In his essay, A Bit Bright, Delfino examines the science, history and development behind Las Vegas’s entertainment attractions through their advertising. He focuses on the methods that Casinos and other businesses have employed in order to draw more customers by tracking the development and change of these methods over time. Delfino suggests that the development of neon signage eventually led to the architectural developments of today’s megaresorts in order to prove how Las Vegas’s tradition of relentless competition leads to the desertion of history.
Delfino introduces the history of neon lights in Las Vegas by presenting us with the character of Vegas Vic, the 90 foot tall cowboy we all know and recognize from countless sources of media. He presents the signs historical importance when he mentions the first instance of a sign being an attraction all by itself, “There was even a billboard pointing out Vic to drivers and pedestrians, as if the sign itself was enough of a spectacle to warrant another sign, furthering the advertising success of the Frontier Club.”
Delfino moves on to present the next development in advertisement and neon signage in Las Vegas. He infers that the city’s “growing pedestrian scale” caused the integration of signs into the actual structure of buildings. He remains that the purpose behind a rival casinos employment of a neon façade was solely to stay competitive in luring more customers.
In focusing on the old downtown Vegas itself, Delfino explains how the development of the Fremont Street Experience was caused by their competitiveness. He mentions how all of the Casinos on the strip have to come together in order to keep up with the newer megaresorts by building a 90ft canopy over the four main blocks of Fremont Street that plays shows and music daily.
Delfino then moves to developments of neon spectacles and advertising on the Strip. He mentions the space that newer hotels and casinos had compared to casinos on Freemont Street was gigantic. They were able to erect a massive tower in front of the Flamingo for instance, something impossible on Freemont before. Neon pylons in front of their perspective casinos were also erected. He mentions how these pylons also changed in accordance to time and competition with other businesses and how it even ushered the “Golden Age of neon Strip signage.” The pylons served many purposes; they advertised their casino not only to cars but also to people on the streets.
Delfino argues that the next development in advertisement came when the casinos started building megaresorts appealing for their architectural marvels. The competitive nature of casinos caused them to start building incredible fantasy resorts in order to supplement their diminishing gaming profits. Due to the megaresort’s ability to stand alone without any spectacular advertisement other than itself the actual use of neon lights continues to dissolve.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Openings
The introduction I read and found engaging was Philip Alcabes’ opening in “The Bioterrorism Scare: A Historical Perspective.”
In it, Alacabes starts off by countering the opinions and warnings of the Fed. He lists the several disease scares that never happened and biological threats that never took place. Then he mentions that some in Washington want the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be transferred from the Department of Health and Human Services to Homeland Security. He uses the list of things that never happened to justify his questioning of the Fed’s proposals.
He takes all the talk of “biopreparedness” and really examines the logic behind it. He questions whether we should really take drastic action by turning our public health into a matter of civil defense or if we as Americans are just being fed a bunch of lies.
I liked the intro because he doesn’t present his personal opinion off the bat. He simply introduces the information of his topic and then questions what is right or wrong. It lets you easily transition into the next paragraph with questions to think about.
The introduction that I found non enjoyable was Hannah Ardent’s opening in “Deportations from Western Europe.
It starts off by mentioning the names of immediately unrecognizable people, places and events. It also has that long segment in parenthesis that confuses the reader in the beginning.
Also the information that is present is present all at once so it is hard to comprehend from the first reading and hard to put into historical context.
You don’t really know what she is talking about in the mass of detail from the opening paragraph until the end. However even at the end of the introduction, there’s no real thesis to the essay and you don’t know where it’s headed.
Half the time during the introduction I also had trouble keeping up with which country he was referring to. Who’s evacuating and who’s evacuating them?
She should have mentioned specifically something about the Jews having to migrate during and before WWII illegally through Europe instead of leaving it to the end. You’re lost most of the way through unless you know what she is talking about before hand.
In it, Alacabes starts off by countering the opinions and warnings of the Fed. He lists the several disease scares that never happened and biological threats that never took place. Then he mentions that some in Washington want the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be transferred from the Department of Health and Human Services to Homeland Security. He uses the list of things that never happened to justify his questioning of the Fed’s proposals.
He takes all the talk of “biopreparedness” and really examines the logic behind it. He questions whether we should really take drastic action by turning our public health into a matter of civil defense or if we as Americans are just being fed a bunch of lies.
I liked the intro because he doesn’t present his personal opinion off the bat. He simply introduces the information of his topic and then questions what is right or wrong. It lets you easily transition into the next paragraph with questions to think about.
The introduction that I found non enjoyable was Hannah Ardent’s opening in “Deportations from Western Europe.
It starts off by mentioning the names of immediately unrecognizable people, places and events. It also has that long segment in parenthesis that confuses the reader in the beginning.
Also the information that is present is present all at once so it is hard to comprehend from the first reading and hard to put into historical context.
You don’t really know what she is talking about in the mass of detail from the opening paragraph until the end. However even at the end of the introduction, there’s no real thesis to the essay and you don’t know where it’s headed.
Half the time during the introduction I also had trouble keeping up with which country he was referring to. Who’s evacuating and who’s evacuating them?
She should have mentioned specifically something about the Jews having to migrate during and before WWII illegally through Europe instead of leaving it to the end. You’re lost most of the way through unless you know what she is talking about before hand.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
ideas.
I first thought of writing on how the development of social networking sites such as myspace.com and facebook.com has influenced the way people; who are involved in all sorts of different relationships, not simply friendships, but relatives even and co-workers and future spouses too, can come together and communicate in a whole new way. I could also add how these sites have influenced pop culture by advertising the latest movies, bands, and even things such as viral videos, replacing other media networks or at least attempting too. I was also thinking of going into how it has even driven politicians to create their own personal MySpace profiles, in an attempt to keep up with the crowd of today, or something along the lines of that.
A challenge in this would be that I could have trouble finding articles or sources for this type of essay. I would have to speculate a lot on a lot of my claims.
For my second option I thought of the viral video. The viral video has also influenced the public in a myriad of ways; from giving anyone and everyone a shot at their 15 minutes of fame or humiliation even. They too can advertise a movie, or launch some webcam singer into stardom. Politically it has helped as well, allowing for immediate spread something like President Obama’s Yes We Can song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY).
The problem with this is that I doubt I’d be able to write 1800 words about viral videos. I would have an even bigger problem finding intelligent sources to draw from.
