ELA Questions

ANSWER ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS

1. What was the most fun/engaging activity that you did in ELA this year? Why was it fun/engaging?

The most engaging activity in ELA is seminars, as always. The reason for this is that it's intriguing to hear everyone's opinions and their contradictions and similarities. I liked the silent discussion a lot and would like to see the two cent discussion used in a seminar next year.

1. What was the most boring activity that you did this year? Why was it boring?

There are two ties in this. The first is annotating because it took away from reading the book and made it difficult for me to become as involved with the book as I would have otherwise. That, and it's so easy to forget annotating and when I have to consciously remind myself, it distracts me from reading and makes me almost not want to read, which is pretty rare for me as an avid reader. I think reading the Odyssey out loud during class was the second most boring activity we did because of the way it was read out loud, specifically being read off-beat and in a monotone tone with the mispronunciation of words; because it's a classic work resulting in it being harder to understand when listening rather than when reading; and because it was our job to read it outside of class and not in class, where it took up quite a bit of time. I would rather us have a summary of what went on then read it. I know we only read chunks in class and not all of it, but it was really boring for me.

1. What was your favorite book this year? Why?

Honestly, I love all of the books we read this year except the Odyssey but that's because I need to reread it to really wrap my head around it. The tie is between the Alchemist and Maus. The Alchemist was wonderful in its ideas and theories. It really made me think, and so did Maus. Maus was wonderful because it was able to describe the horrors of war without the emotional heaviness of it. They're both brilliant and I love them to death.

1. What was your least favorite book this year? Why?

I'd have to say Odyssey, not because it was a bad book, but because I needed more time to understand it and read it. I know the readings were short, but it was still difficult for me to comprehend completely. It's a beautiful piece of literature, but my brain needed more time to get through it.

1. What should I definitely keep the same for next year's ELA curriculum? Why?

There's nothing horrible about this class that stands out. Everything was great for the most part. I'd say keep seminars, open response projects, and your methodology for choosing books, as well as the variety.

1. What should I definitely change for next year's ELA curriculum? Why?

Blog posts and responses are the banes of my academic existence. I understand that it's how you make sure we read, but they're so easy yet they count for so much of our grade. I've noticed that there seem to be more standards put on blog posts when I miss them then when I actually do them and you grade them, at least recently. I don't think that's fair. Like on my last blog post, I did and was only graded on timeliness (5) and it was very thoughtful and long but on the one I didn't do before that, you put three standards as 0. Honestly, blog posts drag my grade down more than anything and I know because I do everything else even if it's late. I forget twice or three times in the middle of the school year and it makes it near impossible for me to achieve an exemplary in that class. Just... If you're going to keep blog posts, score them somewhat evenly and don't make them count as much. Forgetting to write a handful of sentences a week two or three times should not be able to trump writing five couple page essays, as well as their drafts and outlines.
Is there anything else that you would like to tell me about your experience in ELA? If so - please put it here.
I'd recommend making students more aware of the half analytical half creative response requirement.

A Grape Waiting to be Starved to Death

          A Raisin in The Sun by Lorraine Hansberry, in my opinion, uses dreams to translate the issues of blacks and apply them to all people in order to give the universal understanding that black people are people too. Whether this is believed nowadays is a highly controversial topic considering the current riots in Baltimore and prior ones in Ferguson. Racism within the States is a notoriously consistent mainstream occurrence, especially in conversations. Between the discussions of conflict between black and white people and the accusatory statements being shot into the web like toddlers with AK-47s, I wonder if discussing racism actually makes it worse because it is injected into the conscious mind by making people choose a side. By choosing to support black people or white people, the division between black and white people not only continues to divide further but also the one between black and white people that others perceive. The result is that people see black people and white people as enemies, and if people see that in their external environment, then it will start to affect their own thoughts. And so, ironically, we are making people more racially prejudice by addressing the issue of racism in the United States.

