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.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)