Mostly My Thoughts (feat. Auto-Suggest)

I Am

Two of the most powerful words one can say

At least in English


I am my raceI am my religionI am my bodyI am my soulI am my nameI am who I am
I am my languageThe words that express what I think and howI feel The way I communicate with others

Language is a vital part of my cultureOf my identity Of who I am
language
Who think it's dirty
And incorrect
And wrong


Proper
Standing
Right
What's right?
Rules that were made up years ago
What about what people say today?
What about the most commonly used phrases of
2015?
What about the language variations that have
grown from different places?
That living people use
Each and every day
Somehow that doesn't matter
Somehow that's dose
It's not important


Language is power
Language gives people power
People use language to be the best
Or at least dye to be


All languages can’t be legitimate
That would defend the purpose
Upset the balance
Then there couldn't be those who are higher
than others
There always needs to be an outcast
There always needs to be those who do in
And those who don't
It represents a pets and a pets culture
Well everyone can't have their own
Everyone's feelings can't be considered
There needs to be a uniform standard
Otherwise there'd be chap
Think about high school
The stare
The jocks can't hang out with the nerds
The drama kids can't hang out with the skate
park
The art students can't hang out with the
cheerleaders
Society couldn't handle it
These people who are so different
Who live such different lifestyles
They couldn't possibly tile each other
Let alone, co-exist
That ode is can't
Or is it?


Language is power
These rules help those in power maintain
that power
That's all it's about really
Who is on top
Who is not important
Who is beet than who
You know what it comes down to?
Survivors of the fittest
Survivors of the linguist

There are those who look down on my

Language is identical

 Based on how I interpreted the directions, I feel that auto-suggest didn't alter my poem too horribly.  It definitely changed some words drastically, “tolerate” became “title” and “better” became “beet.” However, most of the words stayed the same so most readers could understand the main idea of the poem. That’s the amazing thing about this technology generation. We’re used to auto-suggest messing things up, and it’s almost as if we have an internal filter that filters out the word issues. In terms of communicating through auto-suggest, in some instances people sort of do. It’s easy to type a few letters and get some word options, but I believe it’s more about conserving time than speaking through auto-suggest. We can definitely communicate meaningful ideas through texts. While the word issues sort of interrupted the flow of the poem, I believe that they didn't hurt the piece too badly. Standard English definitely isn't necessary. It may look pretty, but I’m fairly confident that 99% of people would prefer to read something written in basic language over elevated diction. It doesn't mean we’re uncultured or savages, it just means our language completely reflects our culture and our people.    

On the Decline

The World Wildlife Fund is a conservation organization and their mission is "to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.”

In 2008, the WWF had a number of different agencies from around the world come up with thought and emotion-provoking ads. The ones they deemed the most impressionable were given the WWF stamp and were released. One that really caught my attention was titled “Evolution.” It portrays the usual monkey to human transformation, but with an interesting twist. After the “man” character, meant to depict humans like us, there are two more “man” characters, but instead of “walking” on a slight increase, they are walking down. The last character is almost up to his hips in water.

At first glance, the ad’s argument is slightly confusing. At a closer glance it’s still confusing. Since humans have all the power, they are obviously the ones that need to work towards this state of harmony. So what does the man going down into the water say? Since there’s barely any text in the ad, it can be read two different ways. The WWF wants harmony. One could say the man going into the water is a visible representation of harmony, an attempt to reach equilibrium. Instead, of being on a higher level than animals, this ad can argue that we need to be on the same level.

However, another person could look at this same ad and interpret it in a completely different way. Instead of the water being a positive symbol, it could represent the metaphorical drowning of the human race. Drowning from what though? It’s important to not forget that the WWF wants a harmonious relationship between humans and the environment. Therefore, they are most likely sending a warning through this ad. If we don’t work to protect other creatures and the environment, humans will suffer. While this may seem like a stretch, especially because the ad itself doesn't have any animals in it, based on the WWF’s goals as an organization, this makes total sense.

This ad visually catches people’s attention because there’s little text, and most people recognize the “evolution” image. This ad perfectly speaks to its audience, human beings. People care way more about issues when those issues have the capability of affecting themselves or people they care about. This ad is overtly showing the decline of the human race. It’s covertly screaming the message that humans need to get their shi+ together and start taking care of the environment or else we’re going to suffer horribly. Whether that method is successful is up in the air. While the ad certainly captures people’s attention, is that enough to motivate them to do something about it?

