Food Inc is a Commercial for Rich People

        I was unimpressed by Food, Inc's attempt to dig up sympathy from me. For example, I was not fazed when I watched how cruelly the pigs and cows were treated on the farm. That is because I knew that no matter how well they were treated, they would end up in the slaughterhouse anyway. The film seems to call for a more civilized method of animal farming, but what would be the point of that? There is no such thing as civilized slaughtering.
         I was bothered by the film's ending that made it sound like a two-hour long commercial geared for middle-upper class citizens. The ultimate message was basically "Buy organic food." This is not bad advice, but I was hoping for a more realistic solution. After all, not many people can afford to shop at Whole Foods. One of these poor people is me, and so although this film opened my eyes to a big problem, it did not give me a solution. This film has only made me realize that I am forever doomed to suffocate from processed food until I make some money.

         I did not appreciate the film's criticism of corn because I am grateful towards artificial corn syrup for providing me with an abundance of cheap, convenient food. My immigrant parents were able to make a living in America by relying on such food. While growing up, I would eat with them at McDonalds everyday because there was no money for healthy food and no time for cooking; each of my parents struggled to maintain a minimum wage job. Even with the help of fast food, the bills and rent were rarely paid on time. I cannot even imagine where we would be if we were forced to spend money on expensive organic food. Even today, I am grateful that I have the privilege of purchasing from a dollar menu.
          Although Food, Inc attempted to encourage me to eat organic food, I will continue to eat whatever I want because of one vital fact; I work out. As long as I stay active by playing basketball and lifting weights, I will allow myself to eat as many Big Macs as I want. However, because of my passion for working out, I tend to choose healthier foods for the sake of my performance. Nevertheless, I do not restrict myself from any specific foods. I have had this outlook all my life and I am not even close to being obese nor have I had any heart attacks. I rarely even catch a cold. So why should I listen to what Food, Inc has to say? I trust myself more than I trust a movie.

Extra Credit Playing Devil's Advocate

        Sheila Jasanoff made valid points in her rebuttal against Bharati Mukherjee's ideas in "Two Ways to Belong in American." Unlike Mukherjee, Jasanoff believe that there are many ways to enjoy life in America. Instead of adhering strictly to either her native culture or American culture, she incorporates a healthy mix of both into her life. She argues that one of the greatest benefits in living in America is that this country encourages people to be unique. She also argues that an identity is made up of more than just patches of black or white like how Mukherjee may have us believe.
        However, Mukherjee does has a point. When describing someone's identity, we use adjectives that are only black of white. For example, Arnold Schwartznegger is famous for being courageous and buff; his identity is created by his courage and muscles. He cannot also be cowardly and scrawny. Likewise, a person cannot be a conformist and an exile; a person cannot love and hate America at the same time.
        Although Jasanoff criticizes Mukherjee for being close-minded, I believe that Jasanoff is naive. I agree that a gray area does exist, but only by mixing black and white. I have always believed that our true selves surface when life takes a turn for the worst. For example, only when I am in grave danger will I realize whether or not I am a coward. It is also the moment I can see which of my friends are worth calling my brothers and which are not. I cannot be a coward and be brave at the same time, much like how I cannot consider my friend to be my brother and a traitor. Likewise, Mukherjee cannot be an American and an Asian when those two ethnicities wage war against each other. Which side will she choose? Her decision will become the black or white that warps the shade of gray that is her identity.
        Jasanoff and Mukherjee have different interpretations of what an identity is. While both have general beliefs about it, they do not define it. However, I will: Our identities are not the people we pretend to be when life is going well, they are the people we will become when our lives are at stake. Many of us never get to find out who we really are. 

Food is Everything

      In his article, "What We Eat," Eric Schlosser discusses his views on the fast food industry's rise to power and how its influence has revolutionized American culture. He scornfully states how the fast food industry, which used to be nothing more than a few hot dog stands, has "infiltrated" our society and has established chains of franchises practically everywhere. Although many may believe that our society's food choices does nothing more than affect our diet, Schlosser argues that it also plays a role in the general quality of our lifestyles by shaping our landscape, economy, workforce, and pop culture. He uses McDonalds as an example that influenced our workforce by raising the fact that it has been annually hiring one million people. He employs a method of comparing and contrasting to emphasize the extent of McDonald's influence; For example, he states that Ronald McDonald is as well-known as Santa Clause. We all know how influential and well-known Santa Clause is. Schlosser uses many other methods to convey his ideas.
         "Pull open the glass door, feel the rush of cool air, walk in, get on line..." By using such descriptive narration and process-analysis, Schlosser embellishes an experience that people have come to take for granted. By doing so, he demonstrates that purchasing fast food has become as routinely for us Americans as watching Hollywood movies and putting on blue jeans. With narration, he shows us that fast food has not only been absorbed by our stomachs, but by our American culture too.
          Schlosser analyzes exactly how fast food has caused our culture to change, and he gives his opinion on the effects. For example, he raises the fact that when the McDonalds franchises were established, they each employed the same, prescribed business model that maximized efficiency and profit. It was only natural for other industries (besides those involved with fast food) to adopt and incorporate a similar model into their own businesses. Those that conformed to this standard set by McDonalds got big while many that did not conform went bankrupt. The ultimate effect can be seen all over our country that is now filled with Gaps, Starbucks, Foot Lockers, and other franchises that have made strides towards monopolizing their own industries.
          By using a multitude of methods, Schlosser constructs a solid argument. He chose perfect times to use each method which led to flawless transitioning between paragraphs. This paved the way for a smooth flow of ideas that climaxed into his thesis about American culture being changed by food.
           I had never thought that food could be so influential, but I am now enlightened after reading "What We Eat." Schlosser does a fine job by backing up every one of his assertions with a carefully-placed example. It is hard not to agree with him.

