How I get myself psyched for exams (TA)

I do not. I do not find any use in stressing, fretting and otherwise raising my blood pressure. Like seriously, doing that literally reduces your lifespan. Anyway, I prefer to approach exams, like everything else, logically and calmly. If you panic about them, or act like something they are not, then you are setting yourself up for nothing good. I am not saying that exams are not important. Often they are extremely important. This fact alone is enough to make me study, though I can't say I always do. For example, in regular english I never studied for an exam because I realized there was no way to prepare for them. Same for band obviously. So with these out of the way, I am left to focus on the rest of the exams. I try to go over all the material that is being tested - I always make extensive use of the study packet, if one is provided. After studying is done, I simply look forward to the good times that will come after exams. Things may seem bleak now, but you can't get lost in the moment. Always be looking forward!

Advice for next year's AP Lang students (TA)

Well, my first piece of advice would be to consider your position as next year's AP Lang student. I'm not advising against taking the class, but you should be aware of what exactly you are getting into. It's not a normal english class - far from it in fact. You won't find much of the familiar read 3 chapters then answer questions then take a test on the book and then repeat. That being said, it is still there - a book often accompanies a chapter and you are still tested on the plot, but books and their messages are not the main focus - rhetoric is. Take this class and you will become very familiar with all the different types and applications of rhetoric. You will be learning about plenty of different devices (all with fancy names), looking for them in what you're reading, and applying them to your writing. It's less of an english class and more of a rhetoric class. Sounds good to you? Great! Be prepared to abandon everything you have been taught about writing. If you haven't already, you will want to make some effort to break yourself out of the 5 paragraph style - trying to pull that in this class will get you nowhere fast, and I speak from experience. You are going to have to really put forth some effort to do some great writing. Another thing that you will have to do is make extra effort to keep up with reading. This holds true for all classes, but especially for this one. You will often have fairly long stretches to do the reading in, so procrastination is a threat. I saw quite a few people looking very nervous when we had an unannounced quiz after one of these stretches, and you really don't want to miss those points. This is one of those classes where every assignment counts, so you can't think that blowing off something is an option. In my opinion, it's a fairly challenging class, so if you are taking it, just be ready.          

PC gaming is superior to console gaming (CM)

For those of you who do not know, this is an objective fact. Yes indeed, gaming on a computer is much better than on a console. Let's review the evidence. First is the graphics. Even the most humble of computers can easily match the graphics output of consoles. Not to mention higher-end computers, which are in an entirely different category. It's not just the quality of the graphics though, it's the options. For example, most console games do not have anti-aliasing. Computers have the option for anti-aliasing plus anisotropic filtering options plus bloom effects plus a myriad of other advanced graphics options. It's simply no contest. Let's talk about the games now. Cheaper on the PC and that is that. Console games will hover around sixty bucks for months until they drop - Steam offers relatively new games for thirty dollars or less, not to mention older games, or ones that are independently developed - those go for as little as five. More about games, you cannot forget mods. On the computer you can do whatever you want with your games - the files are your's and you can download mods for them or create them yourself. Consoles? They have those on lock and key. Modding is more likely to equal jail time than a better experience. There are those who would say that the PC is actually inferior when it comes to games, citing some obscure game that is exclusive to one console. The fact is irrelevant, no single game could make up for the libraries of high quality content the PC provides. Let's talk a little about community. On the consoles, you are probably going to end up interacting with a bunch of screaming twelve year olds. On the PC, you can directly connect with your friends with ease. How can the two be compared? I don't believe they can.            

Transcendentalism = not sustainable (CC(?)