          One might object here that discussing racism would help cure it by bringing awareness to it, but all that can be done to help racism on a controllable scale on the national level has been. With the Reconstruction Amendments, black people were given the same legal rights as white men, and with the eradication of the grandfather clauses, the same general ease in which to use them. Legally, black people are equal to white people. When elections ran after the reconstruction amendments, it is not the law that tried to stop black people from voting. It was hate groups like the KKK that would stand in front of the booths and attack any black person who came near. Racism exists solely within people's minds and these racist thoughts turn into racist actions. There is nothing the government can do that it has not done so we can talk about it, but it won't change anything that can be changed as a whole because the only way of doing this, legally, has been done. The inequality within our minds can't be changed by the government any more than it has so by causing riots to get government and civilian attention, people are making racism worse and the government still cannot fix it because it exists on an individual level that is mainly subconscious. On a civilian level, discussing it only brings more attention to the divide and because the media is only portraying the positive things the rioters do and the negative ones the police does, for the most part, the divide appears to be worse than it is. If people believe it is worse than it is, then they will act like it is in this condition, thus causing it to become worse than it is. Sometimes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This seems to be one particularly sad case of it.

On p. 143, Walter states, "There ain't no causes - there ain't nothing but taking in this world, and he who takes the most is smartest - and it don't make a damn bit of difference how." Do you think that this is true? Why or why not?

I think that Walter brings up an interesting point because rather than saying the world is made up of takers and givers, he says that everyone is a taker and that whoever takes the most is the smartest. I agree that everyone in this world is a taker, because everyone takes something from this planet just by existing. However, I disagree that the person who takes the most is the smartest. I think that it is not the person who takes the most who is the smartest but the one who gives back the most when looking at the percentage they've created and given to the world in comparison to what they originally had. The people who have made the most money in this world have it because somewhere along the line, they gave the people something that they wanted that was worth more than what they originally had. Hence, they gave more than they took. Let's look at an old lady who donated a dollar to charity. She had worked her whole life to get a few dollars because she was paid so low that a dollar to her was worth a million to us. She gave all of it charity, and that charity declared her as the biggest donor not because she gave the most money but because she gave the biggest percentage of what she had. Another person at the charity donated billions, but he didn't get the title despite having given the most money because to him, a couple billion was nothing compared to how much money he had altogether. Therefore, I think that defining intelligence by whoever has the most is futile. Rather, I think it is the person gives the largest percentage to the world compared to what they originally had to begin with that is the most intelligent. This intelligence shows in the academic skills to be able to build up what they had into something better, the emotional maturity to be able to let go of everything you have and give it to the world even if you don't know if it will reap anything for you, and the social awareness to be able to create something that could benefit a lot of people out of something that at first only benefitted you.

In Act II, Scene 2, Mama puts Walter in charge of all of the money. Why do you think that she does that?

I think Mama put Walter in charge of the money because she thought that the knowledge of her trusting him would cause him to use it wisely, and as she asks. She does not trust him, and Walter believed this to be so but was not certain. As a result, her trust is highly valued by him, because he does not see the emotion translate into something tangible often. Mama knew Walter wasn't going to spend the money wisely even if he had it because he puts his emotions before logical thought. So, if she made him think she trusted him, then that might counteract his thoughtless actions because of the pressure that knowledge would put on him.

However, Mama's calculated risk was wrong. Walter does not value Mama or her opinions. He only values her when she has something to offer him that he wants, such as money. As a result, Mama's trust is shocking, but not of great importance to him. It is not enough to make him think through his decision, otherwise he would have put the money in the bank, not given it to Woody. I don't think he intentionally was illogical. That is simply how he is, and Mama's false trust couldn't change that no matter how good of an actress she may be.

Lorraine Hansberry used a line from Langston Hughes poem, Harlem, as the title of her play. Considering that which you have read so far (Act 1), why do you think she did that?

  A sad fact of life is that people's dreams contradict each other. Not everyone can achieve their dreams because individuals and resources do not have the means to achieve these dreams. For example, if Martha and Stewart want to be the top psychologist in the world from 2030 to 2040 consecutively, then only one of them can be if it isn't someone else entirely. This is an example of a dream that individuals cause to contradict. Now, let's look at Amanda, who's dream is to buy a Lamborghini. This is a dream that multiple people can achieve, so individuals don't cause it to contradict. However, Amanda is a lower class American citizen with no money saved up in the bank and bad credit. Amanda needs good credit and a lot of money to buy a Lamborghini. Amanda doesn't have the money or the credit, so the resources causes her dream to contradict reality. For Martha and Stewart, the reality is they can become the top psychologist, but not both of them. For Amanda, the reality is she can purchase a Lamborghini, but she isn't able to because she doesn't have the resources to buy it.

