Affluenza as Proof

 Upon comparing the ideas of Thoreau in Walden and the precepts of “Affluenza,” I have proved myself wrong and right. It is my humble opinion that, though Thoreau was observant and correct in many ways, his ideas and writings did not truly influence the people of his time or the people of ours. Henry David Thoreau helped define an idea, a philosophy: Transcendentalism. His idea was astute, its principles were groundbreaking and relevant, but it did not really change the way people go about their lives. Society, in America especially, is still a capitalist, materialist, consumer-based train that only lets those willing to get rich or die trying on its luxury cars. If you want to live in mainstream culture, the culture Thoreau and Emerson were attempting to influence, you had better expect to be a slave to your trade. If you want to live in America, you will have to get off your pumpkin and sit on a crowded velvet cushion like the rest of us; that’s how it’s done here!

Affluenza serves as proof for me. Because it is a new idea, created on observations of modern day civilization, it demonstrates that the masses of America are still leading lives of quiet desperation. People have not taken Thoreau’s ideas to heart and they have not changed our cultural practices of mass consumerism. That much I feel is apparent. However, there is ironic duality of Affluenza. This new philosophy also provides evidence that Thoreau and his fellow Romantic Transcendentalists did influence the masses. Connections can easily be drawn between the materialist culture Thoreau was condemning in the 19^th century and the Affluenza of modern day; it is undeniable. And to know that some people, though they be few, cry out against this Affluenza today demonstrates that the message of Walden lives on today.

Affluenza is how we live today… no doubt about it. It is as American as Emerson thought Thoreau was. It is a part of American culture, and we will be victim of it for years to come. To know this is proof that we are “tools of our tools.” We are slaves of our work, moreover of our gluttonous desires. It is proof that Thoreau did not fulfill his mission to change us.  But to acknowledge that we are trapped in Affluenza, to know Thoreau is right… this has the ability to change us. Time has shown that the ideas of Walden have influenced the way we perceive our culture, and time will tell if one day Thoreau will one day be as influential as he is made out to be.  Maybe one day his ideas will change the way we live.

White America Response

If Randolph S. Bourne were to read Hua Hsu’s essay, I am confident he would smile and say, “Oh, how far we’ve come.” In his essay, Trans-National America, Bourne calls pre-World-War-One America to diversify their culture – to no longer force immigrants to abide the Anglo-Saxon, or shall we say white, culture synonymous with being American. Bourne asks America to abandon the image of “the great American melting-pot” or assimilation, and instead take up a new image of a country in which vastly different ethnicities and cultures coexist in harmony and respect. For Bourne, Hua Hsu’s essay, The End of White America, would be conclusive evidence that America took his message to heart. Hsu illustrates modern day America as a place where non-white ethnicities have equal opportunity and are in no way treated with discrimination. Bourne would probably be startled that his revolution happened so quickly. In under one hundred years time, the black race went from “separate but equal” to having the opportunity to become the president of the United States. However, I wonder: would Bourne be alarmed at the prospect of the white race becoming the minority? Hua Hsu contends that whites are losing their supremacy over other races, that whites will become the minority, and that there is a “gradual erosion of ‘whiteness’” already occurring. Hsu essentially says that Bourne’s vision will not only be achieved, that is, not only will non-whites enjoy the benefits of their own culture but their equality will also do away with the Anglo-Saxon tradition of whites altogether. I wonder… is that what Bourne was out to achieve? would Bourne find that tolerable?

Trans-national America

In “Trans-national America,” Rudolph Bourne comments on the “failure of the ‘melting pot.” He writes this essay in a time in which his ideas are significant in society: WWI. The main theme of the essay is that assimilation is not a successful idea – that is that the immigrants coming to America do not wish to conform heart and soul to American culture. They do not “melt” into uniformity, as often they still have a nationalism to their country of origin.

Bourne wishes to redefine the idea of “Americanization.” He feels it can no longer be called a melting pot as there is no uniform “American” culture, and immigrants seldom come to this nation to culture to melt into our cultural practices. He feels we, as Americans, need to account for the native culture of these immigrants and let them keep practicing their customs. We are all descendant of immigrants, he reminds us. Bourne argues that this is the grounds to abolish the idea of the melting pot and adopt the self image of a diverse nation, founded on the pursuit of freedom.

The group that Bourne attributes the false American culture to is the Anglo-Saxon immigrants of the country’s early history. The British that sailed here established their cultural to be dominant in the 1600s and their tradition has continued to thrive, mostly because people fear change. People do not want to break from the culture of America’s origin. For that reason, Bourne says that “Americanization” is really “Anglo-Saxonization.”

