No More Fatties

So I just finished the book Fat Land. Honestly, I thought it would end better, and also as a whole, I thought the book might've been more engaging. At the beginning I was very excited to read it because the book starts in a very appealing way. Towards the middle - end, I was so bored that I even started counting off the pages and got to the point of impatience were I couldn't wait to turn each page over. Basically the last 40 pages of the book talk about a lot of facts and recommendations on what people can do to burn calories. It just gets too textbook-ish and that's what makes it so boring. Textbooks can be fun, such as Thank You For Arguing which really engages the reader due to it's quizzical tone. However, in Fat Land, things get too scientific and it becomes quite monotonous at times. 

I did like a couple of things, though. There's one phrase that stood out to me when I was near the end and it's: "More Americans are obese than smoke, use illegal drugs, or suffer from ailments unrelated to obesity" (pg. 147). This just portrays exactly how serious of a problem obesity has become. Another very interesting thing that I noticed was that in page 165, the word "TV" is written eleven times. In this part, they are talking about how to incentivize people to lose weight and well leaving the TV and couch is definitely the major idea. If people stop watching so many hours of TV, they will 1) look for other activities to do 2) watch less commercials that advertise junk food and 3) they will snack less because they aren't at that comfy couch with a bag of chips right next to them. 




The last vocabulary word that I found in this book was inveighing, which is to protest strongly or attack vehemently with words. 

Did You Really Think You Were Safe?

Click here to watch our documentary on security around CNG.

So JLo Comes Up...Again

Unkempt: (adj.) not combed; messy;
uncared for.

In the next set of pages of Fat Land, I had two major flashbacks. One of them was when I read about an analogy that related the human body and how obesity works with a four cylinder car that has to pull a trailer full of bricks. This reminded me of that time in 10th grade biology with Ms. Blesgraeft that we had to do an analogy of how a cell works. My partner and I chose to relate it to a pizza parlor, and I remember that we got a 3.8 because we forgot to include one of the functions. I realized though, that with analogies everything IS clearer. When I had to write the assignment with my partner, I actually felt that it was hard, and it was complicating my understanding of the subject. However, when I read the car analogy, I really understood how bad obesity is for every part in your body. As Critser says, "It's 'cylinders' - the heart and its ancillary arteries and veins - are not built for pulling the extra weight, and so must work harder, straining to accommodate the load" (pg. 134). With examples like this, it is easier for me to visualize and understand exactly what is it that is so malignant about obesity.

Derriere: (noun) the buttocks.

The other major flashback that I got from reading this set of pages was when I read about the way that obesity is mainly seen in poor black and poor latino populations. Critser mentioned that black girls felt more comfortable being fat than Anglo American girls. He said there are two main reasons for this. The first is because black guys accept "thick girls" more than guys from other races. The second was because of celebrities. But not any type of celebrities. Ever since 1999, there has been huge polemic on Jennifer Lopez's butt. Being a beautiful and voluptuous woman with latino background, many people questioned why she would show off a big derriere in a Vanity Fair issue back at the time. As some where skeptic of the photo, many young girls felt motivated and identified with JLo's curves. This type of celebrity influence brought me a flashback. When I read Bossypants back in October, Tina Fey talked about society's pressure on women and how celebrities affect the way we girls want to look like. Fey said, "I think the first real change in women’s body image came when JLo turned it butt-style. That was the first time that having a large-scale situation in the back was part of mainstream American beauty...All Beyoncé and JLo have done is add to the laundry list of attributes women must have to qualify as beautiful" (Bossypants, pg. 27). Fey adds to Critser's point: JLo was one of the women who revolutionized the idea of beauty. From skinny and boney size zero models, to thick-butt, curvy women. Of course this can be a good thing. Girls would now stop starving themselves to death. However, it wasn't great because with the growing obesity epidemic in the United States, fat girls would now feel comfortable with their oveweight bodies and the guilt would disappear; they thought they could still be considered beautiful just like JLo. This only lead to more consumption of fatty foods and less incentive to go outside and do some exercise. Quite complicated for those fighting the epidemic.

I only have 40 more pages left of Fat Land, and I am still hoping to get to know Critser's story in detail. We'll see what happens in my next blog post. 

Fat vs. Fit

For these next 30 pages, Fat Land became quite monotonous. For approximately 20 pages, the only thing going on in the book was how one theory on fat proved the last one wrong. It talks about how at first, it was believed that the only way to legitimately lose weight was by cutting down calories. Then one epidemiologist proved that theory wrong and said that in order to lose weight successfully, intense exercise was the real solution. Then came another person and said that "high intensity exercise affords little additional benefit," (pg. 90) and that doing longer low-intensity exercise was what brought more benefit. Then someone else came and said that being fatter didn't kill anyone but being thinner did. This theory was then proved wrong and along came a new one. This kept on and on, and it bored me for a while.

Akin: (adj.) of kin; related by blood

Until I got to a part where this man, Steven Blair, explained his theory and also talked about his life story. He described himself to be "fat, fit, and bald - and none of those things are likely to change" (pg. 103). He sought to convince Americans that, "they should not focus on fat at all - that they should forget about dieting and losing weight and instead learn how to be 'fit and fat'" (pg. 103). This man has been fat all his life, and as Critser explains, no matter how hard some overweight people try, they won't be able to lose weight if their condition of being fat is due to genetics. Blair is probably one of those cases. However, Blair is incredibly fit despite the fact that he is fat. He has ran "more than 80,000 miles over the past thirty years" (pg. 103). He runs marathons, triathlons and is quite the sport man. What he truly believes, and definitely proves is that in order to be fit, one does not have to be thin. He compared his resistance and cardiovascular health risk with thin and fit people, and the results were quite similar. Like any thin and fit person would have, his rate of mortality was kept low. Another person like him was Dave Alexander, who regardless of his 260 pounds of weight and average height (5'8") swam 5 miles, ran 30, and cycled 200 per week, while he competed in four triathlons per month. These people can really be an inspiration. I find them very motivating, and I know that next time that I go to the gym I'll be thinking about them. 