    In Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun, the characters dreams contradict each other, and where there are not dreams that contradict each other, there are hopes. This is seen in Walter and Beneatha's contradicting dreams- they both need Mama's money, but for different purposes. Beneatha cannot pursue her dream, to be a doctor, without Mama's money to provide her with the necessary education. Walter cannot pursue his dream, to be a successful black man, without being a monetarily successful black man, and, in his perception, the best chance he has at that is by investing in the purchase of a series of liquor stores. Walter can only achieve this through Mama's money. There is one resource, and conflicting dreams. Mama wants her children, Beneatha and Walter, to be happy, but she hopes that the means in which they pursue their happiness are not the ones they dream of. Each of them express their desperation to achieve their dream differently- Beneatha's festers like a sore, Mama's sags like a heavy load, and Walter's has become crispy sugar. Considering that this is Act 1, I expect that the other protagonists will have a different way of dealing with dead dreams, each one having been mentioned in Langston Hughes's poem. I think the purpose of having each protagonist have a different way of dealing with dreams is to see if they all end the same- explosion.

Social Media

The socially acceptable may not always be the socially acceptable. Major social media outlets as well as popular movies are overflowing with intelligent messages about current issues,  nothing like the radio as it sings on and on about getting high and fucking girls or the Victoria's Secret lingerie adds on every family's cable stream. It poses a question, for can these two opposing social media leaders be reflecting the same society? American society is bordered by extremes high and dipping lows. It encompasses the liberal and the conservative, the poor and the rich, and the everything in between. With this great divergence comes a price, though and that is that social media cannot cater to everyone's wants. Thus, certain outlets focus on certain types of people, maybe with the thought that the more people are loyal to it, the more the mindset required to agree with it spreads. In order to become popular, this mindset has to be adopted to some extent, and peer pressure continually knows at the individual until they either give in or go to a different social media outlet which shares their own mindset. And so, it is by this theory of expansion that one might argue that society is represented by social media as a whole, and not by the major social media outlets. Much like how entertainment attempts to encompass all of society with its genres of music and movies, social media does as well, but through conveying information via alternative mediums and mind sets. Thus, the socially acceptable to one person is not to the other, deeming the term socially acceptable to be fallacious.

   

Was emotional suppression the permament signature of wealth?

There was a certain coldness to the characters within Great Gatsby, this desperately insistent need for emotional suppression that by the time my fingers delicately held the last page, I felt as if my emotion had been wasted by someone who pushed on the accelerator too hard for too long and my emotion came out in the form of polluted air. It wove itself into the oxygen within Mr. Gatsby's lungs and he choked on the warmth of it because no icicle can keep itself from melting once the temperature has risen no matter how strong. It punctured his lungs as it fell, impaling his heart with the kind of dramatic flair that you only see at a badly done Shakespeare modern revival. Three days romances were never my thing, yet Gatsby intertwined his entire being with it except his Juliet wasn't willing to wait for him let alone to drink a potion so they could try to be together. No, Daisy faced Gatsby with the kind of coldness that splits you into two because you once knew what warmth was like and without it, you're lost (Fitzgerald 95, 96,145). Gatsby based his life around who Daisy used to be, resulting in his emotional well being being utterly dependent on the idea that he would have her once he actualized his wealth ( 78, 110). His emotional expressiveness was significantly higher than that of anyone within the book due to his depending on hope and other wealthy characters on the stoic coldness that wrapped their hearts in glistening ice cases like overpriced plastic wrap. With just a tug, some characters came unraveled such as Tom when Myrtle taunts him by saying Daisy over and over again (37). Others, like Daisy, could only be temporarily emotional after the building up of difficult situations involving people she cared for, specifically Gatsby (132) but in the face of emotionally traumatic events, she did not care (144). On the other hand, Myrtle is so open about her emotions that you would think her emotions were talking, not her thoughts and her husband has little emotional restraint if any. There seems to be this idea that the wealthy are emotionally suppressed and the poor emotionally out of control. Gatsby went from the poor and emotional to wealth without ridding himself of emotion, yet he became most successful through a business that required emotional suppression and extreme logic. Making his dream realistic is what made Gatsby fall because his emotion clouded his judgement so extremely that he sacrificed everything he'd ever worked for for a girl long gone. If Gatsby's dream of having Daisy wouldn't have been touched on the surface, he still would be financially successful because his emotions were still reserved since only Daisy could evoke them. In the end, it seemed that emotional suppression and coldness was the only way to maintain power because the more emotion someone held over you, the more they could control you which could result in financial and emotional loss. Being less emotional allowed for order, but it was the kind of order that was utterly revolting, like the beauty of a lethal disease. Gatsby died because he actualized his hope, and lost it. Being emotional killed him, and when Daisy became extremely cold at the end, it allowed her to save her marriage and move somewhere else without a hint of a bad reputation.