This article closes with the acknowledgement of a hope, Bourne’s hope that the people of his time will be more accepting of foreign culture, the culture of a people seeking freedom. His hope his that multiculturalism, or as he puts it, “intellectual internationalism,” will be the new vision of Americanization. His purpose is to do away with the false Anglo-Saxon American culture and bring to America a new patchwork culture, united not in every cultural practice but in their undying pursuit of freedom and the American dream.

P. 513 #3

My paper, “CFLs: See the Light,” contains the following argumentation: Dogmatism ”One can not even consider a bulb if doesn’t perform well or it is extremely inefficient” and Hasty Generalization e.g. “And as for the warm up time, I think that 30 seconds on average is not so taxing that it prevails over the cost efficiency of a CFL.”

The editorial, “Inaugural address sounds notes of optimism and reality,” contains the following fallacies: Dogmatism e.g. “Obviously, U.S. military forces are engaged in armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Equally obviously, this nation faces a threat of more 9/11-style terrorism from Al Qaeda and its imitators.” 

The post of the syndicated column dear Abby, “Dear Abby: Breadwinner wife says hubby must wear panties” contains a sentence that seems fallacious. “You should wear underwear in which you feel comfortable without having to worry about anyone “finding out.”  This may be an appeal to false authority, but I’m not sure. She seems convicted that the man shouldn’t be forced to wear panties, but her conviction has no logical reasoning to support it. 

President Obama’s inaugural speech contains the fallacy of dogmatism, e.g. “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.” This statement doesn’t accept the idea that it is a weakness, and does not logically support the idea.

The most common fallacy in these four texts is the fallacy of Dogmatism. I think this fallacy occurs so often because people frequently have the idea that their own opinion is correct for self-evident reasons. And often times, the audience has a similar opinion and thinks nothing of this fallacy. So it continues.

 

“David Sedaris and His Defenders” response

Though Jack Shafer’s article does seem to display a eyebrow-raising  ignorance of the characteristics of the creative nonfiction genre, it does raise an important question: How far can a creative nonfiction writer stretch the truth? When does a piece stop being nonfiction with creative literary techniques and turn into fiction loosely based on factual occurrences?

As anyone with a basic understanding of creative nonfiction knows, in this type of writing truth can freely be embellished, or “invented” in order to convey a “greater truth.” Jack Shafer adamantly disagrees with this idea, going so far as to mock David Sedaris and the whole creative nonfiction genre. To Shafer, the idea of “inventing the truth” belongs only in comedy and not in nonfiction, and I have to say he does have a point. How can you really call something nonfiction if it is a little bit fictional? It does seem contradictory. Furthermore, Shafer argues that one need not invent wit in a story to make it funny… he should just tell a funny story that actually happened. Which does makes sense, but also overlooks the fact that creative nonfiction is designed to discover or convey a “great truth,” something we all can apply to our lives.

At the same time, I feel that there is a point where enough invention is too much, where there is too much fiction in my nonfiction. After a while, I think that you might as well tell a fictional story designed to get across a “great truth,” instead of telling a true story that has been “invented” enough to fit the idea of a truth. So, I don’t agree with Shafer, as I am aware of the existence of the creative nonfiction genre. But I do think that there is a limit to the amount of embellishment one can put in a story and still call it nonfiction.  I’m not saying that every word of the dialogue in a work must be factually accurate, but I do think that scene after scene of new action is too much. I don’t agree with Shafer, but I do think it is possible to glean great truths from reality, not just embellished reality.

            – David Holmes

The American Dream

To define the American dream is a seemingly impossible task, as defining this “dream” would identify in most simple terms the interests, hopes, and aspirations of every single American living today. It is to define the “missing link” that connects the infinitely numerous cultures and ethnicities – it would unify the shining diversity of peoples we shelter in the “Great American Melting Pot.” Indeed, it seems impossible to delineate a dream so universal that it can extend across the 9,631,420 square kilometers of the United States of America, uniting every single American contained within. However, it is not impossible – it can and has been done. When an immigrant steps off the boat, or perhaps the plane, and walks onto American soil for the first time, he has a feeling. He or she can sense in the air the essence, or the fundamental nature of America. This sensation is something most natural-born Americans share in every moment, yet rarely acknowledge. It is a feeling of freedom. It is the resonating of the words of our fore-fathers. The American dream, as of now, is simply that all men (mankind of course) are created equal, that we all have God given inalienable rights. The American dream as it lives and breathes today is “Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.”