As we have delved deeper into the transcendentalist philosophy, my opinions, unlike some of my peers, have not turned towards dislike, but simply the overall observation of how unsustainable it is. By that I mean that it is a philosophy that if implemented would not help any institution survive. Obviously, as going against almost all institutions is a part of the philosophy. I cannot agree with this. The saying "Man is a social animal" exists for a reason - because it is true. It's a natural action for people to form groups, communities etc. and society and culture is a further extension of that. This is firmly objective. When we look at the other great apes, we do not see them roaming by themselves, rather in fairly large groups with families and leaders and other basic aspects of communities. You cannot say that groups are some evil human invention. What my point is is that isolation as outlined by the transcendentalists is not only illogical but it goes against what has made us, as a species, so successful. This is what makes it unsustainable. Without groups, the world as we know it cannot exist. This is not to say that the movement is entirely without merit. Yes, groups of all sorts have enabled us to dominate the world, but they do have problems, a fact both I and the transcendentalists agree on. Another one being the value of individualism - which I prize above many other things. Though I agree with both of these points, I do not agree with transcendentalism's proposed methods of fixing them. Leaving the group is not the way to fix problems with the group, and individualism is not such an overarching thing that one cannot become part of a group, or should go and live in isolation. Rather than this, I propose that we fix groups from within, and encourage individualism by demonstrating it. Transcendentalism, like so many things, must be used with moderation if it has any hope of succeeding.        

A post in the hand is worth two in the bush (RD)

Whether you know it or not, you have been exposed to the device known as sententia your entire life."A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". "You do not need a title to be a leader". "One good turn deserves another". "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Etc. etc. A good definition would be a brief witty statement, that contains a particular piece of wisdom which is used to sum up the previous arguments or statements. For that goal, it can be very effective. Because so many sayings and witticisms have been passed down in our society, it lets you use one of them and be fairly certain that your audience will know the saying, or at least understand what it means. That said, the sententia must not be too obscure, or you risk not getting your point across, and alienating your audience. Another caveat of using this device is over use, or relying too heavily on it. This must be taken into account with every device, but you must be particular with this one. If you have too little information before the saying then it is just making the argument for you. The same with overuse. If what you are writing is filled with references, then people are going to get distracted and it will destroy whatever you are trying to say. The best time to use it is when you already have a strong argument, and you know or can find a saying that sums it up nicely. If you can do this right, then sententia can be a powerful tool for completing, tying together, and enhancing your argument. "A quotation in a speech, article or book is like a rifle in the hands of an infantryman. It speaks with authority."
    

Flappy Bird (IR)

 

So Flappy Bird is gone. A fact I am sure you were already aware of due to the game's viral nature. Regardless, I feel that the situation deserves a closer look, as this has happened before, as well as the fact it shows an important aspect of fame in regards to the internet. First of all, the reason he decided to take the game down. Well, when you reach so broad an audience, especially and internet audience, you are invariably going to attract some crazies. And attract them he did. The quite literal torrential out pour of virulent tweets and messages was astounding. People complaining about this and that, demanding he change it, hurting themselves, threatening to hurt him - insanity is indeed the right word to describe it. Moreover, Mr. Nguyen realized how many people were getting addicted to it, and the overall unhealthy nature of the game. So, I guess he pulled a Frankenstein and killed his own monster. Anyway, as I said, this is not a unique incident. I remember one particular example where a developer of a Call of Duty game increased the reload time on a gun by approximately .275 seconds - and was immediately awash with people on Twitter threatening to kill his family. There was also Phil Fish, who got so sick of incidents like this he quit the entire video game industry. And remember Anita Sarkeesian? She was attacked in much the same manner. Just a reminder that the anonymity of this internet is not always a good thing - I guarantee this will happen again.       

Divisions (CC)

Our recent starting of "What is the What" has brought the idea of divisions into my mind, and there are certainly a lot of them. People divide themselves based on a literal multitude of things. Gender, race, religion, wealth, ethnicity, nationality and I am sure many more. As we have seen, these divisions lead to nothing good. In the book alone we have seen the divisions between gender lead to sexism and inequality, divisions between nationality lead to abuse and animosity, and the divisions between religion lead to outright violence and death. Needless to say, I, and hopefully everyone else, are opposed to such things. So what then, are differences between cultures and other such things simply bad? Would a world under a single culture and society be a good thing? I doubt it. Though I cannot say much for the latter, the former I would disagree with. The fault is not with the differences themselves, the fault is with the people who interpret them. To the well adjusted person, the differences between cultures are viewed as good. They are a part of our history, a reminder of the diversity of the world and the richness of the different cultures we come from. Divisions become a problem when people start to view other cultures with derision, mockery, suspicion, when they begin to believe that their culture or country is better than another one. We cannot do this. As a species we must, as MLK said "sit together at the table of brotherhood" while not forgetting, nor getting caught up on the diversity that our long history has provided.      

