Dreams

  After hearing what Randy Pausch had to say about achieving your dreams, I believe it's not so hard as many think. The difficulty is following the steps to get there. Based on what Pausch said I picked up on these few:

Be kind to everyone. Always. Even if they are unkind, they may be of help later in life.

Make good connections with people.

"Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted."

Work hard, because you won't get anywhere if you don't.

Most of what he said were things that I already knew. Tips to success that I had already heard. However, he was able to reopen my eyes to how important these facts were by giving life examples where they came in handy. Pausch became living (or rather dying) proof that these common tips are true. He checked off all the dreams on his childhood list and made it seem easy. He was clever enough, well connected enough, outgoing enough to get what he wanted. 

When Pausch was talking about the offer Disney made him to become an imagineer, I was absolutely silenced by shock. The sheer amount of creativity, intelligence, and willpower it would take to land a job at THE WALT DISNEY is so out of reach to so many people that refusing a job offer is an actual sin. When Pausch started talking about Disney is when I really started to listen, and when he stated that he refused the job offer I think I lost the ability to hear. 

Working as Disney is a dream of mine as well. Getting offered a job would be the highest honor. I found myself thinking this guy must really know how to achieve one's dreams if he can become an imagineer. And so I listened to everything he had to say very carefully from that point on. 

I realized that Randy Pausch got to achieve most of his dreams by being clever. Can't go in zero gravity because your a teacher? Well journalists are allowed. Become a journalist. He also had a lot of friends to help him along the way. People that gave him a chance. But in order for me to get any help I had to go farther back, because before people give you a chance, you have to prove yourself. Be a good student and a better person. Everything seems to trail back to being good to people. Be kind to one person and they'll help you out. Help one person with something, and they owe you a favor. 

After thinking through it enough, I got some information from Randy's lecture that was never explicitly said. The world doesn't really care who you are. It just sits there and lets you shape it however it wants. If there was only one person on earth, they could shape the world however they wanted. But there's not just one person, and this is where we run into problems. Now the world isn't yours, it's yours and everyone else's, but there is just one world to shape. One reality to mold. Now that there are other people, you have to fight for what you want and you can't do it alone. You need to make friends because the world doesn't run on money it runs on favors.

Randy Pausch got everything he seemed to want. He was so pleased with his life and his impact on the world that he didn't much care that he had 3 months to live. To achieve everything I want and die without a care is my dream.

Technology Transforming Creativity

Creativity is the most important part of human function. Without it, Steve Jobs would have never had the vision to create Apple technologies. Without it Van Gogh may have never painted Starry Night. Without it, our favorite movies and music may not even exist. So when Larry Lessig states that laws are choking creativity, a slight panic is understandable. If laws take away, or limit our creativity, what do humans have left? Many don't realize it, but humanity would become little more than a shell of it's former self without creativity.
During his "TED Talk" Lessig provides an incredible explanation, and argument. His passion and extensive research are on display in this video. He starts with the earlier beginnings of technology, and how a man by the name of John Philips Susa saw the "talking machines" as "infernal machines" that would "ruin the artistic development of music in this country." This is interesting because the idea that technology is ruining the younger generations is not uncommon. However, it is easy for someone to look at something new and unknown and say "It is not good. It is dangerous. It will ruin the current state of the world." It is hard for someone to look at that same new, unknown thing and say "This is an opportunity. What comes out of it may be bad, but it may also be fantastic." Lessig goes right ahead and informs the audience on why the latter is true and the former is a close-minded way of thinking. He gives examples of technology producing a new form of creativity. People now combine music and video and things that have already be created and they reimagine them into their own form of creativity. Philips was wrong; technology did not erase creativity, it transformed it.
The world needs creativity. It provides hope, and supports imagination. Creativity is an escape from the real world. Humans have been creating and imaging for just about as long as they have existed, and now that technology has grown and improved we can expand even further on our creative abilities. Technology should be embraced as a new form of creativity.

