Wendy AP Language

Peter Singer’s “What Should a Billionaire Give- and What Should You?” from the New York Times Magazine concerns the value of each human life and how much every person should be doing to save it.  He begins by saying that most would agree that human life is worth millions, and we are all considered equal.  So, how do we match these beliefs that we share with our actions?  We can succumb to our desire to help the needy and “fight global poverty.”

Bill Gates had an awakening a few years back when he learned of a disease that kills half a million children every year.  This virus, called rotavirus, is unheard of in the United States.  It was shocking that children’s lives in the United States were more important than those of developing countries and that nothing was being done about it.  Gates made the statement every death is equally tragic and “all lives… have equal value.”  Although every life is supposedly equal, we have difficulty truly believing that as a society, as the very wealthy have completely different lifestyles than those who live off “less than one U.S. dollar per day.”

The donations made to global causes have increased greatly since the times of Carnagie and Rockafeller.  People like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates give a huge amount of money to “reduce poverty, disease, and premature death.”  In the past, health research groups have not done much to help fight sickness prevalent in developing countries, but now something will be done to change that, so that they may have the same chance at life that we have. 

Sometimes we may wonder what reason the wealthy have for giving so much.  The immense stress of the business competition in their lives often leads us to think that they give away their money to make them feel better about themselves or to make their own name or company look better to the public. In reality, sharing so much does not really help “personal wealth.” Watching the wealthy be so generous, however, makes us question our own acts of charity.  It makes us wonder if we should be doing the same.

A seventeenth-century philosopher named Thomas Hobbes reasoned that the motivation for the charity of humans is not relavent.  If people give for their own good, at least they are giving.  Immanuel Kant’s opinion differs, saying that if you do something because it is easy or you enjoy it, it does not have as much “moral worth.”  The theme of The Gates Foundation website is, “To whom much has been given, much is expected.”  So the wealthy are expected to give a portion of their wealth.  However, Gates and Buffet are not interested in the “reward” that may come from their generosity.

In reality, how much should the rich be giving? One man stated his opinion that the government should not take taxes from Americans that would be used for foreign aid, because it is every person’s choice as to what they do with their money, and the rich have the right to keep their money because they have worked hard to earn it. 

Singer states that most people would agree that it is better for the wealthy to spend their money helping others rather than on useless material things.  He presents the example of watching a child in danger of drowning and decided not to help them because you may ruin your shoes.  Most would agree that is selfish and wrong; therefore, it is also selfish and wrong not to donate money to a good cause that most likely will save a child.

We are probably obligated to give more, seeing that some of our country’s wealth comes from developing countries through undermining trading.  We have stolen their abundant natural resources causing them a life of poverty.  We owe these people something.

It would make much more sense to give aid through taxes so that every person earning money would be donating, but currently the percentage of the wealth of the U.S. that is used to aid foreign countries is less than one percent.  Most of that does not even go toward the very poor nations. Of course, private donations account for much for that is given to poor nations, but even with that, many other countries are still giving a large sum more.  Most of the aid given by the U.S. is actually just “domestic goods.”

Philanthropists like Warren Buffett also do things that the government will not touch.  He is going to help the safety of the world also by building a “fuel bank.”  Philanthropists may be the better answer, but even a little aid from the popluation as a whole would be good for everyone.

How much should the wealthy be giving?  Yes, they have given billions, but in reality that is a very small percentage of their total wealth.  They still live lives of luxury.  A great example of true charity is Zell Kravinsky.  He gave away most of his wealth and even went as far as to donate one of his kidneys.  Kravinsky truly believes in that all human life is one hundred percent equal. 

Singer goes on to explain how it would be calculated so that the poverty problem would be solved and every person could donate equally.  There is a list that was made by the United Nations Millenium Summit called the Millenium Development Goals.  A good start would be to meet all eight of these, which by 2015 would cost the U.S. $74 billion. 

Singer continues to explain his formula of how the very wealthy all the way down to the common people would be able to give reasonably and be able to raise billions of dollars for aid.  Of course, this is for the United States alone, which, being the wealthiest nations should be giving the largest share.  However if each household donates equally it will not be a huge burden on anyone.  Singer then brings back the idea of the drowning child, with the story changed up a bit.  The moral of the story is that if everyone does not do their fair share, others will have to give more. 

In reality, if only the top ten percent income gave a percentage of their wealth to help this cause, poverty would be “virtually eliminated.”  The set of goals provided by the United Nations Millenium Summit would be simple to fulfill if everyone did their part.  Everyone has the right to have safe living conditions and fresh food and water.  At the rate we are going, it is likely that the goals will not be achieved much less surpassed, and there is no reason why we cannot make it happen.