Clones (CM)

Ever since the dawn of the wonder genre known as science fiction, certain recurring features can be seen throughout. Starships, aliens, lasers - and clones. While not quite as prevalent as said starships and aliens, they are certainly still a part, and an often scary one as that. Star Trek clones, Star Wars clones, Bladerunner  clones, Matrix clones, Hitman clone and I am sure many more. The common feature that all of these fictitious clones share is that none of them are represented well. The ones that are represented somewhat neutrally are still viewed as enigmatic, alien - not quite human. The ones that are represented poorly, then, are viewed as literally not human, like they are tools of war or work, or even freaks of nature that shouldn't exist.

The truth about cloning is very, very very different.

It's unfortunate that our society has been so broadly misinformed about the realities of cloning. I'm sure that many of us when we hear the word "clone" we imagine legions of bald, eyebrow-less, pale people with barcode tattoos. Cloning does not produce this. Cloning produces only one thing - an organism genetically identical to the animal it's DNA was taken from. That's it. Nothing more - nothing less, no black magic - no horrors against the lord. To say it another way, cloning is simply a way of artificially producing an organisms twin. Another fact that some people may not be aware of is that clones are not grown in vitro. They develop in a womb like any other organism, and are born the natural way as well.

What I am trying to say is that there is nothing nefarious about cloning. In fact, it's a good thing. In the future, it may allow infertile couples to have biological children, and cloning of individual tissues or organs will provide people who need organ transplants organs that match theirs exactly. Cloning is a marvel of modern medicine, and I hope that the false perceptions surrounding it will disappear soon.          

       

The draft and more sexism (CC)

Keeping with the theme of gender issues, I have decided to talk about the draft. That being, for those who don't know, the ability of the government in times of war to mandate that males 18-25 can be forced into military service. The draft was technically stopped in 1973, now instead we have "selective service" whereas in times of "national emergency" this agency, yes there is an entire agency devoted to this, would hold a literal lottery where they would draw birthdays out of a lottery drum and if its your birthday you must sign up to fight. More on this later. Now, in both cases women are totally exempt from any form of conscription. Is this sexism - against men? The simple answer would be yes. Indeed it would appear that men are being cast as macho warrior, eager to fight the enemy, while women are once again considered fragile homemakers, the very core of their idea fundamentally incompatible with fighting. In this case, the entire institution in question is rife with gender typing and stereotypes. Neither gender should have to feel obligated to either go into combat, for men, or stay out of it, for women. I do understand that women on average are significantly weaker than men, but less physical strength does not necessarily for a less capable soldier. Moreover, I'm sure that the thinking when women were excluded from the draft was not that they were necessarily less capable, but rather that "women were weak" or "women should be cleaning not fighting" or other such overgeneralized false aphorisms. Even discounting the moral problems with forcing people into military service, the system of the draft remains yet another relic of a less developed and resoundingly worse time for people in general. I hope to see it reformed soon.        

"Playing like a girl" (IR)

The idea of "playing like a girl" has been one of the few almost totally ubiquitous insults that has been passed down throughout Americana, and cultures worldwide. The BBC article I read discussed whether this term was offensive or not. Frankly, I'm surprised they had to ask the question. When someone "plays like a girl" or does "x, y or z like a girl" it of course has nothing to do with how feminine the action in question was, it is used to paint something as weak, poor, and just bad overall. This then implies that just because something is associated with women or females at large it is automatically inferior to it's male counterpart, and any man should be ashamed to be part of any such things. This then feeds back into the idea of straw feminism. Men who defend or otherwise affiliate with women are viewed as weak and are looked down on. This is a major problem with the advancement of women's rights. These sentiments are rooted incredibly deep, so much so that even as I am writing this, the idea of a man in a traditionally female position is still off putting, still tugging at some resoundingly sexist part of my basic social schemas. This, of course, does not justify these sentiments. To add a stipulation, and refute a potential counterargument, I do understand that the large majority of men are quite a bit stronger than women in general. The article states this obscure fact by saying that women don't throw things as far as men can. Brilliant. I suppose in some minds this would justify the use of that statement claiming that it is factually accurate. It most certainly does not. The use of this statement in conversation is not fueled by logic or used as some sort of poorly-wrought scientific simile, it is used simply as a cheap insult drawing on old cultural sexism.          