Taking the "Fun" out of Fundraising

Congressional fundraising doesn't sound like much of a bad thing when one first hears of it. However, John Oliver makes it obvious that congressional fundraising is in fact a dark business. In his video, Oliver humorously unveils the deeper secrets of fundraising in politics. Congressional fundraising is when politicians ask for donations to help them campaign. The problem appears when one learns how this all happens. Call rooms are set up in buildings "just a few blocks from the capitol." Having to work in the call rooms was described as demeaning. Complaints about working in the call rooms included being confined to a small cubicle, long hours, and poor hygiene (causing the room to smell). Oliver even interviewed former Top House Democrat in New York, Steve Israel, who said after announcing his retirement "I don't think I can spend another day in call room making another call begging for money..." The fact that this would be mentioned in such professional statement shows that the call rooms are just that terrible. During the interview, Israel also described the poor working conditions in the call rooms, and how he had to frequent them approximately once every three days.

The real issue behind the darkness of congressional fundraising is money. There never seems to be enough of it. Everyone seems to always need more in order to do what they want. How one obtains money can also be a problem. For example, the presidential candidates often brag about how much money they have raised and how they got it. Bernie likes to exclaim how all of his money comes from contributions of the people. Trump, on the other hand, is practically funding his entire campaign with his own enormous wealth while trying to write it off as donations. If people saw the reality behind call rooms many would be upset, maybe thats why the truth is wrapped up in so many layers. Oliver even mentioned that they could find no video footage of inside the call rooms.

Money has always been the problem. There are few issues that money cannot solve. The greed humans have for wealth often leads them to dark places. It seems that many politicians have managed to find one of those places in the call rooms of congressional fundraising.

(Sign Here.)

Scott McCloud on Comics

Comics are often seen as childish or an undignified reading source. They are so rarely taken with seriousness. This is likely because they are similar to children's book, which also contain many pictures. No one wants to be seen with a comic (or children book for that matter) for fear that they might be seen as less of an intellectual than their novel-reading peers. However, the truth of it all is that comics are simply another way of telling a story. As Scott McCloud explains in his graphic essay Show and Tell, adding images to a story allows the author to expand upon it even further. Personally, I like having images because I am able to visualize exactly what the described scene would look like. Making a high quality comic also takes a lot of work, perhaps even more so than a book with no pictures. The author of a comic must plan out both a good story that will keep the reader interested and pictures that will follow along with the story. Then the author must either draw out the pictures themselves or hire someone to do so. Either way it takes a tremendous amount of effort and skill, only for the final creation to be looked down upon by those who cannot appreciate the work that goes into a comic.
McCloud's essay does a fantastic job of describing comics, how they are seen by society, and their many different forms. His essay may have been overlooked, however, if he did not show that he is a reliable source of information. He does this in a few ways. One is that he made his essay into a comic. This proves that he knows enough about graphic essays to write one himself. It also proves his point that images and words combined help the reader understand better because the reader can experience it for themselves. Another way McCloud proves that he is trustworthy is his extensive knowledge on the subject. At one point he names, describes, and gives examples of seven different types of comics, or books that involve pictures. The information he supplies is not common knowledge meaning that he either has done his research, or he knows his comics.
It is unfortunate that many people see comics as some kind of joke, but reading something like this essay proves that change might be on its way.

The Blame Game

The article Celebrity Bodies started out with exactly what one might expect from the title: another discussion about the unrealistic body standards set by celebrities and models. However, it didn't take long for the essay to change course. In fact, it continually changed its direction throughout the essay without ever leaving the subject of celebrities. Although it was not set up in the best way, the article certainly made some good points. 

After reading I realized that the phenomenon that is "celebrities" is a strange (and ironic) one indeed. Society creates celebrities. It chooses the select few that interest it most and says "These people are the best people. We shall put them on a pedestal, and all the other people who are not as good as them will aspire to be." After that point though, there is an ironic twist. Now that society has idolized these people, it wants to break them down, tear them apart and show their insides to everyone. The only reason we do this is because their lives are made to be so much more interesting than our own. Celebrities' lives are dramatic and exciting, and society wants to know about them. But why are we destroying these idols? Are humans simply so sadistic that they immediately want to break what they built? Perhaps we do it without truly realizing it, hiding behind the excuse that "they're celebrities and, therefore, want their lives shown to everyone."

