As November approaches the rat race of US presidential elections is coming to an anticlimactic climax.  One thing that i’ve noticed is pervasive in this election cycle is how public image is portrayed through words on both sides of the political spectrum.  Within the fast paced culture it’s no surprise that the meticulous details of individual policy often gets drowned out by whoever can appeal to the masses in the loudest and flashiest way, and since it’s often too inconvenient to actually witness a candidate's behavior this loudness is portrayed through tert exploitation of language.

I’ll start off analyzing Trump- that’s probably what you’re expecting anyways…  Trump represents the jingoistic ultra right in a lot of ways;  his blatant racism fuels his sadly leading poll numbers, because he makes vocal the subconscious fears of apparently a lot of bigots.  At one point he voiced his plan for “a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the US.”  The hate speech exploits fear in his voters and calls out a scapegoat to “encompass both the dark forces that threaten “civilization” and the fears they arouse.” (The -Ism Schism: How Much Wallop can a simple word pack?)  His refusal to abide by sensitive political terms like other politicians brings to light the true atrocities of american culture instead of “making the problems disappear” (the word police)

Another candidate, on the other side, is Hillary Clinton who has focused a lot of her campaign trying to appeal to the younger voters.  One of my favorite examples is this seven second snapchat story) https://youtu.be/DxfMUEf9otQ?t=3 .   She changes her “lingo” (i feel awful using that word)  in the same way that Ontario elementary teachers had to censor their violent language (i.e. take a stab at it to go for it) to not seem like a bad influence to children.  Hillary tries bury her pedantic image in some sappy snapchat story that tries to communicate that she is a hip person who identifies with hip young people.  She can’t just ask for a vote in the way Pinker says you can’t just say “gimme the salt” (words don’t mean what they mean), she has to develop and negotiate her argument.

Freedom is subjective- it really has no meaning.  It can’t be quantified, and qualitatively can’t be defined- but this certainly doesn’t stop patriotic jingoists from bearing “freedom isn’t free” and other bumper stickers on the backs of environment destroying cars.  It’s often used as a scapegoat for deeper issues that would be easier to not have to meticulously dissect and  analyze.  In this vein, H. L. Mencken writes that “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.”- although Mencken comes off as edgy and punk-rock in saying this, his statement is paradoxical.  Because freedom is such a vague and meaningless term the average man cannot want something nonexistent.

A lot of sources would try to define freedom as being ably to do what you want, unimpeded, but this can’t exist (not in our society at least).  Take for example pursuit of happiness in American society: although it seems like a blank check to indulge in your unbounded hedonism, its limitations follow a “your right to swing your fist ends where another person's nose begins” sort of policy.  And although this seems like undemocratic and authoritarian control over your fist-swinging rights, would you truly be free if others were allowed to just swing their fists at you in the name of self pursuit?

Mencken’s statement suggests that there is some perfect alternative to mainstream life that grants utter liberation from the shackles of society- it really doesn’t exist.  Sure, you could just abandon society, there are a ton of advocates for naturalist revolutions and anarchist social changes, but the implications that come from these impossible (wide scale) changes are vast.  If you stop obeying laws and lead your life that doesn’t make you free, it makes you a criminal in the eyes of society.

Although troy high may boast about its extremely diverse student body. It's faculty remains homogenized.  The average teacher is white, female, and in her late 20s, early 30s.  There seems to be an underrepresentauto in certain d groups of people that may create a questionable environment.  It's like the thing Ms. Valentino said about being the only white person at a basketball game:  it's a challenge not being represented, and it makes school life that much harder.  To be completely transparent (i.e. to acknowledge my priceless as a white person in America) I had never really paid attention to the faculty diversity until Ms. Valentino mentioned it- it's weird the things we can justify to ourselves in order to sustain our own image.  In the bigger picture of the American educational system, I'd suspect this situation is pretty similar, it's like that quote: "white men saving brown women from brown men" except ignoring gender and the saving is educational.