Compare Contrast

   

        The abilities to generalize and differentiate yield many benefits. A person who is afraid of dogs may adopt a fear of other mammals such as cats, squirrels, or even humans if he cannot find differences between them. Generalization can protect us from harm by making it possible for us to the notice that the aspects of a potential danger is similar to those of a definite danger. For example, the first time I touched the blue fire of my kitchen's stove I became forever aware of what fire looked like and from then on I would have been able to recognize a flame even if it appeared red, yellow, or orange in the future; I would never make the mistake of burning my finger again. Imagine trying to navigate the complexity of life without lumping things together that share common characteristics - we would be "flabbergasted by every new thing we encounter" (Pinker, 2002, p.203). Comparing and contrasting also make it possible for us to pinpoint what our interests and dislikes are. With this knowledge, we can get a sense of who we are and achieve self-actualization.
          In, "Two Ways to Belong in America," the author, Bharati Mukherjee, compares and contrasts her identity with that of her sister's, Mira. At first, Bharati states that they could have passed off as the same person because of their practically identical appearances, personalities, and beliefs. However, the bulk of her piece focuses on how their similarities started to blur after they each took a different approach towards living their lives in America.
         Unlike Mira, Bharati welcomed American culture and donned brand named t-shirts and jeans; she even got herself a White husband. Mira was unwilling to conform; she adhered to the traditions of her homeland and married an Indian man. Their differences in their values became apparent when the United States government started to scrutinize and scapegoat immigrants such as them. Bharati acted more indifferent; she asked "Have we the right to demand, and to expect, that we be loved?" She was grateful towards the U.S. for letting her be a citizen and did not feel entitled be loved by it. However, Mira felt that she deserved better treatment from the U.S., and because of new anti-immigration policies, she felt betrayed. Despite these discriminating policies, Bharati still wanted to fit in with the country and its culture even though her sister rejected all of that.

        The question that this piece raises is: Which sister is the weirdo? I would answer this question with a question of my own: Who cares? They each have their own reasons for having their beliefs. Nobody is sanctioned to criticize either of them for their decisions. I can honestly sympathize with both sisters. Although my parents immigrated from China and adhere strictly to their traditions, I adopted American habits even if they contradicted with the values of my Asian culture. There is nothing wrong with this; after all, I was born and raised in the U.S. However, I know that if I suddenly decided to reject t-shirts and blue jeans, I would think no less of myself because I would be respecting my parents and my preserving my culture. To me, nobody is a weirdo.

No Lie = No Jailtime

(Highlight bottom half to continue reading)

             I am impressed by how Stephanie Ericson was able to classify lies into categories in her essay, "The Ways We Lie." She even cited a quote for each category to instantly paint a broad picture before explaining. Before reading her essay, I believed that there was only one kind of lie, the "Out-and-Out Lie," which is simply an intentionally false statement. I cannot even fathom the possibility of there being even more lies than the ten her essay addressed. Reading Ericson's analysis of each category was a valuable and intriguing learning experience for me.

             I was especially intrigued by the view that "Ignoring the Plain Facts" could be considered lying. I had never thought that being negligent could constitute as lying until now. The Catholic Church in Massachusetts that knowingly employed a pedophilic priest was used as the perfect example to portray such a lie. Although the church did not claim that there was not a pedophile working for them, simply remaining silent created danger in a sacred sanctuary where people trust the priests not to molest their children. Because people's trust got taken advantage of, I can acknowledge how there was a lie.   
              Although I learned a lot from her essay, I believe that Ericson wanted to do more than educate her reader. She expressed her purpose clearly when she stated that "We must consider the meaning of our actions. Deception, lies, capital crimes, and misdemeanors all carry meanings." With this thesis she urges us to ponder the morality of our actions and how they affect other people and ourselves. For example, ignoring the plain facts can actually be a serious crime that is punishable in the form of a prison sentence; it is called criminal negligence. The employers at the Catholic Church are guilty of this crime because they should have considered the consequences of their lie that they probably thought was harmless. If they did, maybe no one would have had to get molested.

The Real Question

       Robert Connors employs a unique plot in his story, "How in the World Do You Get a Skunk Out of a Bottle?" As its title suggests, this piece is about how to free a skunk from a bottle; having that question as its title makes this clear. However, such a simple plot can be analyzed to reveal a far more intricate question than it at first presents.

        Although we are unlikely to meet a skunk trapped in a bottle, we are likely to encounter a stranger that needs help at some point in our lives. For example, a giant African-American man once pleaded with me to borrow my cell phone so that he could call his mother who was at the hospital. This man needed my help as much as the skunk needed Connors'. However, I contemplated that helping him might not be my best option because he could just run off with my precious phone if I gave it to him; this is like how Connors' hesitated because the skunk could have just sprayed him if he got too close. Like Connors, I felt responsible for helping the person (or skunk) who was practically begging for help. That is why I eventually handed over my cell phone so that this man could rest assured that his mother was safe. And then he ran off with it.
        The real question is: When should you help a stranger? Robert Connors benefited from saving the skunk. After all, he was filled with "joy, joy, joy" after doing so. Thus, the purpose of his story was to convince readers to always (or at least sometimes) offer a hand to anyone who needs it so that they too can experience such "joy, joy, joy." I have yet to experience this kind of satisfaction so my answer to the real question is: Never.