The worst part of it all is that the whole thing is actually hurting regular members of society as well. Boys and girls look at the celebrities they see on television and think about what it would be like if they looked like whats-his-name or whoever-that-is. Then that girl goes to the bathroom to vomit up what she just ate because she's "too fat", and that boy works out at the gym way too much because he's "too weak".  The rest of society sees the boy and girl and blames the celebrities, even though society made the celebrities. But society would never, ever, ever blame itself. So it blames its creations the same way Nero blamed the Christians. 

Celebrities give us something to aspire to, but sometimes that aspiration goes too far. Society makes celebrities only to crush them. What might the world be without celebrities?

(Sign Here.)

Beware the Zombies

Zombies are real. Maybe not in the way we might think, but they certainly exist. We see "zombies" every day. They are the evil creatures that we know how to defeat, but still overwhelm us. They are the demons that we can slaughter over and over and over again, but there will always be more. Some people only have one zombie, maybe the ones that walk real slow. Others have more than one like the ones that crawl and the ones that run. If I thought about it a lot for a long time, I could probably come up with approximately seven different types of zombies that I have. But right from the start, in the forefront of my mind, there is one kind of zombie that swarms and overwhelms me in massive numbers. It's a zombie that wants to push me down to the ground and keep me there forever so that more and more can pile on top and leave me forgotten under the weight. Although I find it easier to call it Laziness.
Sloth is my ultimate deadly sin, or, in this case, my "zombie". I adore being lazy, but I also loathe it. It is so wonderful to do nothing and have nothing required of you, but this of course means that you get nothing in return. There is nothing to be gained from sloth apart from its initial satisfaction, but even that wears off once you realize that you need to do something at some point in time. It is the same way with zombies. The idea seems great at the time. Perhaps the zombie apocalypse would be thrilling. Then you start to remember the effects, the danger, and you think "maybe the zombie apocalypse isn't so exciting...", but now it is too late and you are trapped.
When I am being lazy, I am happy. Even if there is that tiny voice whispering in the back of my mind saying "YOU ARE DOING NOTHING! GET UP! BE PRODUCTIVE! LIVE FOR GOD'S SAKE!"(it's a voice that one becomes quite good at ignoring), I will still be content. The worst part of the whole mess is that I know how to defeat this "zombie". All I have to do is self motivate, which is so much easier said than done, and the zombie will be dead. The problem is that there will always be another zombie that wanders over and attacks, and then I must defeat that one as well. I can only hope that I will never be completely overwhelmed by sheer numbers and swallowed.

(Sign Here.)

Hip Hop Planet

McBride writes about hip hop in his article. Its beginnings, its history, what it is, and what it means. Then he ends by saying that "the drums are pounding out a warning", but he never comes out and directly states what that warning is. By interpreting what McBride said before that line of warning, he means that hip hop music as well as rap is music that often dresses current world issues. This is music that warns the world of the problems it is creating. It is music that says "Look at what's wrong with the world! The people will eventually rise against it!"
I believe that McBride's idea of hip hop as a warning is true in some senses but not in others. In earlier areas of his essay he states that rap and hip hop has been used in the past as a way to point out issues that then grew into enormous problems. The lyrics often describe what people are struggling with under current circumstances. Some of the hip hop and rap music of today also does this. The music describes problems such as inequality between races and genders, and sexual harassment or assault. Lady Gaga just recently wrote a song about sexual abuse. These songs call attention to the topics they discuss, and they warn that these topics will become or already are serious problems.
However, there is another side of this music. Much of the hip hop and rap music of today does not touch upon such serious subjects. Most of the time such music means hardly anything at all and simply has a good beat. This music is still powerful, but I don't see it being any type of warning.

(Sign Here.)

God Bless America.

