Peer Review for Shelby Marsh

Hiiii!  : )

1) I think you did an excellent job of appealing to both sides in this argument. Although you stated your case firmly, you also had a tone that clearly showed that you want what is fair and just, and that will appeal to the other side. A skeptic will see that and I think they'll for sure be open to hearing your proposal with a more open mind. The paper shows that the issue will affect our whole country, so thats good. And no, the problem is not exaggerated. 

2) The skeptic might doubt the solution because to them the problem is not a "problem". But i think the author does a good job of showing the affects. The proposal is realistic and looks at the fact that it's a litltle too early to even see the long term affects of legalizing gay marriage. But it shows the major potential problems that are very realistic. 

3)The author shows how the benefits are much higher. She explains the good things that can come from not legalizing gay marriage. And how our nation has been built upon this steady foundation of marriage between a man and a woman and it should stay that way. 

4) The writer does anticipate opposing views but could maybe also address alternative solution from the opposing side. This could strengthen their already strong argument and views. 

DRAFT 1 Proposal and Ethical Argument

Lura Hills

Professor Brown 

English 1B

17 May 2012

Beauty Pageants and their ugly truth

We all remember the tragic death of JonBenet Ramsey. She was a 6-year-old little girl who was murdered and found in her family home in Boulder, Colorado. Jon Benet was trained and groomed to be a beauty pageant princess, a child star in the role of a dazzling woman. Her mother was driven to promote JonBenet through pageant competition that attracted a lot of adult attention to such a little girl. Was her killer made more aware of her more because she was more in the spotlight, obsessed with her because she shined and stood out in beauty pageants?  Does anyone believe she would have been killed as she was if she had never been in the pageants?   Even if her pageant "career" had nothing to do with her death, could she have had a happier and higher quality of life in her short time in this world if she had not spent so much of her time trying to be perfect instead of just a little girl.

          I want to address the social issue of beauty pageants and its affect on little girls in their later life. Many things stem from this problem of beauty pageants. While it may seem harmless, and to some people it may seem beneficial to children, there is a strong ethical argument that the small child beauty pageant industry exploits parents and children in a way that causes emotional injury and social adjustment problems.   

Childhood is a time of being nurtured, of innocence, and being protected from avoidable risk of injury. Childhood free of hardship and stress is seen as pure and very highly valued. But it can be taken away in an instant when children are given more exposure and scrutiny than they can handle and cope with, and the effects could last a lifetime.   Beauty “contests” are slowly but surely stealing the innocence from the youth of this nation one by one. 

Thus, a show on TLC called, “Toddlers in Tiaras”, is a show that gives viewers an inside look at the lives and the beauty pageant process by following certain little girls and their parents and their journey. Most of the little girls are under 8 years old, they are whining, and don’t seem happy about the task of competing. Some little girls are airbrushed, have spray tans, false eyelashes, get their eyebrows waxed, and some even have fake teeth! After that they are then put on stage to dance around in little skimpy outfits to be judged on their “beauty”. 

Their whole self worth is put out there on the line to be dissected and then told whether or not they are up to the standard of the judges. One can only imagine what that must do to their innocence and confidence. Being judged and told at a young age that what you look like and your talents are what makes you important and matter can do major damage to your way of thinking and view of yourself. Now, I participated in sports ever since I was 6 years old, so I appreciate the value of competition and striving to do your best. There is however a big difference when it come to comparing sports and beauty pageants. Sports promote health and life lessons such as teamwork, selflessness, and hard work.  Then Beauty pageants are not really beneficial at all. The only thing that they promote is the outward appearance and the fact that that must be more important than their character and how they relate with others.

The affects are not limited to just the children on TV. Children at home are viewing it. They see the way these girls are getting praised or rejected and put in the spotlight and they think that’s what is beautiful. One of the little girls on the show Daisey Mae actually said, "Facial beauty is the most important thing, in life and in pageants”. I almost fell out of my chair when she said that! Daisey Mae’s thought process has to be very similar to the rest of her peers that are participating in these pageants. This warped way of thinking will drastically change the way they see themselves and can lead to major problems.

 I feel that the message from parents and adults is that to be valued kids need to satisfy a standard that cannot be sustained. Inability to be perfect or close to it lowers self-esteem, which makes it more imperative to “win” on and of the pageant stage. So it makes you wonder why doesn’t anyone see that many things in the media, like these shows on TLC, Toddlers in Tiaras, are contributing factors to the harmful effects of beauty pageants. When theres low self-esteem, some people tend to go the extreme to want to fix it, because they feel they have to conform to the standards the world projects into their minds. Eating disorders can be another harmful effect due to exposure to media of beauty pageants. According to the National Institute of Mental Health,  “Certain psychological factors predispose people to developing eating disorders. Most people with eating disorders suffer from low self-esteem, feelings of helplessness, and intense dissatisfaction with the way they look. Adolescent and young women account for 90 percent of cases of eating disorders.”

