Blog J – Choose one of the photos from Photo Gallery 1 or 2 and consider its meaning. What could the photographer’s intention have been? What hidden message or symbolic representation is embedded in the picture?

Choose one of the photos from Photo Gallery 1 or 2 and consider its meaning. What could the photographer’s intention have been? What hidden message or symbolic representation is embedded in the picture?

I chose “Soil” from image gallery one. I chose this one because I saw many elements that are interesting and appealing. This picture is of woods that have been littered in. I saw this as a double entendre, because in the foreground is a used bag of top soil in a tree branch. The photographer played upon literal meaning of soil, and the verb to soil, meaning to ruin something. I think there is a definite symbolic representation with “soiling” nature, and how wasteful we are as a society. These woods in the picture are ruined, it’s going to take years to decompose the plastic bags entirely with only nature and the elements to help them. It shows that even after humans leave the Earth, it will take years and years for nature to recuperate and become pure again. Humans are to Earth as parasites are to animals. We use Earth for it’s resources without making sure the host is taken care of. This photo has a very important message that is completely applicable to today’s attitude of the Earth and nonrenewable resources. If we cared about our host, the Earth, we would be using more windmills and solar panels, and using the resources nature is already providing us. This picture can have several meaning depending on the viewers opinions, and that is one reason I picked this picture.

Blog H – David R. Dow “We Stop the Next Aurora Not with Gun Control but with Better Mental Health Treatment” Pg. 322

1. The two positions are: if guns weren’t available to the public then there wouldn’t be mass shootings, and the other being, if more people carried guns, they could have stopped the shooter. Each has a similar premise: protect the American citizens. With each there are issues. If guns weren’t available to the public legally, that wouldn’t stop crime but actually encourage criminals to seek guns illegally causing a huge black market for fire arms, and the other being the fact that if everyone was carrying a gun doesn’t mean it would stop crimes because as it was pointed out in the article the shooter was wearing head to toe armor that would have stopped all bullets from hitting him in the movie theater. Dow’s argument is formed around improving mental health services to citizens so they can get proper help with their mental illness, because with better services Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and Aurora would not have happened.
2. Dow uses references to other shooting to show that the people who commit these crimes are mentally ill. Dow says the people are mentally “broken” and need help being fixed. He uses the different shooters with no apparent connection to show the influence of mental disorders on society.
3. Dow makes the point that as a society we ignore the mentally ill until it’s too late, that the deed has already been done so killing the shooter doesn’t solve the issue. He also mentions that taking away guns from the public will just encourage mentally ill to seek other means online, such as how to build bombs and other homemade weapons that can do just as much, if not more, damage.
4. Dow has an opinion similar to the innocent bystander article. If you don’t acknowledge that certain individuals need mental help then when they “break” mentally and do something irrational, people shouldn’t be surprised. Dow’s main point has to do with helping people before they break, and his point being that if Holmes, the shooter of Aurora, would have had the proper help then he wouldn’t have hurt all those people.
5. Dow’s argument relates to American culture because the American culture is very obsessed with violence, and there is a huge stigma towards people with mental disorders. Dow wants people to change and consider how the world would change with more mental health services that are available and cheap for the public. He also wants some people to understand that this issue is a larger and more than just black and white. This issue is larger than just taking away all guns, or making allowing more people to carry guns.

Blog I – Emily Chertoff “Occupy Wounded Knee: A 71 Day Siege and a Forgotten Civil Rights Movement” Pg. 347

1. This is a eulogy because it’s about Russell Means, the AIM leader and activist who died the day before the article was written, and the 71 day siege in Wounded Knee, South Dakota. The article talks about his influence. It’s not only a eulogy, but also a short story because it talks about the events that happened during the siege.
2. Means was a civil rights activist himself, with a focus on the Native American population. The title relates to how the rights moment is not over, because the work Means did throughout his life was never finished or followed through. The civil rights of Native Americans never became as popular in society as those of African Americans. The rights of Natives are the “forgotten civil rights movement”.
3. This article is about the juxtaposition of Native culture and American culture. Their interactions are highlighted in a way to show the differences. One is a culture of tradition and lore, while the other is very money driven, materialistic, and change is a primary factor of the culture. Also, the racism that the Natives had to face was a big deal, along with the governmental issues that the tribes were facing. They overall, were resisting changes that were being pushed upon them.
4. In my opinion, the part that affected me the most would be when it was compared to Vietnam by veterans of the war. To know something as horrific as Vietnam was happening in our nation, to our own people, really makes me think what else we may not know that has happened in our nation. To know that it had escalated to machine gun fire is crazy.
5. She shows the movement from civil disorder, and rebellion to a civil war. She talks about the siege and how the National Guard blockaded the city so they couldn’t get food or ammunition. It was also mentioned that a sympathetic pilot dropped food into the city so people had provisions to eat. This article/eulogy is well written with many opinions to how it actually panned out.

