Where and what I will live for are two drastically different but slightly intertwined subjects.  Yes, I will most likely base where I live upon what I live for.  I want to live for success.  I want to be financially well off to the point where worrying about making enough money is not a burden.  That to me is being financially successful.  I also want to be successful as a husband, a father, and a friend.  I need to live somewhere that I can raise a family in the same way I was raised.  Also, I need to choose a place where there are neighbors or citizens with interests common to mine who I would like to be friends with.  I can go right ahead and count out the “no impact” experiment.  That just is not a lifestyle I desire.  It’s admirable but I would not go to those extremes to be non-wasteful.  Also, I don’t think I would want to live in an apartment.  I would have no yard for kids or a pet to play in.  I relish the aspect of neighborhoods where you can walk down the street and say hey to one of your close friends a few houses down.  Not only would I want a well-connected neighborhood, I would like to live in a town where you can know other people.  In no way would I want to live somewhere where everyone knows everyone.  That’s too small.  It would be nice though to have someone mention a name from your town and you have a general idea of who the person is or maybe know them personally.  Suburbia does not fit this requirement.  Suburbia is a concept where I would live in a neighborhood where people might care less whether I live next to them or not.  They might have few acquaintances and no one knows each other.  My overall description might not sound familiar or specific enough, but Athens is the perfect town for me.  It’s taken me 16 years to realize how fortunate I’ve been to grow up in a town so well suited for my own development.  While I’d love to settle in my home town, any town of a similar size (preferably college town) would make do.  It changes the atmosphere and makes an enjoyable living place.  Thoreau may have enjoyed himself and nature more than anything but I feel like I would need to be in a community of whole-hearted friends.

Affluenza with Thoreau

The first thing I need to point out is that the two articles pertaining to affluenza are quite different.  The Wikipedia article, being an online encyclopedia, is very straightforward with definitions, examples, and consequences of “affluenza.”  Both articles point out that affluenza is a so-called disease present in most materialistic cultures where debt, overwork, waste and a constant pursuit of something greater through money are the side effects.  The New York Times article however does not put enough emphasis on the disease itself.  It more focuses on the pampering of kids by their parents.  This is certainly one aspect of affluenza but does not give a great overall view.  Regardless of which article better presents a meaning of the word, both have ideas that connect with Thoreau’s philosophies about the economy.  One of Thoreau’s philosophies that stands out the most to me is his idea that those born with wealth are born into a trap.  He claims that it is much easier to attain tools than to get rid of them.  He pities those with an inheritance.  In our modern culture, one ridden with affluenza, the idea of inheriting anything sounds good.  Thoreau believes that it is a burden to have been born into a life where something is already yours to deal with.  One more idea that correlates overall between the the two articles and Thoreau’s ideas is the negative consequences of excessive spending.  The Wikipedia article talked about certain Australian families “downsizing” their incomes.  I feel Thoreau would have been supportive of this type of move because at one point in his novel Walden, he asked of our culture could ever stop wanting more and consider wanting less.  Australia has done it, but that is not quite as prevalent in America.  I was also reminded of Thoreau’s disgust with the purchasing of many clothes when I read about affluenza.  The descriptions of a “pursuit for more” are the exact ideas Thoreau couldn’t stand.  The way he saw it, the clothes on his back were good enough.  Why should he want more?  The one major point raised in the articles that Thoreau has not yet mentioned is the prevelance of mental disorders throughout cultures that suffer from Affluenza.

The large difference between The End of White America? and Trans-National America is obviously that they were published in 2009 and 1916, respectively.  Despite the time difference, they show similarities but on a different level.  Trans-National America calls for the American nation t0 be cosmopolitan in accepting new immigrants from the lands of South-Eastern Europe.  It says that trying to enforce Anglo-Saxon culture upon all new immigrants is a crime.  The recent article talks about the fall not of Anglo-Saxons, but of all whites.  This means that 90 years later, those immigrants that had a hard time being accepted in 1916 have been fully assimilated into a culture known as “white”.  Not only that, the white culture is dropping in its ranks of dominance.  Currently, it certainly holds financial and political dominance, but it is rapidly losing the battle for dominant culture.  That’s a long way from 1916 where not just white culture, but strictly Anglo-Saxon culture was being enforced upon new white immigrants.  One important thing to note about both articles is their view of the young generation.  The early article speaks that young people in college don’t mind someone of a different ethnicity as long as they find similarities in each other’s lifestyles.  The recent article states that Americans born after 1980 have come along in an America that does not have to follow the path of race.  Overall in reading these articles, one sees how large a change America has undergone in less than 100 years.  In 1916, a Russian might have been refused a job.  In 2008, a black man won the presidency, possibly because he was black.  That’s a large jump.