Those Dark PE Times

While I read Fat Land, I was actually laid back and "chilling" with my book in hand. However, I got to this part that got me all uncomfortable. I sat up straight and even laid down my book for some time while these terrible flashbacks came up to my head. 

Cadre: (noun) a small group of
people especially trained for a
purpose or profession.

Yes, I was one of those girls who DREADED the famous "Fitnessgram" test here at CNG. The test consisted of running laps as the speed increased, doing a certain amount of push ups, burning fat in your abdomen by doing sit ups, and the only easy part for me which was stretching for the flexibility test. I just couldn't be successful at it, especially when it came to the "pacer", or laps. Teachers had to beg me to run the pacer, for I just simply refused every time I had to do it. I always preferred to get a 0 on it than to actually embarrass myself in front of everyone by running slowly. I remembered of all of these things because as I was reading the book, the author mentions the creation of fitness tests around the nation. The American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) was responsible for throwing these tests into American schools. As time passed, a new test replaced the older one, until we got to and stayed in the "Fitnessgram". 

I am incredibly blessed for not having to take that test again. It just seemed so unfair to me because the athletic kids would make you look like an idiot. My ethos was completely hurt by it. I do understand that these tests had to be implemented in schools, simply because American kids were getting fatter and fatter and by 1975, "about 50 percent of [girls] could not run a mile in less than 10 minutes" (pg. 78). There is proof that these tests do make a difference in american children, but still, I just hated them. 

I guess I shouldn't even whine about it. Those days are over, and now it's my responsibility to get some exercise. I need to try and stay far away from the fat land. 

Chew, Swallow and Then Burn

After reading 50 more pages of Fat Land, I learned quite a few interesting things. I have to clarify though that this book was published in 2003, so many of the data that the author uses is from the 80's and 90's. Still, my knowledge on diets and nutrition has been expanded and I realized that there are many different theories regarding a perfect diet. What's important is to be smart and not let all of the different theories get to you. It has happened to me before, where I heard about a new diet that would for sure make you lose an certain amount of pounds, but in the end it just wouldn't work. What I can conclude from everything that is being exposed in chapters 3 and what I read from 4 is that you can eat all of the different types of food ONLY if you manage to burn it. In other words, exercise is key. 

So at first, when chapter 3 begins, Critser talked about how people became overweight or obese. He mentioned how "eating out" became "a thing" and people would just eat the majority of their meals at places other than home. This brought negative consequences because eating out was viewed as a treat, which meant that people could order bigger sizes. They only did this because cooking at home would just mean more work and time spent on something that shouldn't require so much time. It would also take away time with family. In economics, this is called opportunity cost, by the way (the cost of the best next alternative). Anyway, Critser then talks about puericulture, which originated in 19th century France and was basically adapted to teach mothering techniques to new mothers. This meant that new mothers would learn how to feed a child. More towards the 21st century, a basic principle in puericulture was to "never put a child on a diet" (pg. 39) because (very long story short) that would lead to eating disorders later on in that child's life. 

Dyspepsia: (noun) indigestion

 Scientists discovered later on, that "snacking", something that emerged in the 1980's would bring negative consequences. This truly shocked me because I had heard multiple amounts of times by nutritionists and non-professionals, that eating healthy snacks between foods would speed up your metabolism and thus make you lose weight. However, I learned that there was and still is a wide variety of snacks, and "variety had become the enemy" (pg. 40). Researchers at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center from Tufts University found that: "the higher the variety of snack foods present in the subjects' diet, the higher the number of calories from those foods they would consume, and the higher would be the subjects' consequent body fatness" (pg. 40). The snacking explanation truly impressed me, since I thought that snacking was actually helping people lose weight when in reality it does the opposite. 

 Another very interesting thing that came up was how more kids are becoming obese each day. After some research and an observation of 4,063 children, researchers came to the conclusion that "the more TV a child watched, the less she exercised and the more likely she was to be either overweight or obese" (pg. 73). When they asked the parents why their kid wouldn't go outside and get active, the majority of parents more or less said that even though TV watching is bad, their kid at least wouldn't be exposed to the dangers of the street. To me, that sounds ridiculous. I would understand that answer if they lived here in Colombia, where crime is much greater than in the US. Plus, in the US there are a lot of different safe parks and places that kids can go and be well supervised. 

Fat Land has been quite an interesting book, and I've learned so much about nutrition and eating concerns. I am still hoping to maybe get to a part where the author might give out some of his personal experience. I don’t know, I just hope that I can be able to get out as much as possible from this book in order for me to adopt a healthier lifestyle. 

Home to the Fat

Oh, America! Traveling to the United States can really be surprising. Since the very second I set foot on the "land of the free", the smell of fatty foods always penetrates my innocent nostrils. My eyes wander around and the people I see are clearly different from what I'm used to seeing in Colombia. It's astounding: 60% of Americans are overweight. It's becoming an epidemic that is only leading everyone towards obesity. Greg Critser was once fat. In his book, Fat Land, he analyses "how Americans became the fattest people in the world" (cover page). 

Truculent (adj.) eager or quick to
argue or fight; aggressively defiant

 I started reading this book because I have always been interested in nutritional behaviors, especially how they vary in the US and Colombia. Recently, I have been talking about the subject with my mother, since I'll be moving to the US next year for college. It has been one of my concerns. Having to deal with a completely different food scheme brings a mayor concern to my head. Will I gain weight? Many people say that in freshmen year you gain 15 pounds. However, I have wondered if there is a way to escape those freshmen 15. 