A lot of the routines of these girls are highly sexualized and ultra-inappropriate for their age. Their midriff is showing, the skirts are way too short, and their gyrating dance moves just send it over the top on the inappropriate scale. Even if they are just “performing” they are still absorbing the feeling of “acting” older than they are. This tells them that they are more of an adult rather than a child. To elaborate, when I see actors on stage, they practice for months to “become their characters”. I tend to think that when this happens they may take on some qualities or characteristics of that persona. So, the sexualization of theses little girls can be another factor in harming their later lives. When they see programs on TV like Toddlers in Tiaras and the little girls getting all that attention these previous arguments are the effects. “A report of the American Psychological Association (APA) released found evidence that the display of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harmful to girls' self-image and healthy development.” Childhood is complicated enough, so simplicity and challenges that young people can handle are better than holding them to age inappropriate adult standards.

            A study conducted by researchers at Rutgers University from 2002, found that “only 23% of pageant winners had a "normal" body mass index (BMI), 26% were so thin they met the World Health Organization's criteria for being undernourished and two would have been classified by the American Psychiatric Association as anorexic.” That number is upsetting to hear. Endless issues come with the social problem of beauty pageants.
 So with the issue stated, what can change to stop the harm that is coming along with exposure and participation in beauty pageants? There are options to change the outcome of these contests. One step, Parents should be educated on what they teach their children and what society values in their children. Campaigns can be started to educate parents, children and pageant members about those things that society values such as inward self-esteem, self-worth, and healthy living. There’s a lot of issues in out social society today. All of which can be solved but it ultimately has to start with the home environment. Although many who are involved in the pageant world don’t see that they are causing a nationwide problem, they are. The fact that they don’t see it must mean that they are caught in a vicious cycle that started with the homes they grew up in. The term “pageant mom” is thrown around a lot. It seems like those moms are living vicariously through their kids. Lisa J. Rapport, who is a psychology professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. She began a study on 74 past young performers on television and in film. She came to the conclusion and said, “Mothers who served as managers were likely to have a far less stable and positive relationship with their children than were mothers who kept business separate.” To mix that aspect into a mother-daughter relationship will cause unhealthy dynamics.         So it all starts with the parents. Martina Cartwright’s fairly recent article entitled, “What Are We Teaching Our Girls”, talks about the things that get embedded into children’s heads about what the work values in them. Cartwright is a registered dietitian who has a Ph.D. in Nutritional Science and Biomolecular Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Adults need to be aware of the potential long-term impact super-competitive, beauty-driven pursuits can have on a young girl's psyche.  Intense participation in activities that spotlight physical appearance instills the idea that physical beauty and superficial charm are the keys to success, thus making self-worth and self-esteem inextricably tied to attractiveness.” (Cartwright) Growing up, what my parents thought of me was very important. Every child wants to be told that they make their family proud and they are valued. Girls in pageants need to be told that their outward beauty is valued to a certain extent but it’s their character and hearts that are truly what makes them beautiful.
           Campaigns that can educate on a smaller scale are a solution too. One campaign called Pull the Pin, is a organization of women that speak out against beauty pageants. Catherine Manning is the Founder and Coordinator of the Pull the Pin campaign. They are based in Australia and their efforts seem to be making a change and getting their views out there. Manning and company say that if the pageants are to continue there needs to be some regulations unless they want to continue to contribute to the harm that’s being done on the next generation of young girls. “We’d like to see some sort of legislation, some sort of age restriction applied to competitions where physical beauty is judged,” Ms Manning said.“I don’t like the idea of little girls being pitted against each other in a beauty competition regardless of what they’re wearing. Even if they’re going to stand together and be judged and rewarded solely on their appearance, it’s morally wrong.”I agree with Manning on proposing that if beauty pageants are to continue, something has to change. It cannot only be based on the outward things. There should also be a age restriction. Age 16, if any, is when they should be allowed to participate. That was they are old enough where they can choose to engage if they desire to. Also I think that they should no longer be names “Beauty Contests”. Another name should be given. Perhaps, “Talent show”, or something else that doesn’t sound so obvious and intimidating. I also propose that all shows on television that glorify and encourage these shows should be removed.          All efforts can be made but ultimately, it needs to start in the way that these little girls are brought up. We can’t stop parents from putting their children in beauty pageants forever but we can encourage them not to. Put your kids on a sports team, a dance class, or a singing club. That way they still experience healthy competition that encourages them to try their best. Parents need to bring their kids up with the mentality that these pageants are not a qualified judge of your beauty, character, and soul. 

