinion in the last three lines of the paper, “The way to address our greenhouse-gas problems is not to champion wind or any other ‘silver bullet.’ It’s to pass a national carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, and let the market find the most efficient way to cut emissions and reduce our dependence on oil.” This statement in itself is the writer’s argument, and should be much more prominent in the article. Otherwise, the article is a mere report, although a good one. Because of the author’s failure to thoroughly convey his viewpoint on the overall situation for wind power, we can read his piece as an objective report. The fact that it has this objective tone, offering both positives and negatives of wind power, prevents alienation of an audience. No one reading will be opposed to his words as being “pro-wind” or “anti-wind.” Rather, the author is most in favor of an energy solution that is low-costing but also emissions free. He is quick to note that wind power is very high costing due to the inefficiency of harnessing its power. Most plants are from major towns, winds are at night, and winds usually do not happen on hot days. This inefficiency calls for backup power at plants, which usually use natural gas. This produces emissions. This all comes after the author proclaiming wind to be a renewable resource that he supports for energy. So he goes from supporting, to showing problems, and finally claims that he still supports perseverance in the research for maximizing the wind industry. He has a stance, but still shows both sides fairly enough to keep most readers satisfied. Lastly, this author has much credibility. He rattles off endless facts about wind energy levels, state laws, costs of power lining. The fact that he has so much information to share convinces the reader that he is fully researched in the subject and has evaluated important statistics.

RA #2

In his article Future Schlock, P.J. O’Rourke expresses his disappointment with a “House of the Future” at Disneyland in Anaheim.  The unimaginativeness of the house is a small temporary problem, but O’Rourke sees a much larger problem lying in American culture.  He feels like we have lots of technology to invent things and progress, but we are very unimaginative and do not produce enough art forms.  Resentment for this “House of the Future” is evident from the first line.  It is a short paragraph with short sentences that represent how at one point, he was “in love” with the House of the Future.  The brevity of the paragraph and sentences is a great indicator of the disdain that the author must have in the present. 

O’Rourke continues his description of the House, and why he enjoyed it.  He gives detailed descriptions that show the reader the previously held passion of the author.  O’Rourke’s descriptions demonstrate that this first (there’s another one) House of the Future was very fascinating to him.  It’s important that he shows the intriguingness of this house because it creates an even larger contrast when he describes the next House of the Future.

P.J. O’Rourke is a big fan of sarcasm.  He uses sarcasm and dry humor throughout the article mainly to keep the reader entertained.  It works for me, adding humor to a piece that still retains his important message.  The humor is evident in lines like this, “The only way you could tell a shopping center from a grade school from a minimum-security prison was by the amount of floodlighting and fence wire involved. “  It is also amusing to hear O’Rourke desribe the trip to Disneyland, calling it an Interstate 5 nightmare.  He went back partly to see the new House of the Future, which was part of a new exhibition called Tomorrowland.  O’Rourke has a sarcastic line about this as well, “Disney, displaying one of the greatest absences of irony on record, gave Tomorrowland a “retro” theme.”  Many other lines like this abound in the article, keeping the reader from feeling like he/she is reading a journal or receiving a socialogical culture lecture.

The second half of the article succeeds in making the reader feel like they have been in a situation similar to that of the author.  It’s a situation where you want to show someone something special, and you get there and its terrible.  The author took his daughter to Disneyland to see the “new” House of the Future, but it was closed for technical difficulties.  The story is easy for me to imagine in my head happening to me, or in a movie.  Parent and child look on as they see what they had come so far to see not be great after all. 

The one problem with O’Rourke’s article is the brief history-filled section at the bottom.  He uses history to illustrate his point about the imaginativeness of cultures or empires throughout history, but it comes at an awkward time in the article.  One feels like there should be concluding remarks, not new information.  Regardless, O’Rourke’s point about the failure of Americans to create is well understood.