Lastly I could choose to write about the act of smoking marijuana, seeing as to how it is in hot debate currently and seems to come in and out of focus throughout time. It would be an unbiased look at the history of smoking marijuana. I wouldn’t write about why or why not it should be illegal but about its cultural affects on our society, in music, movies and general pop culture. I could go into how public perception of this drug has changed through different time periods and through different societies and maybe relate it to how it fits into California’s current bill that is in favor of the drug’s legalization and production.
I would have trouble with this though in that I’m not sure how I would make my point for it without sounding like a “pothead” per say. The reason for this is that although I don’t smoke marijuana, I along with a growing number of others have tried it, and I don’t see much wrong with it. Keeping in mind that I don’t smoke it habitually and am not am not trying to be an advocate for it, but am in favor of its legalization and I think it eventually will happen. I’m not sure of the sources I could find on this and am pretty positive I can develop a different or better paper on the history of smoking MJ. But I’m not sure how to set it up.
A challenge in this would be that I could have trouble finding articles or sources for this type of essay. I would have to speculate a lot on a lot of my claims.
For my second option I thought of the viral video. The viral video has also influenced the public in a myriad of ways; from giving anyone and everyone a shot at their 15 minutes of fame or humiliation even. They too can advertise a movie, or launch some webcam singer into stardom. Politically it has helped as well, allowing for immediate spread something like President Obama’s Yes We Can song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY).
The problem with this is that I doubt I’d be able to write 1800 words about viral videos. I would have an even bigger problem finding intelligent sources to draw from.
Lastly I could choose to write about the act of smoking marijuana, seeing as to how it is in hot debate currently and seems to come in and out of focus throughout time. It would be an unbiased look at the history of smoking marijuana. I wouldn’t write about why or why not it should be illegal but about its cultural affects on our society, in music, movies and general pop culture. I could go into how public perception of this drug has changed through different time periods and through different societies and maybe relate it to how it fits into California’s current bill that is in favor of the drug’s legalization and production.
I would have trouble with this though in that I’m not sure how I would make my point for it without sounding like a “pothead” per say. The reason for this is that although I don’t smoke marijuana, I along with a growing number of others have tried it, and I don’t see much wrong with it. Keeping in mind that I don’t smoke it habitually and am not am not trying to be an advocate for it, but am in favor of its legalization and I think it eventually will happen. I’m not sure of the sources I could find on this and am pretty positive I can develop a different or better paper on the history of smoking MJ. But I’m not sure how to set it up.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Java the Hut.
In his article, Java Man, Malcolm Gladstone infers that caffeine’s infusion in our society is positive. He supports his claim by providing examples of caffeine’s influence on society throughout the course of history. Gladstone uses examples of the drug’s effortless adaptability in our culture in order to prove its use has been positive.
Gladstone’s research is evident when he introduces the subject of drugs and their power over societal culture. Taking from a Colombia historian he references the diverse opinions that different groups of people have had on certain drugs showing how perspectives can change dramatically from society to society. He points out however (citing his research on Bealer and Weinberg) that caffeine bears no equal in its ability to adapt. He cites the different forms of people who indulge in caffeine from, “café intellectuals and artists, housewives to zen Monks.”
Gladstone cites eighteenth-century Europe when he considers coffee’s reputation as “the thinker’s drink.” He uses this research in order to show how smoking while drinking coffee led to the emergence of people conversing intelligently (as opposed to drunk) and for prolonged periods in Café bars, which in turn led to the Renaissance. Although I think this is plausible beucase his historical citations and inferences are credible, the establishment of this credibility is ineffective. It doesn’t convince me that people started thinking clearer because of coffee itself, but again, it is plausible.
In order to support the notion that coffee is good for you in a variety of ways, Gladstone refers to the Erdos, the Mathematician who without coffee was not able to perform up to par. With it, Erdos was a machine for turning coffee into theorems. This piece of information was also credible, but ineffective in convincing me that coffee was the sole driving force behind Erdos’s work, as if one depended on coffee as much one depends on food or water or sleep even.
His assumption that drinking coffee led to the Industrial revolution is preposterous, but is credible in the way he uses Bealer and Weinbergs information to back it. Yes, I can see how people would be influenced by coffee, but the industrial revolution was caused by a number of reasons, and coffee isn’t one of the top ones.
I find it hard to disagree with his closing statements on caffeine being the best and most useful drug, but as possible as the scenarios he uses may be, they are a bit exaggerated.
Gladstone’s research is evident when he introduces the subject of drugs and their power over societal culture. Taking from a Colombia historian he references the diverse opinions that different groups of people have had on certain drugs showing how perspectives can change dramatically from society to society. He points out however (citing his research on Bealer and Weinberg) that caffeine bears no equal in its ability to adapt. He cites the different forms of people who indulge in caffeine from, “café intellectuals and artists, housewives to zen Monks.”
Gladstone cites eighteenth-century Europe when he considers coffee’s reputation as “the thinker’s drink.” He uses this research in order to show how smoking while drinking coffee led to the emergence of people conversing intelligently (as opposed to drunk) and for prolonged periods in Café bars, which in turn led to the Renaissance. Although I think this is plausible beucase his historical citations and inferences are credible, the establishment of this credibility is ineffective. It doesn’t convince me that people started thinking clearer because of coffee itself, but again, it is plausible.
In order to support the notion that coffee is good for you in a variety of ways, Gladstone refers to the Erdos, the Mathematician who without coffee was not able to perform up to par. With it, Erdos was a machine for turning coffee into theorems. This piece of information was also credible, but ineffective in convincing me that coffee was the sole driving force behind Erdos’s work, as if one depended on coffee as much one depends on food or water or sleep even.
His assumption that drinking coffee led to the Industrial revolution is preposterous, but is credible in the way he uses Bealer and Weinbergs information to back it. Yes, I can see how people would be influenced by coffee, but the industrial revolution was caused by a number of reasons, and coffee isn’t one of the top ones.
I find it hard to disagree with his closing statements on caffeine being the best and most useful drug, but as possible as the scenarios he uses may be, they are a bit exaggerated.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
A and B
In the articles, Saudis in Bikinis and The Tyranny of the Majority, the authors depict the injustices that can be created by an overwhelming majority.