Wake Up, America

1. What is your definition of The American Dream? Describe some examples of people you know, have heard about, or have read about that have dreamed an American Dream.
Maybe it's how saying Dr. before a person's name immediately adds 100 points to their IQ level that used to make me think that the American Dream could only be achieved through hard work and a killer education, specifically a PhD. However, when I entered this realm called reality I found that that was a complete lie. My abuelos came from Mexico to the United States with a hundred dollars, rudimentary English, and a newborn baby that would grow up to be my mother. I'm sure the thought of how that happened would have horrified my abuelos had they not been so busy working. They found jobs in the jewelry industry at Foley's before they created their own jewelry business when my mom was a child. By the time I was born, they were making $200,000 a year, lived in a nice house, and still didn't have a degree higher than a high school diploma. It is from them that I learned that education isn't the key to success. It's hard work.That's until I met trust fund babies, who's sole job was not to work hard but to simply maintain the money. They were the nanny for their many dollar bills, and these dollar bills liked to go on vacation and buy nice clothes. But, with the nanny's kids came a lack of appreciation for where the money came from and so by the time they were old, the money was gone and the grandparent who worked hard to make the money was dead. Both the money and the relative were gone, one with the Earth.It was from this that I concluded that money was what kept the American Dream going and that a need for money is what gave the American Dream that initial push. Money that the current generation can spend and apply to their own lives came from an old relative who achieved the American Dream makes it that much more real in the mind of the new generations. This money directly affects us and we notice that, and when we're told that it's because of the American Dream, then the idea of the American Dream becomes real. And so, the American Dream is created, but whether it died or not is unknown because the idea of it lives on. I think the American Dream is that hard work can take you anywhere, but whether the American Dream is the American Reality is yet to be known.

ELA (Fall Semester 2014-2015)

ELA is my favorite class. It has just about everything I want in life: a good book, interesting discussions, the occasional laugh, and lots of writing. But, most of all, it makes me think critically. It makes me question my surroundings, instinctually analyze media, find deeper meaning in the world around me, and stay honest. This mindset of this class is very straight forward, which I like. The books we have read this year have not been so straight forward, but that allows for the novels to let us personally invest time thinking and debating about them both within our minds and with our fellow peers. Seminar wise, I think that there are a select few who talk so much that everyone else either a) feels like they can't follow b) is intimidated or c) is anxious enough at the mere idea of speaking, let alone doing it while trying to bud in between two dominating folks. As someone who tends to be a bit overbearing and way too talkative, I try and step back from the seminar to allow for others to speak. I like that we are proactively pursuing individuals who speak less but this is utterly unnatural for those who are called upon considering that people tend to speak if they have something to say. I think that the individuals who choose not to speak or feel as if they cannot are just as much to blame as those who are unaware and talk too much. With both of these parties actively and effectively communicating how they feel, both parties can be satisfied. In terms of blog posts, I'm just bad at those. It's not the class, it's me. Vocabulary needs help in my opinion. I think that having a announcement about a quiz a week before would really help because personally, I often turn in my vocab the day before or day of the quiz and only upon reading the assignment am I informed that I do, in fact, have a quiz. If there was an announcement or a separate assignment for it that ran biweekly or weekly, that would be AWESOME. Besides that, ELA has been great(z

R2D2

1. Discuss how the trauma that Art Speigelman's father experienced in the Holocaust trickled down into Art's life as the son of a Holocaust survivor.

