Sunday, December 4, 2011

The Environmental Outlook of Pixar's Wall-E.

     Last Thursday in my Rhetoric of Literature class, my Professor presented an interesting movie to the class that seemed to be environmentally relevant to our world today. The name of the film that my professor presented in class was the Disney/Pixar movie called Wall-E. This movie is about a small robot from  Earth who makes his way into outer space. I say this because I watched Wall-E a few years ago and I thought it was one of the most entertaining movies I ever seen. When the first few minutes of the movie were presented in class, me and my classmates were asked to find some environmental aspects of the world of Wall-E. While examining the first scene I managed to come up with some conclusions of my own.
     In the opening scenes of Wall-E, I see that the planet has become a desolate, sand filled waste land filled with metal scraps and piles of junk. The robot Wall-E is the only operating character in the movie besides a cockroach that is seen popping out of the earth. To me, this film offers a glimpse of what could happen to our planet if some of us continue to pollute it and be inconsiderate of the its well-being. The planet is more human then we realize, and to see a fictional interpretation of the Earth's coarse existence just worries me. I also noticed that there are no human beings present on the planet. I later saw in the movie that the remaining inhabitants of Earth have traveled out of the galaxy on a traveling space colony searching for a new world to live upon. The damage than humans have done to the Earth in the future has resulted in the planets inability to sustain itself, and the exploding population that contributed to it's current state of shock. Relieving that Wall-E opening reminds me to recycle, and appreciate the beautiful, natural world that I am surrounded by. I don't want to live to be 85 and see the planet Earth transformed into a Tatooine like world where the landmass is desert, no water, no resources, no people, and no hope for the future. I understand that this is only an animated movie, but I still feel that our planet still has hope for a healthier existence. This world needs to find cleaner, renewable forms of energy, balance out the world population, recycle more, clear the skies, clean the water, and enrich the soil for future generations This planet deserves better than what people have been providing it. Earth should be treated like any other garden. It should be nurtured, respected, appreciated, and never abused for the sake of pride or profit. That is what I have come to understand from watching the first ten minutes of Wall-E, and I hope others feel the same way that I do.

Friday, December 2, 2011

The Existence of the Wolf and it's Journey for Survival.

     While searching for possible topics to write about for my Rhetoric of Literature blogs, I came across a recent story that doesn't exactly deal with the environment but certainly focuses on a creatures of the natural world inhabiting our surroundings. In the Jeff Barnard article titled "Wandering wolf inspires hope and dread," the story focuses on a particular wolf named OR-7 who has gained some attention in the media for his long journey from Oregon to California in search of a mate. The presence of the wolf has been met with interest and worry at the same time. This article on the Oregon wolf being spotted, along his journey through the Northwest, offers a contemporary perspective on a rare animal that is not as seen so much in the wildlife that it once inhabited, and a form of rhetoric that includes responses from people who are affected by the presence of wolves in their lives.
     One of the first accounts of the Oregon wolf is mentioned in the article when Barnard write, " Last February, OR-7 was in a snowy canyon in northeastern Oregon, when a state biologist shot him with a tranquilizer dart from a helicopter, then fitted him with a tracking collar and blue ear tags." I am actually relieved that the wolf was approached by a scientist with a tranquilizer rifle as opposed to a hunter who would hunt the wolf for the sake of sport, or payback for killing and eating farm animals on some one's property. I think wolves are great animals that possess many myths that are famous in works of fiction. More importantly, I'm scared to think that there are not a whole lot of wolves in the regions that the story takes place in. There is probably a reason for the lack of wolves in the farming communities, but I still feel that many wolves should left to exist in packs and roam the wilderness as functions of natural selection among the animal community. Returning back to the article, a cattle rancher named Nathan Jackson who lives on Oregon, gives his opinion of wolves such as OR-7 traveling across the Oregon state when he says, " In this country, we worked really hard to exterminate wolves 50 years ago or so, and there was a reason." I'm very troubled the way that the rancher used the term exterminate when mentioning wolves as if they were a nest of cockroaches that need to be killed immediately. I can understand the need to drive away the wolves or kill them out of self defense, but to "exterminate" them seems barbaric to me. The rancher Jackson offers another opinion that speaks toward the people who feel the need to protect the wolves by saying, "A lot of people who don't have a direct tie to the agricultural community tend to view wolves as majestic, beautiful creatures. They don't seem so majestic and beautiful when they are ripping apart calves and colts." So I guess the matter of having sympathy or conviction for wolves is a matter of point of view. I must admit, if I was a farmer who had cattle and other farm animals to care for, I would be very upset that they faced the possibility of a gruesome death by a pack wolves. I think I also might feel that need to drive away or eliminate any wolf that tries to harm me, my close friends, family, and animals under my watch. Then again, I don't have that responsibility. So I think that I must go on the defensive for wolves just a little bit here.
     The article also mentions the state of Oregon's attempt to legally protect wolves for the sake of wild life preservation. In the story Jeff Barnard writes, "Federal protection for wolves was lifted in Eastern Oregon, but they remain under state protection. West of U.S. Highway 97 they are back under federal protection." I'm somewhat grateful that the nation is willing to save the American wolves and some Canadian wolves that pass along our regions for breeding,hunting, or whatever. From the article I also learned some interesting facts about wolves as well such as, "When wolves reach about 2 years old, they typically strike out on their own, looking for a mate and an empty territory they can call their own. And that's what OR-7 has done"(Barnard). The age of two may be considered too young to go out and mate for a human, but for a wolf I assume that is considered as an adult age. This is a way of life for the wolf that may be overlooked by many people who are not experts on the animal, and don't quite realize the natural impact that could come from their demise. Since there are wolves that exist, I pray that they never go extinct so people don't have to find out what happens to the environment when the wolf is no longer around.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

