Smith - Animacules

Smith, a self-proclaimed “lifelong devotee of life” (264), has an intriguing relationship with the smallest representative life he finds in pond water. He discloses: “I have trouble explaining my satisfaction with the animalcules” (260). Can you explain his keen pleasure in observing the animalcules? Post two paragraphs that react to data from the article



Honestly I didn't really enjoy this article very much. It really is something that I wish I cared about, but don't. Smith obviously loves these little animacules and the whole new world he finds under his microscope, but reading about it isn't all that interesting. Yet, this shows me just how much Smith really does love his pond scum. If he can write about it this much, paying attention to every little detail and attempting to paint a picture of it in my mind, and STILL believe that what he's writing is interesting... well then he must have found his calling in life. The theories of microlife are neat for a little while I guess, but I would definitely be more like his niece that said "eww" and asked to look at something else.

Overall, the big picture of Smith's article does interest me to some extent. I enjoy the fantastical ideas he has when he wonders about amoebas and things like that, but when he gets into specifics my attention is lost completely. But all in all, I easily picked up that he is definitely a lover of life. He reminded me of a woman I was watching on BBC that was rescuing elephants. She was talking about them to the camera and you could just tell that she REALLY just LOVES elephants. Everything about them. Her voice, diction, and tone just showed her genuine love and interest in these creatures. So when I read this article, I thought of Smith's words coming out just like the elephant woman's. I think when someone finds something they love so much, they should follow what their heart tells them to do. Smith doesn't have to explain why he loves observing the animalcules, he just needs to know that is what he truly loves to do.

FFW - Dessert in Just Add Water

The small object of “just add water” to me is dessert. Throughout the entire movie, dessert makes itself present in many forms. It symbolizes the different struggles along the plot of the movie, and it represents the different relationships among the characters. For instance, Ray’s mother is killed over her lemon meringue recipe. This overwhelming importance on a dessert shows the strained relationship between Ray’s sister and his mother at this point in the movie. The dessert fight is not actually over a dessert; it is more an argument over control and trust within their relationship. Another instance of a dessert is the pudding Nora saves for Ray. Not only is this an act of kindness, but also a small instance of Nora’s adoration for Ray. The pudding that is saved shows that Nora does care deeply for Ray, and is willing to make sacrifices for him. The last main instance of dessert occurs when Charlene gives Edward a frozen icicle from the freezer for dessert. The forced offering of this “popsicle” shows how strained the relationship between Ray’s family is. His wife does not truly want to be there, or else she would be serving cake or ice cream. Sadly, she can only offer an icicle from the freezer; it is a feeble attempt at the least possible effort she is obligated to put in to carry on her duties as a mother and a wife.

Angry Writing

Response to that man on youtube:


So, I see this man as an arrogant close-minded individual that is only giving his feeble attempt to amuse the less educated and informed consumers of the delusional segmented country we like to call America. Obviously by stooping to the level of the ill informed and provincial ignorant mass of people that refuse to accept factual scientific information, he has found a nice niche where his little comedy career can benefit and therefore make him lots of money (the ultimate goal of most people around these days). Yet, just because he states his opinions with such a strong and confident force behind them doesn’t make them true. This guy reminds me of an elementary school child that is distraught on the playground. By being left out and not taught how to properly understand his surroundings, he takes one solidified viewpoint of another and pokes fun at it. Just because he does not see the effect that humans have on the world, he mocks the efforts that millions of people around the globe put in every day to better our planet. It is not a secret that within our lifetime our carbon emissions will reach an unsafe level in parts per million, and although that number has been increasing since (most likely) the beginning of time, it has SKYROCKETED since the industrial age of humans. America has been producing much more CO2 (one of the most important greenhouse gases due to its prevalence in our atmosphere, long life-cycle, and integration into industrial economies) than any other country, and leads the industrialized world in per capita emissions. Although China now produces as much total CO2 annually, the US still produces many times more carbon per person than China, India, and most other influential countries. Not only this, but America has blocked meaningful international action for many years, and (just like this man) refuses to accept what is obviously happening all around us.


