Wendy AP Language

The poster for the Americans for the Arts Foundation tries to promote the importance of art in American children.  I think the layout and pictures make it more appealing to the reader than the words.  The title is made to look like the cover of a Whitman’s chocolate box, and I assume is meant to draw people in and wonder, “I thought Walt Whitman did make choclate!”  The ad does a pretty good job of showing the misconceptions that people have, and proving that American children do not have enough culture.  However, the evidence to prove that art is necessary is not very convincing.  It says that “the more art kids get, the smarter they become in subjects like math and science,” but where does that proof come from?  There is no support for the statement, and reading the ad doesn’t make me want any more art in my life.  The only thing this ad does is show that children need to learn more about poetry and culture.  The only visual argument that is appealing is the title, and the few paragraph that supports “Why Some people think Walt Whitman makes candy” is not very convincing.

In his essay “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin uses the creative metaphor of a lifeboat to show reasons why helping the less fortunate countries of the world may not in fact be the best thing for the good of everyone.  As for immigration, he projects the United States through a lifeboat and the other countries as struggling people, drowning around the lifeboat and begging to be let in.  You want to help everyone right?  But Hardin goes on to describe what would happen if everyone was let on freely.  With too many people, the boat will sink.  Similarly with overpopulation, the country will also “sink.”  Hardin does a good job of comparing the capacity of a boat to the carrying capacity of a country, and shows how the two are similar in many ways.  He uses the idea of the lifeboat to show that by helping others, we may actually be hurting them.  Too much help can do more harm than good, and by controlling our help, it will be better for the good of the earth as a whole.  For example, a World Food Bank seems like a great idea, so third world countries will have something to turn to when they are in need.  In reality, however, the way those populations grow rapidly will only increase with excess food.  He goes on to say that populationcan be controlled the “natural” way, although it is much more harsh.  He uses the ethics of a lifeboat to persuade the reader to apply those same ethics to our world.  You have to close the doors at some point or else you lose everything, and all of our morals and guilt must be pushed aside to keep order on this earth.

James Parker pulls you in from the very beginning in his essay, The Existential Clown.  By beginning with an engaging story about the world thirty years in the future, with “an ozone layer so threadbare you can toast a slice of bread simply by hanging it out the window,” he goes on to show old Jim Carrey DVDs, still entertaining the people of the future.  He uses allusions and examples to best support his argument, while making it humorous at the same time.  You can practically see Jim Carrey right in front of you, making an outrageous scene.  In order to show the many sides of Jim Carrey, Parker must really show the reader what he is talking about, and not just mention it.  This he does very well.  The humor in this article is not only engaging, but it also makes you feel like you are right there, face to face with the man himself.

Nowhere does he say that Carrey should be worshipped, and is the best comedian that has ever lived, and this is what makes this argument more credible.  He acknowledges the face that you either love him or you hate him, and there is a good reason for that.  He gives examples of the many varieties of movies that Carrey has starred in, many great ones and many “unfavorables.”  He doesn’t just concentrate on all the great movies he has been in, instead he sees the fact that he has been in many bad ones, but his performance is always full-force.  He uses memorable scenes and quotes from familiar movies to make this argument stronger.

What I like most about this article is that he not only intertwines quotes and examples, but he uses them so well that they basically structure his argument.  He uses the examples almost in a story form of Jim Carrey, showing his ups and downs and different personalities.  Although this argument is casual and fun, it is a good read and really analyzes the acting of Jim Carrey.  It addresses his flexibility, and also the way that he brings the same type of character hidden deep in the soul of every role he plays.  He is simply an entertainer, and he doesn’t care whether he is starring in “the summer blockbuster” or in “a Samuel Beckett play.”  His comedy is timeless, and as much as half the world can’t stand it, he puts his whole heart into everything he does.

Everyone has heard about the fight for Darfur, and the horrible genocide going on there.  Just some racial tensions, right? In “The Real Roots of Darfur,” Stephan Faris explains the possibilities of a different cause of all of the struggles, and his ideas are unexpected.  He uses vivid writing to make it feel like you are seeing the story as it happens, even though it began almost thirty years ago.  His story is dramatic and engaging, pulling me in to read more.  He gives outside information to help the reader understand the conflict, without taking away from the article.