Precis on a Repetitive, Foreshadowing piece about America

Some people in America are shocked by the fact that immigrants from European countries have feelings of nationalism during this time of war.  Those people also feel that Americans should feel a nationalism that is “Anglo-Saxon.”  One reason the cultural or nationalistic character might come out so strong in those groups is that when they came to America, it furthered their desire to retain an identity of their native country.  America cannot think of itself as a melting pot if it gets flustered whenever any idea from a non-Anglo-Saxon group gets presented.  All people in America had to start from somewhere low and work their way up.  Even the first settlers from England did so.  New Immigrants are seeking the same freedoms that the first settlers sought.  Native Americans should think nothing of any European patriotism because our culture is teeming with English influence in literature, religion, and ethics.  The first ever settlers found no native culture other than the Indians’ and they definitely didn’t accept that.  Immigrants today are simply adding to the values that were established originally.  New immigrants have found a place to be free, but Anglo-Saxons are guilty of the crime of most major powers which is imposing our own culture upon them.  To any American that scolds new immigrants, they might want to look at what immigration has done for their country.  The South is the closest thing to a British land for it has been almost stagnant since its founding.  Immigrants have allowed prosperity in places outside the South.  New immigrants have also assimilated somewhat, for they have developed a liking for our newspapers, music, and film.   New Immigrants that come into America but retain their old ways really are not a threat.  Rather its those that come to America and learn how to take power that are dangerous.  America cannot have the same sort of nationalism that exists in Europe, because it is basically a transplant of Europe.  People from Europe intermingle but do not meld into one.  There really is no distinct American culture outside of New England and the South, mainly because our culture inherently lies in the future, in what is to come here. 

The new future culture should be one of cosmopolitanism.  It should be aided by the younger generation.  Already, young Americans in colleges bond well with kids whose parents are foreign-born or who they themselves are.  These colleges are the seeds of what can hopefully bloom into an intellectual internationalism.  People from other countries have the capability to be spiritually bound to both countries, but bound to their home country in terms of identity.  It is also wrong to belittle any being that moves to America to make money and then returns to his/her homeland.  These people are often in rough situations and are doing the people in their country a wonderful deed by traveling to America.  The only American culture that can persist is one of many strands and colors.  Not one where paints are mixed to form one color.

Annotations

Please note that this may not be what was expected due to a poor and unthorough explanation.

1.

The “Who’s a looter” article does not really have a claim or a central argument that it is supporting.  It is basically reporting facts and also arguments of other people.  It does a good job of showing both sides.  It gives reason to believe that the discretion between two captions is racial profiling.  It also gives reason to believe that it was purely factual and that arguing over something that minute was not important at the time.

The article doesn’t really make any assumptions, rather, it corrects assumptions that other people made about the picture.  The beliefs that the article holds are that a photographer and a reporter are allowed to write what they saw according the the definitions of the AP.  Another belief is that when viewed side by side without outside knowledge, there is a contrast that indicates a double standard.

I think I would be in complete agreement with the author of the piece were I to converse with him about it.  This is because he states the whole truth in factual form and points out flaws of all the arguments. 

2.

The gay-asian man article has a claim pretty much to the point that gay asian men are in a difficult position in society but hopefully they will come out of it.

The article assumes that all Asian gay men are similar no matter what particular descent they are like Korean, Chinese, Japanese, or Vietnamese.  It also assumes that all of the gay asian mens problems are external and none of them come from the human himself.  It holds the beliefs that people should be more welcoming to gay asian men and that they do not have to conform to American values.

I can imagine talking with this author and its not pretty.  I find no flaws in his logic I just would have to tell him that I could care less.  I know no gay asian men and I do not feel their misfortunes affecting my life.  It may sound selfish but this article basically just falls on my deaf ears. Or blind eyes if you see it that way.

3.

The claim for the article about non-whites on magazine covers is that non-whites do not appear as much on magazines by proportion.  However, they do note that these numbers are on the rise due to a new teen population that is accepting of all cultures.

The article assumes that non-whites have the same talents and worthiness to be shown on the front cover of a magazine and that the disproportion is due to past stereotypes.  The article holds the belief that non-whites deserve to be on the covers of all magazines depending on how largely connected they are to whatever that magazine describes.