Guinier provides examples of how our own society imposes a winner take all mind frame on us from the time that we are children reading through Sesame Street magazines to the time we are attending our high school proms. She states that this state of mind excludes the minority’s thoughts and feelings about decisions being made for the group as a whole.
She shows how our own democratic voting system can become flawed if we allow a fixed majority to consistently undermine the wants and needs of the minority. If we allow the majority to it to become permanent, there are no checks and balances to keep it from becoming overbearing. Thus, “A majority that doesn’t worry about defectors is a majority with total power,” she states; In other words, a tyranny.
Kristof’s piece complements this argument by also showing how majority rule can dominate an entire culture’s way of life, and at the same time give the minorities a sense of unfairness. He presents the opinions of women belonging to that particular culture, all of whom are in somewhat of a different social status. In his questioning of these women, Kristof realizes that these women do have different opinions about what they are forced to carry out in society. He shows how some in the minority group of women opposed to their set customs can still feel a sense of discrimination, even when the majority of the women support those customs. Just as it is unfair for those students at Brother Rice who have to listen to only one genre of music during their only high school prom it would be unfair to force all women to wear certain robes around their bodies at all times of the day. These are both sides of the extreme, but they both show the same argument against an overbearing majority.
The way in which Kristof’s essay complements Guiner’s piece is that it shows how (even in a democratic society that has voting systems in place to ensure equality for all) a majority group that has no concern for the minority can be as tyrannical as a society run by a demanding religion and it’s king.
Guinier provides examples of how our own society imposes a winner take all mind frame on us from the time that we are children reading through Sesame Street magazines to the time we are attending our high school proms. She states that this state of mind excludes the minority’s thoughts and feelings about decisions being made for the group as a whole.
She shows how our own democratic voting system can become flawed if we allow a fixed majority to consistently undermine the wants and needs of the minority. If we allow the majority to it to become permanent, there are no checks and balances to keep it from becoming overbearing. Thus, “A majority that doesn’t worry about defectors is a majority with total power,” she states; In other words, a tyranny.
Kristof’s piece complements this argument by also showing how majority rule can dominate an entire culture’s way of life, and at the same time give the minorities a sense of unfairness. He presents the opinions of women belonging to that particular culture, all of whom are in somewhat of a different social status. In his questioning of these women, Kristof realizes that these women do have different opinions about what they are forced to carry out in society. He shows how some in the minority group of women opposed to their set customs can still feel a sense of discrimination, even when the majority of the women support those customs. Just as it is unfair for those students at Brother Rice who have to listen to only one genre of music during their only high school prom it would be unfair to force all women to wear certain robes around their bodies at all times of the day. These are both sides of the extreme, but they both show the same argument against an overbearing majority.
The way in which Kristof’s essay complements Guiner’s piece is that it shows how (even in a democratic society that has voting systems in place to ensure equality for all) a majority group that has no concern for the minority can be as tyrannical as a society run by a demanding religion and it’s king.
Aand C
In, The Tyranny of the Majority, Guinier attacks the all powerful majority rule on certain decisions that pertain to society. She warns that an overbearing majority that has no consideration for the minorities can become tyrannical if not kept in check. She cites the fear of President Madison that his people could become a tyrannical government if all powers rested in one hand, “Whether one or few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
In, The Case for Torture, the Michael Levin also brings up the subject of the benefits of a majority as opposed to the benefits of a minority. However he takes a different approach to the argument and supports a different idea of tyranny that still benefits the majority.
Assuming that the majority of society would be opposed torture; Levin goes against the opinions of the people in the majority. He does this by favoring the opinions of the presumed minority (which is by the way also looking out for the society’s safety as a whole) by supporting the torture of only the blatantly guilty under extreme circumstances. By favoring the minority’s dreadful idea of torture, he is also favoring the well being of the majority.
Levin tries to convince his reader that when it comes to the safety of a vast majority, the safety of a miniscule minority (the terrorist who is in turn trying to hurt the majority) is worthless. The overall message being, “Who cares about the terrorist’s well being when we have hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives to save?” Levin suggests that torturing someone (considered by many a tyrannical act) is justified if it has the best interest of the majority at hand.
The way in which Levin complements Guinier’s argument is that it shows how tyranny can be present in a society through somewhat different ways, it can be hidden behind the majorities need to survive or through the majorities simple wants.
In, The Case for Torture, the Michael Levin also brings up the subject of the benefits of a majority as opposed to the benefits of a minority. However he takes a different approach to the argument and supports a different idea of tyranny that still benefits the majority.
Assuming that the majority of society would be opposed torture; Levin goes against the opinions of the people in the majority. He does this by favoring the opinions of the presumed minority (which is by the way also looking out for the society’s safety as a whole) by supporting the torture of only the blatantly guilty under extreme circumstances. By favoring the minority’s dreadful idea of torture, he is also favoring the well being of the majority.
Levin tries to convince his reader that when it comes to the safety of a vast majority, the safety of a miniscule minority (the terrorist who is in turn trying to hurt the majority) is worthless. The overall message being, “Who cares about the terrorist’s well being when we have hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives to save?” Levin suggests that torturing someone (considered by many a tyrannical act) is justified if it has the best interest of the majority at hand.
The way in which Levin complements Guinier’s argument is that it shows how tyranny can be present in a society through somewhat different ways, it can be hidden behind the majorities need to survive or through the majorities simple wants.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
huh?
When the old billionaire announced he was giving all his money away, reporters from all over the world including: China, Mexico, and Japan flocked over to question him; to their surprise however he presented them with only a single question of his own, “Do you think I could possibly take all that money to the grave?” he asked them with a smile, and then left the podium.
I think this is 90% grammatically correct.
I know there's should be another comma after the quotation somewhere and i played with the semi colon and colon too much.
I think this is 90% grammatically correct.
I know there's should be another comma after the quotation somewhere and i played with the semi colon and colon too much.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
ugh abortion.
For this week’s blog post I decided to write about Mary Gordon’s article on abortion, titled “A Moral Choice.” It is an analysis of her writing and the way in which she captivates her audience.
Gordon aims to convince those who are against pro-choice or confused about the subject to join her side or to at least consider her argument. The uncertain and misinformed masses are her target audience as well.
In order to prove her point, Gordon slightly questions the opinions of anti-choice groups. She states that anti choice advocates wrongfully illustrate women undertaking an abortion as the types of women with “moral callousness, selfishness, and irresponsibility.” She does this by providing the different reasons anti-choice advocates give for their argument and showing how those reasons are merely assumptions that all abortions are made irresponsibly.