Gurney (noun) a wheeled stretcher used
for transporting hospital patients 

 Coincidentally, Critser can be the answer to my major doubt. His story seems very interesting to me, for he used to be overweight. One day, he witnessed the quasi-death of an obese man when Craig went to the hospital to visit a relative. The young, obese man was on a gurney and his mother cried while he gasped for air. Shocked, Critser thought to himself, "there but for the grace of God go I" (pg. 6). That's when he realized that he had to make a change in his life and take the healthy path. 

Peripatetic (adj.) traveling from
place to place, esp. working or
based in various places
for relatively short periods 

 I've only read the first 30 pages of the book, and it has been extremely engaging. Even the first two chapters of the book have been interesting, and they talk about the historical and economical aspects of fatty foods in America. It's actually fun because many concepts explained, I've already learned in AP Macro and Microeconomics. For example, when Critser starts talking about the Japanese scientists who discovered fructose as a cheap way to sweeten food, he begins to analyze al of the economic implications (which I felt proud for understanding). Basically, fructose leads to the creation of corn syrup – artificial sweetener and preservative. Since it was cheaper than sugar, per unit production costs decreased, which increased the profit of American corporations such as Pepsi, Coca Cola, and McDonalds. He then mentions a price ceiling that Nixon puts on the price of meat (a maximum minimum price for a product under the equilibrium quantity). Then, he talked about the invention of "largesizing" portions in order to get more profit, and proved that "supersizing" was a new kind of marketing power. All of these things catched my attention. 

 While reading this book, I remembered the documentary Supersize Me and also Food Inc. I just can't wait to find out how Critser managed to lose so much weight.

Wake up! It's Just a Machine

After finishing the second half of The Influencing Machine, I came to my senses and realized many different things about the media. As the title implies, the media is just a machine that influences the way we act, think, judge, and value. The news that is delivered to us now days can be digested in a completely different way than in the past. Neil Postman observed once that today we can access news from anywhere in the world through different technological devices, and news that isn't exactly relevant to us is exactly the type of news that we see as entertainment. News from everywhere has now become relevant, and it has managed to affect us all. Additionally, he mentions that now we can act to spread news and influence how every news story ends (like helping out on a famine relief). 

Giddy: (adj.) affected with
vertigo; dizzy

 Our cellphones provide a huge contribution to enhance our lives. It is through the use of our cellphone that we can access all types of news, maintain our social interactions through social networks, and rely on a safe companion. Brooke Gladstone actually wrote, "…Cellphone addiction may be our way of medicating against isolation. And information addiction may inoculate us against echo chambers. Maybe the same technology that gives rise to digital diseases actually holds the cure" (pg. 140). I can relate to this completely. I use my cellphone approximately 16 of the 24 hours a day. I use it either to read E! News or to chat with friends. Actually, I also use it to play stupid addictive games, scroll through my Instagram account, send Snapchats, and wander around the Twitter application. 

Epaulets: (noun) an ornamental
shoulder piece worn with on
uniforms, chiefly by military
officers

 Is all of this too much? Are we getting an excess of information from all the many social networking websites, newspapers magazines, TV channels, radio stations and Internet webpages? Actually, that's what my last SAT prompt was about. I took the position of saying that it is actually too much. (It's quite ironic how I want to base my life around the media, yet I defend the position against it.) Not only is it too much, but it also makes us lazier and stupider human beings. An ancient Egyptian king said to the god of the alphabet the following: "this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls-they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves" (pg. 135). When I read this, it reminded me of the notifications that we get through Facebook and the alarms that we set in our phones whenever it's someone's birthday or when we have a special thing that we want to remember. Without these aids, people would have to actually make an effort to remember stuff. It is very shocking how we now depend on technology and the media in order to remember to do things. 

This second half of The Influencing Machine was a bit more entertaining to me than the first half. It talked about more recent things, although it also talked about some historical important events. I learned above all, that objectivity in journalism is essential yet impossible. That's why journalists will always have some type of bias in their writing. Indirectly, we have been influenced by what they write and believe. Journalists deliver to a machine – the media. That's why we have to have our own beliefs and independence so that this machine doesn’t take over us.

Fallacies and Cigarettes

Click here to watch our fallacious commercial. 

So I Chose a Graphic Novel...

The Influencing Machine by Brooke Gladstone was my pick. This graphic novel takes the reader through history analyzing "The Media" and the view that we as an audience have had throughout the years. I read half of the book (it's only 155 pages long) and even though it’s a graphic novel, it still took me quite some time to get to the middle. This novel focuses a lot on politics. I've never really been a fanatic of presidents, elections and laws so it has been a different experience for me. It also uses a lot of vocabulary that I didn't quite know. 

Penchant: (noun) a strong inclination.
taste, or liking for something.

 Before I started reading this novel, I thought that maybe the book would take a different approach on the media. Yes, of course I was expecting it to cover the history of journalism and obviously political journalism. I just didn’t think it would be all about those two topics only (or at least those are the only things that the novel has talked about up until where I've read). The subject of journalism and the media as a whole are topics that interest me a lot since I want to major in communications when I go to college. Although the book focuses more on elections and politics in general, I still would've liked for it to explore other types of journalism such as entertainment journalism or sports journalism. 

Libel: (noun) a published false
statement that is damaging to
a person's reputation.

 However, Gladstone still manages to convince me, and I can really tell she knows a lot about the subject. Since the beginning of the novel, I felt transported to 10th grade when I took AP US History. Terms like "The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798" and "Boston Tea Party" reminded me of the boringly tedious days back then. The author says, "The truth is irrelevant. Lying journalists helped build this country" (Page 15). That's why it's important to learn about the history of journalism; we need to understand where it all came from. 