Considering that Art's father beautifully fit the Jewish sterotype, it was no wonder that Art seemed to encompass the exact opposite of the stereotype. Art seems to have analyzed his father's ways and decided to never possess those traits for himself. As a result, he is nothing like his father and yet, somewhat similar. Both of them possess that same stubbornness and passion, but they direct towards different things. They both complain a lot, but about different things. Perhaps this could be said of most humans, but I am not sure. Both Art and his father maintain simple lives. Art lives a simple life, and he seems to value that because of his father's experiences. He is grateful for having food, a bed to sleep in, and a person to share his life with but not to the extreme his father does. I think that part of why Art chose to pursue a career in art was not just because of his father but because he saw how trivial material things are and how short life is so he decided to pursue what made him happy even if it didn't bring him that great of a paycheck.

Illustrations .vs. Text: Maus

1. Art Spiegelman has chosen to tell a very sad and serious story in a form that is not often associated with this kind of story telling (illustration). Do you think the use of illustration as opposed to just written text is an effective way of delivering this story? Why or why not?

 I think the illustrations provide a comic relief that would be unattainable to the reader if the book had been expressed purely with words. Had Spiegelman chosen to write this tale of his father's life in words, he wouldn't be able to control the images in our mind to the extent he does and the seemingly unbearable sadness that would trace every word. The illustrations and the horrific events balance each other out and Spiegelman from here is able to tip the scale to play with our emotions however he wants. It's brilliant, actually, but kind of scary.

Symbolism (And Other Pretty Things)

I wonder what I am supposed to whisper to myself before I go to sleep to make the voices go away.

“It's going to be okay,” I'll say, but I'm not so sure. I don't know what comforting quote to recite over and over again. It reminds me of the first couple lines of my memoir that I wrote a couple months ago.

“What’s the point? At the end of the day, I’m still under the covers clutching my polar bear sheets with supposedly iron fists but truth be told, I’m just a butterfly pinned to some pretty piece of paper in an overpriced glass case waiting for someone to set me free but that’s never going to happen and I’m still sitting here, smiling.”

No one interpreted it right. It reminds me of the rain droplets staining my window, their beauty the cause of the endless conjectures of symbolism.

“It's just rain,” I'll mutter to myself, turning to yet another TV screen for a way to block out reality.

But, every once in a while something like The Alchemist comes along and I'll wonder what if symbolism isn't just pretty bullshit but something real, something I can grip with my hands? What if symbolism isn't just another idea that gives people like me a thousand potential realities to contemplate? I wonder.

The Mysterious Case of the Universal Language

 I believe that the Universal Language is the connection between all things. InThe Alchemist, there is a suggestion that there is more than one universal language as seen on page 64, “...maybe he was also learning the universal language that deals with the past and present of all people.” On page 121, it states that “...my horse knows the language of life.” While in this case the word universal was not used before it, the book still suggested two languages that could potentially build up along with others to create the Universal Language. “The world speaks many languages, the boy thought (89). The King of Salem stated that, “All things are one.” Perhaps each of the, respectfully, less significant languages combined are the Universal Language, the unspoken understanding of the threads that links this world together stitch by stitch. Santiago said that people used the Universal Language to communicate but were not aware that they were doing it (49). This suggests that the Universal Language was not something we brought into existence but something eternal, perhaps originating from the remnants of the Soul of the World within every thing and everyone (101). On page 82, The Alchemist states that, “But there was one idea that seemed to repeat itself throughout the books: all things are the manifestation of one thing only.” Clearly, the Universal Language has an origin, but I don't believe it to be only within the Soul of the World because that was suggested to be where men become one with the afterlife (101). As seen with Santiago, the Englishman, and the alchemist, being aware of the Universal Language is something a living person can do. The book also suggested that since Santiago knew the Soul of the World, it allowed him to learn to speak the Universal Language(109).

The idea of having a Universal Language that connects everyone reminds me much of Buddhism because Buddhists, among other things, seek to become one with the world. There is an energy that lives both within us and outside of us that is one and yet, we regard them as separate entities. Personally, I believe that space is much like a puzzle within a puzzle that contains yet another underlying puzzle. Each puzzle piece contains a puzzle in itself and so on and so forth. If this confuses anyone, I will add an image that could help ease your understanding. This combined with the Universal Language to me pointed towards the Universal Language being the expression of unity. I am not sure what omens are yet. I found it interesting when the Englishman said on page 72 that, “Everything in life is an omen.” Perhaps omens are everything and everyone since we are all reactions off of one another whether it be a person or a thing.