It would be absurd to identify a material desire that all Americans share, as our cultures are diverse and sometimes conflicting. In this way, the beautiful diversity of ethnicity and customs found in America make it impossible to honestly consider a doctrine of Materialism our American dream. For a long time the American dream has been defined in this way. America has advertised itself as the land of wealth and opportunity for years and years; however, it is not unreasonable to call this “dream” a vision. A policy of our society for the longest time has been “Anyone can be president. Anyone can come to America and be rich. We have the opportunities here.” But this dream is truly a vision, just ask any person starving so they can feed their children, ask someone fighting for their life in a bloody gang war if they can be rich, if they can be the president of the United States… If large groups of people do not believe in our dream, then how can our dream truly unite Americans? We know there are real constraints in our consumerist civilization. We know that not everyone can be a millionaire, not everyone can be president.

It is for this reason that the Materialist dream we are swimming in, sink or swim, is not the ideal dream for Americans to share. What we need is a dream rooted in the human interests we all share. Interests we are born into. We all want to live. We all want to be free from tyranny and oppression. We all want to be happy. Our dream is a land where all these things are not just possible, they are guaranteed. We are connected and united in these fundamental desires, these needs. Our fore fathers and the minds of the enlightenment philosophers were saw with insight into what humans need. We all need life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our dream is a land where all Americans have the means by which to attain them.   

David Holmes

A Modest Proposal Response

1. Swift seems to be sincere and concerned in his acknowledgment of the problem. Up until the point he alludes to his own solution, he seems to be realistically outlining the causes and effects of infant poverty. However, when he begins talking about his American friend, he seems to be a little sardonic, just a little. And when he suggests keeping the same male:female ratio as we would cattle, that too.

2. “I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.”

“Those who are more thrifty (as I must confess the times require) may flea the carcass; the skin of which, artificially dressed, will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen.”

Swift is using a gruesome image of cannibalism to illustrate the impoverished state of Ireland and thereby call for a solution. There seems to be an underlying theme of class difference that he carries throughout his essay. He suggests that the affluent are at fault, as they take advantage of those beneath them in class.

Response to “TV Blamed For Rise In Formulaic Violence”

Mr. Ehret, I am going to have to be honest with you. Typically I am quick to understand what satire is addressing, as I understand sarcasm fairly well. However, I simply do not comprehend the intention of this article. Perhaps the author is mocking complaints of “TV causes violence,” or maybe the author is simply acknowledging the overuse of “formulaic violence” and a lack of creativity in television writing. Whatever the case, I cannot rationally determine this articles purpose or claim. I bit into the wrong side of “The Onion.”

            But in an attempt to salvage my grade, I can identify some rhetorical devices used in this indecipherable article. The first device used is irony. For example, in the opening line things are described in an unexpected manner- like “bloodless attacks” and “highly choreographed violence.” I can’t say I even chuckled when I read this, but it’s there. The author also amplifies his claim using “humorous” anecdotes (which I assume to be fabricated by the author himself?). For instance, the author uses a quote from a certain bouncer in Illinois: “It definitely can get pretty formulaic around here Friday, Saturday nights, These guys are a pretty unimaginative crowd. Once they get some wine coolers in them, you see a lot of folks tossed through plate-glass windows, heads cracked with break-away beer bottles, that sort of thing. That’s usually followed up by some sort of really hacky one-liner, like ‘Drinks are on the house.’” Quotes and anecdotes like this are “interesting” and keep the reader entertained until the end, thereby amplifying the authors claim…whatever it might be.

-sorry

Paper Extenze-tion

i intend to elongate my causal essay.  I chose this essay because, of the essays that i am still interested in, it feels the least complete. I want to strengthen the the logic in my reasoning and arrive at a more complex conclusion. I intend to use more anecdotes and qualitative evidence as well as introducing the humor lessons of this week. This essay seems to have potential and i think i can make it solid with more effort and time.

Causal Argument Proposal

Gas is up, up, up! Gas is down, down, down! Within the last month or so the people of Athens, GA have seen gas prices soar above four dollars a gallon and then plummet down to below two dollars. How on earth could gas change from around three dollars a gallon to over four dollars a gallon and then drop down to fewer than two dollars a gallon in two months? Many contributing factors such as Hurricanes Ike and Gustav, a drop in gas use, the end of the summer months, and the presidential election caused this huge hike in gas prices and then its dramatic plunge, but the necessary cause for stark changes in gas price is a lack of regulation in its pricing. Gas prices are determined by the free market.