WORKS CITED
1) Published on August 12, 2011 by Martina M. Cartwright, Ph.D., R.D. in Food For Thought, Child Beauty Pageants: What Are We Teaching Our Girls?, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/food-thought/201108/child-beauty-pageants-what-are-we-teaching-our-girls
2) Pull the Pin Campaign, http://www.pullthepin.com.au/
3) Beauty Pageants Expose Ugly Truths, Kristina Ioannou, Seotember 2011
4) American Psychological Association
5) National Institute of Mental Health
6) Dear Dominique Ramirez (Former Miss. San Antonio), Dear Dominique Ramirez (Former Miss. San Antonio Who Was Fired)Published on March 20, 2011 by Susan Albers, Psy.D. in Comfort Cravings

6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person

A lot of this article actually asks the audience in the text many of the same questions I was asking and thinking in my head. I think its brilliant when writers do that. So some of the questions I had were...

1) Is it really true that we have to change who we are in order to get something that we want?
2)"But why can't I find someone who just likes me for me?" you ask.
3) Why do we take constructive criticism as insult?
4) Is it really true that happiness takes effort? And is that "happiness"...true "happiness"?

Question 4

Ok. I'm kind obsessed with David Wong. The blunt-ness of his statements make you raise your eyebrows and and then nod you head in total agreement. Many of the questions he brings up are ones that I was just saying to myself. He convicts me on so many levels and topics. It made me think a lot about the way that I used to think. I am currently in the process of trying to get my health under control. Since High School I've consistently been ranging from 20-30 pounds overweight. My sisters and parents, who care for me like no one else does, tried to help me with words and support, but I ALWAYS took it as criticism and would say, "Why isn't the way I am right now good enough?" and "The person who i'm meant to be with will love me just the way I am." or "I am happy! Even though I'm not as skinny as Natalie(my size 2 sister) doesn't make me any less beautiful or happy. I like the way I look". But the truth is that I HATED the way I looked. To say I was unhappy was a major understatement. Wong is so right when he says, "Remember, misery is comfortable. It's why so many people prefer it. Happiness takes effort." I didn't want to change because I didn't want to go through the effort of getting healthy nor did I think I was capable of it. That was a year and a half ago when I was saying those things to my family. It wasn't until a few months ago when my thinking changed. It wasn't what anyone said to me but something shifted in my brain. I realized that the two things that could make me feel better about myself and physically change outward self into the person that matched my inside self, was God and I. I couldn't do it for anyone on the earth, it had to me for God and I. I needed to live up to the potential that God had for me. I believe that He wants us to be happy and be the best we can be and the best He had us to be. We can't expect happiness to just come to us. We have to seek that out. Its not easy. If it was easy, everyone would be happy. Well don't we want to live in a world where everyone finds happiness? But how would we know happiness without experiencing what unhappiness is? I have to give up my health to God everyday. Knowing that I can't expect change with out DOING something about it. I loved what Wong said,  "the process is the result." We need to get out and start the process of change,  you've already done something that way! 

Stepping off Maslow's Escalator

1) If all our your desires and goal for life are not met, does that make you a failure?

2) How did getting married, having 2 kids, living in a perfect house with a white picket fence, and a BMW become what most people think of as the ideal life?

3)Will our "selves" ever truly be happy without meeting all of our goals and desires we set for our lives?


Question #3
When I think of the things I want out of life, quite a few things come to mind. I want to transfer and graduate from a university, I want to get married, I want to have children, I want a job that I love, and I want to leave this world knowing that I loved as much as I could. Now then I look at the beginning of all those statements. They all begin with "i". It's just interesting that we all have these visions of what we want out of life and we have the choice and the power to make those things a reality. Some people may know exactly what they want and work their asses off to make it happen, and they may succeed. If they get all the things they ever wanted does that guarantee that they'll reach "self-actualization" and happiness? Well if that's what they wanted then ya! But I think that our desires for life are always changing. I think back to the things u thought I wanted out of life when I was 12 and now they're totally different. As Carl Rogers described the "real self" I think that is always changing.

C.S. Lewis, "Vivisection"

1) Even in times when pain is argued as necessary, is it right still?

2) Is man more important than animal?

3) In a world where Christian theological thinking, Darwinian, and Naturalistic frames of mind occurs, how do all those different types live peacfully?