Beginning with a story, he addresses that the conflict really originated with global warming, and the drying out of farm lands shared by farmers and herders.  To help support his argument, Faris cites credible sources from multiples professors and scientists.  He then takes the conflict into a bigger issue, explaining how climate change has been a major factor in other disasters, like Hurricane Katrina.  He went even further to argue that it is possible that we are in a way responsible for the problems in Darfur, because of factories, power plants, and automobiles.  I think his point is to try and make Americans realize that people in Darfur need our help, and this was his way of making us feel like it is necessary.  I felt like he stretched the argument a little far, by trying to say that we caused genocide of innocent people by driving to school everyday, but the way in which he presents it makes it a pretty good article.  Although I feel like it is a little far fetched, it gives us another take on the conflict and he uses engaging language to make it a worthwhile article.

The article by Hanna Rosin, “Striking a Pose,” addresses the growing popularity of yoga and investigates whether it is just a trend or is considered spiritual to everyone who does it.  She begins the article by describing the grand opening of a yoga studio in New York City, naming off many different types of people and celebrities who all came out for the big opening.  She shows the reader how many people came to support yoga (over 500), when fifty years ago, it was nothing more than an art of “fringy new agers.”  Rosin then describes a true, old-age yoga type, who seems so out of place in the mass of celebrities in ball gowns.  She seems to have missed the memo that yoga has become huge in America, and is no longer something of the ancient world.

Rosin uses a very appealing use of language, comparing yoga to everything from Starbucks to judo.  She compares the past to the present, and what a distinct change the role of yoga has played in American lives.  Rosin uses quotes from everyday people and their opinions about yoga, as one woman had the take that “yoga is something that people with disposable income can do.”  Rosin herself relates her own experiences of yoga, and how even she had defiled the true meaning of yoga by wearing Nike running shorts.  It is appealing to the reader how she compares people who truly understand the meaning of yoga with us Americans, who do it merely for exercise.  She does this through stories and experiences of different people while making allusions to things common to us.

The manner in which Rosin sets her essay up is especially appealing.  She begins with the old-age yoga, and the way those people lived their lives, and then changes gears to address this “new age” yoga, with instuctors who look more like rappers.  What makes it interesting, however, is that throughout the essay, it seemed like she was bashing on the way yoga has invaded American pop culture, but by the end, she had a sort of “so what” attitude.  Yes, we have Americanized yoga intensely, but maybe it is not for the worst.  She explained accounts of people whose lives were changed because of their experiences with new age yoga, and although it is different, maybe it is just as cleansing.  As the world is growing and changing, maybe it is best that traditional things do the same.

The phrase “ignorance is bliss” comes in handy when responding to this question.  Those who are not aware that “every handshake, every kiss, every birth, every word, will be repeated precisely” are able to live their lives through their triumphs and downfalls, taking everything for the moment.  They are able to cherish everything good that happens in their life, and feel good knowing that when they get through a hard time it will be over with.  On the other hand, there are those that know that time will be repeated in a circle, and that every single thing will happen over and over again in the exact same way.  They know that every little thing they do wrong to hurt another person will have to happen again.  They know that every death and loss they have experienced they will have to go through again.  And in the same way, every happy moment, those that we treasure in our hearts, will lose their uniqueness.  They will no longer be special, and will be taken for granted because of this.  For those who know about the true nature of time, mistakes are miserable.  They dwell on every mistake knowing they can’t change anything.  They are stuck in a loop of time, having the knowledge that every action they make has been done before and will happen again.  The nightmare will be repeated over and over again, and there is no escaping anything.  Every moment in time is familiar, but not so familiar that the pain and the nervousness will become numb.  Knowing they will have the same experiences again and again, those people are overcome with anxiety along with the lack of excitement in their lives.

With the arrival of anything new, there are always the pros and the cons.  Especially with something as revolutionary as the internet, there are bound to be huge accomplishments and some negative aspects that come along with it.  It’s almost like a new medicine or vaccine.  It comes out as a revolutionary new drug, but then after millions of people have used it, unexpected side affects begin to occur.  So, after people became enthralled in the wonders of the internet, we have started to realize the effects it is beginning to have on the human mind.