Partying Ads

           

           Partying is a common activity among the schedules of college students. Although being studious during the day, these scholars can often be found chugging down life-threatening amounts of alcohol at night. Their reputation as voracious party animals has been etched in our society. As a college student myself, I must say that this reputation is well-deserved. Even I, a nerd, would sometimes cast aside my backpack and stride onto a dance floor. How could I resist when the advertisements for the parties are so convincing?

            For example, the upcoming Halloween party, "Liq or Treat," is being advertised on a colorful poster. The most eye-catching part of this poster is a picture of the renowned pop star, Miley Cyrus, striking her signature pose. Although the event coordinators know Miley Cyrus will not be at the party, they were clever to depict her in the advertisement anyway, especially after the release of her new hit single, "Wrecking Ball." That is because when Miley Cyrus fanatics see the poster, they will feel excitement and interpret this feeling as a desire to attend the party. Even if the audience is not comprised of many Miley Cyrus fans, they may still get excited after seeing a picture of such an attractive maiden sprawled across the poster. Either way, a mere image of such a famous celebrity will often allure more customers than an image of the average Joe. 
            I feel that the Halloween theme of the poster was meant to exploit my childhood memories. This is because although I am considered too old to go trick-or-treating to gorge on junk food, none of my classmates will make fun of me if I go to Liq or Treat to play beer pong. Thus, I might attend because I feel that I should celebrate the holiday for tradition's sake. I imagine that many other college students feel the same way. Hosting a party on the national night of thrills is an effective way to make money off a Halloween lovers such as myself.
           Besides employing colorful ads, event coordinators take advantage of social media networks, which can act as a highly profitable medium for advertising, in order to promote their parties. They will often share their advertisements with all their so-called friends and followers. When they do, those advertisements will spread like wildfire. For example, when I received an invitation for "Liq or Treat" last night on Facebook, it had only ten confirmed guests. Today, it has over 500 confirmed guests. Since these guests are being encouraged to invite everyone on their buddy lists, I would not be surprised if the number continues to skyrocket. After all, people would be more inclined to attend if all their friends plan on going. It seems that advertisements such as this one tend to initiate chain reactions.

Cure Depression

          Alissa Steiner begins her call to arms against depression with an anecdote about her fellow college classmate's tragic death. This classmate, Nima, was a seemingly happy person with lots of talent and friends; he was a charismatic thespian, a passionate poet, and a fine musician. That is why everyone who knew him was shocked when they heard that he had committed suicide. Steiner implies that this abrupt and unexpected decision was possibly induced by depression, a mental illness that college students are especially prone to. She then forms her thesis by arguing in favor of investing more money and efforts towards providing efficient counseling services that combat depression so that fewer people would have to experience the trauma of losing beloved peers such as Nima.

           Steiner supports her thesis with expert opinions. She introduces Diana Hill, a doctoral intern for Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS), who stated that many teenagers often become depressed because they have to maintain a variety of "roles" and that they often lack support during their tenure as a college student. Hill emphasized the amount of workload that students are often burdened with and that this is what makes students such as Nima fall into depression. She also pointed out the fallacies of the counseling organization she works by lamenting that "The counselors here are very busy" and that "There are just not enough people here." Aside from Hill, Steiner introduces Hagar Liebermensch, a student who yearned for counseling. Liebermensch claimed that CAPS offers valuable sessions but "it is challenging to schedule appointments there." These testimonies from insider informants strongly supports Steiner's belief that there is a room for improvement in the counseling industry. If I were making this argument, I would not do it any differently than how she has.
           I believe that investing in improving counseling services will benefit society but it should not be fully dependent on such therapy. After all, depression is a complex illness; it takes more than an aspirin or a flu shot to get rid of it. A conversation with a stranger hardly seems like the ultimate cure either. This leads me to agree with Steiner's point that friends are vital to the rehabilitation process.
           My own personal experience exemplifies my belief in the importance of friendship. During my time in high school I had a friend who suffered from severe depression; she would sometimes slit her wrists and randomly burst into tears. That is why I would often avoid going to classes in order to be with her instead. Although I did nothing but stand by her side, I knew I was soothing her pain to some extent because she would always look so happy to see me. On the other hand, she always looked annoyed after one of the therapy sessions that she was forced to go to; she would always tell me it only added to her stress since she had to put on an act to be able to finish the "bullshit" session as soon as possible. Since the counselor had not been helping, had I not given her my moral support she would have had to cope with depression by herself. I cannot imagine how hard it must be to defend oneself from a powerful mental illness without any support. This is why I believe that having friends is an effective cure for depression.