A Rhetoric analysis of natural and technical approach

     In my text Rhetoric and Human Consciousness, I read about the topics of rhetoric from the perspective of rhetorical thinkers. In the Rhetoric chapter titled "Context, Function, and Media," I learned some information on technology and it's use of rhetoric to the world. Well, I'm going to make a careful examination of this chapter and the thinkers theories within the text.
     In chapter 11 of Rhetoric, the chapter starts off by discussing the thinker on technology Marshall McLuhan when it states, "Marshall McLuhan, who built his theory around modern technology and argued in typical overstatement that " the medium is the message." His radical theory about how form overwhelms substance is as relevant to cyberspace as it is to television"(Smith 301). From my experience with technology, I can definitely agree that form is a vital ingredient to modern technology today. Through out the chapter, there are many thinkers who come up with many deep examinations of technology such as the internet and such that include form, and affect our perception on how to deal with the natural world they inhabit. Another thinker brought up in this book is Ivorson A. Richards and he "sought to match word (signs) with objects (referents) by pointing out how context, past experience, and cultural interference can corrupt or clarify meaning"(302). I've discovered this trouble myself when reading books and getting confused myself on the subject and meaning of the text and being unable to not distinguish between the two. I glad such people as Richards were trying to approach the topic in a logical way in order to help others understand context and form more clearly.
In the section of the book that focuses on the two theorists Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, I read that they were trying to change the way knowledge and how to present that knowledge for people to listen, As the text states, "Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca were interested in bridging the chasm between logic and rhetoric that had been created by Ramus and Descartes"(Smith 309). So the two men were expanding on the philosophies of past thinkers in order to expand on their hypothesis' of rhetoric. I can assume that they were not the only one's to practice this method. Many people have done this sort of compare and contrast with people who share their approach to life. The last philosopher I will talk about is Stephen Toulmin, and in the text it states that he "converted argumentation into a rhetorical process and in so doing strengthened the rhetorical arsenal upon which we can rely to reconstruct our lives and our world"(311). Argument was the main area of Toulmin's approach to rhetoric, and I guess he was trying to put serious effort into explaining the form of rhetoric's use of argument. In my time during my study of environmental rhetoric class, I found that I was being instructed on not to merely present a speech on environment, but to also use logic responsibly and present my argument in a logical way that possesses a structure that will give my argument some credibility. I hope that I still remember to use that information again in the future.
   

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Turner and The White Pelican Identification.

     There was one particular reading that I was assigned to read a week ago that I wasn't absolutely thrilled to read, but as I starting reading the text I began to enjoy not only the story but also the hidden philosophy of Jack Turner within it. In my Rhetoric and Literature class, I read in my American Earth text a background on adventurer Jack Turner and his nature story called "The Song of the White Pelican." It's a first person examination of Pelicans, most importantly White Pelicans.
     In this text, Turner makes an examination of Pelicans, both Brown and White, and it's in the first person. The location of the writer's study of Pelicans takes place in the American region of the Grand Teton area of Wyoming. The main question that is being asked throughout this text is what exactly is the song of the White Pelican. Eventually Turner states that particular song, but before that I believe I should bring up some helpful fact about the Pelicans that I read from the text. What Turner says about the bird was, "The white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), one of seven species in the world, is a large bird often weighing twenty pounds, with some individuals reaching thirty pounds"(Turner 836). This information is impressive for Turner to obtain along with info on another bird like, "the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentakis), is smaller and restricted to the coasts"(836). The writer has manged to distinguish important differences between the two kinds of pelicans. Another important quality of Pelicans that Jack Turner mentions fro m his observations is, "The silence of pelicans, along with their great age, contributes to their dignity"(Turner 839). His writing of their quietness is one of the most unique traits of the white pelican, and that's why the search for it song is so motivating for anyone who doesn't know what it sounds like. In one reading of the text, I learned that White Pelicans are friendly with human who fish as oppose to humans who watch them from afar or go up toward them. This observation of Turner is what I concluded as an example of Kenneth Burke's theory called Perspective by Incongruity, This looks for what can be exposed by examining relationships between objects ignored. In this case, pelican and humans.
     In conclusion, Jack Turner reveals the song of the White Pelican. The writer says, "I believe the clacking in the sky over the Grand Teton is the song of the white pelican. I believe they sing their song in ecstasy, from joy in an experience unique to their perfections"( Turner 848). I've come up with the explanation that Turner believes the clacking of white pelicans in the sky over Grand Teton is "The Song of the White Pelican" from the excitement the animal gets from flying and soaring in order to get some kind of release.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Barry Lopez and the sympathizing outlook of whales.

