This advertisement uses irony to make a humorous, and shall we say catchy, argument. It incorporates a textual argument as well as supportive and eye-catching visual aids, the most notable of which is the name Walt Whitman in a large size in the font of Whitman’s candy. This title sets up the irony of the argument: “some people think Walt Whitman makes chocolate candy.” This is a satiric statement that, sadly, is believable. It is understandable that a child would be more familiar with Whitman’s candy samplers than the 19^th century poet and author. And it is from this idea that the argument comes in. this ad argues that children today do not get enough of the arts in their education; because of the irony this is believable. The textual argument goes on to explain, logically mind you, why they should. It argues appealing to logos that children need the arts for a good structural education, which help children comprehend math and science better.

(you are a mean bear)

not you mr. ehret

In Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin uses an extended metaphor to, blatancy and redundancy aside, make a case against helping the poor. With his essay, he both discredits the metaphor of earth as a spaceship in outer space and supplants it with a new image: earth as lifeboats floating on the sea, with the well-off in the boats and the poor swimming for their lives in the sea. Hardin makes the case that helping the poor is equivalent to overfilling figurative “lifeboats,” thus capsizing them and destroying all hope for any man or woman to sustain life on earth regardless of affluence or origin.

            Hardin makes an interesting point when considering birth rates in considering foreign aid of poverty. He establishes early on that impoverished nations tend to have higher birth rates than that of, say, America, and he goes on to acknowledge that, by aiding the poor, we maintain these rates. He ties this into the metaphor by saying that this is increasing the number of people in the sea, outside the lifeboats. He argues, appealing strongly to logical, that this perpetuates the problem and even makes further action more difficult. The real-life occurrence he is describing is the idea of land depletion: the idea that a tract of land can only support so many before life becomes unsustainable (lifeboats only have so much room).

 -DSH

Nicholas Carr’s article is inviting and engaging even as a reader examines its title, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Google, the online search engine, is present in the vast majority of our lives, thus many people are drawn to this idea: Is Google making me stupid? Carr’s choice of subject matter and simple, forthcoming title effectively draw in a very broad audience.  With his audience suitably attracted, he begins his article with an allusion to the popular movie, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, which very efficiently identifies two major themes of his essay: technology and the gradual decline in intellectual capacity. He quotes HAL, “my mind is going, I can feel it…” This sets up his thesis very well, as Carr immediately adds, “I can feel it, too.” He seamlessly goes on to describe how the use of Google, its convenience that is, has affected his ability to concentrate on deep contemplative subjects. He contends that Google is changing the way we think.

Reading for extended periods has become harder for him, he finds himself “fidgety” and unable to hold his attention.  He is describing something that many are experiencing, and so a reader becomes very interested and curious. This ability to identify personal traits of ourselves is very appealing. It makes him more credible, as a reader feels as though he understands the nature of our ailments. Furthermore, he builds credibility by mentioning this condition in friends with literary backgrounds and reputable scientific studies, like Proust and the Squid: the Story and Science of the Reading Brain by Maryanne Wolf (a developmental psychologist at Tufts University) as sources.

Carr has a good command of language and tone that make his article very persuasive. He sounds calm and intelligent throughout this piece. He also uses sound logical reasoning to argue a point relevant to our lives and ultimately leave us with a probing caveat that leaves one contemplating on Carr’s thesis and even considering it as true.

David

This article is a compelling call to speak out against the injustices of major recording labels. Tim Quirk, the author of this piece, is a credible primary source as, he has been through the industry as a musician and has seen firsthand the unfair practices of major labels. He effectively establishes his credibility at the opening of his article saying, “When my band signed a recording contract with a major label in 1989, we weren’t particularly naive. We were graduates of Ivy League schools, we’d been writing, recording and touring together for over five years, and we’d already released two albums; one by ourselves, and one on an independent label. We thought we had a pretty good handle on the deal we were making. But we couldn’t…” In this statement, he both lets you know that he is very well educated and he has considerable experience in the music industry.

Quirk uses his credibility and a good command of language to inform you of the “real” story of a modern day recording artist. He effectively uses his story to illustrate the greed and grievances of the recording industry, deriding labels, agents, and the “armies of business affairs people to enforce the terms of their contracts.” He upsets your perspective of the glamorous music industry with mind-blowing figures; for instance, did you know that “Unless [bands] sell millions of records, they will have no chance of earning a living wage, they will not be able to afford health insurance, and they will find that they still owe the label hundreds of thousands of dollars long after the label has turned a profit on their work.”