Street Smarts

      "...schools and colleges are missing an opportunity when they do not encourage students to take their nonacademic interests as objects of academic study." With this bold thesis, Gerald Graff establishes his belief that knowledge in subjects other than those taught in a classroom can be taken advantage of to earn straight As. Graff supports the thesis with his own adolescent experience during which he was infatuated with and knowledgeable about sports. This knowledge was labeled as mere "street smarts" but it offered him more than what teachers and parents expected it could. By having street smarts, he obtained many abilities, such as how to form arguments and critically analyze, that may also have been obtained with book smarts. And so, upon entering college he was already able to weigh evidence, differentiate between specifics and generalizations, and evaluate opinions because of all the passionate conversation about sports he had had with his fellow fanatics. By applying his street smarts in college he was able to earn grades that enabled him to argue about complex topics such as hidden intellectualism and to become a renowned professor.  
         Besides using a personal experience, Graff points out an undisputable premise to support his argument with; a student will write better about a topic that he interested in rather than that of which he is not. Graff then implies that schools should be focused on developing certain skills rather than drowning students in information they find to be boring. For example, writing class should exist only to improve students' writing ability, not to make them memorize every word of Plato Book 1. After presenting these premises to the audience, he then concludes that students should be allowed to write about topics that interest them because that will motivate them to write and to develop that skill. After all, there is no advantage in forcing a student to write about Hamlet when letting him write about a topic of his choice would elicit more improvement in his writing capability.
         I agree with Graff's claim because I am currently enjoying my time as a student of an expository writing course that is lenient towards the topics I am allowed to write about. This leniency has been improving my writing talent by allowing me to enjoy the assignments. For example, I was thrilled when my professor assigned me with the task of writing a descriptive piece about any experience. Since I was allowed to write about any experience, I spent a long time sculpting and perfecting a piece about weightlifting, a passion of mine, which was awarded an attractive grade of 9.5/10. I was even disappointed that I was not given that last half of a point and so I became motivated to improve. If I had been forced to write about a boring topic, I would not have worked as hard, had as much pride for the finished piece, or had any incentive to improve after receiving a less than perfect grade. Because I have experienced the power of passion, I must agree with Graff's claim that passion unlocks hidden potential.

Social Media Debate

       Peggy Orenstein starts off her criticism of social media with a vivid anecdote of a relaxing summer morning with her daughter. She states that this precious moment should have and would have been savored to its full extent if not for Twitter. She describes how she was not "fully present" because she felt as if a part of her mind was too busy observing the scene instead of enjoying it. This part of her mind was watching a show when it should have been a part of the action; it was brainstorming for the best hash tag it should have been living in the moment. After efficiently setting the stage with this anecdote to appeal to her readers' emotions, Orenstein goes on to explain how social media such as Twitter has led us all to become actors in the reality-TV show that life has become.
         On the other hand, Steven Pinker praises social media after bringing up a viewpoint seen by its critics only to abruptly shoot it down.  He boldly states that not only are the naysayers incorrect in believing that social media is a threat to our intelligence, but that such technology is the only thing that keeps us smart. This thesis is supported with logic. For example, Pinker states a premise that intelligence is gained through deep reflection, thorough research, and rigorous reasoning, all of which is made possible by reading. He then goes on to conclude how new media makes text accessible at the touch our fingertips and so it might as well also be giving us easy access to intelligence. With such sound logic, Pinker defends his argument well.   
         I agree with both Peggy Orenstein and Steven Pinker. Like Orenstein, I believe that social media can be a distraction. This is because I always get annoyed when I am socializing with my friends only to have that moment ruined by a suggestion to take photos for Facebook. Instead of relishing in the experience and coming up with new ideas to make it better, I would be forced to pose awkwardly in front of a camera. However, like Pinker, I believe that social media and other new technology is vital for keeping people smart. After all, if not for the internet I would practically have no knowledge and thus no intelligence because I am too lazy to carry heavy textbooks around as opposed to punching letters in the Google search bar on my pocket-sized phone. Since it is statistically proven by the Pew Research Center that many Americans , if not most, are lazy and obese, then there must be many other people that would have little knowledge and intelligence if not for new media. Although an excess of technology can be a burden on our lives, we cannot disregard its advantages.

A Dance With the Devil

                                                     A short story written by Andy Tan

         "Yo punkass. You tryin' to scrap?" This dark-skinned giant towered over me as he constantly insinuated that I had a desire to physically engage him or in his own terms, "scrap."

          "Yo, you in my hood! This is my hood! I'm the boss!" he shouted maniacally and shoved me. I proceeded to casually stride past him since I had no time for such senseless quarrel; there was homework to be done. Bad decision.

           "Yo, that's disrespect! That's a fight on my block!" the mad man shouted and grabbed me by the back of my neck. With a strong heave, I was lifted into the air and thrust across the sidewalk. Pain struck me as the rough, cement pavement scorched my skin.

             "It is time to apply what I have learned from my father over the eighteen years of my life," I sighed and proceeded to brace myself for the worst while the stranger mounted me and began to dig his knuckles into my face.

              "Son, whatever you do, do not fight. Especially if the man's skin is dark; those are the most dangerous type of people. Stay away from them to the best of your ability. Learn to fear them." my father's voice reverberated in my mind as blood started to drip down my face. My eyesight heightened, and the pain was numbed as a rush of adrenaline coursed through my body. I was now teeming with anger and resentment for this man who insisted on wasting my time, yet I could not fight back. I was raised to never condone in violence, and I planned on adhering to this attitude. I closed my eyes and gritted my teeth as tears started to roll down my cheeks.

               "Bang bang! You little pussy!" he taunted and kicked me in the crotch. He had crossed the line.

                "WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK I AM?" I yelled, picked up my attacker by his ankle with one arm, and twirled him around like a helicopter propeller.  