The phrase “you had me at hello” may pertain to couples that fall in love, but as an interested reader, Joshua Green’s article had me at “really good marijuana.”  Its uncommon to have a sophisticated author begin a formal piece by speaking of “good weed” as in stuff pot lovers would crave.  The abnormality obviously works however, as I was sucked right into the article.  Luckily for me, the surprises did not stop there.  Green goes into detail about how he went to classes about and prepared for starting his own marijuana business in California.  The whole concept seemed very illegal and foreign to me, but in his scenario in California he can do everything legally.  Medical marijuana is legal there and the production of marijuana is a large business. 

            To an audience unfamiliar with the commonness of the legal weed business, Green has a great advantage.  Every statement concerning marijuana seems so outrageous that the reader just can’t help but read more about this author that cultivates weed.  Also for those of us out of touch, Green gives a rundown of the legality of marijuana cultivation in California.  He gives the can do’s and cannot do’s, and also stuff that is illegal but commonplace.  This sharing of information takes away slightly from the “excitement” of the author’s business but it establishes credibility of the author as one that knows the facts and where he stands in the law.  

            Green does keep up the interest level by continuing to explain the pot business as if it were any other business.  He describes the school, the professors, and necessary actions for starting the business.  He includes suggestions like hiding your stash and knowing different strains of marijuana.  Those suggestions are mildly amusing because they both make sense but are not the typical advice for starting businesses.  Green notes that the teachers were experts, and included an effective metaphor comparing the horticulturalist to Martha Stewart.

            Green’s final paragraph is an overall attempt to show that his Oaksterdam school of marijuana is close to all other institutions we are used to.  He notes that the school crest is modeled after that of Harvard.  Oaksterdam has big ambitions and seeks to end government persecutions.  When Green explains his schooling in manners that remind us of typical schooling, it makes readers feel like the school of marijuana he attends is a legitimate institution.  

Time in a Circle

Lightman narrates a “dream” of Einstein’s contemplating the possibility of time moving in a circle.  What he proposes is that every event that has ever happened, happened an infinite number of times before and will happen an infinite number of times in the future.  Time moves in a circle and cannot be stopped or begun.  The reason I have a problem with this idea is that I think it goes beyond the “coincidence” of history repeating itself.  History repeating itself usually refers to similar events having similar outcomes, like the Depression and the recent recession.  Lightman’s explanation of time in a circle insists that precisely every event happens the exact same way an infinite number of times.  What I also dislike about the proposition is that it does not explain how quickly time circles.  That would be hard to explain because it would be describing the speed of time in terms of time.  The way we humans interpret time makes us wonder where the time “restarts” or begins a second cycle.  We wonder whether the starting point on the track occurs after the creation of the universe.  I believe that Lightman is proposing not a world where society progresses and then is crushed and restarts again.  I think he is proposing a world where every previous event leads into a new event, which all lead back to each other.  I remember looking at a design in the bottom of a large bowl of water in Savannah while receiving a tour.  The lady showed it to us and asked us to trace the design in our minds.  I noticed that the design led me back to the same spot.  I said, “Wait a minute, where are you supposed to start?” And my friends around me said, “The point is that it doesn’t start anywhere because it always leads back to itself”.  There are unique points along the way in time but any of them could be considered the start or the end.

2009 State of the Readers

One thing I remember from last year’s class that gives me an overall state of where reading has gone in America is the number of kids that read graphic novels.  Statisticians were using that percent and adding it to the percent of kids that read regular books, and the result sum was still less than that of previous years, when there were not graphic novels.  The point is that even when including books that are primarily pictures, today’s youths are not reading as much as they used to.  What about adults? Similar declines and probably worse to come as the youth matures.  Nicholas Carr seems to think that the new Web world is what’s changing our abilities to read, and our abilities to think.  I agree with him, somewhat.  He gives examples of how the average person today has become more of a skimmer, mainly due to vigorous searching for specific information on the web.  He points out how the new “basic info” craving has carried over into newspapers which have started publishing summarized, shortened versions of articles.  What seemed most upsetting to Carr was he trouble he endured trying to read lengthy writing, such as a long article or a book.  He said his mind began to drift after a few pages.  Personally, I don’t think the web is the main cause.  I think it’s everything else around us.  The amount of convenience that every type of technology has allowed us makes humans expect to find something quickly and efficiently.  We crave immediate satisfaction, through the TV, music, cell phones, and often food.  The internet is just one aspect amongst many that, simply, distract from any ability to focus.  Patience is running low because everything comes so much faster these days.  Interest runs low.  Why would we read when we can chat with a friend or watch a show.  This isn’t just teenagers.  I see adults all the time falling into the same traps.  As far as the problems humans endure with reading today, I agree with Carr.  It is less frequent, more of a skimming fashion, and we cannot concentrate as long.