When Trump first entered the presidential race, most saw it as a joke. Now he is leading the pack leaving some furious, but most cheering him on. After seeing this I am simply left confused. Trump was never expected to win, but now it looks like he might have a chance at actually becoming president (God forbid that really happens, but it does seem to be a possibility). One can only ask why? What is he doing that appeals to such a large percentage of the population? Most of all, why are people voting for someone with little to no political experience? After watching a video of one of his speeches, I think I may have a few answers.
Trump is a crowd pleaser. He doesn't really care what he says, and he certainly doesn't care whether or not what he says is a lie. Instead he says whatever will get him more voters. At one point he'll say that he wants to remove all Muslims from America, then he will turn around and say that he loves Muslims. The issue is that people will often only see part of Trump (or be too ignorant to see the whole of him) and they will base their understanding of him on what they want to hear. As far of his lack of political experience, I believe that it might actually be one of the aspects of Trump that attracts voters. Many people are tired of listening to politics. Trump is more like the average person (with the exception of that awful hair). It's the same way in school. The smartest people are not usually the popular ones. The popular ones are usually the ones that make us laugh and the ones who are outgoing. It's interesting that this mentality stays with us throughout our lives.
After Trump we watched one of Bernie Sanders' speeches. The difference between them is remarkable. Bernie makes good points and wants to fix the problems that need the most fixing, but, in all honesty, I don't think he can do it. Some of his plans are too idealistic (Trump has the same problem). I digress. Bernie does also have some appeal, particularly to liberals and young people. This is likely because he wants make college free (which would be absolutely wonderful). His plan is to tax the rich, but the rich aren't infinite pools of money and there aren't that many of them.
I, personally, do not favor any of the candidates. Trump is a liar who will likely do nothing if he manages to become president, and Bernie won't be able to do anything. I'm keeping my expectations low for the next 4-5 years.

(Sign Here.)

The Working Woman

In Virginia Woolf's Professions for Women the idea of women working for their own money is discussed from the perspective of Woolf herself, a writer. The beginning paragraph of the article introduces the topic, but more importantly it gives Woolf's own opinion on the subject. She explains how she is going to tell the reader something about her own professional experiences.
Woolf introduces herself rather humbly. She says that although she is indeed employed, there were few material obstacles in her way. Woolf explains that for a woman to become a writer is not overly difficult. All she must do is buy paper (which is cheap) and have a mind for writing. She says that women have succeeded as writers because of this. Woolf then goes on to discuss her hardships with becoming a successful writer. She obviously sees the lack of employed women as an issue, but manages to keep the article on topic.
I found this article to be incredibly well written and understandable, particularly for the time period. Woolf is articulate in her speech and gets to the point rather than filling pages with useless wording. I enjoyed her writing very much in both subject and style.

(Sign Here.)

A "Modest" Proposal

The article "A Modest Proposal" written by Jonathan Swift was meant to be a satirical piece of writing discussing how the cannibalism of young children would be the solution to Irelands famine. Although it was mean to be sarcastic, many took it seriously and its easy to see why. Swift's article is so well written, and he makes his "scheme" sound so logical that one may be fooled into taking it seriously. Swift uses ethos, logos, and even pathos, to make his point. These devices make his argument even more convincing, even though the thought of cannibalizing young children is unbelievable.
Ethos is when the author establishes their credibility. People will only listen to what Swift has to say if they think it worth their time and holds some meaning. Swift uses impressive language and addresses quite properly to create ethos. I also believe that the shocking proposal he makes adds to his credibility. It encourages people to continue reading and find out why such an article would ever be written by a man who seems so knowledgable. Swift also mentions a "very worthy person, a true love of his country..." who is a cannibal himself. Swift creates a source; a very worthy source whose opinion would be taken seriously. Swift is essentially saying "if you don't believe me, listen to this other man of high importance who supports my scheme." It adds to ethos and makes his argument all the more believable.
Swift's article appeals to logos the most. Logos is when an author uses logic and reasoning to make his/her argument more persuasive and convincing. Swift's proposal sounds so absolutely insane in the beginning that everyone would simply think him mad; that is, if he had not given so much logical support to his idea. Admittedly, by the end of the article I was thinking to myself if this wasn't such a morally wrong idea, it would most certainly work. Swift lots of calculated numbers such as how long a child can live off of nursing alone, how many children are produce in a year, and how many would be spared so that the population doesn't drastically decrease. People love to see numbers when you are trying to convince them of something. Numbers create solid evidence, and can't be argued against. Swift's overall tone of the article also adds to logos. He seems so confident in his plan, and he makes it sound like such a great idea that there are times when you forget that he is talking about cannibalism. If he wanted it to be facetious, he missed the mark.
Pathos is a writing device that "pulls on the heart strings" and (usually) makes the reader sympathetic.  However, in Swift's case, his form of Pathos pulls the "heart strings" in the opposite direction. The article certainly evokes emotions, but they are not sympathy, or sadness. Instead one may feel disbelief, utter surprise, horror, or unease. Although this isn't exactly pathos, I still see it as a evocation of emotion, and encouragement to keep reading.
Swift's strange, and slightly horrifying, article is an impressive piece of writing. It's satirical aspect is often difficult to see because of Swift's use of ethos, logos, and pathos.