(borrowed from ecology.com)


Well, that is all I had time to write in class... I don't think it would make sense for me to continue this post a few days later since I'm more calm now and would therefore be writing in a completely different tone. So, that is it. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!!

My Thoughts on Blogging

I like blogging. It is definitely a lot easier than keeping a real journal or turning in actual formal essays and homework assignments. Also, with blogging I can vary my tone a lot more than in a traditional assignment. If I feel very strongly about a subject, I have the opportunity to write about the different sides of the issue and what kind of logic I would use to make sense of it. Yet, if I don't really like the article, I can write about why I didn't like it. This way, I feel like I am exploring the many topics we've studied much more deeply. Also by being given this little soapbox, I can express myself a lot more than I could in most other classes. Since this course is about WRITING and not learning factual knowledge on a certain subject, it gives everyone in our class a lot more freedom to branch out to new styles and techniques of writing while still gaining skills on how to accurately express their opinions to a third party. All in all, as tedious as it seems somedays, blogging isn't so bad.

Phelan - How We Evolve

Phelan worries about human beings’ “self –inflicted instinction” (202). How does he support his angst? Do you concur? Post two paragraphs that are supported by data from the article.


"The fate of our civilization, and maybe our species . . . may be determined by the next five generations" (202). Well, I'm glad I won't be around. It's not that I don't have faith in the future of the human race, but I don't want to be around when this complicated matter becomes even more OVER complicated by our own selves. When signs of change finally start to show, there will be no way for people to ignore our extinction. Of course, most people think the word "extinct" means that some sort of meteor or something is going to hit the Earth and we'll be out like the dinosaurs. Yet, Phelan describes the other way that humans might be their own end. By focusing so much on new technology, we might create our own successors.

I guess some people would try to fight this, and keep the "human" race alive... but why fight something natural? If our educational structures and new inventions/discoveries are pushing us toward a new plateau some hundred years in the future, why should we see that as a bad thing? Many people are scared of change in any form, which can be seen in this article. My personal opinion is that we should all stop worrying about what is going to happen to our race and why, it is all just speculation. Natural selection "has your back" so to speak... it really is only a way to help us out as humans. People need to stop thinking that they're smarter than nature... the world has been around for BILLIONS of years (FACT!!!) and humans have been around for what... a couple thousand? Yeah... shut up.

The Ethics of Climate Change

What does Broome claim the money market reveals about people’s ethical judgments about the value of future well-being? Post two paragraphs. Use data from the article.



John Broome poses a question here: "How should we -- all of us living today -- evaluate the well-being of future generations, given that they are likely to have more material goods than we do?" This question basically sums up what Broome discusses in his article, "The Ethics of Climate Change." All in all he is an advocate for moderation, and believes the world should share his viewpoint. By being more conscious of the world (not only that around us, but what is still to come in the future) we can sustain many of our goods and resources to benefit future generations. So in Broome's opinion, the main focus of our current lives should be how what we do will affect the people of the future. Broome also said that "sometimes you cannot avoid harming someone, and sometimes you may do it accidentally without realizing it. But whenever you cause harm, you should normally compensate the victim." He obviously is suggesting that we become less self-centered in our society, and look at the bigger picture.

Money markets display the common belief of Americans very well. We tend to put more focus on the here and now instead of the future. For instance, more people would rather have $100 now than $130 in two weeks. Although the benefit increases without a doubt, instant gratification is an overwhelming force. The fact that our society is only interested in the present moment shows a lot not only about how and why we save our money (and other financial habits), but it also backs up Broome's environmental theory. Our community would rather get all of our benefits now than worry about how they might affect us later. Broome talks a lot about costs and benefits, and continues to further the theory that a shift of importance is due if we want to have a sustainable world. We must stop thinking about only ourselves, and focus more on the future.

FFW - Are You a Writer?

There are many writers in the world, and many ways they are defined. There are journalists, novelists, students, bloggers, editors, and countless other specific types of writers out there. So speaking in a general term, yes, I am a writer. Because I write, I am a writer. I am not a novelist or a journalist, I don't claim to be some sort of author. Yet, because I write, I am a writer. I write in class, in my free time, and at work. I don't try to make this fact anymore complicated than it should be. Because I write, I am a writer. I really don't think it is that hard to understand. By my definition, because I write... I am a writer. Get it? It doesn't define me, it doesn't control or limit me, it merely describes me. Since it's a word, there will obviously be different opinions of what makes a "writer." But to ME, in MY head.... because I write.... I am a writer.