Solitude vs. Visitors

It’s interesting that these two chapters cold appear in the same book and be supported by the same author.  Regardless, Thoreau feels it necessary to talk about both these matters in Walden.  Solitude is what he enjoys most.  He enjoys being alone more than anything.  Whether it is in taking a hike, cultivating food, or reading a book, solitude is Thoreau’s preferred state of being.  However, let’s not discredit the enjoyment he takes out of certain visitors to his small house.  He says that he has had as many as 25 people in his house at one time.  He enjoyed it too.  The only thing he did not like about having so many people in his house was the fact that everybody’s words did not have enough time to travel from mouth to ear.  He notes that it is often a better method to communicate when he talks to someone from across the pond.  Thoreau does not enjoy visitors looking for charity.  Often, people would come and he would not serve them any food.  Thoreau enjoyed visitors that were interested in his ways yet still had their own opinions on the matter.  He tended to favor individualistic people, like the woodcutter.  Thoreau felt that being amongst a number of people, as at a formal dinner, is when people are the most alone.  Yet, when one man in a single field is occupied with a task, that is when he is most engaged.  In that sense, Thoreau is always engaged in solitude.  He performs, labor, reads, or soaks in the essence of his surroundings.  When he has visitors, he only has those that will not cause each other to start stumbling over one another.  While it may seem contradictory to support visitors and solitude, Thoreau’s version of the two go hand in hand, because in solitude one becomes connected to everything around him/her.

Reading about reading. Joy.

It is too general a statement to say that Thoreau supports reading.  Rather, Thoreau encourages a high level of reading.  He believes that in dealing with truth, humans are immortal.  It is through reading great classics in their original languages that humans can best find truth.  He believes it is worth it to learn even the smallest amounts of Greek, Latin, or any other ancient language just to be able to read parts of ancient classics in their original forms.  Thoreau believes that not all literate people can read.  There are certain levels of reading, and most literate people are only capable of low-level reading, that which appears in the newspapers and “little reading” books in the library.  Thoreau makes sure to make a distinction between being able to speak and hear a language and being able to read and write a language.  He proclaims that the latter is much more difficult yet more worthy a skill.  Thoreau thinks it is impossible for the ancient classics to be translated.  To translate them would change them, therefore they would not hold the same genius.   To go even further, Thoreau says that the works of great poets have never been read, even in their own language.  He believes that only poets are capable of reading their own poetry.  Lastly, Thoreau points out the lack of pursuit of knowledge through reading in society but also in his town.  He writes that people will go out of their way to attain money, but they will not learn to read at a higher level, which would in turn lead them to the higest source of wealth there is.  Thoreau believes that towns themselves could promote reading.  He feels it is wrong to have schools set up only for kids.  Why should adults not have opportunities to continue to learn as they age?  Instead of spending money on “useless” things, the town money should be raised to pay for intellectual advancement of the town.

Solitude

I think this is included in Walden as a way for Thoreau to tell people that he is not bothered at all by being alone for such a long amount of time.  He said himself that he had found no better acquaintance than solitude.  For Thoreau, being by himself in any form of nature is better than being around other people where everyone is “tripping over everyone else.”  It’s also important to note his definition of solitude.  He does not see it as a physical measure of distance from someone, rather how distant one’s thoughts and actions are from any other human.  The student studying in a crowded dorm experiences more solitude than any people that are unoccupied, no matter how far apart.  Work creates a sense of solitude.  For Thoreau, solitude only sometimes came through work.  Other times all he had to do was stay in his house and listen to the rain or the animals in the habitat around him.  This brings up my only question for Thoreau, could he still talk to us.  If he were alone in some place other than nature, would he still enjoy.  He claims to love being alone, but it seems like in the grand scheme, his true friends are any living thing around him.