(Sign Here.)

Thoreau on Eloquence

   
          "We love eloquence for it's own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or an heroism it may inspire." I had to read this more than once to get the full understanding of such a phrase. Eloquence can be defined as fluent or persuasive writing or speaking, and by saying that we love it for its own sake is to say that we love eloquence simply because of what it is, and not for its purpose. Eloquence may convert truths or inspire heroism, but we like it simply because of what it is. It is interesting that Thoreau would make such a bold statement when he himself writes with what can be considered eloquence. Perhaps by saying this he is telling his reader that although he writes with eloquence, he wants it to be known that his writing holds some truth, and should not be love solely for its fluency.
            I do believe that his statement is truthful, although not in all circumstances. There are plenty of amazing pieces of literature that are loved because of their eloquence, but their deeper meaning is much less appreciated or even noticed. Reading literature that was written with eloquence can sometimes be "wordy". The reader gets caught up in the writing style and leaves behind the true meaning of the text.
           In school, we read books that are famous for their eloquence, but we often miss their meaning. We eave behind the story because of the way it was written. The truth and purpose hides under fluency. It is a  problem that I have experienced myself. In government eloquence can be a major deciding factor. A man or woman who speaks well may be elected to an important position even though they have nothing to say. On the contrary, a person who has much to say may be ignored because they lack eloquence. Systems fall apart because no one truly understands, and instead they simply move to the one that "sounds nicer". People assume that if someone speaks with eloquence they have much to say, and that their words have meanings. They assume these things but do not actually confirm them. Eloquence quickly becomes a mask that people can hide their ignorance behind, and it is often a mask that many people like and trust. Are those who use eloquence the deceivers, or are people deceiving themselves by ignoring the truth and deeper meaning?

(Sign Here.)

The Declaration(s)

The Declaration of Independence is famous document known by most people. It stated that the people of America were free and had unalienable rights. It stated that America was independent from British rule. It is important to the American history. There is also a lesser known "Declaration" called the Declaration of Sentiments written in 1848. This declaration was written to give voice to the issue of women's rights during the time period. It is one of the first acts of feminism, though it probably wasn't called that at the time.
What I believe to be the best part about the Declaration of Sentiments is it's purposeful resemblance to the Declaration of Independence. The document is set up in almost exactly the same manner, even adopting most of the first two paragraphs of the D.I. This  was likely done to show the importance of the document, and also perhaps to mock the D.I. The Declaration of Independence does not exclude women from being created equal, yet for some reason they are not treated equally, and the D.S. wanted to make a point of this. Women want it known that they are tired of the unjust and reasonless oppression. The D.S. even goes as far as to bring up the problem that oppression towards women is not just a political issue but also a social one. Men can escape judgment from things that would deem women "improper" or "undesirable". The entirety of the Declaration of Sentiments has a tone of attitude in it, almost as if the women who participated in its creation saw the necessity of such a document ridiculous. After all, why would women be oppressed when the Declaration of Independence stated that all were created equal?
The strange bit about the Declaration of Sentiments is that some of the issues it addresses, are still relevant today. Women (and also men) continue to fight for equal treatment of the sexes. It's strange that this issue has not been resolved, even though it started so long ago.