 Something that really impressed me had to do with statistics. Gladstone says that the number 50,000 has been used as a statistic relating number of assassinations, abductions, and homicides. Year after year, reporters would often say that 50,000 people were victims of several different misfortunes. However, we then discover that "50,000 is a death magnet." She says that Ken Lanning explained this phenomenon like this: "It wasn't a real small number…like 200. And it wasn't a ridiculously large number…like 10 million. It was a Goldilocks number. Not too hot, not too cold" (Page 51). It's incredible that reporters simply give out this "Goldilocks number" just because it sounds like a good fit. These types of discoveries are what really take out the credibility of journalists. 

Ubiquitous: (adj.)
existing or being
everywhere.

 Despite all of this, what I am enjoying about this book is the register and tone that the author uses. Her register is informal and formal (gives her opinion, uses strong vocabulary, seems like a conversation between the writer and the reader, etc.). Her tone is witty and candid, which really hooks the audience (at least it really grabbed my attention due to her tone alone). I just hope that maybe in the pages to come Brooke can shift to other types of journalism, or maybe focus on other areas of the media.

My Opinion on an Opinion

I read this op-ed article from the New York Times about kids with autism and how wandering around is such a big concern. I honestly didn't have much background knowledge on the topic, I still don't really know much about autism. However, in the article I learned that kids with autism tend to walk around places, just the same way that people with Alzheimer's do. I did know about people with Alzheimer's - I have family members that are diagnosed with it - and how they sometimes lose their orientation skills and simply wander around having no idea where they are heading. It is very interesting how the brain can trick us and makes us do things that maybe we wouldn't think about doing. For example, in the article, the author talks about different cases of kids diagnosed with autism and how they wandered around very dangerous places. The fact that they are risking their lives brings a lot of anxiety to their families. This is what Lori McIlwain, the author, conveys in the article. 

I noticed that the author used pathos throughout her article. She used pathos when she described the different examples of kids who had negative consequences due to their wandering around. For example, she mentioned a 5-year-old boy called Devonte who was also autistic and wandered from his grandparents' home. He was tragically found drowned near a slough the next day. Also, she talks about her experience with her own son, Connor, and how she has felt anxiety and distress whenever he wandered around. Through pathos, she manages to move us with her story. 

McIlwain also uses ethos in her article. We as the audience get to know what type of person she is. I noticed that she is a very good mom, and cares a lot about her child. Many families don't get that much attention from a mother, especially many whose kids are confronted with problems like autism. She over protected him by putting a secure fence around their home's yard and also bought a tracking device for her son to use. This really shows us her interest in her kid and the way she wants him to be safe at all times. Additionally, she became a member of the National Autism Association, where she states that they provide "information and resources for caregivers." That shows that she is fully committed to helping families just like hers. 

At the end, the author compares the attention that Alzheimer's and autism get from the public. She said that the Department of Justice gives around a million dollars each year for Alzheimer's-related technology for tracking. On the other hand, there's no equivalent funding for autism-related tracking technology, and she mentions that the government should really take this into consideration, for both of the problems are very serious. 

"The Fight" and the Arguments

This weekend I watched an old episode of The Office called "The Fight" on Netflix. It was about a fight that Michael Scott (the branch manager at Scranton, PA) has with Dwight Schrute, a salesman. This episode is absolutely hilarious because Dwight, a purple belt in Goju-Ryu karate, battles with Michael, who has absolutely no idea how to fight. Michael's pride and ego takes over him and lies about having experience and being a street fighter. Coincidentally, I found many things that are explained in Thank You For Arguing. 

During the weekend, I also read chapter 20. I really enjoyed this chapter, definitely more than 15 and 16, because I find cleverness very fascinating. Many of the techniques I knew about, others are completely new. For example I already knew about irony, metaphors, and repeated first words. The others are obviously clever, but unknown to me. 

Many of the terms that came up in chapter 20 actually appeared in this episode of The Office, however the first thing that came up was from way back from chapter three. At the very beginning, the three-core issues from chapter three (blame, values and choice) were recognizable. As Dwight comes into the office he blames: "Who moved my desk?" Then he uses demonstrative rhetoric and says, "It is not funny. This is totally unprofessional." After nobody confesses he uses deliberative argument and says, " Ok, I am going to tell Michael and this entire office will be punished." 

Later on, I found the use of verbing (turning nouns into verbs, or vice versa). Michael Scott said, "Chillax, Pam. Don't start Pam-M-S-ing" (quite funny, converts Pam – in this case the noun – into a verb). 

Then I found two examples of metallage, which is when you take a word or phrase and use it as an object within a sentence. Both of the examples are said by Michael Scott: "this is more of a ying-yang thing. Michael is all cursive and Scott all caps." And "Oh hi there, "Karate Kid" (used to refer to Dwight, and maybe it could also be a metaphor). 

Another thing that I found was the self-answering question. Dwight asks himself, "Did I wanna harm Michael? The one man I've been hired to protect? No, I did not!" 

Irony was the next thing that I recognized and was used by Jim Halpert:" Well, we're all kind of excited to see this fight. The Albany branch is working right through lunch to prevent downsizing. But Michael, he decided to extend our lunch by an hour so that we could go down to the Dojo and watch him fight Dwight. Fight! Fight! Fight!" This was very funny because he is comparing their branch to the Albany branch and the way that people at the other branch are working very hard and for extra hours in order to avoid downsizing, while at Scranton they are just fooling around with a stupid fight. Michael doesn't care about corporates's downsizing decision, and promotes all of the foolishness. 

Finally, the episode ends with a question that the interviewers ask Michael. They ask him if he would rather be feared or loved and he responds, "Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." This could be a chiasmus, and in a way a self-answering question. 