One thing that is particularly persuasive about Quirks argument is that it does not come off as overly harsh, but instead fair and well reasoned. He acknowledges this very early by saying, “This is not a diatribe.” This builds his credibility because he sounds very calm and logical. He doesn’t sound like he is merely griping.

Overall, Quirk sounds very believable. His argument is well structured, informing, and persuasive. This article calls all bands to write their story of mistreatment, by a major record label of course, on what he calls the “Wall of Shame,’ and Quirk’s clever and entertaining argumentation effectively wins over an answer to this call. 

- David 

In this article, James Fallows interviews Gao Xiqing, the president of the China Investment Corporation and the man who “oversees many of China’s American holdings.” This article was released two weeks before the 2008 presidential election, an appropriate timing as many Americans took interest in the state of the American economy and lending practices. In this interview, Xiqing discusses his take on American monetary practices. Fellows chose a very credible person for his interview. Xiqing has the experience of presiding over a Chinese company that manages about $200 billion worth of the country’s foreign investments. Fellows could not have chosen a better candidate to interview, however the ethos of Xiqing doesn’t quite make up for the awkward structure of Fellows’ introduction and the lack of direction in his questioning.
            Fellows begins his article well by drawing you into a popular question: “The $1.4 Trillion Question” or the state of the economy in relation to our loans to foreign countries, namely: China. But as he goes on, Fellows starts to make comments that detract from the effectiveness of his argument. He says that Xiqing’s words look astringent on the page, then saying in effect, “he didn’t sound like this in person.” He makes failed attempts at rhetorical strategies like sarcasm, e.g. “‘only’ $200 billion.” And when he finally begins the actual interview, he tells the reader that his “point…is to convey what it is like to hear from such a man, rather than to expand upon, challenge, or agree with his stated views.” This comment completely destroys the effect of the interview, and demolishes any idea of an argument from Fellows. In that statement, Fellows says that he had no reason to interview such a credible source… he just wanted to interview him…?
            This detracts from every clever point Xiqing makes. While reading the interview, you find Gao astringent and you don’t agree with him, or disagree with him. In his introductory comments, Fellows deflates the ethos of Xiqing, thus making the whole article less than persuasive. Aside from the introduction, Fellows also has no general direction in his interview. There is no flow from question to question, and this only serves to make Xiqing sound more deriding of Americans. If I could describe James Fellows essay in one word it would be lackluster. If I could describe Fellows argument in one word I would say… nonexistent

16 April 1905 (10): “In this world, time is like the flow of water, occasionally displaced by a bit of debris, a passing breeze.”

In this dream, people can be transported from the future to the past (or present depending). The narrator depicts these people in a state of continual anxiety, timidness, and, in effect, exile. However these people are exiled by their own volition. They choose to hide and never speak. They spend there time in avoidance of any possible impression on time they might make, though they should be speak out for their knowledge of the future, the diasters and fortunes yet to come. This arises from the fact the do not want to change the good of the future, inhibiting events necessary for world order from happening. They have lost their personhood because, in their situation, they no longer can behave as humans. They musn’t lie on the wrong piece of grass, swat the wrong mosquito, step on the wrong stone – or God forbid talk to someone, if they do not wish to throw the future into chaos and anarchy. We do not seek them out because we do not know they are there. They arrive unexpceted in a trickle of the water of time. When they arrive they are frightenned and have no one to go to. They enter the past alone, and they become lone for the rest of their future. If we could predict the arrival of these people, or could even find them for their social invisiblity, we would certainly use them for gain. We would make them predict the future, and with their knowledge we would change the future. And so the people lost in the river of time live a life of terror and transparency. They do not want to change the future for the worse. But they do not wish to admit they know the future for the better either, as they would run the risk of being interrogated for corrupt gain. It would be a rough life.

Today, people do not synthesize information in the same fashion as we did the time of Socrates. In the time of the ancient Greek philosophers and the great minds of Ancient Rome, minds were taught to be self-reliant (no manual, no study guide attached), with the exception of some text, primarily used to communicate personal thought and revelation over time and distance. It was sparse, and only for the well educated aka the rich. Today conversely, text is everywhere. We read something every five seconds: an advertisement, a magazine cover, the label of a candy-bar, a text message, a blog post, someone’s quippy t-shirt, another text message, et cetera. Text is so ubiquitous that it is impossible to go one day in the modern world (unless you go Walden on society and live alone in the woods), without reading something.

