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.

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.

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.
   

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.

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.

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.