The Office was and still is one of my favorite shows, and I really enjoyed being able to spot all of the different things that I've learned from the book. I wonder, were the writers of the show aware of the use of rhetoric or was it pure coincidence?

Fallacies, Deadly Sins, Muslim Terrorism, and Liar Detectors

In chapters 15 and 16 of Thank You For Arguing, new topics were introduced to me. The subject of fallacies was one of them, although that was in chapter 14. I have heard people close to me talk about fallacies multiple amounts of times and whenever I asked them what those were, they simply wouldn't know how to explain those to me. That's why I'm so glad I now know what they are. I think that fallacies are very interesting, and I know I've said this before, but I have already seen them in casual argumentation without even knowing. It is in chapter 15 where the "seven deadly logical sins" are explained. Making allusion to the seven deadly sins in Christian ethics, these logical sins "aren't 'wrong,' since rhetoric has no real rules. They simply make deliberative argument impossible…they lie out of bounds" (p. 240). The seven deadly logical sins, exactly as they appear in the book, are: 
1. Switching tenses away from the future 
2. In flexible insistence on the rules (using the voice of God, or refusing to hear the other side) 
3. Humiliation (argument done only to humiliate, not to make a choice) 
4. Innuendo (if you object to it, you can look like a fool) 
5. Threats 
6. Nasty language or signs 
7. Utter stupidity 

 These tools are very useful in everyday life. For example in this video, Bill O'Reilly manages to spot a fallacy when Jon Stewart makes a statement about Muslim terrorism. Jon Stewart says, "Let's say that somebody commits an act of terror…and we took their whole religion…and we lump them in for special singling out." O'Reilly immediately spots the all natural fallacy. This fallacy assumes that members of the same family share the same traits. O'Reilly then stops him and clarifies that he's talking about "An act of terror, not 14,600 acts of terror." The family in this situation would be the Muslim community and the fact that one individual from that family committed an act of terrorism doesn't make all the other members of that family terrorists. That's why people shouldn't assume that all Muslims are terrorists, or that all terrorists are Muslims. 

 Finally, in chapter 16 it talks about knowing how much you should trust someone's trustworthiness and sincerity. Heinrichs talks about this by saying that there are two main liar detectors: the needs test (which measures disinterest) and the extremes test (which measure virtue). All of this is provided through ethos. 

 To finalize, here are the vocab words that I learned in these chapters: 

Clobber: (verb) to hit (someone) hard

Eponym: (noun) a person after whom
a discovery. invention, place, etc., is
named or thought to be named.

Savvy: (noun) shrewdness and practical
knowledge esp. in politics or business. 

Scratch "Simple"

Ah, Rhetoric! It looked so simple when we were introduced to logos, pathos and ethos. Chapters 10 through 12 of Thank You For Arguing proved that rhetoric is not as simple as you might think. There's more to logos, pathos and ethos. In the field of rhetoric there are a lot of different concepts. I feel like I'm learning a new language or a complex subject, such as microeconomics. I know that for me it's hard to accommodate to all of this new content and language, but I'll give myself a few more chapters and I bet I won't be struggling as much. At least that's what happened when I took AP Macroeconomics last year. 

Don’t get me wrong; the content is very interesting and quite entertaining in my opinion. Heinrichs' didactic, yet whimsical tone makes the reading fully engaging. There's just so much going on at the same time that it sometimes seems like if he was talking too much. I mean, in just Chapters 10 through 12 we learn about: passive voice, backfiring, humor (and all of the different types of humor), "The Common Place", "The Advantageous", babbling, labeling, "The Rejection", stance, framing, redefining, term changing, and definition. That's quite a lot, I believe. 

 However, I do feel that Chapter 11 introduced the topics very thoroughly. It was my favorite chapter out of the three. I really liked the idea of "The Common Place" because it explains something that I have been trying to do whenever I give presentations to a big audience or simply in an argument. If I manage to point out a common viewpoint that the audience holds, then I can "use it as [my] argument's jumping-off point" (p. 142). This just made me realize that if I find that "Common Place" I'll sound more convincing. 

Tenet: (noun) One of the principles
on which a belief or theory is
based on.

 While reading, I also noticed some things that have already happened to me in the past. I talked about this in previous blog posts (how I've already experienced some of the things mentioned in the book), but I like to realize these things because to me they are just coincidences. I have never studied rhetoric before. That's why it's so interesting to me the fact that I have already employed techniques that are explained in the book. A clear example of this is when Heinrichs defines babbling. Babbling has been used in my life so many times, especially when I was a little girl. It happened whenever I argued, or actually fought, with my brother. Stubborn little kids do it all the time, and stubborn old people do too (I see it all the time with my grandfather). 

 Even though Thank You For Arguing has been and engaging and delightful opportunity for me to learn about rhetoric, I feel like Heinrichs "talks" to me very fast. I always need time to digest whatever I read, and with this book it's been hard due to all of the new concepts explained. I know that soon I won’t be complaining about this, and that I'll be able use all of the new techniques.

Let Manipulation Do All the Work

On the weekend I read chapters seven through nine of Thank You For Arguing. These three chapters basically talked about logos, ethos, and pathos and how to properly implement them when arguing. Even though we learned about these Greek terms in class, I think I have an even better understanding of them now that I know how to very effectively use them in debates or arguments. 

 Chapter seven begins by introducing us to the term "practical wisdom". What that means is basically the ability to show the audience that you know how to solve a problem spontaneously, using common sense. Of course, decorum and virtue are vital in order to be successful at this. However, what makes practical wisdom so special is that it doesn't need you to show that you're smart or that you've had amazing grades at school or that you're enrolled in the honor society. People don't have to be book nerds or little Einsteins in order to have practical wisdom; Heinrichs even says that, "strict rule followers lack [practical wisdom]" (pg. 98). In order for people to trust you with a decision, there are three specific rules that exist. First, showing off your experience thrashes book learning. Second, bending traditional rules show your spontaneity. Third, taking the midway decision is better than extreme ones in order to keep you and your audience satisfied. All of these tips use both logos and ethos. 