However, this is not the overriding disparity between reading today and reading 2400 years ago, degree. What’s more significant is the “type of library” we have accumulated in our minds. In the time of Socrates, even the time of Homer, a great mind had dense knowledge of a subject; for instance, the Iliad was not recorded in writing for hundreds of years… it was remembered. Whole books were memorized by scholars. At that time, it was normal. The difference is: today we have limited (as in not verbatim) knowledge of hundreds of written sources, back then they knew ten books by heart. If their mind was a library, they would have one shelf of complete books, along with their personal interpretations of them and the conclusions they arrived at with their knowledge. If a modern day reader’s mind was a library, we would have a whole bookcase of one page summaries of famous literature, contemporary media (blog posts, essays, Youtube, etc), and textbook lessons, along with many, many conclusions we have drawn from them. We have a diverse and cosmopolitan knowledge, but it is limited in depth. Ancient minds had immense understanding, based on thousands of memorized lines and interpretations. They made conclusions we marvel at today, but in a sense, we know more than they do.

Their knowledge is a well. Our knowledge is the top of an ice rink.

erin told me to do reading. sorry

As most authors of Literature will do at some point in their career, Thoreau lauds the value of his craft in Reading. He celebrates the universal merit of knowledge that, to him, is never greater than when it is expressed in writing. He specifically acknowledges the supposed supremacy of the written word in saying, “the orator yields to the inspiration of a transient occasion…but the writer…speaks to the intellect and heart of mankind.” One main idea of this passage is the necessity to “read well,” or more specifically, “to read true books in a true spirit.” By “true” books, I think he means to say, books regarded in history to hold multifaceted and intricate answers to the “questions that disturb and puzzle and confound us.” He means books that have the ability to impart the perspective of genius minds to us. In Thoreau’s ideal world, we would all learn the original languages of every genius so as to not have an “imperfect knowledge of the human race.” Thoreau wants us to participate in reading as much as an author does in writing. He has an interesting, thought provoking theory on the correct way to read, and an even more interesting perspective on the value of reading – these same questions that disturb and puzzle and confound us have in their turn occurred to wise men, not one has been omitted.” It brings to mind the song Bodies by Smashing Pumpkins, “No body’s ever new – no bodies. And no body’s felt like you – no bodies.” This idea is that all quandaries of man and God and law have been addressed before, and that your personal outlook, developed in what then is the present, are better formed as an evolution of the past ideas of notable authorities (the wise men Thoreau speaks of.)

My goal in life, what I live for, is to conduct business in a particular field that I know I will enjoy. My greatest dream is to live the life of a successful musician, one that makes music that is regarded as quintessential, held with the esteem of Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix. That could be my business, but as I am fully aware of the risks involved in that occupation, I feel that working in the music industry would be a more successful endeavor while remaining in the same vein as my passion. I have another goal, or – humor me – dream, I want to live in the land of my fathers: Germany. I want to live in the green hills and pastures of Deutschland, where the colors seem brighter and history surrounds me. I am able to identify with my heritage, as my family immigrated in the mid 20th century and i have some relatives there, but I feel my children will not have this experience. They will identify themselves as Americans, through and through, and they will only identify themselves as Germans on heritage day at school. So I want to enjoy life in Germany, for myself and for my children.
            This is where conflict arises: my ideal place of living is not a place for my ideal business. It is far easier to break into a local music industry in America, even Athens, than it is to break into enterprise in a foreign country, with a different language, different customs, and business-models. So I am conflicted; should I live in a location that is conducive to my perfect business, or should I partake in any business that permits me to live in my ideal home? The No Impact article is good evidence to suggest it is quite possible to live like you want in any location. Perhaps it is possible to take part in the German music industry. Even still I could pursue another passion of mine in Germany. I could open a coffee roasting company in Heidelberg – coffee shop in a college town, an American custom I suppose.

Thoreau said he chose to live at Walden Pond because it was a good place for business. He chose Walden Pond, after considering many different farms in Concord, because it suited his needs for sustaining life and, of course, conducting his experiment. My problem is: I have somewhere I want to live that, unfortunately, is not an ideal place for business. I want Frankfurt to be America and Germany. So, will what I live for influence where I will live? It depends on which dream I let die first… being German or being a musician.