Just A Bit Too Personal

1. What is a Personal Legend, and why do you think this will be important in the rest of the book?

Our Personal Legends are the stories of our lives, the intricate tale whose foundations were built upon the threads that stitch our lives together memory be memory, kiss by kiss, tear by tear, thought by thought, love by love. We have these dreams that we either pursue or cast away like useless nothings. Each human being who has lived, lives, or will live will have a life, and it is the story of this life that is their Personal Legend. A person's Personal Legend is their pursuit of themselves. It is how they identify their own beliefs and loves. This is important because this book is a Personal Legend. The Alchemist is how a boy finds himself, and without a Personal Legend, it would never be conveyed properly.

What I Want To Learn (Teach Me How To Write Nonfiction Creatively)

       There's a certain kind of curiosity that comes with learning something that most assume to be already known- their own language. We speak English every day and yet, we don't really know. We don't know every crack and crevice of English nor the history of it. Language is an art form, much like clay or paint. You can mold it to create a masterpiece, a disaster, or something in between. I wish to hone the skill of creative writing in an analytical way.

Nonfiction has fascinated me ever since the day I read my first biography in second grade on Duke Ellington. I've always longed to write but, well, everything I write is over exaggerated and my wording can be a bit pretentious at times despite being unintentional. I want to write in a way that expresses what I mean concisely yet manages to snag all of those secretly craved details. The problem with this is that there is a very fine line between just enough and too much. I would like to learn how to write creative nonfiction in a way that allows me for to keep my writing style but gets to the point.

Writing analytically has never been my strong point considering my tendency to be excessive with adjectives and to make everything philosophical. If unbiased writing is possible to attain, then I wish to attain it. There is a distinct separation in my thoughts and emotions and yet, I struggle with finding it. This reflects in my writing. I think that I need to sort this out in my mind first and yet, maybe writing without emotion could aid me in my goal towards being able to control my emotions. Poetry is also another genre I seek to write better.

I hope we can write and read more poetry. There is a place in my heart reserved for poetry and yet I don't have much knowledge on it. While I do research it outside of school, I would like to learn about it in school too. Plus, you're funny and intelligent. You make me want to learn even more then I do already. Basically, I'd like to write true things in a creative way.

A Reflection On A (Very) Emotional Book.

Wool by Hugh Howey is the kind of book every author should aspire to write like. Not only is it written with flawless grammatical skill, the context also keeps the reader completely entangled. Vivid imagery allowed me to see through the author's eyes and become these characters while somehow managing to stay as myself. The author carefully balanced the connections forged between reader and character just Enoch to where it could still maintain my own perception while also seeing the characters. Each character is very well developed whether they are a side character or a protagonist. The author forced me to be deeply empathetic of these characters. Their pain was my pain. Their struggle was my struggle. Their joy was my joy. Despite the book taking place in an entirely different society, I could relate to at least one of these characters and even if I couldn't relate, I understood how and why they thought the way they did. That is a pretty remarkable achievement.

I cannot say that I connected to a single character because that is not true. I connected to every character whether it was Bernard who wanted to sentence an entire category of people to death or Juliette who just wanted to know what it meant to be alive because some days she wasn't sure if she was really even breathing. Each character had deep, personal struggle that was not revealed in plain sight. You had to think, and think, and think some more until that final epiphany came and everyone heard me say, "Oh!" With Lucas, I truly connected to his struggle to stay true to who he was despite not knowing who he was but only knowing he wasn't who people wanted him to be. He felt like he wasn't the right person in my opinion. Juliette was able to help him see who he was because for me, she symbolizes life. She told him that this was his life and it was who he was. His memories, his thoughts, his emotions, his pain, his joy, his dreams...they are who he is. This book is filled with struggles woven into deeper struggles woven into even deeper struggles until there is nothing left to see but darkness or light. There is either life or death, joy or anger, happiness or sadness. Wool made me question my fundamental beliefs not only in myself but in the world around me and that is why I love this novel.

The FedX Fallacy

The following print advertisement promoted FedX by claiming that two of UPS's trucks fit into one of FedX's.