                "WHOAAA YOU WILDIN' CHINA MAN!!" he screeched and was thrown headfirst through a car window. Shards of glass exploded in every direction; one even cut across my cheek. I was trembling. I could barely fathom what had just happened. This was the first time I disobeyed my parents.

                 "And It felt so good." I thought and smirked giddily. Suddenly, I was encircled by a group of burly, black men. They all wore black bandanas and gold chains. All of them had heads shaven bald except one man with dreadlocks drooping at least two feet down. I assumed he was the leader and so I glared menacingly into his eyes, secretly praying for mercy for my life, which was strange since I was a devoted atheist. I had no longer any will nor energy to fight, especially not an entire gang.  

                  "Please God, if you exist, spare my life!" I thought and hoped that some almighty presence received that message. Unlikely. The man with the dreadlocks took a step forward.

                   "My name is John. You must be frightened. Become part of our company if you want to live. We need strong individuals such as yourself," he proposed. This man had the countenance of a hard-boiled businessman. I glanced to my left and then to my right. I noticed every member clutched onto their hips as if they were prepared to pull out weapons. They were clearly ready to kill me.  

             "Okay." I agreed. "What must I do?" John approached me, reached into his pocket, and handed me a gun. Almost instinctively, I raised the gun to John's head, and at the same time every member of the "company" had their own guns pointed at me. If I pulled the trigger, I would surely die. If I did not pull the trigger, I would probably still die. I dropped the gun and prayed for the best. John casually picked it back up and shoved it back into my hands.

                "I would very much like you to be one of my business associates. You have it in you; you have what it takes to be a gangster. Just do as I say." he ordered. He proceeded to explain that there was a deli down the block, and how I was suppose to kill its owner, who was also the cashier, if I wanted to secure a spot in his organization. I hid the weapon under the sleeves of my jacket and was escorted to the deli by the gang. I told John that when he hears two gunshots, the job would have been completed.  He explained to me that if I take too long, he would personally come in to kill both me and the target.

                 At John's signal, I entered the deli to follow the plan. The owner stared me down as I walked towards the counter, as if he knew. I shifted to the right and trudged into the bathroom instead. I immediately grasped the sides of the sink and vomited. The anxiety made me feel as if my heart would burst. This was so unlike me. This goes against everything I believe in. I cannot do this. It is impossible.

                "But it isn't," I realized. "In fact, it would be so easy." I regained my composure and stepped outside the bathroom. Once again, I approached the counter.

                "How can I help you?" the cashier asked politely. I whipped out the gun from under my sleeves and pointed it at his face.

                "Call 911. Now." I ordered. He muttered something in his native language to himself; probably praying to his god. Shaking, he reached under the counter and did what I told him to. After thirty seconds, when I was sure the operators were on the line, I opened fire. BANG. BANG. The shots rang like thunder and skid past the cashier's face, piercing into the wall behind him. I quickly turned around and pointed the gun at the entrance to the deli, where John now stood frozen. I had him right where I wanted him. His accomplices panicked; the door was only big enough for one person and they had no intention of shooting through their leader to get me. For an entire minute, time seemed to have stopped because everyone stood still. This was my chance to rid the world of this menace, yet I could not pull the trigger.

                    "Why?" I asked myself. Suddenly, sirens came into hearing. The police were near.

                    "You bastard!" John bellowed and pulled out his own gun, seemingly out of nowhere. BANG! We fired at the same time. My bullet took his ear off, making him writhe in pain. His bullet got me in my ribs, and I collapsed.               

                      "I did it. I got him," I said proudly to myself. My eyes felt heavy, and my consciousness slowly drifted away. I had hoped that I would wake up soon; there was homework to be done.  

           Bad faith is a philosophical concept used by existentialist philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir to describe the phenomenon where a human being under pressure from society adopts false values and disowns his natural freedom to act authentically. It is as if one is lying to himself. For example, in "A Dance With the Devil," the narrator is lying to himself by doubting his abilities to fight back. Instead, he adheres to the virtue etched into him since birth that he should always be peaceful. Like a sort of religion, this philosophy had guided him well through life up until the events of the story. When he decides to finally fight back against the first encounter, he temporarily breaks his bad faith by doing what he did not believe was a possibility. However, that moment was out of pure madness because, naturally, a man's greatest pride is his crotch. Later in the story, he could not kill the deli owner to save his own life. Instead, he came up with a bit more intricate scheme to double-cross the gang leader. Only at the end, when his life was in extreme danger was he able to pull the trigger, once again going against his bad faith.

Food Debate

Radley sees David eating a McDonald's Big Mac.

Radley: It looks like those stupid food labels the government issued haven't been helping.

David: Amen to that. This label isn't even accurate. It doesn't take into account the extra cheese, the super-sized Pepsi, and the large fries I ordered. According to this label, I'm taking in only 500 calories when in reality I'm probably about to consume 1500. They should just place a "hazardous" sticker on this meal if they're not going to show me exactly how many calories I'm eating so that I can count them.

R: Well then, why are you eating that cheeseburger? Don't you care about your health?

D: Of course I do. But look around. Do you see any healthy food joints nearby? Because I sure as hell don't. There is a Taco Bell a block away from here if that's any better. I honestly just don't have a choice but to eat these fatty foods.

R: But I bet you have plenty of healthcare insurance to cover your anti-cholesterol medication don't you?