/b/, Twitch, and the rules of the internet (TA)

It seems possible if not inevitable that "women become full and active participants in our digital world", but it isn't going to happen without the digital world putting up a fight.

Anyone who has become part of, or even just observed an internet culture will know that they are dominated by men, in more ways than one. Moreover than just sheer volume, the most successful members of the most popular sites are all men. And yes, I mean all of them. Go check for yourself - I point to Twtich TV and Youtube as prime examples of this male-dominated culture. In the rare and gawked-at event in which a female attempts to become part of this culture it is viewed as extremely odd, and yes, an intrusion, one which is necessarily met with blatant sexism or misogyny, but rather infantilized, made "cute", set up as a spectacle in which the male participants laugh at the ridiculous notion that a woman could actually be part of this culture. I have not seen many successful women come out of these cultures, but in the few cases that I have seen the women in question would be considered "sexy", and draws excessive attention to the fact that she is a woman. In several cases I have seen these types of female accounts/channels/whatever manner of distribution are an accessory to an already popular male one. This type of corruptive dichotomy, as well as the atheistic characteristics of said female participants serve both to perpetuate the stereotypes of women on the internet as hypersexual and manipulative, as well as serve as a microcosm of the dependency of women on men that is already such a problem, (to use the common phrase), IRL.
   
On to Ms. Sarkeesian's predicament. I reference 4Chan's rules of the internet to attempt to explain why this happened. Rule 30: There are no girls on the internet. Obviously not true, but this idea points out the fact that it is indeed a male-dominated culture. People claiming or who actually are female are viewed with suspicion, often leading to mocking or slander. They are obviously the minority, so this makes this easy. Rules 42 and 43: Nothing is sacred, and The more beautiful and pure a thing is - the more satisfying it is to corrupt it. The anonymity of the internet lets people mock things in ways that would be wildly unacceptable, such as the misogyny shown throughout various sites. Rules 18 and 19: Anything that can be labeled can be hated, and The more you hate it the stronger it gets. Rule 20: Nothing is to be taken seriously. The amalgamation of these "rules" is the mindset and act of "trolling". That is, deliberately inciting anger or other such emotional responses in people by acting in an ignorant, extreme or otherwise inflammatory way.

And I think Ms. Sarkeesian got trolled. Hardcore.

Now, I of course DO NOT CONDONE these actions, or in any way believe that such trolling MAKES THIS ACCEPTABLE. Rather, I think that the "troll" mindset of slander and incitement, combined with male dominance of video game culture and the internet at large made her an outlet for the aimless misogynistic sentiments that reside on the internet. As for the organization of the hate campaign, the internet has an incredible ability to loosely organize itself, especially if it is against a particular individual or organization. I point to the "battletoad" meme as a more humorous example (WARNING - some strong language) http://imgur.com/VY2xE .

In conclusion, the attacks Ms. Sarkeesian are an exemplification of the worst parts of internet culture. Juvenile, thoughtless attacks based on nothing but casual misogyny and a misguided sense of tribal belonging. Even though the culture of the internet is deeply rooted, the culture in our offline lives have a profound effect on our digital ones. And as such, in our offline lives, even though women are essentially equal to men under the law, they are increasingly objectified in new and more horrible ways. We stand at a crossroads here. Will rational thought lead us to a society where genders are no longer typed, packaged and sold, or will educational and intellectual apathy combined with corporate greed lead us to a typed and chauvinistic society?

I really don't know.                