(Sign Here.)

John and Abigail Adams

We haven't blogged in a long while, and to kick things off we have begun with some old timey writing:
In class today we read letters that were sent between John and Abigail Adams. Within the letters thy discussed what was happening at the time, as well as plans for the future of the country. However, the primary focus was not to be on the content of the letters but rather the stylistic aspects of the writing used. For example, many seemingly random words in the letters are capitalized, but this can be seen as a calculated choice. Important words and phrases are capitalized to show importance.
One piece of the letter from John to Abigail is particularly interesting. He says:
"Whenever Vanity, and Gaiety, a Love of Pomp and Dress, Furniture, Equipage, Buildings, great Company, expensive Diversions, and elegant Entertainments get the better of the Principles and Judgments of Men or Women there is no knowing where they will stop, nor into what Evils, natural, moral, or political, they will lead us."
This is obviously a lot, but taking a closer look allows its meaning to become clear. He is basically stating that over indulgence in material things can lead to what he describes as "Evil". John capitalizes the many things that lead to evil in order to emphasize their importance. His statement is astounding because of its truthfulness, as well as its ability to transcend time. It is indeed true that placing earthly wants above human principles leads to corruption, and John Adams realizes this and decides to mention it in a simple letter to his wife. John's words continue to be true today. What he says can be applied to any time period which makes its message even more meaningful.
The initial goal was to look at the stylistic choices of the documents, but the content ended up being the more interesting discussion.

(Sign Here.)

"Even a Fiuscrzsa Ticiwelmun Knows That a Typewriter is Feminine."

Language can be a difficult topic to wrap your mind around. Isn't it odd how ten people can say the same exact thing ten different ways? Isn't it strange that we may understand one of those people, but not the others, even though they are all saying that one same thing? Language is an incredible device, but it poses a few problems and creates some borders between people. Yes, one can learn a new language, but not everyone has time, and learning a new language can be incredibly difficult! (All of those who can speak more than one language fluently, I applaud you). In Me Talk Pretty One Day David Sedaris explores the challenges he faced while taking a French class. He describes how awful his teacher was, and how she would often tease the students whenever they misspoke. Some of the details in the article are likely exaggerated, but it got the message across: not knowing the language of the country you are in will often get you looked down upon.

When someone is in a country where they don't know the native language, it leaves them feeling out of place and inadequate. Being able to communicate is very important in any human society. Those who cannot communicate properly may be treated like children, or even worse, made fun of because they cannot speak and be understood.

Despite the negative focus of the article, it ends on a good note. The author realizes that when the teacher jokes at his broken French, he understands every word of her cruelty. After this realization he is filled with confidence because even though her teaching method is tough and unforgiving, he is still learning the language.

(Sign Here.)

Let Teenagers Try Adulthood

High school is something that one might have seen as the "big leagues" when they were younger. It is often romanticized in popular culture as the best four years of your life. However, once you get there it quickly becomes obvious that high school is NOT going be the way you see it in the movies. 

The article Let Teenagers Try Adulthood discusses our flawed education system, specifically high school. Before I even start on the content of the article I'd like to mention the title. It sounds almost as if it is a challenge. Let Teenagers Try Adulthood. They might fail or even sabotage their future because of this new system, but let them try anyway. Saying it that way probably makes it seem as though I dislike this article, but that is not entirely true. The article brings up good points and suggests some decent ideas for change in the system. The problem is that there is no way to change the school system so that it works properly, and accommodates the wants and needs of the students. This is because every person is different, and therefore matures at their own pace. The article mentions that students should be focusing their studies at a younger age and before they go to college. The problem is that most fifteen and sixteen year olds do not know what they want to do with their lives. There will be a situation where an unsure child is forced to choose what they want, only to regret it later in life. By then however, it will be too late because they had to choose their path before they were ready. Children and adolescents cannot grow up by force, most of them need some time.