It's Hot in Here

(Specter’s article)

There are many things about global warming and environmental protection that aren’t known to many people of our generation. For instance, did you know that a Hummer driving vegetarian is leaving a smaller footprint than a Prius-driving meat eater? And did you know that electronics in your home use most of their power while in the off position yet still plugged in? There are so many issues on environmental policy and prevention that are unknown to most of the world, which is one of the main reasons why we are so slow to create a solution. I don’t believe that the majority of Americans are consciously destroying the environment by buying harmful products of wasting water and energy; they are simply uneducated on the alternatives. I guess we are in an era of creative destruction; even many products we think are helping (or “green”) are not as helpful as many are led to believe. The expansion of technology is simply giving us new and improved ways to pollute our world.

Obviously I feel somewhat responsible for global warming, it would be INCREDIBLY ignorant of me to say anything else. I am a consumer. I buy products that aren’t always great for the environment and I eat meat, among other things. I contribute my carbon footprint (although I believe it to be smaller than many, many others) to the big picture. I am one. One seems so small. But one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one ends up equaling a billion pretty quickly. And then all of those little ones are confused as to how they ended up being a part of something so huge. And then the world explodes or melts. And it’s over and all we can say is… whoops!

Thinking

Upon reading this article, I immediately connected it to what we’re learning in my Culture and Expression class. By studying philosophers such as Nietzsche and James, among countless others, I have learned a lot about types of thought. Just like Roebke says, we may literally perceive the same thing, yet everyone can take it to a different connotation. Being based on experience and upbringing, every action has the potential for a different reaction from all people. For example, we all physically see the same blue couch. Yet, based on your past, you may see the couch in a different way than the next person. When we observe, we naturally see more than just the physical thing in front of us, and that is what makes human thought and cognition so unique and interesting. We all have a different point of view, which is why our society is becoming increasingly open-minded and is beginning to share broad knowledge.

The main weakness in Roebke’s article is the fact that his is confused on his audience. He seems to be speaking towards a general population, everyday people that are affected by different kinds of thinking and feeling. He focuses on trying to explain a phenomenon instead of trying to teach it, yet the language he uses seems to favor the more scientifically apt or educated. So although the way he explains many of his examples can only been properly understood by the people of his field, it is not meant to be a completely scientific work. If he picked one side - scientific or general - and stuck to it, I think his article would be much more clear and effective.

Just Add Water

Just add water. Well, there are definitely several directions in which I could take this. Yet, the first thing I thought of was life. Yes, there are countless products out on the market today where "just add water" appears on the label. You do simply that, just add water, and poof! Something magical happens and you end up with your final product in the blink of an eye. Take your to-go Minute Maid mix, just add to your bottle of water, and there you go! Yet, just adding water made me think of something you can't buy in a store. By just adding water to things in nature (flowers, trees, grass, animals, people) you can watch them grow into something a lot more exciting than a glass of lemonade. This addition of water, just one simple thing, can create such wonderful life. Nature doesn't ask for much, just water, and it will grow and support you in so many ways.

My Writing Center Experience

I never would have thought that the Hofstra Writing Center could help me so much on an essay, but it did. I didn't know what to think of the Writing Center before stepping foot in it, it was uncharted territory. Yet, when I entered the room in Mason Hall I was surprised of what was in front of me. I appreciated the size of the Writing Center; it was small enough to get a lot of personal attention, yet had enough people that my mentor and I could ask for outside opinions if we were stuck. The boy that was helping me (I don't remember his name) was open to working on whatever I wanted and helped me brainstorm my essay. He was very open-minded and treated me as an equal, which made the brainstorming session so helpful and relaxing. We explored the possible themes of my essay until we picked something that we both agreed would work.