First off, did anyone else notice that the UPS trucks are clearly a smaller model than the FedX one? In fact, they look to be the exact size if not bigger than FedX express couriers. They purposelessly chose a truck size that would fit twice despite the fact that UPS has an eighteen wheeler vehicle that appears to be a similar size.
Link To image of UPS Eighteen Wheeler
FedX misrepresented the size of UPS trucks to make it seem as if they were substantially smaller than FedX trucks when, in reality, UPS trucks are similar to the same size as their equals in FedX. This is clearly a use of the Texas Sharp Shooter.

Is love like a drug?

2) Write your own persuasive argument using rhetorical devices to convince an audience. Choose any topic that interests you, and write a speech or editorial that employs logos, pathos, and ethos

Love is like a drug due to the fact that it gives a chemical high; has the potential to become an addiction; is perceived to be a good thing despite multiple side affects such as becoming distracted easily, having extreme emotions, and a lack of clarity and logic that results in impaired decision making skills; stimulates certain parts of the brain; can cause a person to grow dependent on their lover; and slight personality shifts. When someone is in love, they get the same sensations as someone on cocaine. “The reason people are so attracted to cocaine is that it activates the area of the brain that makes you feel good,” researcher Arthur Aron, PhD, tells WebMD. “The same reward area is activated when people are experiencing the intense desire of romantic love." If a person can become addicted to cocaine, then why can they not become addicted to love considering that they both wield a similar result? The answer is, they can. "Romantic relationships can lead to the addiction of a specific person such as being obsessed with thinking of that person all the time and the capacity for risk-taking to get to that person. These behaviors are thought to reflect those of someone who is addicted to a drug. The same brain chemicals — large amounts of dopamine and norepinpherine — and the same brain pathways and structures are active when in love, and when being high on crack cocaine. Therefore, this leads to the belief that addictive drugs affect the brain in ways similar to love, Marsh says, which can help explain the painful, withdrawal-like symptoms of a breakup" (Oxytocin).
Like every medicine commercial that plays, there is always that dreaded list of side affects. In a fictional book titled Delirium, the author created a dystopian world that was similar to ours save for the fact that love was considered a disease that must be treated. The one thing that was not fictional about the first installment of the trilogy , however, was her list of symptoms. “Symptoms of Amor Deliria Nervosa
PHASE ONE:
-preoccupation; difficulty focusing
-dry mouth
-perspiration, sweaty palms
-fits of dizziness and disorientation
-reduced mental awareness; racing thoughts; impaired reasoning skills
PHASE TWO:
-periods of euphoria; hysterical laughter and heightened energy
-periods of despair; lethargy
-changes in appetite; rapid weight loss or weight gain
-fixation; loss of other interests
-compromised reasoning skills; distortion of reality
-disruption of sleep patterns; insomnia or constant fatigue
-obsessive thoughts and actions
-paranoia; insecurity
PHASE THREE (CRITICAL):
-difficulty breathing
-pain in the chest, throat or stomach
-complete breakdown of rational faculties; erratic behavior; violent thoughts and fantasies; hallucinations and delusions
PHASE FOUR (FATAL):
-emotional or physical paralysis (partial or total)
-death
If you fear that you or someone you know may have contracted deliria, please call the emergency line toll-free at 1-800-PREVENT to discuss immediate intake and treatment.”
This list of symptoms is realistic but most would laugh at the idea of love being a disease. It is seen as a beautiful thing to most and yet, could it possible be a socially acceptable form of insanity? Perhaps the world will never know. What the world can rely on, though, is facts.
Romantic love activates in the caudate nucleus, via a flood of dopamine at the sight of their loved ones. This means that a person becomes very happy upon seeing the people they love. The more a person is in love, the more tolerable they are to pain. Oxytocin is released while a person is in love and is a vital part of making a deep connection with the person they love. It also triggers the release of domaine when a person feels as if they have found their partner for life. People can often grow dependant on the person they are romantically involved with and substitute that person's emotions with their own. This results in a relationship where even the slightest hurtful remark can cause an extreme reaction from the dependee. The depended either do not realize that this is occurring or, if their love is morally off, they take advantage of the dependee. It's a tough situation because the dependee often times does not realize that this is happening without outside intervention.
Because of the high risk emotional situation that love lives in, people are often different after being in a relationship. The experiences a person has with their lover are highly emotional and, as a result, are much more memorable than an average date. If a relationship is hurtful, a person may have a much more negative outlook on life when it ends. However, a person may argue that people are constantly changing based on their own experiences and that love is just one of these. Both of these are true. While love is one of many experiences that shapes a person's personality, it is also one that has a very large affect on who the person may become one day.