Flipped education? (IR)

I recently came across a quite interesting opinion piece in the New York times describing a different method of education, using "mastery learning" and "flipped classrooms". I guess the basic premise is that instead of the teacher determining the speed of the class, the students do. As well as that, students can work independently of one another, proving their mastery through some sort of assessment. At it's core, the idea sounds excellent, but as always, theory greatly differs from practice. Right out of the gate I am questioning the nebulous nature of the classroom environment. The article talked about one aspect of the "flipped classroom" being that rather than the teacher giving live lectures, they would create pre-recorded videos of them for students to view at their leisure. At least from my experience, the dynamics of live lectures, questions being proposed by both the teacher and the students, the discussion that stems from that an other things etc., are incredibly useful learning tools. As well as that, if my sentimentality may be excused, the idea of video lectures. would seem quite dead. The overall rationale for the video lectures being that the teacher now has time to work with individual students on practice problems and projects, the lecture being the actual homework. This lack of homework seems like it could be both a good and bad thing. Once again from personal experience, I have certainly had the displeasure of sitting at home confused about homework, having on one to really help me. Then again, having constant help on homework somewhat decreases its value, depriving students to have the challenge of practicing concepts on their own. A double edged sword I suppose, as is the entire system in a way. Speaking for the third time empirically, I went to elementary school in a Montessori classroom, where the main focus was the use of materials, but we also had a great deal of freedom to work as we pleased, but that was combined with many structured group activities, and interjections from the teacher. Now, this may have worked great with a bunch of 1-4th graders whom thought learning was "exciting", but to be perfectly frank, any system of learning that gives students large amounts of time to do with as they please is probably going to end up as more of a social time than a work one.

Or maybe that's just us.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/in-flipped-classrooms-a-method-for-mastery/              

Cats (FW)

I like cats. I enjoy the softness of their fur, the playfulness of their temperament, and the excellent companionship they can provide. I, however, do not own a cat. This is due in no small part to the fact that my dad does not like cats. I do not understand why. He sides with most people in his adoration of dogs and dislike of cats. That, however, is not to say I do not like dogs. I find it strange that people group themselves as either "dog" people or "cat" people. "Dog" people associating themselves with extroversion and boisterousness, "cat" people associating themselves with introversion and quietness. But why do people feel the need to group themselves in such a manner? Perhaps it is simply a feature of human disposition. People obviously have this group attachment mentality, as one can see easily from the formation of cliques. If people didn't have this desire, would there be such thing as a "cat" or "dog" person? Or is it a deeper, less frivolous connection? Perhaps we do see some sort of solidarity between our individual psyche and the generalized behavior of a species of animal. But then again, if people have a desire to fit in to a particular group, could they be wrongly interpreting themselves as a mechanism for fitting in? And, in that case, could that extend beyond the "cat"-"dog" dichotomy, to behavior, even entire personalities?

Maybe. Probably not.

In any case, cats are furry and awesome, and in fact, are the superior animal. QED.            

Aliens (CM)

An absurdity to some, a reality to others, the idea of extraterrestrials have captivated people's interest for centuries, and even more so in the modern world. The origins of people's belief ranges from solid scientific reasoning, to poor education, to downright psychosis. People's disbelief usually stems from internal skepticism, solid scientific reasoning, and in some cases, religion. I myself fall on the "believe" side, I hope for solid reasoning. To expound on that hopefully solid reason, I would like to begin with a staple of extraterrestrial belief, Drake's Equation. 

(Bad copying srry D: Please click the image)

R_* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy

f_p = the fraction of those stars that have planets

n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

f_l = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point

f_i = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)

f_c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space 

Through a series of very complicated estimations, and some very simple multiplication, the current answer comes out to be 36.4 million at current estimates. However, this is still not really the point of the equation. The point is to show how improbable it is that life doesn't exist elsewhere. When thought about, even only our galaxy is an incomprehensibly large place containing an estimated 300 Billion stars. If the majority of those stars have planets orbiting them, and in all of those solar systems there is the "Goldilocks" zone, where the heat from the sun is neither too cold nor too hot. In a galaxy and universe full of elements waiting to be formed into planets, than it would seem highly probable that a significant number of planets have formed in this zone. These planets would have been very similar, if not identical to the early conditions of our planet. The aliens, you might be wondering, come in not long after this. Though the molten and volcanic early planet may seem inhospitable, in 1953 Stanley Miller proved that organic compounds such as amino acids would be formed by running electric current through an abiotic chemical environment, one that would closely resemble the atmosphere of early Earth. This process, as I sit here typing my highly abstract thoughts into my semi-conductor powered electric computation machine, obviously works. 