"WWF - Endangered Species Conservation." WorldWildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

And Get Along With Each Other

Arthur the aardvark lives in beautiful Elwood City with his father, mother, and two younger sisters. He likes riding bikes, Bionic Bunny comics, and being with his friends. He’s portrayed as a very optimistic and open kid and he’s friends with a diverse group of people.

Arthur comes into conflict with his younger sister DW in a plethora of episodes. Like most preschoolers, DW believes she’s invincible and wants to do things just like her older brother. She frequently tries to hang out with Arthur and his friends. Naturally, this annoys Arthur, and in order to dissuade he uses the excuse that, “she’s too little.”  When she wanted to ride a two-wheeler he advised against it and, like most other times, she paid that warning no mind. She ended up riding into a fence, someone else’s garage, and into a garbage can, but eventually she got the hang of it. While it may seem minor, her actions display the importance of perseverance and believing in oneself.

In many ways Arthur reinforces stereotypes in its display of what’s normal. The “smart” kid is literally named Brain, the bully is the biggest kid and has missing teeth, and with the exception of Francine, the girls wear dresses or some article of clothing that is pink or purple.  Oftentimes when the Brain talks, the other characters get tired of what he’s saying and either stop listening or ask him to stop talking. Muffy, who is rich, is obsessed with talking about things she has, and acts like a snob more than a couple of times. 

However, Arthur is certainly a show that promotes diversity and acceptance.  The characters are from all around the world and there have been full episodes in which Arthur and his friends learn about other countries and cultures. In the “Christmas” episode, Hanukah and Kwanzaa are represented as the episode not only follows the traditions of Arthur, but Francine and the Brain who are Jewish and Senegalese respectively. What stands out the most about the show is its inclusion and representation of those with disabilities and disorders. I watched an episode surrounding a character that has Asperger’s. Arthur had evidently gone on hiatus because he wasn't in the episode, so the main character was a moose named George. George goes to the library and meets a boy named Carl who doesn't look him in the eye or seem to show much emotion. George brings out his puppet which startles Carl and he starts crying. George is taken aback and Carl’s mother reassures him that he didn't do anything wrong, Carl has Asperger’s and is extremely sensitive to new things. The rest of the episode includes George finding out more about the syndrome and at the end the two boys have become close friends. George’s complete acceptance of Carl, and that he never considered the syndrome as a reason to not be kind to him makes him a really strong role model. If young children see total acceptance at an early age they’ll be more inclined to exhibit that behavior.

Arthur is fairly good showing its viewers a glimpse of what life is really look. With its diverse cast of characters it teaches kids acceptance and the importance of being considerate to one another.

Nothing At All

Dull. Physically, and somewhat literally that’s what this room is. The walls are off white, the ceiling is jet-black, and the floor is a mixture of white and tan. There are no windows, which makes the room not only frigid, but dark as well. The fifteen or so desks in the room are also tan, cold, and hard. The light, though dim, reflects off all the whitish surfaces. Visually, it looks similar to a criminal interrogation room.

 Well, that’s not a surprise. This room is intended for “trouble-makers.” Those people who have crossed the line, made bad decisions, and deserve to be punished. The administration sends people there to learn a lesson. Or send a warning to others. Maybe both. I’m not sure.

 The room teaches a lesson. It literally sends a warning. That’s what it’s so dull. That’s why there aren't any windows. It’s warning people about what will happen if they keep breaking the rules. Light represents hope and joy. It’s light that guides sailors home safely. There’s no light in this room. The room is giving people a preview of the future. If they keep breaking the rules that’s what their life will be. There will be no hope. No joy. It’ll be dull, dark, and hard.

 The room radiates negative energy. The people in it feel sad, ashamed, or angry. Those outside of it feel uncomfortable, disappointed, and dismayed. Everything about the room is negative. And that’s it’s purpose right? So did the people who designed the room have that in mind? Did they intend to build a negative energy filled room? Is that even possible? I say no. A room is simply a room. It’s how the room is used, how the room is arranged, and who is in the room that matters. This room could radiate positive energy. Its walls could be filled with drawings and artwork. The bland colors could be viewed as simple, but classic. The lack of light could make the room seem cozy, almost den-like. It could be a place to hang out with friends, rest, relax, and escape the pressure of life for a little bit.