     Out of all the examples of environmental literature I read in the text American Earth, I would have to admit that the most touching and emotional story I read so far was A Presentation of Whales by Barry Lopez. In this text, Lopez tells the story of a group of sick and dying whales washed up on the coat of Oregon, while the inhabitants of the Oregon region watch as scientists, reporters, and other groups of people going to great distances to get a glimpse of the suffering whales for their own agenda. From Lopez's point of view of this story he wrote, I suddenly felt a sense of compassion and humanity for the large mammals that I don't think I felt before.
     Before discussing the environmental story, I would like to describe the writer Barry Lopez and his reasons for writing a compelling story about sperm whales as he wrote it. In American Earth, Barry Lopez is described " in certain ways the elder of the disparate tribe of nature writers across the continent, helping new voices emerge and coordinating projects"(696). Indeed Lopez, for me, gave voice for the poor whales that were mistreated in many ways either for profit, source of energy, sport, or scientific research. That's what I gained from my reading of his story A Presentation of Whales. This tale that Lopez wrote is described as a "finely observed essay about a band of stranded sperm whales on the coast of his adopted home state makes clear how much American attitudes toward nature have changed over the last century"(696). I would have to agree with the part about American feelings about whales being different in the 21st century than in the 20th century, because some American whalers saw sperm whales as giant animals that existed for the purpose of providing oil to people who needed heat for whatever reason. Now the matter of the whales existence has fundamentally changed, with the protest by animal rights activists organizations such as PETA, that stand against killing the mammals for energy sources. I would have to agree with the protection of those kind of whales, or any whales, because they are a species who don't deserve to be extinct.
     In Lopez's writing, he gives a personal description of whales in American Earth when he writes the story saying, "There were, in fact, forty-one whales-twenty-eight females and thirteen males, at least one of them dying or already dead"(697). His writing of those whales in the story were completely touching to me. That impacted me to start seeing them as any person who was hurt on the tides of an ocean shore who needed serious medical assistance. Lopez even goes deeper in his writing by specifically writing about the whales suffering when he says, " the animals were hemorrhaging under the crushing weight of their own flesh and were beginning to suffer irreversible damage from heat exhaustion"(698). I got a sense of unbelievable pain from this description of the whales physical discomforts that I wanted them to get help so badly, and at the same time I was thankful that I didn't experience the kind of pain and frustration as they were dealing with. The writer himself expresses his appreciation for the whales in the story A Presentation of Whales. Within the text Lopez writes, " The sperm whale, for many, is the most awesome creature of the open seas. Imagine a forty-five year-old male fifty feet long, a slim, shiny black animal with a white jaw and marbled belly cutting the surface of green ocean water at twenty knots"(699). Now I'm not a complete expert on sperm whales other than what I've read from Melville's Moby Dick, but I don't think I read a better description of a whale. The capabilities mentioned by Lopez paints a picture of the sea mammal as a genuine leviathan.
     At the end of the story in American Earth, Lopez writes a sentence about the whales that touch my heart so much that I'm environmentally and personally obligated to view the whales as creatures that need to be protected, so they could swim free in the ocean as nature, not man, intended. Lopez writes, "The whale made a sound, someone had said, like the sound a big fir makes breaking off the stump just as the saw is pulled away. A thin screech"(715). I tried to stay as composed together while reading this emotional piece of the whales painful sounds. Like I mentioned before, I see the whales as human today, along with other large or not so large animals that used to be taken for granted in the past. I believe their existence is important even if we do or don't always benefit from it.

Cesar Chavez: The rhetoric contributions of the working farmer.

     Two of the readings that I was required to look through for my Rhetoric of Literature class was were in the texts Rhetoric and Human Consciousness, and American Earth. The particular sections of the books I read  in Rhetoric were Chapter 10 "Identification, Dialectic, and Dramatism," and in American Earth was Cesar Chavez's Wrath of Grapes Boycott Speech. In American Earth, I read on pages 690-695 of the text that described Chavez as "the greatest Latino social activist in American history." After reading his speech on the struggles of the migrant farm workers in the California regions that he fought and protested rights for, I can definitely understand why he is an embodiment of democratic right and social activism for a justifying cause. I also realized that many of his ideas apply to what I read in chapter ten of Rhetoric about Marx's politics on socialism, and the other philosophers that focused on dialect.
     Cesar Chavez's speech for the American farm workers rights during the Wrath of Grape Boycott gives an example of the social activist and farmer's passion and determination to make the lives of his fellow workers better than they were at the time. In his speech in American Earth Chavez says, "We farm workers are closest to food production. We were the first to reorganize the serious health hazards of agriculture pesticides to both consumers and ourselves"(690). So he was not only one of the first people to organize boycotts for low paid farm workers, but he also was so deeply concerned for the health of his workers and customers that he took the liberty on battling the use of harmful pesticides that were on the verge of ruining the farm practice and causing unnecessary sickness/death to those it affected. I personally admire that about Chavez, along with Rachel Carson who was also determined to let the world know about the toxic consequences of pesticide use. In the text, there's also mentioning of Chavez's actions that were a stepping stone for others to act upon regarding outlawing pesticides. Chavez says, "we also won a critical battle for all Americans. Our first contracts banned the use of DDT, DDE, Dieldrin on crops, years before the federal government acted"(691). The migrant farmer's action convinced and pushed the government of the United States to take serious action on making laws to protect their citizen from the poisons that may have been found in their fruits or vegetables. Again, Chavez made an important impact for beyond simple farming. The main crop that he focused on speaking about and protecting from poisonous pesticides was the grapes. As it says in American Earth, "of the twenty-seven legally restricted toxic poisons currently used on grapes, at least five are potentially as dangerous or more hazardous to consumers and grape workers than deadly Aldicarb and Orthene"(692). Cesar Chavez was knowledgeable about pesticides, their affect on the crops, land, and used his information to gather as much supporters as he could to bring rights to workers and protect the health of all who purchased the food that was grown by them. Chavez's method is similar to the type of "conventional forms" of speech organizing that I noticed on Rhetoric and Human Consciousness that I think deals with the problem and solution, and a call to action. This was an important tool of rhetoric for Chavez to use for his cause. I also think that Chavez also was inspired by Karl Marx's socialist beliefs in organizing support and actions for workers. Cesar Chavez also preached a sense of unity and family when organizing his protest for getting rights for farm workers. In the American Earth text speech he says to his fellow farmers, "I am reaching out to you for help because consumers and farm workers must stand together as one family if we are to be heard"(694). This powerful quote in his speech about standing together as one to help each other for what is right for them and all workers in general is something I admire about Chavez because I agree with him, and represents rhetoric being used to not only to increase numbers but strive for change in the farming business. Cesar Chavez was a true speaker, and an important advocate for improving healthy farm food along with rights to American farm workers.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Karl Marx's Rhetorical Approach involving the idea of Communism.