4) Is it selfish for us as men to take the side of our own "species", simply because we ARE men?

I want to respond to question #2. It is intersting that this article was assigned this week. I'm in the process of reading the Bible. Im in the old testiment in the book of Leviticus. It is not my favorite book of the books of the Bible but it is necessary for me to read educate myself of the history of the Bible. Most of the book speaks of the traditons and many animal sacrifces that happened. Part of me didnt really understand why God would ask his children to sacrifice animals when they are "His creation and His creatures". I, like Lewis, was reminded in the gospel of Matthew chapter 6, verse 26,

"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?"

God tells us that we are more valued than animals. But when people hear that, then they may think the God is cruel and doesnt value animals as well. I choose to belive that God does in fact value animals very much. He created a heirarchy that puts humans above animals. We were his most valued and precious creation of all his works. It says in Genesis,

"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." 

So although, we are placed higher on the heirarchy, God still does not want us to have evil in our hearts. I liked that excerpt from Shakespeare, when the Queen wanted poison tested on "such creatures" and the doctor says, "Your Highness Shall from this practice but make hard your heart." I loved that. I think thats how God sees vivisection. We shouldnt be using animals like they are despensible and have no pity when they experience pain but also take ownership of the fact that we are more valued in Gods eyes. We can't harden our hearts and not have sentiment.

Ethical Argument: Beauty Pageants and their UGLY TRUTH

Lura Hills

Professor Brown

English 1B

15 April 2013

Beauty Pageants and their ugly truth

We all remember the tragic death of JonBenet Ramsey. She was a 6-year-old little girl who was murdered and found in her family home in Boulder, Colorado. Jon Benet was trained and groomed to be a beauty pageant princess, a child star in the role of a dazzling woman. Her mother was driven to promote JonBenet through pageant competition that attracted a lot of adult attention to such a little girl. Was her killer made more aware of her more because she was more in the spotlight, obsessed with her because she shined and stood out in beauty pageants?  Does anyone believe she would have been killed as she was if she had never been in the pageants?   Even if her pageant "career" had nothing to do with her death, could she have had a happier and higher quality of life in her short time in this world if she had not spent so much of her time trying to be perfect instead of just a little girl? I want to address the social issue of beauty pageants and its affect on little girls in their later life. Many things stem from this problem of beauty pageants. While it may seem harmless, and to some people it may seem beneficial to children, there is a strong ethical argument that the small child beauty pageant industry exploits parents and children in a way that causes emotional injury and social adjustment problems.   

Childhood is a time of being nurtured, of innocence, and being protected from avoidable risk of injury. Childhood free of hardship and stress is seen as pure and very highly valued. But it can be taken away in an instant when children are given more exposure and scrutiny than they can handle and cope with, and the effects could last a lifetime.   Beauty “contests” are slowly but surely stealing the innocence from the youth of this nation one by one. 

Thus, a show on TLC called, “Toddlers in Tiaras”, is a show that gives viewers an inside look at the lives and the beauty pageant process by following certain little girls and their parents and their journey. Most of the little girls are under 8 years old, they are whining, and don’t seem happy about the task of competing. Some little girls are airbrushed, have spray tans, false eyelashes, get their eyebrows waxed, and some even have fake teeth! After that they are then put on stage to dance around in little skimpy outfits to be judged on their “beauty”. 

Their whole self worth is put out there on the line to be dissected and then told whether or not they are up to the standard of the judges. One can only imagine what that must do to their innocence and confidence. Being judged and told at a young age that what you look like and your talents are what makes you important and matter can do major damage to your way of thinking and view of yourself. The affects are not limited to just the children on TV. Children at home are viewing it. They see the way these girls are getting praised or rejected and put in the spotlight and they think that’s what is beautiful. One of the little girls on the show Daisey Mae actually said, "Facial beauty is the most important thing, in life and in pageants”. I almost fell out of my chair when she said that! Daisey Mae’s thought process has to be very similar to the rest of her peers that are participating in these pageants. This warped way of thinking will drastically change the way they see themselves and can lead to major problems.

 The message from parents and adults is that to be valued kids need to satisfy a standard that cannot be sustained.  Inability to be perfect or close to it lowers self-esteem, which makes it more imperative to “win” on and of the pageant stage. According to the National Institute of Mental Health,  “Certain psychological factors predispose people to developing eating disorders. Most people with eating disorders suffer from low self-esteem, feelings of helplessness, and intense dissatisfaction with the way they look. Adolescent and young women account for 90 percent of cases of eating disorders.”