D: I do. Does that really matter? It is not my fault that I have to eat this; it is the government's. They should make more of an effort to provide me with healthier alternatives.

R: If the government didn't entitle you to so much insurance, then maybe you would be more careful in evaluating the health risks of your fast-food gorging. The government should just leave fast-food eaters like yourself to fend for themselves. That way, they will take control of their own health instead of relying on others to do it for them. You better be exercising daily to fight off those Big Macs.

D: I am the editor-in-chief of Men's Health magazine. I can assure you that my muscles are ripped and my body is healthy. It is clear to me that we both dislike the government; you dislike it because its healthcare policies encourage people to become careless when it comes to food choices while I dislike it because it lacks initiative in regulating the food industry to offer healthy, convenient food choices.

R: Well, try not to sue McDonald's when you become fat from its food.

D: Someday, you might have the urge to sue McDonald's. They market a product with proven health hazards but no warning labels. There has got to be some kind of law against this.

R: Just be sure to not to put the blame on everyone else when you become obese. The first person you should blame is yourself. Take care. 



Thesis:

It is not impossible to maintain a healthy body with a diet consisting of mostly fast-food; at most it would make it harder. Although some American citizens may argue that they are fat and unhealthy because the government does nothing to remedy the dilemma in which some communities have no choice but to eat fast-food and its inhabitants become overweight and unhealthy, I argue that just because such inhabitants have no choice but to eat fast-food does not mean that they have no control over their body composition and health. My argument is backed up by a scientific phenomenon called thermodynamics which supports the fact that body composition is determined by the intake of calories vs. the outtake of calories. Simply put, the body must burn more calories than it consumes in order to lose weight and so it must consume more calories than it burns in order to gain weight. With this rule in mind, a person who has no choice but to eat fatty fast-foods can simply count the calories they consume in order to not gain weight.
For example, the average person whose body naturally burns 2000 calories a day can keep track of the calories he consumes so that it does not go over 2000 in which he would gain fat.
This means this person's diet can be like this: (And he will not gain weight)

Breakfast: 3 McDonald's steaming-hot pancakes with maple syrup          400 calories
                 1 Large-sized cup of nutritious orange juice                             200 calories

Lunch:      1 giant order of KFC's crispy, tender popcorn chicken            400 calories
                 1 McDonald's vitamin-packed salad (just the veggies)            300 calories    
Dinner:     3 large Taco Bell tacos loaded with cheese and ground beef   650 calories                                                                                                         Total: 1950 calories

In fact, this person would be losing weight from eating such delicious food everyday.


Since it is possible and not unreasonably difficult (I would argue that it is actually easy to do so) for American citizens to be healthy regardless of whether or not they live in a neighborhood with nothing but fast-food joints, they should not blame their obesity on the government. 

Due 9/23- George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant"

             It is disgusting how people would abandon their morals and values for the sake of impressing others. For example, George Orwell, in his personal narrative, "Shooting an Elephant," clearly expressed his unwillingness to kill what he believed to be a harmless elephant, yet he did so regardless of his beliefs because he wanted to please a bloodthirsty mob. He twisted his morals and cast aside his own opinions in exchange for two thousand measly pats on his back. Why did he not stay true to himself?

           Orwell's decision to kill the elephant in his personal narrative reminds me of my former classmate's decision to betray his friend. This classmate, Simon, was known to be best friends with Jack. One day, these best of friends got into an argument in a park nearby our school where they caught the attention of all the students nearby. These students formed a mob that urged them on to fight. Simon took notice of this and relaxed, refusing to further escalate the situation.
           "Simon, are you some kind of wuss?" a bystander jeered.
           "Simon, you seriously going to take that from him?" another fellow classmate shouted. A barrage of insults demanded Simon to fight and so soon he gradually clenched his fist and swung it into Jack's jaw. It was clear to me that Simon would not have attacked his friend if not for the crowd egging him on. This type of submissive behavior disgusts me.
             Simon's reason for his betrayal was the same as Orwell's reason for killing the elephant. They both did not want to appear weak in front of other people. Simon, although he tried, could not resist the temptation of boosting his reputation with such as large amount of classmates that were barely anymore than strangers to me. Likewise, Orwell could not resist the chance of finally being acknowledged as one of the good guys by a crowd of Indians that he had always hated him. Although he himself bared a grudge towards these "evil-spirited little beasts," he still wanted to be loved by them so that his job would not be as strenuous.

           Although I do not approve of the decision George Orwell made, I cannot deny the fact that he sculpted "Shooting an Elephant" with many of the elements that create an effective narrative. For example, his use of descriptive words painted vivid, mental imagery that allowed me to practically relive his experience. By describing the scenery of a neighborhood as a "labyrinth" of bamboo huts, Orwell depicted the image of being trapped in a seemingly endless assortment of homes. He also meticulously captured the image of a "devilish" corpse by illustrating the "crucified" position it laid in along with the expression of "unendurable agony" on its face. Besides the effective use of description, there is a strict adherence to a first-person point of view that maintains the realism of the narrative; Orwell tells his story from only what he is physically able to experience at the moment. For example, rather than jumping from the initial scene to the scene with the conflict, he patiently emphasized the urgency of his call to duty and how he prepared for battle by grabbing his weapons and mounting his horse. With steady transitioning, Orwell formed a clear, chronological order of events that he embellished with a wide range of imagery.