Dr. Seuss was (in addition to being a beloved author) a political cartoonist for the New York Daily newspaper .   From 1941 to 1943 he tackled racial issues as will as the world war that was currently going on.  

In this particular comic Seuss critsizes Americans late entry into the war.  The carefree bird (a charicurized Bald Eagle representing American involvement) sits leisurely on its tree as another bird (this one looking much more malevolent with its engraven swastika representing Nazi Germany) tears down the last standing tree other than the American one.   The Eagle says “Ho Humm!”  to show its apparent disconcern.  The colloquial language accentuates this.   The Eagle also shows is blatant ignorance by expecting immunity from the Nazi bird.  Situational irony exists in the the picture since we know the actions taken during the actual war.   Seuss propose was to encourage people to support the war.   He tried to get people to resist the atrocities occurring overseas.

I opened my window tonight- since the weather’s beginning to steer back to the nicer parts of the year- and about like 2 am-ish I heard some cat moan outside of my room.  Hearing something like this, in the secluded civilization we live in, is kindof a suburban taboo.  You associate it with some crowded and underfunded part of some anonymous town that’s too in debt to keep the street clean of their furry companions wayward cousins.  The noise forced me to stop the nonsense homework i was doing and try to listen, to evaluate, what’s going on maybe 30 feet and a floor down from my window.  It made me think: why is it was so unnatural to hear this animal outside, what gives me the right to be so pretentious as to put my focus of the cat’s cries.  Just as in Chet Raymo’s “A Measure of Restraint”, unchecked municipal advancement is unchecked and existentially creates a divide between us and nature-  just like that “what separates us from the animals” cliche.  There’s this any progress is good progress mentality that exists in society.  Maybe the safety and detachment of civil housing isn’t the best example of this, but the way we have isolated ourselves, like a giant “F you” to mother nature, is shockingly opaque.  Raymo warns about aesthetic advancement and consumer culture.  Who’s to say that the housing industry isn't like the radioactive toothpaste?  In our venture into bigger houses and cheap plastic we essentially kill the environment and then build walls around ourselves so we don’t have to listen to the pathetic screeches of the animals outside ourselves. I'm not calling for some primitivist return to nomadic culture since this just some random thoughts written down at like 3 am on some mediocre blog, I'm just trying to raise something i don't think is thought about in the society we live in.

Style

In his essay Videotape, Don Delillo juxtaposes the themes of innocence and the unpredictability of mortal life.  His narrative features a girl who rhetorically represents purity and innocence -like a young Jeannette Wallace - esque character before her encounters with fire.  Her protagonist roles are however challenged as the narrator introduces that the girl is just some wayward video enthusiast who's video some strange man is watching.  The weird dude represents some gawking American; he is a Lone Ranger in the boundless territories of his television.   As the video progresses to the inevitable murder it captures, the narrator describes the extent of the man's encapsulation with cooloquial “Janet, hurry up”’s to his wife.  In the crucial moments leading up to the man being “shot in the head,” the author directs the audience panicked and increasingly personally- in his hysteria his style takes a new form,  he transcends the boundaries of a formal essay and strives to blatently connect with his audience and mirrors the gravity of his essays content.   His narrative becomes so personal that it's now more of a memoir out of someone's diary than his essay.  

As Delillo relays his message in the Texas Highway Killer's murders, intimacy with the reader becomes fundamental to his rhetoric usage.   His sentences become tert and contemplative;  his closeness brings the excitement of a casino into the pages of his essay. While others may say this modernistic writing Is hasty and rushes his meaningful subject,  I would say that form meets content in his essay the way that his style matches the spontaneity of life.

Local teen to start his own taxi service after giving same friend a ride for the fourth time this week.