In presenting the ontology of a fetus, Gordon asks her audience to consider whether or not abortion is really an act of murder before presenting facts about the life cycle of a fetus. She points out that she along with the rest of society have different emotions concerning the abortion of a 7 month old fetus as opposed to a seven week old. So she questions what level a fetus should be at in its development so as to be considered a person equally to its mother.
Gordon and her pro-choice advocates do not deny that abortion can be a regrettable occurrence, but she argues that abortion in a seven week old fetus is not that same as abortion in a fetus that is able to live on its own outside its mother.
Gordon infers that pro lifers are unrealistic at times when they get into the “emotionally over laden topic.” They’re fears and hopes make them susceptible to unclear thoughts, she points out.
She points out that humans have sex recreationally most of the time and are not trying to get pregnant. It has been happening throughout history, and not always is a pregnancy welcome. So since it will continue to happen, we should at least allow it so as to prevent unsafe abortions which can kill the living mother to be.
I think Gordon does reach her audience. She presents both sides of the argument thoroughly and explains the issues to someone who would be ignorant so as to give them an opportunity to develop their own knowledgeable opinion.
Gordon aims to convince those who are against pro-choice or confused about the subject to join her side or to at least consider her argument. The uncertain and misinformed masses are her target audience as well.
In order to prove her point, Gordon slightly questions the opinions of anti-choice groups. She states that anti choice advocates wrongfully illustrate women undertaking an abortion as the types of women with “moral callousness, selfishness, and irresponsibility.” She does this by providing the different reasons anti-choice advocates give for their argument and showing how those reasons are merely assumptions that all abortions are made irresponsibly.
In presenting the ontology of a fetus, Gordon asks her audience to consider whether or not abortion is really an act of murder before presenting facts about the life cycle of a fetus. She points out that she along with the rest of society have different emotions concerning the abortion of a 7 month old fetus as opposed to a seven week old. So she questions what level a fetus should be at in its development so as to be considered a person equally to its mother.
Gordon and her pro-choice advocates do not deny that abortion can be a regrettable occurrence, but she argues that abortion in a seven week old fetus is not that same as abortion in a fetus that is able to live on its own outside its mother.
Gordon infers that pro lifers are unrealistic at times when they get into the “emotionally over laden topic.” They’re fears and hopes make them susceptible to unclear thoughts, she points out.
She points out that humans have sex recreationally most of the time and are not trying to get pregnant. It has been happening throughout history, and not always is a pregnancy welcome. So since it will continue to happen, we should at least allow it so as to prevent unsafe abortions which can kill the living mother to be.
I think Gordon does reach her audience. She presents both sides of the argument thoroughly and explains the issues to someone who would be ignorant so as to give them an opportunity to develop their own knowledgeable opinion.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Single child families
I grew up with two younger brothers and a younger sister so when I first started reading this article I was a little biased. I guess I have always figured life in a single child family as a bit boring, at least for the child. My parents also grew up in multiple children homes; my mom had two sisters and three brothers while my father had two brothers and a sister as well. During family get-togethers on either side the reunions are so big the house reminds me of the scene at Best Buy during black Friday. Even though I’ve never really put serious thought into it and am not planning on having any children anytime soon, I’ve always pictured or rather wanted a big family, a family that can fill up my house during family reunions in my eventual old age. Even though I said in class that I wanted 3 kids, I have said in the past that I wanted 5.
I know that I’m not a parent and my perspective on life right now is different than that of a parent. I also recognize parenting is extremely hard and that even after one child my opinion could change but I think I would be willing to make that sacrifice. I have also been aware of the whole population/environmental issue for some time and I do realize the circumstances that are at stake but I think there are other solutions. I think that if I’m only going to be on earth for a limited amount of time, I’d rather spend that time with a whole bunch of my family. Seeing as to how I believe raising a strong family is the one of the most important aspects of life. It’s all you have sometimes.
That said, I think that there is not much we can do about the population issue anyways. Our current numbers have already been noticeably detrimental to our plant and people are going to keep reproducing all over the world anyways. The population is going to keep growing almost exponentially and having uniform single child families throughout the world would merely slow it down, and not with great effect. Environmentally speaking what we need to do is not only control the way we live now by living more efficiently we need educate others outside of our country and culture on living more energy efficiently also. The US has realized their environmental issues and is tip toeing its way into a “greener” future but countries with rising numbers of people need to realize this too. The whole world needs to takes these steps into a green future, although we may not have planned on this environmental catastrophe, we need to adapt to it.
I know that I’m not a parent and my perspective on life right now is different than that of a parent. I also recognize parenting is extremely hard and that even after one child my opinion could change but I think I would be willing to make that sacrifice. I have also been aware of the whole population/environmental issue for some time and I do realize the circumstances that are at stake but I think there are other solutions. I think that if I’m only going to be on earth for a limited amount of time, I’d rather spend that time with a whole bunch of my family. Seeing as to how I believe raising a strong family is the one of the most important aspects of life. It’s all you have sometimes.
That said, I think that there is not much we can do about the population issue anyways. Our current numbers have already been noticeably detrimental to our plant and people are going to keep reproducing all over the world anyways. The population is going to keep growing almost exponentially and having uniform single child families throughout the world would merely slow it down, and not with great effect. Environmentally speaking what we need to do is not only control the way we live now by living more efficiently we need educate others outside of our country and culture on living more energy efficiently also. The US has realized their environmental issues and is tip toeing its way into a “greener” future but countries with rising numbers of people need to realize this too. The whole world needs to takes these steps into a green future, although we may not have planned on this environmental catastrophe, we need to adapt to it.
Analysisof Why Women Smile
In her article titled, Why Women Smile, Amy Cunningham argues the value of the fake smile. She refers to not only her personal experience with smiling but also to societies’ historical take on it; and she also includes a psychologist’s perspective and research in order to support her assertion. Her assertion being that, women smile too often and for the all the wrong reasons.
Cunningham first iterates her point by referring to the fact that although she has smiled brilliantly all of her life her smile has as she says, “Has not been servicing [her] well” due to the fact that she smiles for whatever reason, be it happy or sad. She then backs her statement that, “Smiles are not the small and innocuous things they appear to be: Too many of us smile in lieu of showing what’s really on our minds” by pointing out that women, “Smile so often and so promiscuously when [they’re] angry, when they’re intense, when they’re with children, when they’re being photographed, when interviewing for a job, when meeting candidates to employ, that the smiling women has peculiarly become and American archetype.”