Zeal: (noun) Great
energy or enthusiasm

 Then, in chapter eight, ethos and pathos are employed in the techniques that are introduced. When an audience believes that you seem to cope unwillingly with something you are dying to prove, they'll be more easily convinced. Additionally, when it seems like the choice you're making is a personal sacrifice, it becomes more credible. I always use that technique (unconsciously). There used to be many times were I used the personal sacrifice idea in order to convince my parents to let me go to parties. It always went something like this: 

 PARENTS: Are you doing anything tonight? 
ME: Nah, I don’t think so. All my friends are going to this party, but I didn’t even want to try and ask for permission. I'll rather stay in and do some homework. 
PARENTS: What? Why don't you ask us for permission? 
ME: Because it's obvious that you guys won’t let me go. 
PARENTS: How do you know? 
ME: I just know. I don’t wanna fight with you. Plus I have a bunch of work to do, so don’t worry. 
PARENTS: Why would we fight? Of course you can go, don't assume anything from us. 

Effectively, they'd let me go. 

Besotted: (adj) strongly infatuated
(it could also mean drunk or intoxicated)

 Chapter nine talked about the audience's mood and how to use pathos in order to persuade. Long story short, using experience and what the audience expects from you, can ignite belief. If you tell a story, specifically in first person, it'll give the audience a virtual experience. A key element is volume control: starting with a low voice, increasing it as you go, and ending with loud remarks will grab your audience's attention. Keeping it simple but sneaking up on their mood, will hook your audience completely. Anger and patriotism are also key if you're trying to make your audience believe you above a rival. 

 In three chapters, I learned so many things. I am definitely taking all of the suggestions so that I can use them whenever I desire. It takes time to really encrypt them in my brain and natural behavior. I know that by the end of this book I'll be able to manipulate everyone I want through the use of rhetoric. I'll just wait patiently and let the manipulation sink in. Then I'll just let it do all the work.

Audience Above All

Chapters 5 and 6 of Thank You For Arguing introduce new ways to win arguments. The main topics that Heinrichs talks about are decorum (following the audience's rules and expectations) and virtue. Both chapters give very good examples (which is what I'm liking most about the book) about these two ideas. The one that stood out the most to me was when he talks about Eminem and his decorum in the autobiographical movie 8 Mile. This example was so good, that not only was I able to visualize the scene that is explained, but I also understood what decorum means and how it works. That's why I am going focus more on decorum than in virtue.

Dire: (adj) Extremely serious or urgent

When Eminem's example came up, decorum quickly became clear to me. In order to convince the audience, you have to fit in. But how do you fit in? Simple, by acting the way that everyone is anticipating. Heinrichs explains that when he says, "to show proper decorum, act the way your audience expects you to act - not necessarily like your audience" (pg. 69). This includes your attire, gestures, order and tonality among other things. That's exactly what Eminem did: he dressed accordingly and used proper body language. 

Click here to watch Ashton's acceptance speech. 

While reading that part of the book, I remembered a celebrity who won his audience over. Ashton Kutcher gave a great speech in the 2013 Teen Choice Awards. His decorum is perfect; Ashton's attire is teen-ish and relaxed, his gestures are informal and casual, his tone is very sincere and jovial, and the content of what he's talking about has a serious message but he uses humor to make it entertaining and proper for the occasion. This very casual decorum is perfectly appropriate for the event since the audience consists of mainly teenagers. Teenagers are expecting to see a specific show: one that is fun, "cool", and cheerful. That's why Ashton's decorum is so great. He could have given this speech in a ver serious and monotonous tone, but he managed to think the way his audience would and spoke in a suitable way. As it said in the book, "decorum follows the audience's rules," (pg. 70) which is exactly what Kutcher pursued. 

Later on, Heinrichs talks about sympathy in persuasion. That is another thing that Kutcher utilized in his speech when he talks about the jobs he had before becoming an actor. While "persuasion requires sympathy," (pg. 79) it is also said that "persuasion doesn't depend on being true to yourself. It depends on being true to your audience" (pg. 79). He did both things, and that's why everyone is left amazed when he finishes. 

I find it very logical that physical appearance and how one presents itself to an audience is quite important in order to persuade. It is also virtue that is quite important, and specifically supporting the audience's values is what truly makes you appear trustworthy. If I can employ all of these things just like Eminem and Ashton Kutcher did, I'll take another step into mastering persuasion. 

Maybe Aristotle's Ghost Unconsciously Taught Us?

As I began reading Thank You For Arguing I noticed that many of the tips given are things that I already do or have done. Maybe it's just me. Maybe not. Or maybe Aristotle's ghost has reincarnated in my body and used some rhetoric skills throughout my life. Whatever it is, I know I've done these things unconsciously and now that I've realized that, I bet I can now use rhetoric successfully in the future if I learn and "listen" to everything Jay Heinrichs has to instruct. 

In chapter one, Heinrichs introduces us to the world of rhetoric. He mentions that in ancient Greece rhetoric was so important that it was considered the most critical skill of leadership. Along the chapter, he uses a lot of examples of famous people throughout history who used rhetoric (such as Aristotle, Daniel Webster, and John F. Kennedy). While I digested those two facts, I thought that maybe rhetoric is a very hard art and only very smart people (like the ones I just mentioned) are capable of mastering it. Quite intimidating. However, throughout the chapter he also gives some typical examples taken from his daily life, and that's when I became aware of the fact that I have used rhetoric multiple times in my life. It looked hard and complex, but when I think about the times I've unconsciously convinced someone or had an argument, it's not too bad. 