       In my Rhetoric if Literature class this week, I learned about a very important individual who made an important contribution to philosophy, politics, and ways of presenting important topics. That individual was the German philosopher Karl Marx. I along with my classmates learned quite a bit about Marx and his lessons in the text "Rhetoric and Human Consciousness."There in the text book, I read parts of the chapter titled "Identification, Dialectic, and Dramatism," which not only described Marx's philosophy, but also made a brief comparison between him and psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud. The chapter analyzes the two men's approach to human conscious, but mostly Karl Marx and his in depth theory on his approach to economics and social order with communism.
      The chapter dealing with Marx brings many fascinating and significant information on his ideas. For example, to compare him with Freud the chapter states, " Marx provides a remarkable balance to Freud. If Freud is the therapist for the individual psyche, then Marx seeks to be the therapist for the world's political psyche" ( Smith, 268). So from what I am able to read here, I'm going to take the approach by stating that Marx acted as a person studying the mind of the world's social position, hierarchy, and economics. He tried to evaluate it as best as he could and provide solutions to whatever problems the world's  consciousness was facing. Marx used his study and knowledge of economics to make a stunning conclusion to the problems that the world was facing. In the text, there is a mentioning of Marx's idea about economic effects on the world when it reads, " Marx argued that material forces-capitol, labor, production, land-are responsible for the twists and turns of history"( Smith, 268). He was a sympathetic supporter of the common worker of society. I can also agree that every great nation around the world has emerged from the masons, brick layers, construction workers, and ditch diggers who helped build the great buildings and provide enough wealth for all of the upper class or royalty that profited the most from their hard labor. during Karl Marx's time.
     One of the most  historically important pieces of writing that Karl Marx wrote was Manifesto of the Communist Party. It was a book that Marx wrote along side factory worker Friedrich Engels. This book described the basic ideas for what Marx envisioned the Communist party to be before Russian revolutionaries such as Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin adopted his ideas for popular support and their own need for power. In the text it says, "The "Manifesto" claimed that "the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." They have the world to win. "Workers of all lands unite!"'(Smith, 269). The German thinker and philosopher certainly knew how to appeal to the working class. Offering ideas of opportunity and equal share of social power. However, Marx was not too happy with a certain class system that I'm too well familiar with. In the text it mentions. " he denounced the middle class for deserting an alliance with the working class" (Smith, 269). My whole life, I've known the middle class and the working class to be equally the same or in close contact with one another. To there is no real difference between the two so called classes. The truth is I don't like the idea of labelled classes. I would like to think that there are people with more connections and opportunities than others. But I also know that in America, people work hard and fight for whatever  they desire in life. At least that's what I believe.
     Back on point, In the Rhetoric and Human Consciousness text the points of Communism are brought up in ways that deal with rhetoric. There they bring up questions such as "Who has the power to speak? Who can afford to speak and who controls the means to get messages to the society? What is being said? What lies behind the promises being made?," or "What communalizing strategies are in place?" ( Smith, 270-272) These questions being asked are being brought up from Marx communist understanding and changes the way we  plan a speech, present a speech, and listen to a speech. People are considering rhetoric approaches like they haven't ever before. Each of the questions asked above are connected with examples of rhetoric in today's society. Whether they are  used for advertising or politics, Karl Marx's socialist way of approaching rhetoric have changed speech and politics in history.

     

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The "7 Billion" Question

     Overpopulation on our planet has become a serious matter of concern for all of us in this time. The population is changing in some way. Now even though we wake up and go outside we don't seem to feel the invisible effects of population rising. Well, just because we haven't noticed the population changing doesn't mean that it's not changing. At many points around the world, the population of cities are expected to grow rapidly despite the measures taken to avert over population on an unthinkable scale. Besides the United States, countries all over are experiencing moments where population is rising and an unknown fate hangs for the human population.