She questions why our culture has, “Kept [womens'] smiles on autopilot,” pointing out that although by nature women are less irritable than men and thus more likely to smile, our culture has had a big influenced on us as well by citing the ENTER SMILING signs put up by our moms. She also questions this cultural custom by introducing the idea that in nature many animals smile in accordance to their instincts of fear or for protection, not simply just for happy emotions. She infers that when women pose that fake smile they also declare themselves non-threatening be it for protection or not.
Cunningham gives another reason to cut down on smiling when she mentions the findings of Psychologist, Paul Ekman, stating that there are 18 different types of smiles showcasing a myriad of different emotions. Cunningham notes that, “[Womens'] baseline smile isn’t apt to be a felt expression that engages the eyes” such as the Duchenne Smile would because it is used so frequently and has less to do with emotions at all.
Cunningham then resorts to history and mentions that women were not always expected to smile and seem as she says, “Animated and responsive; in fact, immoderate laughter was once considered one of the more conspicuous vices a woman could have, and mirth was downright sinful.
Cunningham uses all of these examples to explain her motive for trying to quit smiling. She sees our society and culture forcing woman to keep fake smiles and she is rebelling against that. She sums up her argument when she says, “To limit a woman to one expression is like editing down an orchestra to one instrument.”
Cunningham first iterates her point by referring to the fact that although she has smiled brilliantly all of her life her smile has as she says, “Has not been servicing [her] well” due to the fact that she smiles for whatever reason, be it happy or sad. She then backs her statement that, “Smiles are not the small and innocuous things they appear to be: Too many of us smile in lieu of showing what’s really on our minds” by pointing out that women, “Smile so often and so promiscuously when [they’re] angry, when they’re intense, when they’re with children, when they’re being photographed, when interviewing for a job, when meeting candidates to employ, that the smiling women has peculiarly become and American archetype.”
She questions why our culture has, “Kept [womens'] smiles on autopilot,” pointing out that although by nature women are less irritable than men and thus more likely to smile, our culture has had a big influenced on us as well by citing the ENTER SMILING signs put up by our moms. She also questions this cultural custom by introducing the idea that in nature many animals smile in accordance to their instincts of fear or for protection, not simply just for happy emotions. She infers that when women pose that fake smile they also declare themselves non-threatening be it for protection or not.
Cunningham gives another reason to cut down on smiling when she mentions the findings of Psychologist, Paul Ekman, stating that there are 18 different types of smiles showcasing a myriad of different emotions. Cunningham notes that, “[Womens'] baseline smile isn’t apt to be a felt expression that engages the eyes” such as the Duchenne Smile would because it is used so frequently and has less to do with emotions at all.
Cunningham then resorts to history and mentions that women were not always expected to smile and seem as she says, “Animated and responsive; in fact, immoderate laughter was once considered one of the more conspicuous vices a woman could have, and mirth was downright sinful.
Cunningham uses all of these examples to explain her motive for trying to quit smiling. She sees our society and culture forcing woman to keep fake smiles and she is rebelling against that. She sums up her argument when she says, “To limit a woman to one expression is like editing down an orchestra to one instrument.”
Thursday, February 19, 2009
what would the aged strager say about the atomic bomb?
I find Twain’s account of a pre-war celebration and victory prayer very comical. It’s funny how the “aged stranger” was seen as a lunatic for what he preached when he was probably just misunderstood. I admit that he does sound very confusing at times and I guess he would seem a bit weird to me if I were to have heard his rant in 1905, but he does manage to get his point across. When the man goes into his version of the second part of the prayer and he prays for all those negatively associated unspoken facts of war he’s really sort of pointing out the truth, somewhat bluntly and untimely but the truth. I believe he does this because he was probably just trying to get his point across about the horrors of war to the people who were celebrating it with a parade (and some tears). I think it was more of his own protest to the war and he did it in a very funny way by concluding at the end with “Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak!” after mentioning all the negative prayers.
For some reason I think perhaps he was a civil war veteran? I don’t think he was a lunatic, maybe a bit senile but not a lunatic.
On Atomic bombs:
Although I regard the use of nuclear weapons as disastrous to our world and a ghastly to use against an enemy now-a-days, I think that it was justified to drop the two bombs on Japan during World War II. It was justified at the time due to the situation the US was in. It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and prevented countless other losses.
Fussell mentions that the US estimated 200,000 lives would be lost in an attempt to invade Japan’s beaches which was the entire number of men at the beaches of Normandy. So I can imagine the casualties of invading Japan’s final island could have been even worse than that of Normandy’s.
He mentions that without the two atomic bombs the Japanese would not have retreated without an incredible amount of bloodshed. They were ready to fight with ever last breadth of life in their bodies to defend their honor. Fussell also mentions that the Japanese were not seriously considering a retreat until the second bomb was dropped. Thus ultimately although the bombs were extremely destructive, they achieved their goal without spending the lives of countless more allied soldiers.
I agree with Fussell in that the Japanese would not have retreated. Think about it, if they were ready to commit suicide by bombing our ships with their planes in order to stop us, they were definitely going to try more drastic measures to defend their homeland. It really had to take something that drastic for the Japanese to retreat with no sense of dishonor.
For some reason I think perhaps he was a civil war veteran? I don’t think he was a lunatic, maybe a bit senile but not a lunatic.
On Atomic bombs:
Although I regard the use of nuclear weapons as disastrous to our world and a ghastly to use against an enemy now-a-days, I think that it was justified to drop the two bombs on Japan during World War II. It was justified at the time due to the situation the US was in. It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and prevented countless other losses.
Fussell mentions that the US estimated 200,000 lives would be lost in an attempt to invade Japan’s beaches which was the entire number of men at the beaches of Normandy. So I can imagine the casualties of invading Japan’s final island could have been even worse than that of Normandy’s.
He mentions that without the two atomic bombs the Japanese would not have retreated without an incredible amount of bloodshed. They were ready to fight with ever last breadth of life in their bodies to defend their honor. Fussell also mentions that the Japanese were not seriously considering a retreat until the second bomb was dropped. Thus ultimately although the bombs were extremely destructive, they achieved their goal without spending the lives of countless more allied soldiers.