Chiasmus: (noun) A reversal in the order
of words in two otherwise parallel phrases.

The example that he starts the chapter with was when he blamed his son for the toothpaste that was gone, then his son used deliberative skills ("how are we going to keep this from happening again"), then he said he's right and accepted that his son won, and then he got what he wanted in the first place since his son brings him the new toothpaste. I have experienced similar occurrences. For example, two years ago my dad lent me his DSLR camera to take picture for different school events. He gave it to me at the beginning of the year and then at the end he asked me to give it to him since he was traveling to Moscow and needed the camera back. When I gave it back to him, he noticed that in the camera case there was something missing. The lid of the lens was not there. And so the first thing he did was blame me (forensic). Immediately, I was very surprised because 1) I didn't loose the lid, and I am very responsible especially with things that are not mine, and 2) I couldn't believe my own dad would think I am a messy or irresponsible person, when in reality I'm very organized, mature and reasonable. So I responded with "How can you say that? Do you really think I am such an irresponsible person?" (demonstrative). He then proceeded to say that he thought I was very irresponsible and that it was probably me, because to him it made no sense that it couldn't have been my fault. Finally, I began to control myself because this was going towards the direction of a huge fight, not argument. That's when I said, "Okay. Whatever. Now what? Are we going to upgrade the camera because of this?" (deliberative). This hasn't been the only argument I've had in which I've used rhetoric. I remember many years ago, I used to make up chiasmi with my aunt whenever we travelled to my family's farm. I don't really remember any of them right now, but I know that the ones we invented sounded very cool and were ingenious. 

Later on, in chapter two, Heinrichs talks about offense and how to attack during an argument. His main points are to set a personal goal and set goals for the audience. He also explains the difference between a fight and an argument, "An argument, done skillfully  gets people to do what you want. You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement" (Page 17). Also, he throws in a bunch of examples to show us how it's done. One point he makes is, "To win a deliberative argument, don't try to outscore your opponent. Try instead to get your way" (Page 19). The moment I read this, I realized I've used this so much, especially when I was younger. I would always make my brother do things I wanted to through this method. After asking him to change the channel while we watched TV, he said the remote was far away from him (and obviously from me too). So I would agree and be like "Yeah, that's so true. But wouldn't it be fun to watch something like a soccer game rerun? Didn't Barça play last Tuesday?" My brother, being a huge Barça fan, ran to the remote and came back to the couch. He changed the channel to an older soccer match, and even though I'm not the biggest soccer fan, I was happy because I'd rather watch anything other than that boring WWI documentary on the History Channel. That's when I'm allowed to say, "I win."

So far, Thank You For Arguing has been very interesting. I wonder if the book will continue to be so instructive. It feels weird to read a book that teaches you about new things, since every text book that I have to use in school is usually used only sometimes; never do we have to read the whole thing. Obviously this book is far more interesting that a BIology textbook, but what I really mean is that I'm more used to reading narrations rather than expositions. I guess I'll get used to it, but what matters is that I can truly learn all of the techniques given in this book. 

Awkward Justifications

You can watch my assessment on my life skills grade here.

Humor 101: Self-Deprecation

After reading the next three chapters of Tina Fey's memoir, I can proudly state that I've learned one of the many components on how to successfully emit humor through writing. The bantering tone, the visual references, the personal experiences - they all add up to form a specific tool. It took a great amount of laughing and highlighting on my iPad to understand what is it that makes it so funny. Tina Fey is very skilled when it comes to humor, and the first thing I noticed that she employed in her writing was self-deprecating humor.

There is no better way to make people laugh than by embarrassing yourself. It has happened to me (multiple times) and it definitely works. For example, look at how Fey makes fun of herself in the following passage: "I had grown up as the 'whitest' girl in a very Greek neighborhood, but in the eyes of my new classmates, I was Frida Kahlo in leggings" (Page 39). She just says what many people were thinking at the moment, but wouldn't say out loud. I completely relate to that, especially with a particular characteristic of mine: my height. I learned how to use bizarre (or in other words "unique") features about me in order to be humorous, and I decided to employ those skills into my Common App essay. I completely used self- deprecation to write that essay, making fun of my height but at the same time making it funny for the reader and at the same time showing emotional growth and maturity. At least the people who are revising it have laughed and it's proving itself to be successful. 

Wistfully: (adj.) Pensively sad;
melancholy

In terms of content, Fey narrated events that occurred throughout her college years. She included her relationship with her dad, the abundance of homosexual friends that surrounded her and whom she adored, and the way she was in love with "white boys" and how none showed interest in her, such as "Thomas Jefferson - another gorgeous white boy who would not have been interested in [her]" (Page 40). 

I want to continue reading and find another humorous lesson. There are still plenty of techniques that Fey implements in her writing, and I want to be able to learn every single one of them in order to begin incorporating them into my own pieces. 

I Had a Conversation with Tina Fey

I am so excited to have chosen Tina Fey's Bossypants as my new independent reading memoir. After reading the first four chapters, all I have felt is as if I've held a conversation with her. To me, she's one of the funniest women ever, and it's with her memoir that I've been laughing out loud (literally). Feels very weird because I never really get physically influenced by anything I read. My facial expressions are almost never affected by books, however I frequently catch myself giggling or smiling whenever I read this one.

Why did I chose Bossypants? It basically was a moment of enlightenment. I am not, and never have been, a crazy Tina Fey fan. I knew who she was and seen her at times on TV. However, last week I was watching the Emmy's and saw her. Then almost instantly, I remembered that about two years ago one of my good friends told me she had read Bossypants and that she enjoyed it a lot. That's when I realized that it was the perfect memoir for me to read in AP Lang. Besides, I want to learn more about her life and also about how she can be humorous through writing (which is something I have always wanted to be successful at). 