The state of reading in 2009 is different than ever before.  It’s not like we are reading any less- probably more- but the way we process information has changed.  I completely agree with Carr and his observations, because I can feel it myself.  From link to link, and website to website, no information is really absorbed.  The importance of deep, engaged reading, as described by Thoreau, is not completely gone, but it is slowly diminishing.  We are turning into “‘pancake people’- spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast netowrk of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.”  As the article showed, our “quiet spaces” are being filled up with brightly flashing ads and distracting pictures.  This makes it impossible to actually be able to concentrate and get through any sort of article.  Reading has become more difficult, and rather than pushing ourselves to really comprehend it, we let the internet world take over our minds, in a sense.  It is becoming harder and harder to focus, and everything around us is adapting to our sporatic thinking.  Reading as we knew it is not gone forever, but it has the potential to come to an end.  Our brains are constantly changing and adapting to our habits, so if they have changed this much because of the internet, they can go back to how they were before.  The state of reading is not fatal.  It still has a chance, but we have to act fast.

The contradictory ideas of having solitude and visitors seem to be an odd, and probably not very functional, combination.  How can one’s life of solitude be considered solitary if social situations are involved?  It may seem like an impossible combination, but the way the Thoreau describes it, it is actually very ideal.  He removes himself from everyday social situations, which are meaningless to him, and lives in the wilderness in a life of solitude.  He has less contact with other people that the average person does, but the contact he has is more real than the “Hello’s” and “How are you’s” of day-to-day small talk.  According to himself, he can be a very social person at times, but the only social life he involves himself in is real converstations where people can be themselves, and the rules of the society are left at the door.  In his world, no time is wasted for meaningless matters.  He does a lot of thinking to himself, and has conversations with others that mean something to him.  Thoreau was rather smart to realize that being “social” in everyday life- like at the post office or shopping mall- really isn’t very social at all.  You can get lost and lose yourself when you are surrounded by a hundred strangers talking about their jobs and money.  I don’t know how easy Thoreau’s situation would be to achieve, considering all of the complexities.  It is a very ideal social situation, and most of our lives would be a lot more difficult if we cut out all the social customs and rules.  However, I think simply keeping his ideas of a happy medium of “visitors” and “solitude” in mind would be beneficial to each individual, and in turn the society as a whole.

I find Thoreau’s opinions in this chapter to be quite true and something every person could use in their everyday life.  This is one of Thoreau’s ideals that I actually agreed with and could relate it to my life.  Sometimes the best company is oneself, and you can really learn a lot about yourself when you have some alone time.  Nature is peaceful and relaxing, and I think everyone should take the advice that Thoreau gives us on this topic.  You may think that your life is at its best when you are constantly surrounded by people and always in a social situation, but this can cause you to become disconnected with your true self.  Time alone is well spent, according to Thoreau, especially if it is time in the natural world.  However, not even Thoreau spent his whole life without human contact and interaction.  He had supposed “neighbors” whom he sometimes socialized with and even went into town quite often.  I think he teaches us to have a “happy medium” between solitude and interactions with others, because both are crucially important in our lives.  Even if a person is not too fond of nature, some thinking time in your room or in the car serves a similar purpose and can have the same effect.

At this point in my life, I am still unsure of what I will live for.  I want many things in life, the most important probably would be to remain happy and peaceful in my life, but I haven’t quite gotten my philosophies down pact as Thoreau has.  I like Thoreau’s ideas of finding reality in life, and I would like to live a modest, realistic life.  How I might do this I still don’t know.  I would like to have a positive impact on the place I live and on the people who know me.  I think all of that is possible wherever I choose to live.  At least environmentally, as the family in Manhattan has proven.  If they can live a low-impact life in a place so populated and industrial, it can be done anywhere.  They are able to find reality in New York City, and are happy doing it.  Okay, I don’t particularly enjoy the idea of eating sprouts and homemade yogurt everday for lunch, but I would like to be “green” to an extent. 

As for the happiness aspect, I think if you want to be happy that can be achieved almost anywhere, but there are also personal desires for happiness.  I can’t see myself as being happy in a crowded, dirty city, but to each his own.  The place where you live may affect your happiness, but it does not determine it.  As the man stated in Freakonomics, it all depends.  As much as I hate that idea, it really does apply here.  What you live for can change throughout your life depending on the circumstances or people who influence your life.  So for now, I will stick with the goal to remain happy with my life.  In doing that, there is a lot of room for change.