As another point of information is the discovery of several "super-Earths" relativity close  to our solar system. These planets are larger than ours, but are in the same "Goldilocks" zone, and NASA says, are potentially habitable.

If this is what lies within our small view of the Universe from here on Earth, I can hardly imagine what lies outside it. 

http://www.space.com/20720-earth-like-alien-planets-discovery.html  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%E2%80%99s_Equation     

Vaccines (CM)

As much as people (myself included) hate vaccines, they are indeed a vital part of modern healthcare. They have been proven again and again has an effective method of preventing many diseases, such as measles, mumps, rubella and more. It would be very difficult to dispute their effectiveness. People still do however, and even more than that, that claim that vaccines are the cause of, mainly, autism of all things. The idea is intrinsically preposterous. Autism is a disorder that is not fully understood, and what we do know about it points to it being mainly genetic. That is even besides the point. There have been multiple studies showing that there is no correlation between vaccination and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In addition to that, it is a well established statistic that as many as 1 in 88 people have some sort of ASD. That compared to the large amount of people that receive vaccines, its not hard to draw a pseudo-scientific relation between the two. A final, and very sad reason that people may blame vaccines for autism is that the parents of children with severe autism may simply be looking for something to blame. Sad, but it's not a unreasonable conclusion. Hopefully you can see that vaccines have been proven to be effective, and the surprisingly large faction that believes autism and vaccines are connected, are very wrong.

Some citations:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10997&page=1
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/      

A cornucopia of convoluted corrupting fallacies (CC)

As we have been discussing fallacies in class, and we need look outside of our classwork for examples, I new I needed to look no further than the Holy grail of fallacious reasoning and rhetoric, a veritable treasure trove of examples and a testimony to just how bad people's reasoning can be - Conservapedia. Written from "a self described American conservative and Christian point of view" (Wikipedia), it is also described by it's rival site, RationalWiki, as a " purposefully deceitful, heavily biased, conservative blog project  encyclopedia project". The site's use of fallacies are quite literally too numerous to list (as you will discover if you visit the site yourself), but I will list 3 of the best one here for your enjoyment. 

A good place to start is the page on Liberals. "A liberal is someone who favors increased government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare, as well as the censorship of Christianity.". My Webster's  dictionary says otherwise. "Liberal: Not literal or strict; tolerant; favoring reform or progress.". Wikipedia defines liberalism as "A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.". This is a very clear, yet poorly executed, example of a straw man fallacy.

Moving on down the auricle into a list of what "liberals" support and or practice, I see more fallacies than I even really care to mention. They seem to greatly using the appeal to tradition fallacy, as things listed include "Anti-Americanism", "Destroying the Christian foundations on which America was built on", "Ending western morality", and "Denial of traditional gender roles". None of these arguments have any real substance behind them, merely hollow appeals to tradition.

Moving even deeper into the article, we find this gem of a section "Liberalism and bestiality", entirely based on the total skewing, debasement and slandering of a professor of ethics, Peter Singer. They claim he supports such things as bestiality, infanticide, necrophilia, etc. etc. you get the idea. These claims are, of course, entirely false, but moreover than that the argument of the entire section is a a kind of reverse genetic fallacy, as well as a false cause and effect fallacy. Peter Singer supports bestiality, Peter Singer is a liberal, therefore liberals support bestiality. The article also repeatedly talks about the connection between atheists and liberals, and below the section it has a link to an entirely separate article about "Atheism and bestiality". Implying the argument that "Liberals are Atheists, Liberals support bestiality, therefore Atheism leads to bestiality" - wait what? Either way, there you have it, a genetic and false cause and effect fallacy all wrapped up into one nice little package.