I agree with Fussell in that the Japanese would not have retreated. Think about it, if they were ready to commit suicide by bombing our ships with their planes in order to stop us, they were definitely going to try more drastic measures to defend their homeland. It really had to take something that drastic for the Japanese to retreat with no sense of dishonor.
Q&A Buzzell
Buzzell’s style of writing is pretty much fits with the setting that he is writing in. He is writing in his personal blog so it’s natural for a soldier, who may be constantly on hectic guard during the day and even at night, to ease up and express his thoughts about the day in a relaxed setting and in a relaxed fashion; as opposed to constantly being in a military state of mind all day. In the blog he can let his thoughts go free and can curse freely without having to care about what his commanding officer says, he can think and reflect on his day basically with his guard down. I would definitely expect a soldier to speak the way Buzzell does, but only in a relaxed setting such as a blog.
One thing that I find very surprising is the name of Buzzell’s blog. I find it strange that he would not use a regular name but rather a set of letters. Confidentiality reasons perhaps? He does have his initials CB but FTW? I find this surprising because from his style of writing you wouldn’t expect a formal or official title.
In his writing Buzzell has sort of reluctantly or not gotten accustomed to surviving the war. He talks about explosions as a daily thing to him. The man can tell you the cause of a single explosion by simply hearing the sound of one. Although he allows himself to think freely when he is writing, he is constantly thinking about the war and the war’s daily events.
On his attitude toward Iraqis, I think he has had no real connection with the people and probably doesn’t understand them. He probably regards them as inferior to him as well. This is evident when he talks about the Iraqis daily activities at the FOB and gives them no importance to it by saying “we have a lot of Iraqis working on our FOB, building shit and doing stuff.” All that he has experienced in dealing with these people is taking place a during hostile time period but the through the Iraqi man’s gesture however, I think he realizes not all of them are trying to blow him up, and thus establishes a better connection.
In regard to his fellow soldiers, Buzzell’s attitude is mixed. Although he may feel a connection to the men in his squad, he doesn’t have that strong of a connection to the men in the rest the platoon, especially the ones going to an OP. He calls them suckers for having to go out there yet realizes the danger of the matter and admits he and his squadron have lucked out with guard duty.
One thing that I find very surprising is the name of Buzzell’s blog. I find it strange that he would not use a regular name but rather a set of letters. Confidentiality reasons perhaps? He does have his initials CB but FTW? I find this surprising because from his style of writing you wouldn’t expect a formal or official title.
In his writing Buzzell has sort of reluctantly or not gotten accustomed to surviving the war. He talks about explosions as a daily thing to him. The man can tell you the cause of a single explosion by simply hearing the sound of one. Although he allows himself to think freely when he is writing, he is constantly thinking about the war and the war’s daily events.
On his attitude toward Iraqis, I think he has had no real connection with the people and probably doesn’t understand them. He probably regards them as inferior to him as well. This is evident when he talks about the Iraqis daily activities at the FOB and gives them no importance to it by saying “we have a lot of Iraqis working on our FOB, building shit and doing stuff.” All that he has experienced in dealing with these people is taking place a during hostile time period but the through the Iraqi man’s gesture however, I think he realizes not all of them are trying to blow him up, and thus establishes a better connection.
In regard to his fellow soldiers, Buzzell’s attitude is mixed. Although he may feel a connection to the men in his squad, he doesn’t have that strong of a connection to the men in the rest the platoon, especially the ones going to an OP. He calls them suckers for having to go out there yet realizes the danger of the matter and admits he and his squadron have lucked out with guard duty.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Abe, face to face
I like the way in which Whitman describes the president in his articles. He describes not only the features in Lincoln’s eyes but also describes his powerful gaze that always seemed to make eye contact with you. When he describes the way in which Lincoln would trot down to the Whitehouse he really conveys his own experience and connection with that time period and the scene, enough that you can picture what he is seeing.
You feel like you are in his shoes. The one thing about his entries is that although he can describe all the features on the president’s face, he also describes his expression of deep latent sadness.
It’s funny to me how the president seemed to try and live as normal a life as possible. He didn’t live in the Whitehouse rather commuted to work every day and although he was escorted by twenty or more it seems as though he would have preferred to have ridden alone. He was in the public eye and was genuinely a president of the people and for the people. I wonder what it would have been like growing up and seeing the president regularly out and about on the streets with his escort.
You feel like you are in his shoes. The one thing about his entries is that although he can describe all the features on the president’s face, he also describes his expression of deep latent sadness.
It’s funny to me how the president seemed to try and live as normal a life as possible. He didn’t live in the Whitehouse rather commuted to work every day and although he was escorted by twenty or more it seems as though he would have preferred to have ridden alone. He was in the public eye and was genuinely a president of the people and for the people. I wonder what it would have been like growing up and seeing the president regularly out and about on the streets with his escort.
irony at the theater?
Whitman shows a bit of irony in the fact that Lincoln was assassinated at a theater, by mentioning it was a place Lincoln was very fond of. I think that the theater meant a lot to the president because that’s the one place he could get away from it all. He treated the presidency as purely a job and realized he was burdened with heavy responsibilities, rather than just gloat in the position. Thus I think he took to the theater as an escape from his busy duties in the real world, especially when life in the theater was better than life in his civil war torn nation. It is ironic that in that moment of escape and relaxation he would be shot.
I also find it ironic that the guards who where always around him even on his commutes to the Whitehouse where not there to stop or initially catch Booth (I haven’t read up on how Booth was captured).
I also find it ironic that everyone in the theater ran and scrambled for either their lives or in some other sort of panic, yet no one seemed to do anything rash about the situation, they didn’t help the president and where even in the way of the guards coming to his aid and protection.
I also find it ironic that the guards who where always around him even on his commutes to the Whitehouse where not there to stop or initially catch Booth (I haven’t read up on how Booth was captured).