Blog G – David P. Barash “Two Cheers for Nature” Pg. 281

1. Barash is commenting on the thought that things that are natural are automatically labeled as good or good for you. This is apparent in the trend of all-natural food, and the opposite being that processed foods are bad and you’ll have health issues from it. Barash points out that other natural things are actually horrible: E. coli, hurricanes, polio, tsunamis, etc. He’s trying to battle the idea that natural is better.
2. Technically, oil is natural. It is a natural resource used for fuel made of “diatoms and other plankton”, yet it did a lot of damage to the other natural ecosystem in the Gulf. His use of the oil spill is to make sure his audience realizes natural things do just as much harm as unnatural things.
3. Barash references Pilgrim at Tinker Creek by Annie Dillard because it talks about when she saw a “water bug” eat a frog. This shows that nature is a survival of the fittest situation and that nature is brutal. This goes against the idea that everything natural is great, if you really think about it death is a natural process, but it doesn’t hurt any less knowing that when a loved one dies.
4. Humans are different that other life forms because we have basic rules that don’t apply to nature. For example, we can’t go around killing people, or even certain animals. These rules don’t apply to nature, like I said in question 3, it is a survival of the fittest situation in nature, but humans have gotten past that.
5. He wants the reader to know that nature is brutal, and isn’t always good. Technically medicine isn’t natural, they’re man-made chemicals that help people live longer. He acknowledges that nature can be good but on the flipside, it also has bad qualities. Barash thinks that people shouldn’t base all their opinions on good and bad, but consider all the aspects first.

Blog F – Steve Yates “The Sound of Capitalism” Pg. 242

1. This article is “pro-hip hop” because it recognizes that there are problems within the rap industry, but the author expresses the success and cultural influence it has today. The author could have painted it to be a much uglier article about rap, but instead he wrote about the gains in capitalism and how the American hip hop scene has been so influential that places like England mimicked it.
2. When Yates talks about materialism he means that the majority of songs talk about the success an artist has come to, typically overcoming a rough history coming from a place with little to no material objects. Many raps talk about expensive cars, having lots of money and fans, and they usually have a lavish lifestyle and aesthetic when it comes to what they wear. This shows that rap is very money driven.
3. When comparing the American rap industry to the British rap industry it shows just how capitalism has influenced the American culture. It is no longer about the music and getting a message across, it’s about who has the most money in the industry. This causes rap to become watered down and meaningless. The British scene figured it was more about the quality of the music and not material objects and money.
4. Busta Rhymes had a song that mentioned a specific type of cognac and after the song became popular it caused a spike in sales for that brand. That shows the influence hip hop has on what people buy. If someone finds they really like Busta Rhymes song endorsing a brand of alcohol, of course they are going to want to be cool and materialistic by buying some for themselves.
5. This article is showing a cultural change because our society has become very materialistic and money driven, so naturally our music is changed to adapt to the times. I believe personally that rap changed because we, as a society, have morphed into a money hungry capitalistic bunch where profit is what is important. Rap became important when it was realized how much money could really be made in the industry. The amount of people going into the music business in hopes of fame and fancy possessions, but not passion has show in our quality of music today. Yates’s article used raps history to bring together the process of rap rising to the top of the charts over other genres.