 It could be. It’s not though. It comes down to the purpose of the room. The purpose of the room, of ISS, is to punish people. As a result of the purpose, one sees the rest of the room through a negative lens. The features of the room and the things inside it then seem to work together to make the argument that the room is undesirable and you shouldn't want to go there.

Together Forever

I really like going to the grocery store. Now, it’s probably because I really like food, but for some reason I just really enjoy going there. In the grocery store everything has a name, or a label. The store is divided into different sections. There’s the produce section, the meat section, the grain section, the frozen section, the list goes on and on. Those sections are then organized based on the foods within them. Apples are separate from pineapples, pasta is separate from rice, and chicken is separate from beef. If you delve even deeper there’s even more separation. Organic from nonorganic, locally grown from internationally imported, and store brand from non-store brand. Everything in a grocery store has a label, and more than one really. An apple is “produce,” “fruit,” and could be a “Granny Smith” or a “Fiji.”

This labeling occurs everywhere you look. Take Larson’s and Hostetler’s 6^th Edition of the thrilling textbook PreCalculus for example. In the book you’ll find text reading:  x^2+3x+6=0. Simply put it’s a series of numbers and letters. It’s also an equation. It’s also a function.  If you’re being even more specific, it’s a quadratic function. Look at Martini’s and Nath’s enthralling 8^th Edition of Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology.  They tell us that the humerus is a bone. It’s sometimes called the funny bone. It’s also categorized as a long bone. It’s also part of the appendicular skeleton. All these things have labels.

By the end of Midnight’s Children, Saleem Sinai has thirty pickled pickle jars.  He has categorized his story into thirty separate sections, and each has its own label: “Alpha and Omega,” “Mercurochrome,” “Abracadabra,” Altogether these parts make a whole. He says that every pickle jar contains, the most exalted of possibilities: the feasibility of the chutnification of history (Rushide 529). His “long-winded autobiography” is divided into words and pickles, into parts.

Parts make a whole. Individuals together make a society. Those relationships are remarkably similar to each other. So what brings these things together? Labels. Labels are everywhere. They’re the stamp society puts on things or people to make sense or meaning of them. They can be comforting, as well as feel restraining, but regardless they’re always there. An individual can never escape his or her membership in society because those labels ultimately bind individuals to society.

So how can that be? If individuals make a society are they anything on their own? How can the term individual even exist if society is always there?

Labels are indefinite and inevitable and we can’t truly escape society. Those answers are already known. The real questions are, can we rise to the occasion? Can we choose to be more than just a label?

GSAP Rhetorical Analysis Outline

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s Speech at the National Convention of the People’s Party of the Republic held in Ankara in October, 1927

 Purpose: To convince the members of the party that his previous actions after World War I, and during the Turkish War of Independence were necessary in order to establish Turkey as a free state. Audience: The members of the People’s Party of the Republic of Turkey, potentially Turkish citizens. Context: Speaking as the leader of the People’s Party of the Republic of Turkey. After the Ottoman Empire lost in World War I, Ataturk established Turkey as an independent state in order to preserve its honor and dignity. He did this by defying orders from higher-ups and leading the Turkish War of Independence.

 “Section 1” Beginning-Educating the People
 Purpose: Provide background information and context. Explain why he felt Turkey should be an independent state. Prove why other people’s solutions were wrong/ineffective.
Claim: The only way to preserve/maintain some of the fallen empire was by establishing Turkey as an independent sovereign state.
Evidence: The Ottoman Empire had fallen and it was never going to be the great power it once was. Foreign powers believed it was already done. Other people’s ideas to let foreign nations help weren’t worthy of being accepted.
Warrants: Asking for help means someone is weak. Someone who is dignified and proud never ask for outside help. Outside powers were going to completely take over the area. (Which is very likely, but still not a cold hard truth.)
Appeals: Creates his image. Pathos-feelings of anger towards the enemy, “Independence or Death” Logic-establishing Turkey as an independent state is the most logical thing to do
Technique: Straightforward tone-this is what happened, no sugar coating. Inclusion of counter-arguments to boost credibility. Provides names of those organizations offering those opinions. (Trakya-Pasaeli Union, Union for the Defense of the National Rights, League for the Secession of Trabzon and District, etc.) Either-or logical fallacy.
 Effectiveness: His opening paragraphs are pretty effective. He clearly sets the stage for his claim, something needed to be done quickly and he took action. His either-or logical fallacy is has a lot of problems, from a technical standpoint, but he remained the leader of Turkey for quite some time so enough people agreed with him.