A lot of the routines of these girls are highly sexualized and ultra-inappropriate for their age. Their midriff is showing, the skirts are way too short, and their gyrating dance moves just send it over the top on the inappropriate scale. Even if they are just “performing” they are still absorbing the feeling of “acting” older than they are. This tells them that they are more of an adult rather than a child. So, the sexualization of theses little girls can be another factor in harming their later lives. “A report of the American Psychological Association (APA) released found evidence that the display of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harmful to girls' self-image and healthy development.”

Childhood is complicated enough, so simplicity and challenges that young people can handle are better than holding them to age inappropriate adult standards.

Shooting an Elephant

How are there people in the world that do not feel bad about torturing animals?

Was it really peer pressure that drove the European to kill the elephant?

Could have there been another way for him to feel like he could’ve been accepted by the people and not have killed the elephant?

This article reminded me of this movie that I watched when I was little, Mighty Joe Young. It was about a woman, Jill, who raises a giant gorilla that has been being hunted by poachers. For their safety they relocate to the US, but there Joe is still hunted by another group of people running a fake wildlife preserve and selling the animals organs on the black market for money. Watching this as a little girl, I just didn’t understand why someone would want to kill animals for money and have no remorse. I think that the only reason we should kill animals is for food, even then I don’t like to think of animals being killed for me to eat. But that’s the point, I feel bad thinking about that, and its not for money like these people do. Poachers kill animals for money and get a sort of sick pleasure out of doing so. That’s what confused me when I was little and to this day reading the article it made me angry that there are people who don’t have any regard of the animals. It made me angry that the European killed the animal just to make himself look better. He looks more weak in my eyes that anything because he thought that only way to please the people was to do what he did. If he was really brilliant he should have found some other way, or not have cared what they thought. 

A Small Place

1) Should we made to feel bad and responsible for the face that the people of Antigua feel cheated out of their culture?

2) Since the "tourists" are helping the people of Antigua out financially by spending their "tourist" money there, shouldn't the native people be a little more grateful rather than angry towards them?

3) Do the people of Antigua need to be compensated for the "damage" that was done to their culture?

Question 2#

     I live in Laguna Beach, home of the hit MTV show, "Laguna Beach: The Real OC". I was in 8th grade when the show aired on MTV. It was strange that my little, humble town was now being broadcasted on television for the whole world to see and know about. Growing up in a small town was wonderful. It was safe, quaint, and everyone knew you and you knew everyone. You can walk or ride your bike almost anywhere in town and not have to go very far. Laguna has a lot of history dating back to the 1920's. My house is a 1920's historic Laguna Beach cottage. Many generations of Laguna Beach locals were born and died here and a lot of them still live here today, just adding to the unique and humbleness of the town.

   My freshman year of high school I saw Laguna change, fast. Summer's used to be magical. Beaches were quiet, clean, and inhabited with familiar faces. Getting to the north end of town took 10 minutes maximum. Now....Summers are still magical, but much different. Aside from local spot beaches, the others are absolutely covered with people from out of town (or as Kincaid would call them "tourists"), traffic can only be described as gridlock hell, and you can't go to eat anywhere without waiting in line foe at least 15 minutes. SO needless to say, it's been heavily altered since the airing of the Laguna Beach show.

Now, in Kincaid's book, her tone is very sarcastic and passive aggressive at times. I admit that when I was stuck in traffic in my little beach town, I was pissed off to be blunt. I was honk on my horn and say exasperated in my car to my friends, "Ugh can these tourists just go home!". Although i was never done a terrible injustice, I feel I can still relate to Kincaid when I feel like my culture that I was born into has been changed because of outside influence.

Although, I can relate I realized that I've been a tourist in another place too and so I've seen from the other perspective the fact that it brings people joy and happiness to travel place with loved ones or by themselves. And when someone chooses the place that you call home as a place to vacation, that should tell you something. It should tell you that you are blessed to live in a place like that. Now, I understand that Kincaid probably doesn't go on vacations or have been a tourist a lot but she lives in a place that people flock to for vacations.

So to answer the question, yes. I think that you need to have perspective see that when people come to your home to vacation, although it may clog up your town and be filled up with unfamiliar faces, you still need to see that there is something good in that. I saw that even though these changed have happened my town is still here and it's always going to be my home. If Kincaid realized that then maybe she could be a little less angry and resentful. Knowing that Antigua will always be her home.