Vocab

philanthropy-n-  goodwill to fellowmen; especially : active effort to promote human welfare

cleric-n- a member of the clergy

disincentive-n- deterrent

coup-n- a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act

lobbyist- a person who to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action

Tone

persuasive, concerned

Rhetorical Strategies

Appeal to Ethos- “…I used the example of walking by a shallow pond and seeing a small child who has fallen in and appears to be in danger of drowning. …we ought to do so.” (271, similar example on 279)

Example- “A famous story is told about Thomas Hobbes…they are capable of being as charitable as any altruist.” (269)

Wendy Hanna

Mr. Ehret

AP Language

June 17, 2008

In Edward O. Wilson’s “Apocalypse Now” from the New Republic, Wilson writes a letter to a hypothetical Southern Baptist pastor persuading him, and all believers, to come together with the science community to save the world from becoming a biological wasteland. 

He begins by pointing out the similarities between the two as individuals and really the two groups as a whole.  Being Southerners, the two probably have similar values and “a spirit of mutual respect and goodwill.”  Wilson asks for his help, although there is the obvious obstacle of the opposing beliefs that each hold.  Wilson does not believe in God, while the pastor’s entire life is devoted to spreading His word.  In the end, either belief may be true.

Despite their differences, Wilson suggests that the two communities work together, because every human being should care about the earth we live on, and together they have the power to make a change.  Wilson states that the environment that is God’s Creation is “in deep trouble.”  He goes on to say that with the rapid rate of human destruction to the earth, the extinction rate of species of plants and animals will increase catastophically if something is not done to prevent this.

Wilson explains that every part of nature coexisits with one another, so that with the extinction of life, the habitats and environment would also diminish. 

Why should we as human beings have to worry about the environment? What do we get out of it?  Humans are a very small part of the universe, and although the capacity of our minds goes much further, we are made to live in a specific environment that suits our needs.  If the habitat in which humans are adapted to continues to be damaged, human life could come to a screeching halt.

Wilson explains that there are many resources, known and unknown, that are neccasary to human existance.  Medicinal plants and those that may cure fatal illnesses will be lost if the environment goes to waste.  He remarks that every human experiment is at the expense of nature, the Creation of God.

Religion and science, working as one, could be the answer to the problem being discussed.  The science community itself cannot work alone.  Since the majority of the United States religion is Christianity, religious leaders could cover a lot of ground if they all took part in “saving the Creation.”  Religious associations are more numerous, by the millions, and they may be the only ones with enough power to make a difference.

Again, Wilson points out that the difference between the religious and scientific worlds are magnificent.  Christians believe humans were created for a larger purpose, outside of this world, while scientists can only find the evidence that we evolved into what we are today, and that we exist in solitude.  There is a never-ending conflict between the two that provides a barrier hard to overcome. 

That gap, however, may not have to be filled in order for Wilson’s plan to be successful.  Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, was also a profound Christian.  He believed that religious and scientific beliefs can coexist; therefore, it is not important that the two groups agree on everything in order to save the world.

Although the Bible “commands humanity to take over the earth,” it does not mean we should completely mistreat it.  Actually, a few Christian organizations are helping the cause and including conservation in their ministries.  Important figures, such as the Pope, have spoken out about the destruction of the environment and that relationship to sin.

Another appeal that churches may have to participating in this environmental movement is helping the poor.  Wilson states that people are not able to come out of poverty if their habitat is devastated.  Of course, there are issues with the Church concerning paganism, for if the religious community were to become heavy into “saving the Creation,” they may be seen as worshipping the land rather than God.  Wilson points out that there also may be political differences that may have been a problem in the past but are beginning to move into the shadows.

Wilson asks why “religious leaders have hesitated to make protection of the Creation a part of their magesterium.”  Maybe the end of the world is soon to come, so the earth’s present state is not important.

But putting aside the differences between religion and science, the people are still people.  They may have different beliefs, but they are still ”morally bound” to care about the earth we live on and and keep it from destruction and, eventually, the destruction of humanity. 

Vocabulary 

secular humanisim- noun- humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion

metaphysics- noun- a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology

contrivance- noun- an artificial arrangement or development

pharmacopoeia- noun- a book describing drugs, chemicals, and medicinal preparations

infinitesimal- adjective- immeasurably or incalculably small

apish- adjective- resembling an ape (Wow, I feel dumb I didn’t know this one…I was pronouncing it with a short a)

canard- noun- a false or unfounded report or story

nonpartisan- adj- free from party affiliation, bias, or designation

altruistic- adj- having an unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

Tone

persuasive, concerned

Rhetorical strategies

Appeal to Logos- “Scientisists estimate that… half the species of plants and animals on earth could either be gone or at least fated for early extinction by the end of the century.  The ongoing extinction rate is calculated… to be about 100 times above that prevailing before humans appeared on earth, and it is expected to rise to at least 1000 times greater (or more) in the next few decades.” (p. 289)

Anecdote/ Allusion- “To make the point in a good gospel manner, let me tell the story of a young man, newly trained for the ministry and so fixed in his Christian faith that he referred all questions of morality to readings from the Bible. …That was Charles Darwin in 1832, early voyage of the HMS Beagle, …Darwin’s reverance for life remained the same as he crossed the seismic divide the separated his religious phase and his scientific one.” (p. 292) 

Rhetorical questioning- “Do they believe that human-centered ethics and preparation for the afterlife are the only things that matter? Do they believe that the Second Coming is imminent and that therefore the condition of the planet is of little consequence?” (p. 294)

Wendy Hanna

Mr. Ehret

Ap Language

June 15, 2008

Jerald Walker’s “Dragon Slayers” from the Iowa Review reflects upon Walker’s own experience with a man and his attempts to convince Walker to hate the white race for their “racism, discrimination, and prejudice” against his people.  Even after trying to explain that he was never a slave, Walker is still bombarded by the man’s comments that whites would continue to oppress black community. 