I could write for pages and pages about the hundreds if not thousands of fallacies they employ throughout their thousands of pages of swiss-cheese consistency writing. But frankly, I have better things to do with my time, and I'm worried that that would just dignify it.

So I leave you with a link, and a quote from Dante. 

"Abandon all hope ye who enter here"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page                    

Metaphors (RD)

The more eloquent cousin of the simile, the metaphor is a rhetorical device that has been used and reused for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The core concept of a metaphor is the comparison of two ideas, objects, experiences, etc. without the use of "like" or "and".

Examples of this device are everywhere in reading from the most casual of books, to the heaviest of literature. Perhaps one of the most famous metaphors, and one of the most phrases, "All the word's a stage, and all the men and women merely players", from Shakespeare's As You Like It compares the world we live in and the lives we live to a play happening, "And one man in his time plays many parts". It is obviously a brilliant metaphor, which is why is has stood the test of time.

Another, and almost as famous Shakespearean metaphor is the famous line from Sonnet 18 "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day". Here, he compares the fairness/beauty of the subject (probably a woman) to the splendor of a sunny summer day. This one is particularly effective because the love of summer and sunny days is cross-cultural idea, and is almost a social norm. As such, it makes it a very effective metaphor that has remained for hundreds of years.

As somewhat less well-known, but still famous example would be from Emily Dickinson's poem Hope where she writes "Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul, and sings the tune without the words, and never stops at all.". Here she compares the idea of hope to a bird that perches in ones soul and sings the song of hope. This is a very interesting metaphor, as she says "thing with feathers that perches" instead of bird. I imagine the purpose of this would be to avoid any sort of preconceived notions of birds. It instead allows the reader to create their own mental image of a "hope bird" perching in the soul. Overall, this is what makes is such an effective metaphor.

These three examples illustrate some of the most famous metaphors in literature, and also show why the metaphor is one of the classic tried and true rhetorical devices.  

Not quite fair and balanced.

The situation with the civil war in Syria is a mess. That is stating the obvious however, as any casual observer could see that. What is equally a mess is the reporting of certain media outlets on these events, namely, Fox News. I, however, cannot say that I am really all that surprised to find this little gem nestled in the sea of irrational, pharisaical, religiously biased reporting, subverted and twisted language, and of course, the ever-present fervent hatred of Barrack Obama. The article is titled "GOP Leaders should let Allah Syria's Islamic civil war". Let us notice a few things here. Firstly, even with the absence of inflection that comes with the spoken word, one can see the mocking tone that "Allah" is said with, the writer scoffing at the idea of a god different than his. Secondly, the writer very specifically that it is an Islamic civil war, exemplifying the classic American bias against anything middle-eastern. Moving into the article, the writer cannot help but once again point out just how much of a demon Obama is. "While America continues to become an economic and moral wasteland under this regime..." (Horowitz). The author has chosen to use the word "regime" instead of administration or presidency to obviate once again his hatred of Obama. The article goes on to provide various fallacious and biased reasons why intervening in Syria would spell doom for the United States, this idea personified in the statement "Our only interest in Syria is ensuring that as many Islamists on both sides are killed and keep each other busy so they can't affect our national interests or threaten Israel .". Indeed, the writer suggests that simply letting the "Islamists" kill each other is a very good option. It simply does not matter to him if thousands of civilians are caught in the crossfire. Not only is this statement morally rotten, but the writers, puffed up, pompous, ignorant blindly chauvinistic figuratively turns his nose up at the idea of lesser beings getting in the way of his grand plans, in this case, the repeal of the so-called "Obamacare". "Republicans should vote with a unified voice against this ridiculous escapade, and summarily reconvene the fight against Obamacare.". It's truly sobering to see that in the authors mind, the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children are nothing in the face of his dislike of a healthcare bill. This kind of deceitful, biased reporting proves that one must be truly careful when choosing what to believe.   