Blog E – Eboo Patel – “Is Your Campus Diverse? It’s a Question of Faith” Pg. 214

1. The single sentence that best captures Patel’s main idea would be “what if recruiting a religiously diverse student body, creating welcoming environment for people of different faith and philosophical identities, and offering classes in inter-faith studies and co-curricular opportunities in inter-faith leadership became the norm?”. I think this sentence says a lot about Patel’s ideas, he asks for the norm to be changed and for more mingling between religious groups.
2. Patel used the fact that Obama becoming president could be linked to the 1990’s multicultural movement on college campuses, this makes the audience believe that if we change the norms on campuses that we could one day change the outcome of our nation’s leaders and potentially make being a person of a non-Christian religion not have a negative connotation. Also, Patel mentions that in the Obama campaign, one thing that could not be ignored was his religious background.
3. When Patel talked about “Social capital among faith communities” he meant that people of different faiths need to talk more openly and respectfully to gain more social power. That social power or social capital could allow them to gain more followers and respect with other religions to help ease the current sigma against certain religions.
4. Patel points out to the audience that the people who attend college are our worlds future leaders, they are the people who are most likely to be in a position of power. So when some college kid becomes very involved with a cause and then they become a leader, they will still advocate for those social changes in their campaign. When a large amount of people are advocating for the same social change and they are the “future of America”, then the likelihood for that change happening increases.
5. An “underrepresented narrative” is the story of the common man, or the person who’s story will never be covered in the news or heard of outside of their group of family or friends. The concept is important to this article because there are people struggling with their religion having certain prejudices and their story will never be told because the media doesn’t cover those issues.

Blog D – Steven D. Krause “Living Within Social Networks” Pg. 146

1. The Toyota ad helped the argument because it shows that connection now is defined as something different than being connected. The ad supports the idea that just because you have hundreds of friends on Facebook doesn’t mean that they have hundreds of friends in the real world. It can cause loneliness due to friends only posting their fun and active social life but they only post the highlights of their life.
2. Krause uses quotation marks around “read” and “watch” because he is trying to show the difference between reading a person and reading something online. He is suggesting that things we do online affect how we are in person, it all translates over mediums from online to the real world and changes how we see people.
3. Facebook does many things to a person and their loneliness level. Facebook has the chance to make someone feel as if they don’t have an exciting social life or an extremely exciting social life. Social media, as I said earlier, gives you a false sense of connectedness.
4. Living is being. As said in the last paragraph both the parties in the Toyota commercials are both “living”. Krause makes the point that “living” has no normal, “living” is defined by the person and that if someone is doing something they enjoy, it is living. He makes the point that living is up to the person.
5. Krause opposes Scruton opinion because Krause thinks it’s situational if a person can handle social media and their actual social life, but Scruton believes that a social media life causes you to lose track with the real world and real social lives. Scruton doesn’t believe you can balance the two and that they are not allowing themselves to experience real life.

Blog C – Robert Lane Greene “OMG, ETC” Pg. 129

1. When Greene uses examples from different age groups, different cultures, and different languages it just proves that his point is broader than just an American view of acronyms. It shows that his main idea can span over cultural differences, linguistic differences, and age differences. His examples give him credibility and makes us, the audience more responsive to believing him.
2. Some examples of phrases that show Greene’s attitude towards acronyms would be “Now, LOL means ‘you just said something so amusing my lip curled for a moment there.”, “the one who used to be just the boss , or the managing director, now styles himself the CEO… This alone would be one thing, but it turned into a viral infection”, and “then since nobody want to say [erectile dysfunction] either, ‘ED.'”, these all show his disdain for acronyms. He feels as if they dilute and water down our language and written language. This reminds me of 1984 and the idea of “new speak”.
3. Greene defends acronyms when talking about both the military and medical field. He does this people using acronyms can help people face the reality that either they can lose their lives be fighting in war or by an illness. It separates the reality from the words and allows the people not to dwell on the fact that they are facing life or death. They use acronyms as a framing tool to put something grim into a more pleasant light, for example “ED” doesn’t sound as bad as “erectile dysfunction”.
4. The statements don’t contradict each other because although acronyms seem American, and other cultures use American acronyms like “LOL” doesn’t mean that the culture itself isn’t seeking acronyms within their own language. For example the Chinese have acronyms based on a “character-based” language, this proves that multiple people are seeking a quicker way of writing in this fast paced world.
5. The “seductive quasi-certainty” is when soldiers used acronyms in place by the government as a way to poke fun at something by changing the acronyms meaning, like when soldiers talk “ISAF” which stands for “International Stabilization Force for Afghanistan” and joke that it actually stands for “I suck at fighting”. This allows the soldiers to separate themselves from the reality like I discussed in question three. Also, it show that acronyms aren’t always used as intended. “LOL” used to be for when something was actually funny, and now it is used as a filler for a text conversation. This shows that just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the meaning of an acronym is in brain of the interpreter.

Again, I apologize for the mild lateness. Thank you.