     Today an article for the Associated Press was written today. The article is titled "7 billion people fuel concern over world resources; and it is written by Jon Gambrell. In the article, Gambrell starts off the story by speaking briefly about a young Nigerian mother who gave birth to a newborn baby that she named "Enough". The mother's naming of her child in response to a nurse at a hospital in Lagos is ironic and at the same time appropriate for the situation that the city of Lagos is facing right now. Hospital in Lagos have a limited amount of electricity and that means require power being shared for the newborn babies to receive sufficient amount of oxygen from the hospitals power sources. It is hard to bring life in the world these days while worrying if each time a child is born without upsetting the delicate population balance. Don't get me wrong, children are a wonderful blessing to have in this world. I just wish there was enough room, or still much, much space on this planet to provide for the new lives that walk this Earth. In the article it states, "Where there is life, there is hope," their mother said. But ass the world's population surpasses 7 billion, fear were stirred anew about how the planet will cope with the needs of so many humans"( Gambrell, 1)
     Alot of people are born every single day. So I'm thinking that even though it might be at least seven billion people today, the numbers could change because more people are being born. But there are people who are dying each day too. I feel very upset when comparing the growing population with the numbers of people to dying to serve a mathematical purpose. It makes me appear as inhuman and cold. I would never want anyone to die. But I know that there is a balance in this world that exists for a reason. I'm just not sure if the growing population in certain areas around the world is a sign of the going out of balance, or going through a slight transition.
         In the article, Gambrell also comments on the population when he refers to news made by the United Nations on the issue of over population throughout the world. He states, " The United Nations estimates the world population will reach 8 billion by 2025 and 10 billion by 2083. But the numbers could vary widely, depending on life expectancy, access to birth control, infant mortality rates and other factors"( Gambrell,2). I will admit that I sure hope that the planet does not reach those population number. Or else the whole planet will be a giant big city that is crowded, filthy, and unsafe. Yet I always try to remain optimistic about situations like this. This world has means of population control that do not involve anything destructive. There is birth control and contraception in the 21st century. Limiting birth for anyone who is sexually active around the world is not an impossible mission. However, for parts of the world where contraception is not used frequently, populations tend to over develop in a way that causes crowding areas, poor health, and surprisingly toxic environments. There is a strong link between polluting of the earth and over population. If over population continues around some parts of the world with no option of birth control, then the Earth is not going to be beautiful place. So after reading this article on population, I am convinced that everyone around the world should keep thinking about the population of our planet changing. I would also mention that I do not stand against anyone having children. I love children. All I am saying is that people need to understand there is a delicate balance that we are all apart of. That includes the population of our planet. If we upset that balance and not do something responsible to become at peace with the flow of the world, then there won't be a beautiful planet or planet for the new generation to call a home.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

The Ethical Existence of Kierkegaard

     Last week in my Rhetoric of Literature class, we were discussing chapter Nine of the Rhetoric and Human  Consciousness titled  "The Existential Revolt against Modernism." In this chapter I learned about the term existentialism. I discovered that the term meant the study of existence, the philosophy of existence. I also learned about one of the most influential  existentialist thinkers. His name was Soren Kierkegaard. After reading about the thinker and writer, I was a bit confused by his philosophy on existence, and where they stood on rhetoric. When I kept going over the sections of the chapter, I began to slowly understand little by little of what this thinker was saying.
     The philosopher Kierkegaard contributed many important points to rhetoric and existentialism. As the text mentions, " Kierkegaard endorsed the One ( primordial unity) over the dialectical duality of Hegel's logic" (Smith, 243). He wanted the human consciousness to be able to transcend the meaning of the One. There by either opposing or building on Kant and Hegel's studies of dialect and rhetoric.
     Another important point Kierkegaard made to to existentialism was his argument that's stated in the text, "Like Socrates, Kierkegaard argued that "one must know oneself before knowing anything else" (Smith, 243). The philosopher determined the idea of transcendence with oneself, I think, was to discover who we all are before we can understand and help the world around us. That is a wise thought to have when learning about the world ground you.
     Kierkegaard made another important point when he wrote in Concluding Unscientific Post-script that also appears in the American Earth text saying, " he claimed that it is not what a person decides but how one decides, because how a person decides defines himself" (Smith, 244). I will absolutely agree with Kierkegaard's approach to ethics. To me, how you do something is more important than something getting done. People can do questionable, illegal activities to ensure that a greater good is fulfilled, but the same questionable idea of 'the ends justify the means ' is what begins and escalates wars all over the world to minor arguments that lead to deadly outcomes. There is a right way, a wrong way, and a smart way to handle a situation. For me personally, I definitely wouldn't do things the wrong way. Even if I do succeed with whatever I do, I would still have to live with the circumstances of how I got to the place that I came to. That's what Kierkegaard is saying. He is trying to explain that the means justify the ends. The idea is a mart and honorable way to exist in this world.
    In conclusion, I admire the existential philosopher Kierkegaard for his approach to "The One" consciousness, and a person's ethos. That can be how we determine who we are inside.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Johnson and Zahniser: The Natural Laws.

     When I was reading over my American Earth text for my Rhetoric class, I was reading two legislative texts that dealt with the environment and nature. One piece of legislation deals with the protection of the wilderness, and the other piece of legislation focuses on improving the cleanliness of the highways. The two men who had proposed these legislative acts about the environment were Howard Zahniser, and for some reason, Lindon B. Johnson. The thirty-sixth President of the United States.

     The environmental writings that I had previously read in the American Earth text have been written by mostly writers and nature writers. Of course, there was one exception before when I read a speech given by President Theodore Roosevelt at the Grand Canyon. Either way, I was surprised to find that  President Johnson spoke on an environmentally relevant topic such as he did. But before I go to Johnson, I will speak first about Howard Zahniser. He was a politician around the time of World War II. Some time around the end of the war in 1945, Zahniser was appointed as the executive secretary of The Wilderness Society. Howard Zahniser was a man who was determined to protect the wilderness. To fulfill the goals of his new position, he proposed a bill that would be The Wilderness Act of 1964. Sadly, Zahniser passed away before the Wilderness Bill was finished. Yet he still managed to write poetic and touching words to describe the wilderness that he fought so hard and long to try and conserve. After reading The Wilderness Act by Zahniser, I can say that I admire him for his appreciation for woods. It's the kind of appreciation that all of us could have for the wilderness in our areas.