Yes, the current school system is full of holes, and could probably use an update. The issue is that this update is that one that requires you to restart your computer so you keep putting it off until you have absolutely no choice but to do it.

(Sign Here.)

"Slang in America" Walt Whitman

1. According to Walt Whitman, American slang is a kind of language all its own. In order to understand it, you need to learn what it means, just like any other language. The difference is that not all English speakers understand all English slang. I believe that slang is the same way today.
2. Whitman lays the foundation for an essay on language, by first defining it. He describes what  language is, how it changes, and how important it is. From here he can go on and discuss the idea of slang.
3. By saying “lawless” he means to say that slang follows no rules, and is simply used in any way by its speaker. “Below all sentences” and “behind all poetry” means that slang is a hidden language in all forms of speech. It supports the words it hides behind. The last piece means that slang will always come back, and always be present in our speech. It gives language force.
4. One of the metaphors compares slang to “wholesome fermentation”. He also calls slang a “lawless germinal element”. Both are equally effective in their own ways.
5. Whitman makes his perspective simpler by using shorter sentences, as well as more easily understood words. He also gives examples of slang to explain what he means.
6. According to Whitman, slang is what gave start to old mythologies.
7. All of the examples given primarily support the point that slang is unique to different areas, an that slang is focused around the people who speak it.
8. Whitman claims that the laborers of America are more fun to be around that the “American humorists”.  I believe this statement strengthens his point of how slang and humor intertwine, and how the American people use slang.
9. The tone is intelligible, informational, and even passionate. Whitman shows that he knows much about the topic, and is passionate about describing his thoughts to the reader. The last paragraph really shows how fascinated Whitman is by including exclamation points.
10. In Whitman’s poems he often uses slang, and most of his work is free verse. Also, Whitman was a traveler and likely visited most of the places mentioned in the essay. He probably heard slang from across the country first-hand.
11. One word that has a slang meaning is “wicked”, often used in New England. It’s literal meaning is evil, but as a slang term it means something closer to awesome or amazing. The term has escaped its literal meaning and become something else.
12. What Dalzell says is true. Slang is a language used primarily by youth, I know this because I myself use slang language often.  

Mother Tongue

In Mother Tongue by Amy Tan, it is discussed how much language influences our lives. Tan talks specifically about her mother who speaks what can only be described as "broken" English. Her mothers English is difficult for some to understand, but to Tan it is easily understandable. AT one point in the essay Tan includes a direct quote from her mother. The quote is relatively long, but Tan includes the entirety of it. She does this because the focus of her writing is her mothers speech. She want to show the reader how her mother speaks by including this specific example. If she had shortened or edited it, the piece would not have the same effect on the reader. By reading the quote it becomes obvious just how "broken" her mothers English is.
A few times in the essay, Tan criticizes herself. She does not like to use the term "broken" or "limited English", but lacks any other way to say it. At another point she criticizes her past work and how proper her English was written. Tan used impressive words, and perfect grammar, to the point that it became slightly pretentious. I believe that Tan may have done this in an attempt to impress the reader.  Her origin may cause some to automatically expect her to speak unimpressive English. She wanted to prove them wrong. However, in doing this she found that her writing lost its humanity. The English in which she wrote was so impeccable, that it became something difficult to read. For this reason, she looks back on her previous work with criticism.
In the last few paragraphs Tan discusses how she realized that she wanted her work to be readable. So rather than hold it to the highest of standards, she instead writes with her mother in mind. Tan decided that she would write english in a way that her mother could understand and read.

Where's Your Home?