When I imagine myself talking to the author, again it might get heated.  I would tell them that I do not read magazines first of all but also that its not the cover picture, rather the content, that makes me buy a magazine.  I would also have to make an argument of my own opinion saying that I am more attracted to white models than to black, asian, or hispanic models.  The author wrote that some men like an exotic look, but i am not one of those “men”.

4.

The article about homosexuals in advertising makes a claim that homosexuals would fit into society better if they were shown more often in commercials.  It also claims that there are easy simple ways to incorporate gays into advertising.

The article assumes that montiors of commercials are going to allow gays to be in commercials.  This is a moderate assumption because the article gives statistics of companies who had commercials with gays in them.  It also has the belief that being homosexual is a completely normal trait that is okay to be portrayed in commercials or other forms of advertising.

If I had been writing this article, I would have been much more attentive to point out the fact that there is going to be a lot of opposition to the presence of homosexuals in commercials.  Homosexuality has been around for a long time, but to portray it is being normal as a commercial would likely do, is radical to some people and some religions.  The suggestions for advertising make it sounds like everything would just go over smoothly without conflict.  This wouldn’t happen.

5.

The article about men in advertising makes a claim that articles promoting men to act manly are keeping back men that are not manly and also women. The stance is that commercials should portray men in a variety of ways like they actually are.

The article assumes that not all men want to be manly.  It also assumes that when the commercials want all men to act the way that they are portraying men.  It holds the belief that it is a bad thing if men are holding women back from advancing in society.

If I were to talk with the author of this article, I would probably ask him to be a man.  Because I honestly don’t usually like being with men that are not manly.  Also, beer commercials are probably the funniest commercials on TV so I don’t anyone to make an attempt to stop them.  Lastly, I would commend them on being homorous with their hypothetical commercial with a woman being crushed by laundry detergent

In analyzing four different pieces, I found that the most common fallacy (which occurred four times) was the hasty generalization.  Unfortunately, three of those occurrences were in my own piece.  So outside of my own writing, fallacies are spread out pretty evenly if they exist at all.  I found examples of hasty generalization, straw man, dogmatism, faulty analogy (my dad’s favorite), false authority, Ad Hominem and begging the question.  Each of those occurred only once.  I guess that I am more prone to use a hasty generalization because I have not fully developed my skills for supporting a statement with evidence.  I like to just make statements quickly and hope they pass, which sometimes, they do.  I found no equivocation, and assume that is because it is a very specific fallacy where wording is very tricky.  I found no non sequitur, faulty causality, bandwagon, sentimental, slippery slope, either-or, or scare tactics.  I would think that I could not find these because the types of pieces were not pieces that would contain those fallacies, or the writers tried hard to avoid fallacies in general.  An audience determines a fallacy when they experience an argument that does not follow logically.  However, I think most audiences would base their ideas of fallacies on professionals that define fallacies on their own.

David Thedarith

I personally have no problem at all with David Sedaris embellishing or exxagerating scenes in his pieces to relay humor or larger ideas.  Alex Heard seems to have a problem with it because it is undermining the meaning of “non-fiction” writing.  Well, most people don’t really consider works by David Sedaris to be non-fiction.  They are considered creative non-fiction.  The name of the genre of his pieces is, to me, almost irrelevant because the strategy he currently uses to present his stories works the best.  The way he writes almost reminds me of Rick Reilly, a writer for Sports Illustrated and ESPN.  Reilly’s work is reporting but it uses hyperboles, ridiculous situations, and colorful language to make truth seem a little bit more interesting.  The pieces by David Sedaris that were mentioned were “Giant Dream, Midget Abilities” and “Go Carolina”, both of which I have heard or read.  The first tells the story of David is a young kid with a father that signed him up for guitar lessons.  I don’t remember reading any embellishment or exxageration that led me to beleive that Sedaris was pulling something out of the air.  In a sense, any metaaphor is an embellishment of truth that helps readers see the picture better.  Readers are aware of when Sedaris uses overdone facts to make a point, so they know the limits of the truth.  One of the funniest lines from “Go Carolina” was when Sedaris wrote that in 5th grade, he suspected that the teacher would announce his speech therapy appointment to the class even if David wasn’t their.  I don’t believe that David truly thought that, but its presence in the piece emphasizes that fact that David’s teacher clearly didn’t keep David’s speech therapy classes secret.  Also, stating that a sign for the therapy room should have read “Future Homosexuals” is an exxageration because not all people with speech problems are gay.  It’s still funny to see that line though because of the description that Sedaris gives about himself and the other kids that need the therapy classes.  I will never object to Sedaris’s use of embellishment, no matter what genre it falls into.  The genre doesn’t bother me as long as the piece is good.