Commentary #2 for Cole Fairchild

Cole,

            I really enjoyed reading your response to Hitchen’s article. It was well organized, flowed easily, and I as your reader was able to understand everything you were trying to communicate. In the first paragraph, you clearly state your opinion that Hitchens had a convincing argument in your rhetorical opinion. Your paragraph on ethos was well written. It pointed out how Hitchens not only stated his side, but also allowed room for criticism in that people might have argued that he wasn’t experiencing the full torture and helpless feelings those might have knowing that they would be able to go back to their own comfortable lives. I also agree with your commentary of Hitchen’s personal candor, I enjoyed his use of that as well. Its also good that you quoted him too. Your critique of his Pathos was well written as well. It true that his vivid description of his experience makes that audience feel for him and he gains our trust that way. Your conclusion brought everything to fruition and clearly restated your thesis and the entirety of your response. Some things that I think you could do to make your essay more informative. It is a little short. I would elaborate more of your point and arguments. Go more in depth with your thoughts and points, don’t just state your opinion, but tell us why, you know? Other than that, if it was just based on quality not quantity as well, I’d have only good things to say. 

A Rhetoric Critique of Nicholas Carr’s, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

         Today, we have an amazing tool of convenience right in front of our faces even at our fingertips. This tool is called the Internet. It really is amazing that in the comfort of our own homes we have computers, cell phones, iPads, and more that we can have access to all the information about anything in the world. Sitting on our butts we can get a college degree! It really is baffling to me that everyone on this planet can access the internet. But its what we do with this luxury and how it affects us is the basis for Carr’s article.

           Nicholas Carr, a blogger and writer argues that the internet is making it too easy for us and we no longer rely on “old school” ways of research and learning but rather on the convenience of tapping a few letters on a keyboard and then a click of a button. He voices the views of fellow bloggers who say that our way of thinking and our abilty to concentrate and hold attention on reading has been altered and we can’t focus like we used to, maybe because of the pace, longer time and effort of information getting into our brains. Carr informs us that, “we still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition”. He gives evidence of research projects made by universities studying the behavior of students’ research habits and how it shows “a form of skimming activity”, like they cant get the information fast enough.  Carr compares our brains efficiency to that of factory workers that, with the use of a stopwatch, measure their efficiency and productivity to increase it. And with that, Carr informs us about Google and their goals pointed towards the development of an artificial intelligence to make out brains function at a higher level. He quotes Google’s founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who say that, “The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive”. Carr concludes his article referring back to what he began his article with, a summary of a movie scene from of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. He compares the deactivation of an artificial intelligence device meant to assist astronauts in an outer space mission, but rather was backfiring on its makers by “having a mind of its own”, so to speak. Carr’s comparison shows us that if we allow the Internet to take the place of our own God-given brains and the capacity at which they naturally move, we will lose our sense of self. He concludes his article with a great, eloquent summary of his thoughts, “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.”
           

           Overall, Carr’s article supports his point of view and has correct usage of kairos, pathos, ethos, and logos. So, Carr achieved his goal to try and persuade his audience that the use of Google can, has, and will continue to affect our brains in a negative matter if it is relied on too heavily.

           Carr begins his article with wonderful use of pathos, which is the emotional appeal to the audience. By quoting the movie, we as an audience are taken back to the film and get to relive the scene all over again. He quotes the artificial intelligence computer, “Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave? Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it.” Carr quotes this to have the audience see the computer almost like a human, who has feelings and life. By giving it human-like qualities, which appeals to the reader and is more inclined to continue reading, most likely be hooked at the beginning, and have sympathy for the victim in this article. Another example of ethos in Carr’s article is the conclusion. He returns to the Space Odyssey movie and again appeals to the audience’s hearts and makes them sympathize with the computer. But this time his word choices were what stood out to me the most. He uses words like “childlike pleading”, “robotic efficiency”, and another human-like quality, “innocence”. While these words are not genius or earth-shattering, they do the job. They are simple enough and perfect to get the point across in a gentle way, which was refreshing to me.           

           Another tool Carr uses in his persuasion is the use of logos and ethos, which is the use of statistics and facts to show authenticity. He states many statistics from sources and facts from many studies that support his argument. He talks about a study done by “scholars from University College London”. They studied the behavior of online researchers. “The scholars examined” many researchers skim through information and not even read it all the way through. These facts that Carr communicates support his claim and as well do a good job of showing us that when these people “skim over” material on the Internet they are not doing research the way it used to be done. One may say, “Well if they are learning and its faster, is that bad?” Not at all. But Carr is saying that when this type of learning, this skim-reading” is the only way that we know then that’s when we have to re-evaluate. Like Carr says, “It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.”