The word "home" often carries a different meaning depending on who you ask. Some may simply state that home is where you live, or your house. Others might say that home is where you're from, or where you grew up, and you'll always get that one person that says something like "home is where the heart is" (such beautiful poetry). The point is, "home" does not have much of a solid definition.
I believe that home is wherever one feels most comfortable. Home is the place where you can escape from the rest of the world to feel more at ease. For me "home" is my room, which doesn't seem like much of a home to some, but it perfectly fits my definition. My room is the epitome of comfort for myself, and I will briefly explain why. Somehow, I managed to get the biggest bedroom in the house (my parents are still upset about the missed opportunity). I have worked hard to make my room a comfortable place with a positive atmosphere. Plants on the windowsill, a bookcase full of books, a collection of small glass bottles, a wall covered in drawings, my computer and laptop, and lots of pillows on my bed. These are the things that make my room more of a home. Whenever I am feeling stressed I can always retreat to my "home" to recover. This is how I define home.
Some people believe that where you are born is your home. Although this may be true for some, I don't believe it is always the case. Some people are born in one country, but find themselves living in another. Often times they will considered the country where they live to be home. Others do indeed consider their place of origin to be their home. One may live in America, but recognize Africa as home. Home is wherever you choose it to be. Sometimes it is where you live, other times it's where you feel the most comfortable. Home can be where you are loved an welcomed. It can be a place you made, or a place you found. It all comes down to one's own definition of home.

(Sign Here.)

Activism

In the article "Small Change Why the Revolution Will Not be Tweeted" the author, Malcolm Gladwell, talks about activism and how social media has changed it. After reading the article I have come to some personal conclusions and opinions on the topic. The biggest question being asked is whether or not activism is effective on social media. It cannot be denied that social media is one of the fastest ways to spread information, and get one's voice heard.  However, it cannot replace real world activism. Social media is simply too unorganized, or loosely grouped. People come together under a common cause, but fall apart when it comes to specifics on how this or that should be.
Seeing real world activism is far more powerful than reading about it on a screen. When we see real people standing up for what they believe in, or fighting for change we are inspired to do the same. Seeing is believing and images can be more powerful than words. A video of protestors is likely to get more attention than an article. Social media's best use would be to assist in the spread of real world activism. Showing videos, sharing articles, and keeping everyone up to date on activism in real life is social medias most powerful tool.
In the end, I believe that real world activism will always be above social media activism. Social media can serve has it's purposes, maybe this isn't one of them.

(Sign Here.)

Feminism: What's not to Like?

Feminism is a difficult topic for me to write about. Not because I find it uncomfortable or disagree with it's ideals, but rather because I have so many thoughts on the subject that that they often get jumbled. I struggle to gather my thoughts and piece them together because I will say something and then find an argument against it that leads to another idea, and I lose track of what I am supposed to be writing about. For that reason I apologize if this ends up sounding more like one continuous thought.

The article "Bad Feminist" focuses primarily on the issue of defining feminism. Particularly how to be a feminist. The author brought up some good points, and gave valid opinions. Being a feminist is sometimes described as "angry men-hating women" when that is not always the case. Feminism has been stereotyped and looked down upon because it's meaning has been warped into something that it wasn't meant to be. The idea behind feminism is that it was supposed to be a fight for equality between genders. It just so happens that women are the primary victims of the inequality and so the name "feminism" was adopted. The problem is that some people have made feminism to be a strange culture that hats men and wants women to have more power than them. I will not deny that some feminists think this way (unfortunately probably more than just "some") instead of the way of equality.

The strangest thing about feminism is that people fight against it, mostly men, but women as well. I can understand people being against the all-the-power-to-the-women destroy-all-men way of thinking, but why would anyone fight for inequality? Are the women afraid of change? Do they not want to define themselves as feminists because of the meaning that title carries? Do men simply want women to stay on the bottom? Are they afraid that if there is equality, they will be treated the way they treat women?

One of my favorite parts of the article was when the author was talking about liking pink, and long dresses, and rap music, even if it sometimes dehumanizes women. Some feminists believe that liking "girly" things or liking things that don't seem to like women is wrong and going against feminism. If there are things that you like, then you are allowed to like them! It is never "bad feminism" to enjoy something that brings you happiness. Just because something is stereotypically "female" does not mean that you should hate it because of it's stereotype. Why is it seen as "bad feminism" or even weakness to like something THAT REPRESENTS FEMININITY? In my opinion there is only one way to be a "bad feminist" and that is to fight against equality.

(Sign Here.)