American Dream

            Like I mentioned in class, the first thing in my head when I hear the term “American Dream” is a commercial on TV for a financial company.  The commercial’s basic message is that the American Dream is no longer the desire to live in a brick house with a white picket fence, own two cars, and raise two children.  No, they stated that the American Dream was simply any pursuit of an American, no matter the style or desire.  My idea of the American Dream is people being given a place where they can work for a content lifestyle.  People can’t always achieve it, but they can work for it.  My idea is similar to that of the commercial in that they both acknowledge that the dream varies from person to person.  America is not a Utopia, but throughout the past two centuries and very much so today, America has been the land of opportunity and a corridor to an improved lifestyle.  Because Americans and new immigrants to the country are different in values, it is understandable that many content lifestyles revolve around materialistic values: status, wealth, luxury items.  It is also expected that some will cherish natural rights given by the Constitution.  

            In the beginning, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and the other founding fathers created a nation whose governance and laws were revolutionary.  Even before the Declaration of Independence was signed, Europeans flocked to the British colonies seeking a better lifestyle, a more content lifestyle.  Land was abundant, there was no feudal system, and religions saw more tolerance than in Europe.  Very few colonists were simply seeking an adventure by moving to America.  They sought a better life.  Once the Declaration was signed, the life became even better as the residents only paid taxes to a government that the people elected.  The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, attempting to replace the instable Articles of Confederation.   The Constitution included the Bill of Rights, a document listing the new freedoms given to Americans.  As many historians note, the rights found in the Declaration or the Constitution are not American in origin, rather universal concepts.  Regardless, America became the land that offered the largest portions of freedom.  The rights ranged from religion to speech to trial by jury.  The rights were far from perfect, adhering mainly to the rich of that time.  One must not, however, let that imperfection detract from how far ahead of the rest of the world America’s practice of these inalienable rights was.  The fact that America was the leader in freedom, not a purely free nation, attracted the great numbers of people across the global seeking a more content lifestyle.  Economic, political, and social aspects were more inclusive in America, adhering to all the individual dreams.

            Today, the world has leveled out very much economically and somewhat in terms of freedom.  Technology has allowed other countries to offer the same content lifestyle that America does.  Other nations have adapted American freedom ideas for their people.  The field has leveled out, but America still remains the nation offering the greatest opportunity for any human looking to improve their life.  America has not been stripped of the lead in the race for free society that it gained after being founded in 1776.  On the whole, America provides the easiest economic lifestyle on the globe.  An equal amount of effort in America goes further than in almost any other nation.  People stick to or journey America to live as easily and contently as possible.  Still we cannot discredit those that seek political freedom, those that stand in awe at the concept of being guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  They make up a part of the American Dream as well.  The final portion is proposed of the unique desires of individuals who can best pursue those desires because of America’s developed system for success.

Baby Killer

Johnathon Swift’s satirical voice comes out when he first mentions that his American friend has told him that a 1 year old child as a delicious meal.  Satire is supposed to be realistic, and in all seriousness, Swift’s piece could be.  But up until that point, there is nothing even questionable in Swift’s argument that he is writing a humorous piece.  But once he states that his solution is to kill children, he is exaggerating to make a humorous piece.  His actual argument is that the ideas for saving the kingdom of Ireland are so absurd.  He obviously is upset that people are not taking logical solutions because toward the end of his paper, he mentions solutions that he actually wants.  These include taxation, an end to luxury, and an end to internal violence.  Overall, he proposes the Ireland find a more “modest” solution to their problems.

ReVision

My enlarged paper met length requirements to being with, but I am going to alter a few areas of it in accordance to Mr. Ehret’s advice and some self revisionsa.  The main problem with my paper was that it seemed like too much of an apocalyptic piece.  My points were good, but I took them too far and tried to make them seem like the world was ending.  Mr. Ehret got the take of “nuclear war” with my example about the army.  I put that example in there not in reference to the future importance of the army, but simply as a relative example about communication skills.  It still remains that that example may be misleading or too far out of the original problem.  That was one of the two “slippery slope” fallacies that I used.  Those fallacies basically meant that if a happens, then b, c, and worst of all d will happen.  It is sometimes effective, but I overused it.  My conclusion was also too foretelling and forceful.  I need to apply my tone from my final sentence and fit it into the rest of my conclusion.  Once I do that, my points should be realistically reinforced and more effective.