     Howard Zahniser said in the text, " A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and it's community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain" ( 393).  I must agree with the man that there are parts of the wilderness that must remain safe and reserved from civilization, if it's beauty will be there for the next generation to appreciate.

     The next politician I will discuss will be President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ). I did not know so much about Johnson other than he took over the Presidency right after his predecessor John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Johnson was also President during one of the most difficult times of the Vietnam War both foreign and domestically. What I also found out about President Johnson when reading American Earth was that he proposed a bill that would be removing some unnecessary billboards and trash along the American highways. Ironically, the plan for The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 was by Lady Bill Johnson, President Johnson's wife. It seems that The President proposed the Highway Bill on her behalf. The one memorable quote that I remember from reading 'Remarks at the Signing of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965' was when Johnson said, "This bill does not represent everything that we wanted. It does not represent what we need. It does not represent what the national interest requires. But it is a first step, and there will be others" ( 397). This message seems so simple and moving to me. The message can also mean anything to anyone. It brings up some difficulty, yet offers hope.  

Friday, October 14, 2011

Rachel Carson: Cleaning the Earth for eagles to fly

     There have been many environmental writers who have commented on the natural world. Some have written about it' beauty, and some writers have warned readers of the possible damage that face the environment if caution and care are not practiced immediately. A majority of these writers have been men. Although there have been just as many female writers of environmental literature. One of the most memorable women to write about nature is Rachel Carson.

     Nature writer Rachel Carson was a committed advocate against pesticide use. More specifically, DDT. Through her investigation and writing, Carson confirmed a connection between the use of pesticides for stimulating plant growth, and the deaths of natural life around it. Some of the living creatures poisoned by the practice of pesticide spraying were the bird population. In the environmental text American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau, there is a mentioning of Rachel Carson's battle against pesticides when the text reads, " She had been following reports of problems with the wonder-pesticide DDT almost since it's introduction in the wake of World War II" ( McKibben, 365).
     So I can imagine that Carson has made a life long ambition to write about the harmful effects of DDT pesticides. The environmental text that was written by Rachel Carson titled Silent Spring, expressed the writer's concerns about animal life and human life being sickened by the use of DDT. The animals that she feared would be lost forever by DDT usage were birds. Specifically the American bald eagle. For Carlson's writings, she managed to save the bald eagles from disappearing forever. As the American Earth text says, "Not only did the U.S. move to restrict the chemical, thus saving our national symbol, the bald eagle, but more importantly, the idea had been firmly planted that perhaps modernity was not as problem free as we might have imagined"( McKibben, 365).
     During Rachel Carson's time of the early and mid 20th century, the world was becoming technologically advanced in science and agriculture. Some breakthroughs were extraordinary, but some were also harmful to nature's creatures. Especially human beings.  Without Rachel Carson, the American bald eagle wouldn't be saved from extinction, and mankind would not be aware of the cancerous effects that DDT can have on the immune system. Carson's Silent Spring has become an influential piece of environmental literature that has changed our opinion of agricultural practices, and animal preservation.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Bacon, Locke, and Descartes: The Epistemology Poster Boys

     This week in my Rhetoric of Literature " American Environmentalism" class, I learned about an interesting topic that deals with rhetoric. I learned about epistemology. The subject was discussed in  chapter eight of the text book tittled " Epistemology and the Modern Rhetorics." The term epistemology is described as the study of knowledge, the categorization of the mind. Through my reading of the chapter I managed to learn about three famous philosophers who are connected through their pursuit of exploring the practise of rhetoric. The three philosophers were Descartes, Francis Bacon, and John Locke.

     Each of these thinkers approached rhetoric using some kind of epistemology. I will speak the truth that I was aware of Descartes, Locke, and Bacon in my past English studies, but I was still forgetful of each of the philosophies that they developed. After reading chapter eight, I remember how much the three men approached rhetoric, built their thoughts using epistemology, and changed the way that we, as a whole, think today.

     The first philosopher that i will discuss is named Rene Descartes. He was a brilliant, french mathematician who attempted to use the method of solving math problems to explain the world through philosophy, or vice versa. He contributed to epistemology, and how people think today when he came up with the phrase " I think, therefore I am." I was aware of the phrase by Descartes for the longest time. Even now I am learning about the meaning of the phrase. The way that I see it, as long as I am able to think and know anything, I am an actual person. I exist in the world, and I keep on thinking to still exist in the world that I live in . I'm not sure if Descartes was spuing was brilliant or B.S., but I found it very clever. In the text, Descartes was a firm believer in logical thinking when the chapter reads, " He believed that reason, as opposed to imagination or the senses, should supply us with the evidence we use to make claims about existence in the world" ( Smith, 208).
     After reading this, I can understand that would approach the world this way for being a mathematician, but unsure if he was stepping outside of the box, or inside the box to determine the world around him. What do you think?