Unfortunately, I had not prepared anything for my visit to the Writing Center. Yet, upon explaining the play and showing him a few powerful sonnets, we were able to start our work. Even thought I didn't have anything for him to critique, he helped me think outside the box for a unique and interesting paper topic. After the topic was chosen, he helped me work on my thesis. After writing a basic thesis down, we corrected it bit by bit until it was a solid point. Then, we had a quick chat about the general outline of my paper, then my time was up and I had to leave. So instead of making grammatical or contextual changes, I changed my blank paper into an idea that had a lot of potential.

4/7 Notes

*Bruffee: the making of knowledge*

Conversation ~ contact with another intellect

Thought ~ conversation internalized

Writing ~ conversation re-externalized



Assignment: Show what waste or greed looks like. Take the reader to some point of contact that will legitimately express (via SHOWING) waste/greed, itself or perhaps a wasteful or greedy being.

To me, wasting is like forgetting the last kids picked in gym class. Granted, this style is rarely seen in real classes anymore (NO child left behind), but maybe imagine you’re on the playground instead. A game of dodge ball is about to start under the hot sun, and all of the children take a break from their sugary candy and interesting bug collections to make a line on the blacktop. As the captains choose one by one, there will inevitably be the children left standing, unwelcome on either side. Who has the power to say that they aren’t worthy of joining the dodge ball game? The overlooked children, all individuals with their own strengths and abilities, are stranded on the line while the rest of the children (favored for millions of unknown reasons by their peers) begin the game. But what is so wrong with the stragglers? Each one of them has the same potential as the rest to achieve greatness in this game, so who is to say that their energy and strategy should go to waste? Leaving all of these game-ready and excited children on the sidelines is the definition of waste. The captains have cast aside something that could have been to great use to them without providing a legitimate reason. Based on social standing and assumptions, two of many flimsy biases or judgments, the kids on the line are becoming this waste: a waste of vigor, a waste of talent, and a waste of resources sitting right in front of their peers. This theory can be applied to any kind of waste, regardless of type. By ignoring a perfectly stable asset when that option is just as easy as it’s opposite, we choose to waste. Why? That is what we must ask the wasters, why? I think we would all be surprised by the lack of a solid answer.

Faustian Economics

Although a good, solid article, I found this a bit ironic. Berry is trying to set limits on the limitless thinking and learning that our society has focused on throughout history. He says that there seems to be an obvious emphasis on using newer and better methods and technology to constantly keep improving every aspect of our lives. It is a never-ending cycle, and I think it is silly that Berry tries to peg it and define it in this article. Yet I suppose if everyone followed that mindset, there would be no work at all, would there? It takes all of the contents of a certain time period to propel itself forward into a "new era." As I see it, it is interesting to talk about this perpetual future, but taking it too seriously may result in a loss for what our current generation really stands for.

Berry used many examples from other literary works throughout his article. By using these works, he can pinpoint the universal values that have sustained over the years. For instance, limits are addressed in many of his examples. Faustus sells his soul to the devil in return for limitless knowledge, which shows the same modern idea of losing your current self in favor of a big picture you might not understand. Like I said in the last paragraph, Faustus here is forgetting that to end up with a tall ladder to climb to your final destination, you must not forget to build the individual rungs that will lead you up.

I particularly enjoyed Berry's ideas on natural resources near the end of the article. He is a realist when it comes to these theories, he is taking real action to formulate a real plan. I like that he understands that we only have once chance on this Earth, we cannot get a redo if we use all of our natural resources or pollute our land and water. His solution to this problem of no second-chances is to use our obsession, technology and ever-growing knowledge, to take matters into our own hands. By focusing the thing that defines our country so well, we can make our own living space into somewhere we can be proud to pass to future generations.

Derrida Video Response

I can relate to what Derrida was saying in his short video. He knows that language and writing cannot please everyone, no matter what the subject is or what the writer's intentions are. Even thought he himself is just writing what naturally comes to him with no extra hidden meanings, he is aware that something he never intend may sneak it's way to paper with his words. Yet, he finally sees that he must believe in his words or else they will lose their meaning even further.

It is also apparent that Derrida fully understands how powerful his words are. Obviously, he would not get so broken up over something that he sees as trivial and weak. So as he sees, words are some of the most powerful things if they can make people think and act the way they do. He sees how words can easily be taken in different ways to cause different emotions and reactions, which make them such a force.