I also find it ironic that everyone in the theater ran and scrambled for either their lives or in some other sort of panic, yet no one seemed to do anything rash about the situation, they didn’t help the president and where even in the way of the guards coming to his aid and protection.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Animals deserve a dignified death
Growing up in a farming community I was exposed to a lot of the ways in which cattle or pigs were slaughtered. I always knew what was inside of a hot dog, I knew how the animals were killed and disposed of, but for one reason or the other I have always chosen to turn the other way when consuming meat. Although I realize where the particular meat may be coming from and how the particular animal may have been raised and sacrificed for my consumption, I think it’s a natural way of life. I respect the animal from which the food came from and I understand that those beings have a destiny, sadly for them that it is our stomachs. This sounds bad, but it’s unavoidable, without man’s domestication of these animals they wouldn’t even be here. These animals would not make it in the wild and would die much more gruesome deaths, hunted and eaten alive perhaps by a predator.
To categorize our consumption of animals as evil or barbaric goes against some very basic laws of nature. The hunter and the hunted have existed here on Earth even in the earliest stages of life. They have developed and evolved, adapting to their unpredictable worldly environment. Yet even through all that unpredictable stuff on earth they still manage to exist in nature today. It’s survival of the fittest, the weak die along the way. Those who are able to adapt and evolve luck out and survive.
I do however heavily disagree with the cruel lives some of these animals are forced to live, and with the gruesome deaths they experience. I believe that these animals do have sentient thoughts and must feel some sort of deprivation of life. I doubt that a hen which cannot flap its wings throughout the day or night or ever once inside that cage is happy at all. They deserve the right to roam and pick at real worms from the ground, and feel the soil beneath them. Even if they have never known the feeling, they deserve a chance to experience it. Eventually when the time comes (and this is crucial), they should serve their purpose on the food chain, exiting this earth a quick and painless way. The animals should be subject to a painless death simply because if there is no purpose for a bloody death, why entitle it? There is no need to put the animal through such agony and pain; that would truly be a barbaric act.
I also realize that at times such accommodations toward the animals can be expensive, so again there is a problem. I find it funny how one of the solutions suggested at the Polyface farm for presenting the animal’s dignified death is by installing glass walls so as to be noticeable by the public.
To categorize our consumption of animals as evil or barbaric goes against some very basic laws of nature. The hunter and the hunted have existed here on Earth even in the earliest stages of life. They have developed and evolved, adapting to their unpredictable worldly environment. Yet even through all that unpredictable stuff on earth they still manage to exist in nature today. It’s survival of the fittest, the weak die along the way. Those who are able to adapt and evolve luck out and survive.
I do however heavily disagree with the cruel lives some of these animals are forced to live, and with the gruesome deaths they experience. I believe that these animals do have sentient thoughts and must feel some sort of deprivation of life. I doubt that a hen which cannot flap its wings throughout the day or night or ever once inside that cage is happy at all. They deserve the right to roam and pick at real worms from the ground, and feel the soil beneath them. Even if they have never known the feeling, they deserve a chance to experience it. Eventually when the time comes (and this is crucial), they should serve their purpose on the food chain, exiting this earth a quick and painless way. The animals should be subject to a painless death simply because if there is no purpose for a bloody death, why entitle it? There is no need to put the animal through such agony and pain; that would truly be a barbaric act.
I also realize that at times such accommodations toward the animals can be expensive, so again there is a problem. I find it funny how one of the solutions suggested at the Polyface farm for presenting the animal’s dignified death is by installing glass walls so as to be noticeable by the public.
I'm pretty sure lobster feel pain when boiled.
I have come across this argument before in my life and asked myself whether or not it is right to use such cruelty in preparing a meal. I too am a bit confused on what to think really (Fortunately the times I have had lobster my dad has bought it and prepared it from Costco, and it wasn’t live). I do feel for the lobster but like Wallace I am stuck in the middle.
In, Consider the Lobster, David Wallace questions his own morality as well as the ethical point of view of society. Not only is he questioning his morality I think that he is genuinely confused about what his ethics are on the situation at hand. He presents the life of a lobster in a historical context by explaining that people compared lobsters to rats. They were the giant bugs of the sea, with an “Unbelievable abundance”. He also cites that it was inhuman treatment to feed a convicted prisoner with lobster meat more than once a week in the past. He refers to them practically as the “Garbage men of the Sea” even. However, he does not do this in an insulting way, but rather mentions this as sort of an ironic point after mentioning all the great things about the Maine Lobster Festival, which he basically describes as s lobster connoisseur’s heaven (and in case you think it’s not ironic to him or to you, it’s definitely ironic to me).
He follows this by presenting the personal side of a lobster. He achieves this by giving the lobster humane like qualities in comparing how lobsters grasp on to the edge of a boiling pot, to how humans would grasp on to the edge of a building in order to save their respective lives. He describes in detail how they die, and how long it takes for them to die. He makes you feel their pain. He is stuck and cannot choose what the correct way of going by this is though. Thus he questions the morality in such a cruel action and he realizes that he doesn’t know what is right. There are two extremes and no clear line in the middle.
He reaches the point where he stops questioning the matter because he would rather not think about the lobster’s cruel fate when he’s trying to enjoy it.
On the footnotes, I think he includes those longer types of entries not only to expand on certain unknown facts but also to give a more in depth point of view. I think that if Gourmet did publish the article they probably cut out the second part, so as to not discourage anyone from their business or their sponsor’s business.
In, Consider the Lobster, David Wallace questions his own morality as well as the ethical point of view of society. Not only is he questioning his morality I think that he is genuinely confused about what his ethics are on the situation at hand. He presents the life of a lobster in a historical context by explaining that people compared lobsters to rats. They were the giant bugs of the sea, with an “Unbelievable abundance”. He also cites that it was inhuman treatment to feed a convicted prisoner with lobster meat more than once a week in the past. He refers to them practically as the “Garbage men of the Sea” even. However, he does not do this in an insulting way, but rather mentions this as sort of an ironic point after mentioning all the great things about the Maine Lobster Festival, which he basically describes as s lobster connoisseur’s heaven (and in case you think it’s not ironic to him or to you, it’s definitely ironic to me).
He follows this by presenting the personal side of a lobster. He achieves this by giving the lobster humane like qualities in comparing how lobsters grasp on to the edge of a boiling pot, to how humans would grasp on to the edge of a building in order to save their respective lives. He describes in detail how they die, and how long it takes for them to die. He makes you feel their pain. He is stuck and cannot choose what the correct way of going by this is though. Thus he questions the morality in such a cruel action and he realizes that he doesn’t know what is right. There are two extremes and no clear line in the middle.
He reaches the point where he stops questioning the matter because he would rather not think about the lobster’s cruel fate when he’s trying to enjoy it.