           As Orwell gradually introduced the anecdote of his shooting an elephant, it became apparent that this elephant was no different from himself. When the elephant was toppled, it was bestowed an imminent death which can be analogized to Orwell's feelings towards imperialism, a policy in which a country overtakes other territories for itself through military force. He clearly despised such a policy, yet his job required him to serve an imperialistic government. Because of this irony, he described his life as being stuck in between something. Likewise, the injured elephant was stuck in between life and death. The elephant probably did not want to die so that it could once again be free to gorge on fresh leaves, but it probably felt like dying as well so that it would have been freed from the suffering. Orwell also sought freedom; freedom from the shackles that forced him to serve a government he hated. He needed to be stuck in that situation for a long time, much like how the elephant was stuck in between life and death. A main difference between the dying elephant's situation and Orwell's is that the elephant had been freed from its suffering with death while Orwell had had to find his own method of escape. Nevertheless, the elephant is a clear symbol of Orwell and his life's struggles at the time.  

Dialogue Extra Credit due 9/25 - The Power of Trash Talking

          "Fight me," Shahadoth insisted. He towered over me with at least six inches in height and an immensely bulkier physique. He also had eight people huddled around him while I only had three of my closest friends by my side. It was obvious to me that Shahadoth was at an advantage.

           "No," I asserted and glared menacingly into his eyes. "If you really want to fight, hit me now. I'm right here." I took a step towards him so that our shirts nearly touched. Then, I jutted out my chin, shifted my head to the right, and pointed one index finger at my left jaw.
           "No, wait. We're on school property. You plan on getting me in trouble," Shahadoth stuttered. He chose to decline my invitation because he believed that I actually had such a scheme to entrap him. His paranoia had kicked in; just as I planned.
            This memory of my confrontation with Shahadoth always reminds me of how powerful dialogue can be. With one simple word, "No," I was able to protect my friends and I from getting beaten up. By adding in, "Hit me now," I confused him into believing that I wanted him to punch me, when in reality, I did not and so if he did I would have simply ended up in a hospital that day. Everything I said, along with my tone of voice, was used as a weapon to defend myself. The arsenal of words I chose to employ allowed me to walk out of the confrontation unscathed.
            Reflecting on this experience has given me valuable insight on to how to write effective dialogue. It is clearer to me now that I must state the manner of speech that my characters convey in their words; there is a significant difference between saying, asserting, and stuttering. For example, if my acting had been less than up to par such that I stuttered "No" rather than asserting it, the outcome of the story might have changed drastically.  By using descriptive words to replace the bland "he said" and "she said" after dialogues, I can paint a more vivid, mental image that more closely depicts social interactions. 

The Ultimate Showdown (Descriptive Piece)

          "KEEP GOING! Don't give up on me now!" My brother's heavily low-pitched voice thundered across the garage as my knees trembled under the pressure of staying intact against the overwhelming force of the monster. I needed to defeat it as soon as possible; the longer I hesitated, the more it tore into my back, sending piercing tremors of pain down my spine.
           I started to contemplate the option of surrendering. My eyesight blurred from exhaustion and the symphony of encouragement from my brother deafened into gibberish. With my senses distorted, I yearned for my suffering to end and to be in the comfort of a bed. However, I did not want to die. Most of all, I did not want to lose. I made my decision.
         "I will not give up. I will not lose to you," I thought to myself as steaming beads of sweat trickled down my forehead and seeped through my lips, forcing me to taste and choke out salt. My feet dug into the concrete as I struggled to balance the monstrous barbell on my back and keep my knees from collapsing. It was loaded with seemingly endless slabs of iron plates on each side, and my body was its fulcrum. Suddenly, a jolt of adrenaline exploded throughout my veins. I gritted my teeth and lowered my hips until my buttocks nearly touched the ground. After that, I raised my hips back to its starting position, triumphantly jutted out my chest, and hoisted the weight off my back, smashing it onto the ground. Crack! I was victorious.

Extra Credit: Attack Assad?

          The situation involving the civil war in Syria has become dire enough to opt for the United States' interference. President Bashar al-Assad, dictator of Syria, has ordered the slaughter of thousands of his own citizens, hundreds of them being children, by the release of toxic gas. Not only did he lead his military, a power meant for protecting the country, in murdering innocents, but he had the audacity to break an international rule of war by using chemical weapons.  President Barack Obama, being the righteous ruler he is, has called upon the American people to allow him to punish Assad for his crime that he believes cannot go unpunished. He argues that if Assad were allowed to get away with this, other countries will also start breaking the norms that were agreed upon and so everyone would start investing in their own chemical weapons and other forbidden weapons of mass destruction. Apparently, no other country but the United States is willing to act in the name of justice.

           Although President Barack Obama would like to be the big hero by punishing Assad, the question I would like answered is: What is in it for us? I see no substantial amount of profit that can be gained by interfering with another country's war. In fact, there are substantial losses that can be incurred if the U.S. shoots missiles into the bloodthirsty dictator's territory. For example, what if Assad retaliates? What if after Obama sends a missile to Syria, Assad attacks New York City with his arsenal of chemical weapons? The United States should not act as the world's police if it would cost it the lives of its own people.

            According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, most Americans believe that Syria will not relinquish its weapons. However, despite this belief, most also oppose the decision to attack Assad.  The Obama administration has been receiving numerous complaints that argue that starting another conflict after a decade of war in the Middle East may not be the most favorable option. Thus, the Congressional vote authorizing military action against Assad has been delayed. President Barack Obama is currently working with the Russian government to solve the situation in a diplomatic manner.