 Link to article - http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/gop-leaders-should-let-allah-sort-out-syria-islamic-civil-war/

Ethos, Logos, and Pathos in "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks"

The book I read,  The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, has one main focus that is seen throughout the entire work. That is, telling the story of Henrietta Lacks. In short, the speaker is the author, Rebecca Skloot, the audience is the general population, anyone interested in science/ethics, and people who don't know the story of Henrietta Lacks. Henrietta Lacks was a black woman who lived from 1920-1951. Her life was cut short by an incredibly virulent from of cervical cancer, which quickly killed her, but also just happened to launch a medical revolution. A sample of her tumor was taken against the wishes of her family, and it just happened to end up in the hands of George Gey, a tissue researcher that was attempting to grow immortal human cells, ones that replicated forever - and so he did. The HeLa cell line was born, transforming into a multi-million dollar industry, not which one single dime went to the Lack's family. More than that, the cells also caused the medical revolution, leading to the momentous creation of the polio vaccine. Does the cells usefulness justify the fact they were taken without permission, should the Lack's family receive a cut of the profits made off her cells, and who was Henrietta Lacks? These questions provide the general basis of the purpose of this book.    

Skloot establishes her ethos heavily in the first few pages. She establishes herself as an average high school student, and then an average biology student in college, but one who had a particular interest in the HeLa cell line, and more importantly, where they came from. She continues to make herself sound very average, simply a person with a great curiosity in a particular story. She also paints a very specific image of herself, "I grew up in a safe, quiet, middle-class neighborhood...." (Skloot 7), further expounding on her average-ness. Despite this, towards the second half and end, she herself enters the story, and begins narrating her actions as a character, developing herself along with the story and other characters.        

Logos is employed in this work mainly in a sort of section were the author digresses from the current narrative and goes on to explain scientific or statistical back story, such as explaining the basic function of cells, or giving statistical information such as "One scientist estimates that if you could pile all HeLa ever grown onto a scale, they'd weigh more than 50 million metric tons" (Skloot 2). The book remains story and character driven, though, and the employment of these sections wane as the book progresses, and the story goes more into the modern day, and the authors experience essentially finding out this story.    

The elicitation of pathos is something that happens often in this book, and with good reason. Henrietta grew up in the 1920-1930's, where a combination of poverty and racism made life very difficult for the Lack's family. Most reasonable people would agree that racism is unacceptable, and in fact a bane upon society, and as such the massive inequality between black and white people in those days is sure to stir some sympathy. Later on in her life, in the 1940's and 50's, she gets a super-aggressive cancer of the cervix, which metastasizes throughout her entire body, choking her from the inside, and eventually causing her painful death due to uremic poisoning, after her kidneys failed. Skloot's very vivid medic terminology, as well as her acute, and frankly at some points disgusting imagery truly captures her conditions horror, not to mention the emotional pain felt by her family and friends as they watch her die. Henrietta's personal story is not the only way the book elicits pathos, however. Later in the book, as Skloot actually gets close to the surviving members of the Lack's family, and their struggles with Henrietta's cells, it becomes more and more apparent that they are all caught in the middle of something that they wanted no part of in the first place. "It's not only the story of HeLa cells and Henrietta Lacks, but of Henrietta"s family-particularly Deborah- and their lifelong struggle to make peace with the existence of those cells, and the science that made them possible." (Skloot 7).          

Would I read another?

I absolutely would read another book by this author. This book was a pleasure to read, and though it may have been dry in some of the heavily historical/scientific areas, I still wanted to read it through to the end. After I had finished it, stood back, looked at the notes, thought about the amount of time it took the write, I realized it was an absolutely prodigious work of journalism. "The source materials I relied on to write this book filled multiple file cabinets, and the hundreds of hours of interviews I conducted ...fill several shelves worth of notebooks." (Skloot 338). I would go as far as to say that it's one of a kind, and needs to be read. In a way, though, I feel almost like we will not be getting another book from her like this. By profession, she's not a novelist, she writes for publications like Popular Science and is a journalist for PBS's Nova. I feel that it's perfectly possible for her to continue journalism, and not write another book. If she ever writes another book however, I will be first in line to get it.