On the footnotes, I think he includes those longer types of entries not only to expand on certain unknown facts but also to give a more in depth point of view. I think that if Gourmet did publish the article they probably cut out the second part, so as to not discourage anyone from their business or their sponsor’s business.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Virtual Students
In his essay, Virtual Students, Digital Classroom, Neil Postman argues that in today’s world, technology has reached such a high level of devotion from humans that it has become a sort of religion, or even a cult following that threatens our social way of life. He supports his claim by countering the technologically inclined views of Dr. Ravitch, and Mr. McIntosh. In order to prove his point, Postman adds to his claim by suggesting that future generation’s social development in school and outside of school will be hampered by our addiction to infuse technology into everything, saying that if Little Eva is stuck on the computer learning all day she’s not going to bother playing outside with Little Mary, stating that Little Eva might even be annoyed by the thought of interacting with her peers.
For the most part, human technology has been a blessing in man’s life. It, like most all other human innovations has help man on his journey here on earth. Everything from the simplest stone tool to the modern day computer chip has helped us in one way or another. True there have been instances where technology has failed us and there are many scenarios in which technology could even destroy us, but for the most part, it has helped us progress with time. It has made things easier, faster and increasingly efficient for the people using it.
Although I think technology has helped us advance our learning capabilities and has helped out a lot with things you don’t pick up in the classroom. I do agree with Postman in that it would take a whole new breed of children, willing to study algebra on the computer late at night as opposed to learning it at school, to make it truly work. This in my opinion is a fantasy, beucase for every child who is academically inclined and loves to learn, there are several others who are not necessarily at that same level. In addition to that, what is stopping that particular child from picking up a book if he or she is so motivated? Would the simple fact that you are using technology to study algebra motivate you enough to study it late at night? Why not just use that technology while at school? Just because it’s easier to do, doesn’t mean everyone is going to enjoy doing it. It’s still Algebra and it is still work.
The use of technology has been incorporated into our everyday lives. Everyone has a cell phone, most everyone has a computer, and the next big thing is just around the corner. It makes our lives easier, and now helps us communicate with others across the world instantly. However I disagree with Postman in that I don’t think humans would allow their social habits to disintegrate to the point that you would not want to interact with your peers. Humans are social creatures by nature and they wouldn’t allow it to happen. I don’t think that little Eva would choose to live a solitary life run by technology if she knew she could be playing outside with her friends. I feel that humans should realize that technology is here to help us, but we should not let it overtake us. As much as it makes our lives easier, we must not rely upon it for everything but instead use it only when needed. Schools, as dysfunctional as they may seem at times, still provide the perfect environment for learning and human interaction needed to succeed in life.
For the most part, human technology has been a blessing in man’s life. It, like most all other human innovations has help man on his journey here on earth. Everything from the simplest stone tool to the modern day computer chip has helped us in one way or another. True there have been instances where technology has failed us and there are many scenarios in which technology could even destroy us, but for the most part, it has helped us progress with time. It has made things easier, faster and increasingly efficient for the people using it.
Although I think technology has helped us advance our learning capabilities and has helped out a lot with things you don’t pick up in the classroom. I do agree with Postman in that it would take a whole new breed of children, willing to study algebra on the computer late at night as opposed to learning it at school, to make it truly work. This in my opinion is a fantasy, beucase for every child who is academically inclined and loves to learn, there are several others who are not necessarily at that same level. In addition to that, what is stopping that particular child from picking up a book if he or she is so motivated? Would the simple fact that you are using technology to study algebra motivate you enough to study it late at night? Why not just use that technology while at school? Just because it’s easier to do, doesn’t mean everyone is going to enjoy doing it. It’s still Algebra and it is still work.
The use of technology has been incorporated into our everyday lives. Everyone has a cell phone, most everyone has a computer, and the next big thing is just around the corner. It makes our lives easier, and now helps us communicate with others across the world instantly. However I disagree with Postman in that I don’t think humans would allow their social habits to disintegrate to the point that you would not want to interact with your peers. Humans are social creatures by nature and they wouldn’t allow it to happen. I don’t think that little Eva would choose to live a solitary life run by technology if she knew she could be playing outside with her friends. I feel that humans should realize that technology is here to help us, but we should not let it overtake us. As much as it makes our lives easier, we must not rely upon it for everything but instead use it only when needed. Schools, as dysfunctional as they may seem at times, still provide the perfect environment for learning and human interaction needed to succeed in life.
On Keeping a Notebook
I find it amusing that the author had such a vivid imagination at the age of 5. In reference to the story about the women dying in the Sahara desert, I find it a bit more outstanding that she was able to convey her thoughts onto paper at that age as well. Looking back myself and my childhood, I always wanted to or told myself that I should keep a journal of the day’s events. However I never started one or took the next step into starting one partly because I knew that if I ever were to start one, it would probably have ended up in the hands of one of my siblings, or lost, or forgotten after a few days or writing in it. So I never did it.
Later in my teenage years I also pondered the thought of keeping a journal but again I shot down the idea. By the time I took the idea of keeping a journal into consideration for a second time I figured I wouldn’t need it. I thought I could remember everything that was going on in my life, every person’s name, every memory and experience. Sad to say that I’m 20 years old now and I don’t remember many of my peer’s names, a lot of my middle school days are stored deep inside my memory without much access to them. I find myself speaking with old friends sometimes and they’ll recollect experiences we shared that I have vague recollections about.
I guess it was up to me whether I should have kept a journal throughout my childhood and youth and it’s my fault for not doing it, but I don’t regret it. Keeping a journal on the day’s events would be meaningless if you did not write down how it affected you. You might as well be reading about someone else’s day. I like that the author kept a notebook and only wrote in the random thoughts that popped into her head and how it felt to her. That is what allows her to reach back into that notebook decades later and feel what she felt at the time. It makes each entry in the notebook unique in that each has its own feel to it, its own personal touch. Instead of reading the same thing in each entry about what you ate for lunch that day as you can step into that world through your memories and even if it’s for a split second, you get to be in touch with the old you. You feel what it felt like to be that old kid again. And who doesn’t want that?
Reading this essay has almost convinced me into keeping a notebook the likes of which Didion kept so that at least I can be in touch with my 20 year old self 20 years from now, if of course ever decide to read it then or even start one now.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)