Walker, a college professor, pokes fun at the man whose opinions and appearance make him more suited to live in 1962.  The man is against the ways of society, and is especially entertaining to Walker as he rejects his beliefs.

At first the two men spoke of everyday subjects, but then moved into talk about Walker’s African American literature course.  The students taking the course must agree to “think like blacks” while taking the class.  Rather than seeing whites as oppressors, they look at blacks as survivors and heroes.  They were strong-willed and brave people.  The man was angered greatly by this and went on a streak about how having that outlook bypasses the cruelty of whites and makes them think their is no need to repent.  

Walker does not stand by the notion that blacks are simply the underdog, surrounded by pain and suffering.  This view is seen by many people, both black and white, and even by Walker at an earlier point in his life.  When he first began writing, he wrote about sad and angry blacks living in the ghettos who experienced rough lives because of the white society.  This is what Walker was accostomed to and made that apparent through his writings. Then, his eyes were opened at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. 

 His first class was with Frank Conroy, tough and intense, who tore every piece of writing apart until it was up to standard.  After completing that course, Walker throught he had improved immensely and felt he was up for anything.  Then, after choosing to take a workshop with James Alan McPherson and reading a couple of his books, Walker found McPherson’s genre and subject of choice to be very similar to what he wanted to do.  He decided that McPherson would be a great role model, his “literary father.” 

Conroy and McPherson were exact opposites; this was obvious through their appearances and personalities.  Walker was disappointed by McPherson’s almost silent nature; he was very eager to learn from him, especially because he was an award-winning author.  He finally got what he wished for halfway through the semester.

As McPherson began the lesson one day, Walker was already becoming excited as he was sure his role model would love his writings.  He started by showing the students a magazine article about a rapper whos music is about life in the ghetto, but actually lives in a “wealthy white suburb.”  He explains how many rappers use the tactic of lying about their background and lives and “using black stereotypes” just because it will make them more money.   

The students agreed that that strategy was dishonest and unjust.  Walker, who was stressed and very upset by this, met with McPherson first thing the next day.  The office was completely bare except for the magazine placed on top of the desk.  He urged McPherson to believe that he was not crazy, and that his writings were his own, based on his friends, family, and altogether rough past.  After making his point, his teacher rushed from the room without saying a word.  Finally, a woman came in the room and asked what would possess him to offend such a kind man.

Walker remembered a time when he had been dumped by his first love, and tried “unsuccessfully not to cry.”  The woman comforted him and eventually a more calm McPherson came back and assured him that everything was alright, and that the same thing happened to him as a student.  Walker explained that his people are from Arkansas; McPherson responded that his were from Georgia, calling it a motherfucker,  with a smile.

Black America, to Walker, was summed up with that single comment.  Strong-willed and covering sadness with laughter.  Walker began to leave, followed by McPherson’s comment that stereotypes are important when they are used in the right way.  It brings the reader into something they know, but from there they must be taught the truth and reality. 

Those words were obviously of importance, but Walker tried his hardest to ignore them for almost a year before visiting McPherson once again to ask him if he would supervise him on a study of himself.  They studied everything from music to literature, looking at different cultures and people.  The lesson learned overall was that life itself can be very tough at times, but through enjoying it and laughing along the way, we will get through it. 

Walker learned that he was not a stereotype, but had become one, and he made his friends and family in his stories stereotypical also.  Yes, he told true stories about hardships and miseries, but he had overlooked the willing and brave spirit of his people to overcome the bad times.  He learned from McPherson, “Less times needs to be spent on the dragons, and more on our ability to forge swords for battle, and the skill with which we’ve used them.” 

McPherson helped greatly with shaping who Walker is today and what he teaches.  He does not focus on the difficulties, but on the power to get past them.  Some people are more interested in the difficulties (like the man at the Christmas party), but many are moved by the spirit of African Americans to overcome such hard times.  When students ask Walker how he decided to base his course on that idea, he tells them he got the idea from his father.

 Vocabulary

goad- verb- to incite or rouse

unequivocal- adj- leaving no doubt; clear

myopia- noun- a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something

dissertation- noun- an extended, usually written, treatment of a subject

Tone

reflective, confident

Rhetorical Strategies

 Humor: “I glanced around the room, just as one of my oppressors happened by. She was holding a tray of canapes. She offered me one. I asked the man if, as a form of reparations, I should take two.” (p. 281)

Parallelism: “Conroy was tall, white, and boisterous; McPherson was short, black, and shy.” (p. 283)

Appeal to Pathos: “…I saw myself at 12, looking at a closed front door, behind which was my first love, who had just dumped me and left me standing on her porch, trying unsuccessfully not to cry.” (p. 285)