Blog B – Sharon Begeley and Jean Chatzky “The New Science Behind Your Spending Addiction” Pg. 67

1. Begley and Chatzky report that the need for instantly gratification is actually because our brains are sort of “wired” that way, it’s determined by the communication between the prefrontal cortex and the midbrain. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for stopping the brain from wanting something, and the midbrain is responsible for making you want something. They report that this generation may not save as much because they want instant reward, for example Begley and Chatzky remind us of instant messaging, 1 click online shopping, and accessing virtually any answer on the internet in no time by using Google. They also talked about the different chemicals, such as oxytocin which makes the brain change from being a spender to a saver. Oxytocin reduces anxiety and allows our brains to properly make decisions. They also mentioned the method of transcranial magnetic stimulation, which is where the “turn off and on” parts of the brain like the prefrontal cortex so that someone is more like to say no to their midbrain’s impulses. They make the argument that today’s society is about getting something and getting it now. We are less likely to save because we aspire to have great jobs that will pay for things like our student loans later in life. We also have liming experience in the world which makes us have a “why get it later when I can have it now” attitude. We definitely see our time as money.
2. The “moneybrain” is the gray matter in the brain that regulates spending and saving and other “crucial” decisions. Someone with a good “moneybrain” would be a saver who thinks about the future gain more than instant gain. It’s not just that part of the brain that separates us into savers and spenders, personality types are influential to this categorization. This plays right into Begley and Chatzky’s ideas about the brain’s impulses to spend or save by validating that the brain’s connections and predisposition is responsible for how a person thinks about the future.
3. The marshmallow experiment was done in 1960s where scientists offered 4 year olds a single marshmallow to eat now but if they could patiently wait a few minutes while the experimenter left the room and came back they could have 2 marshmallows. It showed that most of the kids couldn’t justify waiting for two when they could have one right now. They children that actually waiting were shown to have better test scores, less like to become a drug addict and less likely to become obese. This shows that people who can wait for future gain are more successful because they think about their future gain.
4. As someone who just took a psychology course, neuroplasticity is very important and interesting. One thing that they neglected to mention is the brain is able to change easily before age 30, then won’t really change after age 50. So yes, in theory a person could train and change their brain with ease before the age of 30. This is extremely important to their main idea of wanting your brain to be better at saving. Without this concept, they wouldn’t have much to build their argument off of, this proves that you can change the connections in your brain that you built since childhood and become a better saver even if you have had bad impulse issues in the past.
5. It’s important that they said scientists haven’t proved they the brain differences between the generations because that says that their main idea that their trying to argue is our generation is more inpatient and impulsive. Without the science behind it, their argument is more opinion based and less scientific. I think this works for their argument because up until the last paragraph I agreed with their argument, and in the last two paragraphs they used our generational differences to prove their point that we are more impulsive as a society.

Blog A – Jason Storms “In the Valley of the Shadow of Debt” Pg. 24

1) The core problem for people graduating college is not necessarily the debt they have accrued but the fact that the job market is becoming more aggressive which means the chances of finding a good paying job straight out of college is slim. If the graduate doesn’t find work then the debt will become a large problem too.

2) Storms doesn’t advocate for the proposed plan from Ron Paul, he suggests that students still take the loans and go to college because honestly it is the best plan for helping their earning potential and “social mobility”. He also makes the point to say that him repaying the loan institution allows other students to borrow from that institution which gives them a chance at a higher education.

3) Personal testimony worked well for Storms because he seems like the average American who goes to college, he obviously isn’t rich because of the amount of debt he has. This works well because the majority of students in college can identify with his situation because almost all of them have had to take out loans.

4) Storms uses sources like the United States Census Bureau, USA Today, and The Fiscal Times. These sources are very credible sources which all support the idea that a degree is needed to reach your full earning potential, but obtaining that degree through student loans causes a potential for future issues repaying the loan if the graduate doesn’t get a well paying job right out of college. They help Storms argument a great deal because the sources are very legitimate sources that are knowledgeable in this subject.

5) His concern is about how the older generations worry excessively about how someone will repay their loans. I also see this often in my life from people who either could not afford college or didn’t want to go to college (often out of regret). They don’t quite understand that in our generation in order to really make money, you have to spend it (even if you don’t have it). This “rhetoric of debt” could mean that people become too afraid to go to college, and it could cause people to not live up to their true potential.