Shylock: A Man Or A Jew?

The Merchant of Venice was written in a time when people were extremely narrow minded. People do not see what they do not want to see even if it staring them straight in the face. It is no wonder that Jews like Shylock were considered to be less humane than Christians. Jews were different, and anything that was different was wrong because it meant change. Shakespeare, however, did not share the same narrow mind as most people of his time. He had an open mind, and that is why this speech is placed so perfectly, an example of not only the future but of how to convince the people of something they do not even know they are being convinced of.

I believe this play to be a tragicomedy and, as such, it permits the usage of Shylock's speech.  If this play had been a comedy, the speech would not have fit in because it would be too, well, tragic. It would not have made people laugh and so the people would be confused by it and possibly angered at the mere idea of sympathizing with a Jew. If this play had been a tragedy, this speech would have been too much. It would have been too tragic and the people would not like it. Since the play was a tragicomedy, Shakespeare's speech right. I have reason to believe that Shakespeare built his entire play around this speech. He portrayed Shylock not as an evil Jew but as a man just like you and I whose spiritual beliefs caused him to plummet downwards.

Friendship and People.

Numerous discussions have been held about whether or not Antonio is, in fact, gay and in love with Bassanio. Numerous people say that he is not. A few say he is. It is my belief that Antonio and Bassanio are friends who have known each other for years and, as such, have grown close because of it. In the cast list, Bassanio is listed as a friend of Antonio. While this may be because homosexuality was a sin in the eyes of the religious, it may also be that it was because they were just that- friends.
While you and I may not give up a pound of our own flesh to ensure that our best friend has the possibility of wooing a gorgeous, wealthy girl, we are also from a different time. We see things through the eyes of a modern, Western teenager with money. Antonio and Bassanio lived in a time where the norms of their society were different from ours. It seems as if friendship is stronger there than here, but some may argue that that is because the things they are willing to do for their friends are beyond reason. That is why love was considered. People cannot even begin to fathom why someone would do something so seemingly foolish and yet, I can give you an answer. Antonio referred to having have known Bassanio for a very long time time. Perhaps Antonio saw Bassanio as a little brother of sorts, a man who needed nurturing and caring that went beyond the means of a parent and more into the means of a friend.
Yes, Bassanio screwed Antonio over twice or more over with loans but, at the end of the day, Bassanio was still Antonio's friend and seemingly life long acquaintance. Bassanio knew he easily might not to be able to pay Antonio and I do not think he really cared. Bassanio's loyalty to Antonio was significantly lesser than Antonio's to him. Bassanio wanted what he wanted and he did not care who he had to step on to get there. After all, business does not often find itself having morals. For Bassanio, his business was getting the girl. Bassanio would screw over his lifelong friend and allow him to lose a pound of his flesh just so he can have the mere possibility of winning over a girl. A girl, let's remember, that is won by a game of chance not wealth! Bassanio is such an opposite of Antonio that it is no wonder why they get along well. Some say that people who are like minded get along better, but I believe that to be a lie. Antonio and Bassanio are perfect examples. Antonio will always have Bassanio's back until the day Shylock comes to get that pound of flesh and his death most likely becomes a reality. Until then, Bassanio will be the muck he is.
Antonio and Bassanio walk a fine line when it comes to their friendship. Their friendship is unjust yet, aren't all friendships? There is always going to be that friend who goes the extra mile, that friend who brings you chicken soup, a bucket of ice cream, and your favorite movie when you get sick even though you two were in a massive argument the day before. Antonio is that friend despite his many flaws. He cares about Bassanio's well being but, most of all, he cares about his happiness. I don't think you have to be someone's lover to wish for them to be happy. I think you need to be a damn good friend to be willing to face the possibility of death in order to give a close friend a chance at happiness, and Antonio is that incredible friend.