 “Section 2” Educating the People to Going to Sivas”
 Purpose: Explain step by step how he went got people on his side. Provide a clear timeline for his audience.
 Appeals: Continues to develop his ethos, “proactive” “action person” “I” Creates a sense of unity with occasional “we.” Emotion stirring diction, “dismemberment of our country.”
 Technique: He frequently changes his diction/word choice by switching between the pronouns “I” and “me” and “we” and “us.” He wants to give himself credit, but also make everyone feel included. Harsh dogmatic statement, entente powers would dismember the nation. Little evidence to back up that claim.
Effectiveness: The confidence and lack of wariness in his words makes him seem extremely credible. That, plus his clear and thought out explanation of his actions makes this section pretty effective to most listeners. However, to anyone who disagreed with his opinion that the Entente Powers were going to dismember the nation would not be convinced by his dogmatic statement. He provided little concrete evidence to back up that opinion, he just assumes that people already agree with him. 

“Section 3” Going to Sivas to the End”
 Purpose: Continue the historical context, what else he did to put his plan into effect. Creation of basic constitution.
Appeals: Further builds on ethos, trying to justify and make up for his disobedient actions. Showing he’s loyal to his people and his cause. Logical reasoning for his decisions.
 Technique: Maintained straightforward tone, sharing little details about the encounters, (he was picked as the leader, he didn't make himself it.) Almost completely stuck with the pronoun “I.” A lot of justification through logical reasoning that his actions would helps. I did this to help us. Rhetorical questions-1. to boost ethos 2. to tie up his argument logically.
 Effectiveness: The last section has some really effective moments and some not so effective moments. This in part is because what I've read is excepts, not the entire speech.The beginning is somewhat effective. The section titled “Going to Sivas” seems a little unnecessary because from what I can gather it’s a city he simply passed through on the way to the more important Erzurum. The Erzurum section is better, he shows he didn't self-appoint himself. He was happy holding a lesser position, but the people thought he should the leader. That does wonders for his self-image, he doesn't absolutely need to be the head honcho. The inclusion of the Erzurum constitution is effective, it clearly lays out the principles that Ataturk and his comrades wanted for Turkey. However, the first couple of paragraphs at the very end are confusing and oddly placed. It may be because this is just an excerpt, but Ataturk seems to insult his representatives. The very last paragraph is the most effective. Each sentence builds of the previous one, resulting in a tidal wave of emotional logic. Ataturk explains he couldn't be a follower, he had to stand up for what he believed in.

 Overall: This speech contains a consistent straightforward tone and logical reasoning put in a template structure. The entire speech, with the exception of the last paragraph imitate this tone of “this is what happened and what it means.” It makes the speech easy to read and follow and seem extremely logical. However, some of Ataturk’s claims aren't followed by strong enough evidence. His diction is emotion-stirring and moving, but there aren't many hard facts. From a superficial standpoint the speech is effective, and history shows that Ataturk was effective at persuading people to agree with him. However, from an “Everything’s An Argument” lens, there are a lot of flaws with his claims and evidence or lack there of.

Excerpt from "Trey's Relatives" by Trey Spadone

Excerpt from Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie 

“Oskar died,” Ilse told him, sipping fresh lime water on my mother’s takht.

“Like a comedian. He went to talk to the army and tell them not to be pawns. The fool really thought the troops would fling down their guns and walk away. We watched from a window and prayed they wouldn’t just trample all over him.

“All right,” Naseem conceded, “so you’ve got a good chance landing a good job. Agra University, it’s a famous place, don’t think I don’t know. University doctor!...sounds good.”

“I’m in love,” Aadam Aziz said to Ilse Lubin. And later, “...So I’ve only seen her through a hole in a sheet, one part at a time; and I swear her bottom blushes.”

“Watercress sandwiches,” my grandmother said to me, whilst eating my mother’s famous mashed potatoes.

“It was so silly. We hadn’t been dating for very long and so we were both still nervous. For some strange reason I thought those would be adequate for an evening picnic. We sat down in the park and I nervously took the sandwiches out.

“That’s excellent,” my uncle affirmed, “sounds like this school is working out well for you. International relations, that’s a credible career, don’t think I don’t know. US ambassador!...sounds good.”

“I love it,” my cousin said with a grin. He paused, “There are some logistical issues that need to be worked out, rent and other such things; but it’s going to be great.”

“After the picnic we were surprisingly not full at all,” she laughed.