        Carr’s use of kairos is very interesting in this article as well and is probably my favorite tool of his that he uses. Kairos is giving historical background to support the author’s argument. One instance that stood out to me. One being the reference back to Friedrich Nietzsche in 1882, when his failing eyesight wasn’t helped with his overuse of handwriting. He bought a typewriter, which helped him a lot. Until a friend of his pointed out that his writing changed a lot. His friend said that his writing, “changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style.” This can still be said today about our writing style that has been changed by the internet. So many kids will say “what” instead of “pardon”. Or “ya” instead of “yes”. Again, simple points and nothing earth-shattering, but its true. Our language and way of thinking is changing everyday, for better or worse.

         So, Carr succeeds in his persuasion of the audience thought the use of his Pathos, Ethos, Kairos, and Logos. He uses these tools to gain the audiences trust and sympathy while also showing them evidence of the argument and supporting it that way.

Regarding the Pain of Others

Regarding the Pain of Others
By Susan Sontag

1) Should the media be allowed to publish images of war that are graphic and show the brutality of war?
2) Where is the line drawn between "good taste" and inappropriately graphic and traumatic?
3) When it comes to images of unknown, common men and women's faces being displayed during or after their death, should there be a request of permission to the family of the victims?

I will address question #2


I remember when I was 10 years old, 9/11 happened. I remember exactly where I was, who I was with, what I was doing, even what I was wearing. I was old enough to know that this was a seriously tragic thing. But at the same time I was young enough that my parents knew better than to let me know all the gruesome details of the deaths and suffering that occurred.

This excerpt from Sontag's book really made me think about how much we at home have access to the front lines of war, whether we want that inside view or not. While I think its important for us to consider the gravity and brutality of war, there is however, a line that I think must not be crossed and has been crossed in some cases.

 The months following 9/11, there was much more news coverage and education about the culture and injustice going on in the middle east. Coverage included the tyranny going on with their "government". I remember sitting in my living room while my parents watched the a program on the Middle East and some of their customs. I happened to start watching and proceeded to be somewhat traumatized by what I saw. There was coverage of a public beheading of a woman in front of hundreds of people. The way it happened was absolutely horrific and heartbreaking to see. My parents immediately turned it off when they saw I saw it and the look on my face. I think it was too much for a 10 year old to see and probably should not have been broadcasted on national television at 6 in the afternoon when families gather in their homes to watch television.

Now this may be a little off topic but will make sense after I explain. I happen to think that a Victoria's Secret catalog could be argued as one of the many sexiest images in media today. While they are half-naked, it still is tasteful. Then think about Playboy Magazine or Penthouse. These woman are totally naked and these images are more inclined to categorize as porn. These two examples can be compared to the media and their images of war being released. There are images like the Victoria's secret catalogs, where there's enough shown but still a little room for the imagination, you get the message, and you're affected by it. Then on the total opposite side there's Playboy magazine, where too much is shown.

An example in Sontag's excerpt is when she agrees that the images captured can be too much from the folks at home to see.

"The camera brings the viewer close, too close; supplemented by a magnifying glass-for this is a double-lens story-the "terrible distinctness" of the pictures gives unnecessary, indecent information. Yet the Times reporter cannot resist the melodrama that mere words supply (the "dripping bodies" ready for "the gaping trenches"), while reprehending the intolerable realism of the image."

It is healthy for us to be enlightened to that fact that there is suffering and death on the front lines of our war. But I don't think it is necessary or beneficial for us to see some of the graphic images that show too much. It can desensitize us to the point where we might be less moved when we see these images.

What is so bad about HATE?

1) What makes a hate crime worse than any other average crime?
2) Could we as a country get rid of hate all together?
3) Should the US punish those convicted of hate crimes more than someone charged with a standard crime?
4) Is tolerance enough?

Question 4

What I mean by "Is tolerance enough", is that should we be content with people just be TOLERANT of others that are differ in political, sexual, religious, or racial aspects? OR is there a way to change that feeling of hate all together?

I absolutely do not think that you can change the "hate" that people have in their hearts. It is a natural human emotion that we all have, even when we think we dont : ) While reading the article I was saying in the back of my mind, "I dont really hate anything.....". But we all do. I began to think of some of the things that I hate. I wouldn't phrase some of my feelings as "hate". If there was one thing that I do hate is "hate" itself. So, ya "hate" and "evil". Yes. I hate the fact that there is hate in this world and in our hearts.

But now what do we do about that hate in our hearts and in the world? Based on the article, i think that Andrew Sullivan is saying that we can ever get hate to leave this world, but we can be TOLERANT of others' views rather than hating them. But even when they are tolerant they still aren't clean of the feeling or thought. I think that in the end, we have to be the change we want to see in the world. Start with our own hearts and try to love the rest of the human race. So is tolerance enough? I think so.

Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex

1. When the author talks about Lady Gaga's affect on her young audience, does that imply that artists should feel responsible for the individual and collective effect of their art on their audience?

2. Is Lady Gaga the main person to blame for the Gaga Generation's blur of childhood and adulthood, and loss of value? 

3. What is it about Lady Gaga and her persona that has her fans so enthralled with her? 

I'd like to address my first question in this blog response. 

The author compares Lady Gaga to Tina Turner, Janis Joplin, and Bette Middler. Of the three comparisons, the Bette Middler comparison is the most compelling to me. It is true that Lady Gaga would do well to mimic the more musical and theatrical style of someone like Middler using the humor of vaudeville and the glamour of romantic, pop music. The working class background of Tina Turner and Janis Joplin, makes comparison of Lady Gaga with those iconic artists unconvincing. 

A far more meaningful comparison would be between Lady Gaga and the 1970's glitter and unisex idol David Bowie. Both Lady Gaga and David Bowie filled a vacuum between more culturally powerful and literate genres of American music. Bowie came along after The Beatles and the Renaissance of the 60's. And Lady Gaga came along after the music styles of Michael Jackson and Madonna. She came alone and filled the void. Both Gaga and Bowie adopted a bisexual, androgynous persona and both used their musical and theatrical gifts to portray themselves and their audience as consumers of hedonism. Both exploit bisexual fantasies and promoted sex as a recreational, casual activity rather than a sacred, beautiful, and culturally valued relation of intimate trust. Gaga and Bowie also portray themselves and encourages their audiences that self destructive behavior, such as drug use, was considered avant-garde, socially radical, and fashionable. 

Based on this comparison, a morally logical, if not statistical argument can be made that both artists promoted and encouraged high risk behavior and self destructive socialization among the young people in their audiences. How many lives were derailed? How many young men and women gave themselves away before they were ready because their concept of what was expected of them was warped? How many kids ended up in drug rehab programs? How many would have been protected from problems if they had not been exposed to the imagery and message of artists like this? 

I think the reason the Gaga Generation is so drawn to her, is because its something new. Something unique and "exciting" they haven't seen to that degree. Our generation has a need for constant stimulation, entertainment, and change. I like the point that Paglia makes that our generation's line has been blurred between childhood and adulthood. The line that distinguishes things that are meant for the innocence of being a child and the self-empowerment of adulthood. Our generation has been exposed at too young of ages to things that they are not ready to see. Therefore, warping their sense of that is expected of them.  

Finally, it must be said that both Lady gaga and David Bowie, has musical and theatrical gifts that can only be described as genius. That is why in order to defend themselves for the effect of their art on their audiences, they often made fun of and mocked themselves. But those attempts to shift responsibility away from themselves do not change the fact that they became very rich and famous peddling art that promoted hedonism instead of uplifting their audience. 

A Marketplace of Echoes

Response Questions:

1) Will our society ever come to a place where we all will agree on issues such as, religion or political views?

2) What are some ways that we as a country can have "tolerance"?

3) What is the solution to avoid feeling as if your views are being attacked on the Internet?

I wanted to address Question #1. Its hard for me to feel like I relate to many of the issues brought up in the article. But mainly to the Internet in general, idea of politics, and opinions about social issues. Sometimes I feel as if I am not very educated about lots of the social and political issues in our nation. I tent to keep to myself. Meaning that I don't, for example, watch Fox News or the Presidential debates. You might say that that makes me ignorant and oblivious to these things. But I feel as if I just have more important things to worry about in my life than what Bill is being passed in congress as we speak. My father is a lawyer and worked in Washington DC for many years doing work on the Reagan administration. I wish I was more like him in the sense of being educated about our government. At the same time, as I mentioned I have other things that are of higher value.

It is interesting after a national event, people tend to use the internet sites and blogs as a way to vent their feelings. I saw countless people post Facebook statuses about gun control after the Connecticut Sandy Hook School Shootings. Although that might have been a valid point in some ways, I just don't believe that the internet is the place to voice those frustrations or opinions.

It is my hope that the people of our nation could somehow one day find a common ground. If we lived in a perfect world that would be the case in every issue. But the bottom line is that we don't. We have to just focus on the small scale that will eventually play out into a national scale. For example, in our own lives. Start practicing tolerance in situations when you do not share the same view as someone else. I'll give an example from my own life. I have been a Christian for 2 years now. Although a short time, my beliefs and my heart are radically changed. I would never judge or condemn someone who didn't share the same beliefs as me. I choose to live my life and see that I cannot change other people's beliefs. We all need to live our lives in tolerance of others and have reverence and respect for one another.