     Moving on, the next philosopher I will talk about is another famous person named Francis Bacon. He is one of the many great thinkers of the seventeenth century, and student of epistemology in Great Britain. Bacon has made many contributions to the practise of thought and speaking. He developed four faculties for people to think. As it's listed on page 213 of the " Rhetoric" text, Bacon's four examples are: 1. inquire and invent 2. examine and judge 3. recall ideas and maintain custody over them 4. transmit thought in language. To make it easier to understand, I will say that Bacon was not very supportive of rhetoric. Instead " Bacon argued that eloquence prevails in civic life" ( Smith, 213). I believe Bacon suggests that speakers be charming and likable when giving speeches. It's an admirable;e tool today.

     The final philosopher that I will talk about is another English thinker named John Locke. The most important contribution that Locke made to Epistemology was improving on Bacon's already influential ideas. John Locke started out as a physician and agreed with Francis Bacon that mind was capable of a lot of things. Locke agreed with Descartes on his view of approaching the world. His study of Descartes had him contribute categories of knowledge dealing with Epistemology. As chapter eight lists them in the text, Locke stated that " knowledge of self was intuitive"( 216), " knowledge is demonstrative"( 216), " knowledge is sensitive" ( 216), and "humans are born with tabula rasa" ( 216). The term tabula rasa refers to entering the world with a clean slate.
     The three philosophers Bacon, Locke, and Descartes changed the way we have approached thought. They are also serious  contributors to our understanding of rhetoric. So to sum up their influence on me, I will say, " They think, therefore we know."

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

John Muir: An American Environmental Rebel

     There are a number of environmental writers who have spoken so passionately, and with such eloquence about nature and the preservation of the environment. One of the most famous environmental writers in American history is John Muir. The writer Muir was a pioneer in the method of writing about the natural world. After reading about his background and his contributions to the natural settings of North America within the literary text " American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau," I have come to the conclusion that John Muir was a man whose life had been shaped by numerous factors. Muir made arguments his whole life. He had convictions about subjects other than the environment. I have determined that John Muir was a rebel.

     I am going to begin talking about the life of John Muir by stating that he was not born in America. He was a Scottish immigrant. When Muir was a young boy, he came to the United States and him and his family settled in the state of Wisconsin. I've never been to Wisconsin personally, but I hear that the state is known for being tolerant to people from all over the place.John Muir grew up during the mid 19th century. Like many children during that time, John was brought up in a strict, christian background. Learning the Bible was an important task for Muir to accomplish. The poor boy would even get beaten for not knowing the Holy Bible well enough. I think that the seeds of rebellion began to grow within the young boy at this time.
     In response to his abusive, christian home life, John Muir decided to live his life as a traveler, an adventurer. Along his travels, Muir began to question religious philosophy that was a very risky action to take back in those days. One of his arguments was questioning whether " people stood at the center of the universe"( American Earth, 84). I think that he was one of the many individuals that argued human beings were not the only worthy species of God's creations. I think those ideas Muir had on the environment, and the natural creatures being as important as human life led him to begin writing the way he did.
     Muir's travels led him to write about many natural locations that possessed beauty and importance that he felt other people needed to understand. In John Muir's one environmental literary piece A Thousand-Mile Walk to the Gulf, he writes about offering different opinions toward the large reptile known as the Alligator. I should point out that this environmental piece was written in 1867, two years after the Civil War ended. The nation was recuperating while Muir was writing about the natural world. In Muir's A Thousand-Mile Walk to the Gulf, the writer offers some benefit of the doubt to alligators by saying, " these creatures are happy and fill the place assigned them by the great Creator of us all. Fierce and cruel they appear to us, but beautiful in the eyes of God. They, also are his children, for He hears their cries, cares for them tenderly, and provides their daily bread" ( Muir, 86).
     It seems obvious that because Muir was brought up as a Christian, he would speak about the animals as creatures of God. Even terrifying, gruesome looking creatures as alligators or crocodiles.John Muir used his rhetoric of christian preaching methods to bring humanity to the alligators. This was also an example of rebellion. Muir developed a whole new style, of environmental writing that would influence future writers like Henry Thoreau before him. Muir added a new vocabulary of wilderness and grammar to describe the natural world.

     John Muir's travels led him to another rebellious action, and an historical action as well. He would take action into protecting and preserving natural wonders of North America. When Muir reached the state of California, he helped create Yosemite National Park with Louis Agassiz. It was during this occassion that he became close friends with fellow, natural conservationist Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States. I feel that him and Muir were kindrid spirits considering that the two men shared a passion for preserving the natural environment. The writer's anger over sheep flocks ruining the rural areas led him to found the Sierra Club( one of the first environmental organizations in the world). If it wasn't for John Muir, I don't believe that the Sierra Club or Yosemite National Park would exist today. Muir's many writings changed environmental literature, and saved some of the natural world today.
     So I would like to end this blog by saying,
                                                                           Thank You John Muir.


    
    

    

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

A Platonic Perspective: Aristotle's Rhetorical Theory and Form of speech.

     In high school or college, you receive assignments where you not only have to hand in a complete paper. Part of your assignment involves you to give a speech on the assignment that you completed. The idea of public speaking can be unbearable to some students. I personally have never had any fear of public speaking. One of the problems that I faced was the question of how I was going to present my speech for class. I though to myself, " Is there a form of categorization to present a speech?" After reading about the Greek  philosopher Aristotle in Chapter 4 of my ENG/SPE 335 text book titled RHETORIC and Human Consciousness, I discovered that there was a form of presenting a speech. I read the chapter Aristotle's Rhetoric and discovered that the philosopher made an important impact on how people present speeches today.