Young Entrepreneur: Nilay Kulkarni

Donning the keys to his mother's Prius, local teen Nilay Kulkarni  has reportedly begun to capitalize off of his friend's’ lack of mobility.   The new cab driver described his disposition as “fortunate” saying “my mom even pays for gas and the people are normally on my way so it's a really efficient way to earn some quick cash.”   The young individual said the idea came to him while driving his co worker to work;  “I was driving my friend to work, as I've done twice a week for months now,  and I thought ‘Yeaaaaaaahhh, I run a taxi service,  let me start the meter for for you sir, would you like a cool beveraaaaage!’ and from there I thought that's not a terrible idea, if I'm gonna keep driving this guy around I might as well get paid for it.”  Describing his policies, Kulkarni stated that “the windows must stay rolled up and I pick all the music?”  After convincing his skeptical mother, he has also decided to paint the car yellow to give it a more authentic look.   

When asked if he believed his new business may affect his friendship with his patrons negatively, Kulkarni told us “I don't see why it should, I mean if I'm gonna have to drive people around then they should at least pay me for the ride, I mean driving with me is cheaper than taking like an Uber, so they should be thanking me, actually, for not charging more.  Also, I mean, taxi drivers, I'm sure at some point in their careers they drive a friend or two somewhere, so why can't I?”

In American filmmaker Don Hertzfeldt's recent independent film, World of Tomorrow, he analyses analyses mortality, memory and a plethora of other heavy topics in a conversation between a young girl and her third generation clone from far into the future.  Hertzfeldt includes this monologue about Emily’s past (from clone Emily):

“My first job was supervising robots on the moon.  I enjoyed working with them.  I enjoyed the solitude.   The robots are solar powered and must always be kept on the light side of the moon’s surface.  To motivate them to constantly move within the drifting sunlight i programmed them to fear death and what lies on the dark side of the moon.  It was here, on the moon, that i fell in love with a rock.  I did not understand my mental and emotional shortcomings at the time and only knew that i found this rock to be immensely attractive- it was sparkly.  The economy on the lunar surface went through a recession and i was sent home after six cycles- my rock and i were separated.  But the robots were too expensive to move.  To this day they are still in perpetual movement across the sunlight.  With no work to do, no more tasks to accomplish, still living in constant fear of death and occasionally sending us depressed poetry.”

Emily supervising her robots

The narrative about the painfully self-aware robots can be analysed in the same way as David Foster Wallace analyzes the moral standstills involved in cooking lobster.  In the same way that Wallace contemplates the “totally subjective” pain felt by dying lobsters, the robot’s lucid awareness must be thought of.  For the sake of coherency we need to assume that the robots which Emily watches are (in the movie’s reality) as cognitive as Emily is herself- or rather the clone of a clone of the original Emily who narrates.  The lack of humanity- which is what makes a robot a robot- can only be described as homeostasis since it allows them to be removed from the turbulence of reality while maintaining their retreated sanity, or lack thereof.  Emily giving life to her robots is the comparative equal of the amature chef taking life from his lobster.  In both cases some essential part of some entity is ripped away from it for some capitalistic pursuit of comfort and ease.  Not only are they commoditized, but once they have served their purpose are digested or simply left to rot on the moon.  Emily admits to her “mental and emotional shortcomings”  which allowed her to so carelessly give life to things doomed to their “constant fear of death and occasional… depressed poetry.”  Regardless, of her infatuation with her  sparkly rock (which obviously represents the allures of wealth), she dooms her robots to their bleak melancholy which is “just complex”

Emily offers conflicting argument against this viewpoint by claiming that “Now is the envy of all the dead,” and that she herself is “very proud of [her] sadness,  because it means [she] is more alive.”  Emily doesn’t intend to glorify sadness, but rather insinuates that feeling sad is, in her mind, better than to face the mundane reality of her existence emotionless.  With just this in mind it is easy to justify bringing life to anything- unfortunately the moral implications and strict subjectiveness of the matter create some incomprehensible quagmire and muddle our perceptions and cloud our minds with guilt for choosing comfort over the life of some pathetic crustacean.

The piece, “The Company Man” by Ellen Goodman would have been an enjoyable and thought provoking read on Monday if it wasn't for the crushing self doubt and hasty analysis that accompanied its forty minute essay.  Goodman’s style was almost strictly ironic and matched her sardonic attitude towards the “Company Man” way of life.  