Writing Prompt #2

    A narrative is an account of a story conveying what happened, who was part of it, when it happened, how it happened, and why it happened. However, an effective narrative contains details that go beyond answering these basic questions. These details paint a more vivid scenario for the reader than if he were left with a mere sketch that only contained the main ideas. For example, when describing my trip to the park, I can just state that "I went to the park and noticed it was a hot, summer day" or I can embellish the story by saying that "As I sprinted to the park, skidding through the crisp, summer green leaves that grazed my face, I could feel the sun's rays scorching my back." An effective narrative can be used to simply share a story with a friend, or even establish the premises for an argument.   

        In her personal narrative, "The Sanctuary of School," Lynda Barry argues in support of maintaining art classes for school and providing higher salaries for teachers. She does so by detailing the miserable conditions of her household and going on to explain how she used her school as a refuge to immerse herself in the joys of drawing. After extracting the reader's sympathy, she presents her views by stating that "We all know that a good education system saves lives, but the people of this country are still told that cutting the budget for pubic schools is necessary, that poor salaries for teachers are all we can manage and that art, music and all creative activities must be the first to go when times are lean." She then directly asserts her argument by stating that she was "lucky" to have had her teachers and creative activities, but that those that did not have such passions would have had nothing but misery. Lynda Barry used her personal narrative to demonstrate the danger of not having art classes in school, thus setting up her argument. After all, what would have became of her if not for the "sanctuary" that her school provided her?

         Lynda Barry uses the symbolic phrase, "points of light" to refer to sanctuaries. For example, she referred to a television as the light of her life because it offered a sliver of happiness in a household plagued with a financial crisis. She also depicted her school as a point of light by stating how she rolled up the window shades, and watched it "slowly come to life" as the building lit up. By stating that the points of light in a child's life can be "as far away as stars," she argues that there are many needy children that yearn for a sanctuary that they cannot reach. The purpose of this statement was to convince the reader to believe in the importance of nurturing the country's children. Lynda Barry would like all children to be entitled to their own "point of light" which she was fortunate enough to have.

        I,too, am fortunate enough to have my own sanctuary; the weight room. When I enter this room, it does not matter that my grades are dropping, parents are arguing, or that the girl I am in love with hates me. At that moment, I only need to focus on lifting weights until I feel that it is physically impossible for me to do so anymore. I cherish the next few hours in which my only concern is to do something so practical. Just like how Lynda Barry's sanctuary was her school, my own, personal light resides in a room full of dumbbells.

Writing Prompt #1

Due Wed, Sep 11 (This response should be about two paragraphs long.)
After reading "Where does the hate come from?" respond to the reading in two ways...
1.) As a reader:  What is the argument and meaning of the article and what is your opinion in response to it?
2.) As a writer:  Analyze Sheth's writing style, techniques, use of evidence/examples, etc. and describe one element of the writing that you think is well done and one that you think could be better and explain why.

1)

          Professor Falguni A. Sheth, in her article, "Where does the Hate Come From?," addresses karma's wrath that is terrorizing the United States. She argues that as long as the U.S. government condones violence and abuses its power, hatred will manifest in the form of a tragedy such as the Boston Massacre bombing. According to her, the destruction caused by the bombing was an indirect result of the destruction caused by America's corrupt domestic and foreign policies. She believes that some kind of force, as if punishing the wrongdoers, demands retribution for every act of violence or deceit carried out by the U.S. government. Simply put, Professor Sheth argues that "violence begets violence."

           I do not believe that violence causes violence, but rather that people do. For example, if someone hit me, I will not blame violence itself; I will simply blame the person who hit me. Likewise, I do not believe that violence, or the United States government, is to be responsible for the Boston Massacre bombing, but rather the terrorists that set off the explosives. It is sometimes best to perceive straightforwardly, or else it would be too easy to blame the government for everyone's problems. Although some may preach to keep an open mind, I would not keep mine so open as to "let my brains fall out." (Physicist Richard Feynman)

2)

         Professor Falguni A. Sheth, in her article, "Where does the Hate Come From?,"  advocates Martin Luther King Jr.'s quote, "violence begets violence," by addressing a variety of brutal tragedies and then suggesting that they are interconnected with one another. For example, she states that the "pain and grief" that resulted from the Boston Marathon bombings is the same as the "pain and grief" that resulted from U.S.- led drones assaulting Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan in the past. She also states that in less than two days prior to the Boston Marathon bombings, the U.S. government's torturing of GiTMO prisoners was exploited in a personal narrative detailing the horrors caused by the government. She uses this particular tragedy as an example because it occurred in such a short period of time before the bombings. Thus, she implies that if the U.S. attacks other countries it must expect to be attacked as well. Through strong, correlating examples, Professor Sheth maintains her belief in karma and supports her main argument which is that "violence begets violence."

          Although Professor Sheth uses strong examples to support her claim that violence will cause more violence, she does not present any substantial ideas on how to remedy the hatred that plagues the United States. After criticizing the government for its evil deeds, from its bombings on foreign weddings to its email tracking, Professor Sheth does not offer any alternative methods in protecting the nation beyond her preaching to "act justly" and "start afresh." If she offered a suggestion towards specifically remedying even one of the nation's many flaws after denouncing its leaders, her article would sound like more than a mere rant.