     In Aristotle's book Poetics there's a discussion of speech giving. In the text RHETORIC and Human Consciousness, Aristotle's Poetics is mentioned and gives tools for speaking in public.The author of the text Craig R. Smith discusses the philosopher Aristotle's take on rhetoric when he  says:

      " the Poetics explores ways to bring a scene alive before an audience, a talent useful in forensic speaking. Character (ethos), the second element, dianoia ( the connecting process that determines the course of events in the story) is the province of rhetorical theory because rhetoric is more concerned with proper timing, appropriateness, and the contingent nature of humans"(Smith, 65).

     Two of these skills are considered useful for public speaking.They are ethos and dianoia. They are ideas brought together by Aristotle to categorize the process of constructing a speech. The philosopher wanted to point people to a system of categories that would lead to truth. Unlike his mentor and predecessor Plato, who only wanted for people to seek truth from the so called noumenal world ( aka the after life, nether world, etc). Plato wanted to seek truth from having the answers be brought down from the heavens. While Aristotle argued that Truth could easily be achieved here on Earth. In the non-spiritual realm. A visual description of Aristotle and Plato's theories of seeking truth is shown in the artist's Michaelangelo's fresco titled School of Athens. There is an image of Plato pointing up to the sky and Aristotle pressing his hand down mid air. The image speaks for itself on the two Platonists view of how to seek truth. One man was looking up while the other was keeping himself in the moment.  The writer Smith continues to say about Aristotle's influence on rhetoric is:
   
     " The Poetics also develops the notion of catharsis ( katharsis) by which emotions are released and the soul is cleansed. In the Poetics, Aristotle focuses on the use of emotions for a consummatory art form" ( Smith, 65).

     So Aristotle expects emotion to play a role in his form of rhetoric. That element along with the previous one's are useful while not forgetting the last element of mimesis. The art of mimicry, imitation, and memorization. I must admit, memorizing is an important tool to have at college and at giving a speech. It is important to remember what your saying before you present your point. Or else your  just some tool up on a podium who is just flinging garbage to whoever is around to hear it, and possibly listen to it. I give points to Aristotle for including the element of mimesis.

     I must also point out that Aristotle's Rhetoric includes the three forms of public address. Part of Aristotle's elements of Form and Organization is three types of speech: Deliberative( political), Epideictic( ceremonial), and Forensic ( legal).  Page 85 of Smith's RHETORIC explains the three types of genres. The text says:
     " A forensic speech is for an audience who will assess the accusation and defense to determine guilt or innocence regarding past acts" ( Smith, 85).
     It was mentioned in the first paragraph that I cited that forensic speaking was needed to bring a speech alive. I think that the other two genres of epideictic and deliberative can be just as able to bring a persons words to life to lift up or press down an audience. Aristotle's theories on speech have made those actions possible in today's world. 
     


    

     

Monday, September 12, 2011

Fracking or No Fracking? The issue of switching from coal to nataral gas.

     I would like to think of myself as environmentally conscious. That means I recycle, I don't litter and I'm not very supportive of the idea switching from coal to natural gas for energy usage. I am definitely NOT okay with the recent facts being suggested that natural gas will not be able to halt the climate change. There is research that can confirm that replacing coal with natural gas may add more harmful heat to our blue planet.
     Ever since I watched Al Gore's environmental documentary entitled, "An Inconvenient Truth", I have become more worried about over the safety and health of planet Earth. I was somehow convinced that carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles contributed to most of the toxicity in the atmosphere. The same kind of toxicity that's affecting global warming. Further research and school lectures in the classroom have informed me that methane gas from cattle and cattle farming contributes more CO2 emissions than automobiles. Carbon Dioxide can cause acceleration to global warming, but I also discovered that the methane gas being released from the drilling of natural gas may be more destructive to the planet.
     The term for drilling natural gas from the earth is known as ''fracking."  I learned about the term from my Rhetoric Literature professor Dr. Morris. I even learned some interesting facts about natural gas. I learned that natural gas was made of methane. The gas is located in natural gas fields, oil fields and coal beds. The uses for natural gas range from generating heat inside homes, electricity, ammonia production, hydrogen production and is even considered a cleaner substitute for petroleum fuel.
     I recently read in the Science Daily website an article titled " Switching from Coal to Natural Gas Would Do Little for Global Climate, Study Indicates", which explains that the further drilling of natural gas instead of coal will not affect the climate in a positive way. Tom Wigley, a senior research associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says, " Relying more on natural gas would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, but it would do little to help solve the climate problem" ( Science Daily, 1). I was skeptical about natural gas drilling before and now I'm convinced that this will be a losing game for saving our planet. The article also states, " By running a series of computer simulations, Wigley found that a 50 percent reduction in coal and a corresponding increase in natural gas use would lead to a slight increase in world wide warming for the next 40 years" ( Science Daily, 2). Both energy sources seem to come with consequences.
     I also must comment that I'm from the great state of Pennsylvania. I 'm also shocked to learn that natural gas drilling was occurring more in Pennsylvania. In the article " Playing Pennsylvania's Natural Gas Room", Aaron Levitt writes about the future of gas drilling in PA. Levitt states, " Pennsylvania, with a small contribution from West Virginia, now accounts for more than 85 % of all the natural gas produced in the Northeast"(1). I am upset to learn that my home state of PA may contribute to global warming. I believe the state of Pennsylvania has the intelligence and capability to find cleaner sources of energy without depending on gas or coal. I would like to dedicate some of my future time into helping my state into a cleaner world. How about you?