Goodman bases the event of the passage around the cliche of someone working himself to death.  By extending this cliche she creates a satirical fiction in which “Phil’s” heart attack is a testament of his hard work and dedication (to “the company”) to his boss.  Goodman’s description of Goodman as a “heart attack natural” is ironic as it implies that 1) a heart attack is natural and 2) that someone can be gifted (virtuosic) at heart attacks.  The irony is almost insulting to Phil’s recent death and brings up questions about the significance of Phil if his life, or not life, can be made light by some witty one-liner.  

Goodman uses the “boss” archetype in her portrayal of the company president who is shockingly similar to…... Mr. Krabs ( Mr. Krabs Example 1 ) ( Mr. Krabs Example 2 ). The president’s immediate search for Phil’s replacement adds to the surreal nature of Phil’s physical death by shifting the focus from what seemingly should be Phil’s broken life, to the company’s void position.  

The explicit irony undercuts the severity of Phil’s death and shifts the focus of the passage to  the reader’s own perception of “The Company Man”.  Whether we, the stressed out English kids, are supposed to empathize with Phil’s plight, or pity him and pray we don’t end up in his shoes is completely subjective.

Wrestling with my Father by Brad Manning is an exploitative essay which analyzes Manning’s “physical relationship” with his father.  Manning explains through his essay how their relationship developed over time and managed to transcend its physical limitations.  To compare different medias, i found this advertisement by Chevrolet which embodied a lot of the elements of Manning’s piece.

The ad starts out with a father taking his reluctant son on a manly camping trip in their “high-strength steel for high-strength dependability” “new [2015]Chevy Silverado”.  Manning’s relationship with his father is comparable since they both strive for communication and recognition through some mutual ruggedness: this is shown as Manning’s arm wrestling, and Chevrolet’s camping trip.

Another important comparison is how the relationships in each media develop.  In Manning’s piece, he shows how as the two mature (physically and mentally) they are able to overcome the barriers in their relationship.  In the commercial the boy and his father learn find common ground in their shared experiences.  Although both pieces show development, they do it in very different ways.  The ad suggests that through their experiences they can transcend the adversities in their relationship, whereas  Manning’s piece suggests that the father son relationship is more complex and genuine and personal development and incite is necessary for their relationship to advance.

Both medias end with the father and the son transcending their “physical relationship” and being more emotionally inclined.  Manning’s piece shows this and explains his conflicting uncomfortableness with the change.  The ad, on the other hand, shows their relationship as ending perfectly;  the validity of this is questionable.

Maya Angelou

When I was assigned to read from Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, I was overcome with horrific flashbacks to eighth grade- more specifically to Ms. Gibson’s honors English class.  In eighth  grade we were forced to read a chapter from Angelou’s book, the one about Mrs. Flower (this one: http://genius.com/Maya-angelou-mrs-flowers-from-i-know-why-the-caged-bird-sings-annotated).  The two selected readings, stylistically similar, focused thematically on two very different experiences from Angelou’s childhood.  Where our more recent reading focused on racial tension, the latter reading highlighted one of Maya’s personal heroes.  Ms. Gibson’s analysis focused on Maya’s poetic diction and stylistic prowess.  Thinking back the analysis seems mild at best in comparison to what we did on Thursday; the contrast reminds me of “The History Teacher” by Billy Collins.  Although the two excerpts are thematically very different, many of the elements bear a striking resemblance.  The thing that stands out the most to me is that both focus around some exceptionally influential and glamorized character.  Maya describes Mrs. Flower as “one of the few gentlewoman I have ever known.”  The hyperbole represented is extremely sympathetic to Mrs. Flower and recognizes her as someone exceptionally important to Maya.  In her other chapter, Maya calls Joe Louis “the strongest man in the world.”  The description similarly singles Joe out and makes him appear almost divinely significant.  Both characters are used to show a notably influential moment in her life.  Practically it can also be said that these characters are used to represents more than individuals, but (in the context of her autobiography) represent how these ideas and concepts developed with her as a person and a writer.