So within the first two paragraph into the memoir, I'm already laughing. She starts by congratulating us (the audience) for reading her book and says there are many reasons to why we have it in our hands. She includes the following hypothetical situations to why we are reading Bossypants: 
1) We could be a woman searching for tips on how to succeed at a male-dominant workplace.
2) We might be a parent that wants to learn how to raise an "achievement-oriented, drug free, adult virgin" (Page 5).
3) Maybe we found her book seventy years into the future at an abandoned Starbucks.
4) Maybe we love Sarah Palin and we want to find more reasons to hate Tina Fey.
and finally 5) We just want to laugh and be entertained (which is exactly what applies for me). 

Baffled: (verb) To be completely
bewildered or perplexed. 

She has succeeded in making me laugh, especially when she begins to talk about how girls are expected to be perfect and work to achieve "hotness". She begins to criticize all of the requisites that would shape the perfect girl and how the only person who actually meets the criteria is Kim Kardashian, who according to Fey, "was made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes" (Page 20). It's not the only reference to celebrities that she makes, and that's something that also cracks me up. The way she criticizes shows and famous people is hilarious. For example, she asks the hypothetical reader that were to find her book at the abandoned Starbucks if "Glee is still a thing". Or when she starts to explain why she named her book "Bossypants", she said that one of the reasons was because the name "Two and a Half Men" already existed. 

But above all, what I'm loving about this memoir is how I can relate to Tina Fey. When she talks about insecurities, I identify. When she narrates parts of her adolescence, I understand her because I've lived similar experiences. Even her opinions about some celebrities matches what I think. Those are the things that make me want to keep reading and learning from her. WIth random and bizarre quotes, such as the following, she manages to create a burlesque and candid tone: "I wouldn't even trade the acne scar on my right cheek, because the recurring zit spent more time with me in college than any boy ever did" (Page 21). 

I just want to keep reading and maybe find out what was it that allowed her to become such a successful person in Hollywood, both in acting and screenwriting.  

Two Thoughts, One Entry

There's two reasons to why I am writing this blog post. The first one is because I finished Douglass's Narrative. The second, because I have to disagree to somethings I saw around the AP Lang Blogger world. 

So I'll begin with my thoughts on the ending. As I virtually "turned" the last page of the narrative, I felt SO many different things. Fist of all, kudos to Douglass for his success in escaping the slave world. I feel that he very much deserved the freeman life considering the fact that he really fought for his freedom throughout his slave life.

Secondly, kudos to Douglass for getting married. It made me so much happier to know that not only was he free now, but that he also found love. The marriage ceremony was a cute part, very quick and simple but still cute. 

Thirdly, I felt disappointed that he didn't share the exact details on how he attained liberty. I know, he couldn't just give out the secret recipe for all the freedom-hungry slaves, but I definitely wanted to visualize what exactly was it that made him get there at that last moment. It's something about me that's very annoying: I always want to know every detail about everything. However, I have to respect Douglass decision of keeping it a secret. Just a personal conflict of mine towards the end of the memoir. 

FInally, I felt proud. Throughout the whole book, Douglass implements a lot of pathos, which just makes me have sympathy for him and connect to his ideas. So it's like I met Douglass back when he began narrating his story and I could see and visually experience his change, progress, and triumph. For example, I felt so proud of him when he said, "I found employment, the third day after my arrival, in stowing a sloop with a load of oil" (Page 105).
And then at the end, I thought it was very convenient that he joined the anti-slavery meetings and that he read the "Liberator" simply because he had an advantage over all of the white men: slavery had been something tangible to him. Of course he "never felt happier than when in an anti-slavery meeting" (Page 106). Those simply set his soul on fire.

I want to compare Douglass's new experience of being free to Dorothy's landing at Munchkin Land. Too exaggerated, I know, but the point is that Douglass felt in a completely new world just like Dorothy did. For example in this quote he notices a difference between his old home and his new one: "The people looked more able, stronger, healthier, and happier than those of Maryland" (Page 104).

Now, regarding something I mentioned in my last blog post, I said I was finally happy and relieved that Douglass had been moved to live with Mr. Covey for a year. After reading chapter 10, I definitely changed my mind because Douglass shows us that Covey was the worst master he ever had: "Mr. Covey succeeded in breaking me. I was broken in body, soul, and spirit...my intellect languished, the disposition to read departed, the cheerful spark that lingered about my eye died...behold a man transformed into a brute!" (Page 67). My actual relief began after Master Hughes kept Douglass for himself. Master Douglass was a very nice person and he definitely contributed towards Douglass's path towards freedom. 

For the second part of this post, I will now begin to contradict one of my classmates. 

A while ago, I saw Cristina Soto's latest post and I didn't quite agree with the point she made. She said that Douglass began to show a more egocentric side of him that he hadn't shown before. I don't think it makes him egocentric to say that "[he] had know what it was to be kindly treated; they had known nothing of the kind" (Page 55). I think he didn't say that to proof that he is "on top of the world" or to show off, he simply has had much more experience with different masters at different plantations and he had some who treated him nicely (Ms. Auld for example, who taught him how to read). So it does make sense to say that he had known what it felt like to be treated nicely because he'd experienced it and maybe the other slaves had been treated inhumanely throughout their lives and haven't experienced what Douglass did. 

Cristina mentions that "[she] doesn't believe this makes it okay for Douglass to feel powerful over the others". As a matter of fact, I do believe Douglass had a higher advantage than all the other slaves - I mean he could read and stuff - but it's not that he's better than the rest. He just had more experience and skill, therefore he can have the liberty to believe that he's had better experiences than the rest. 

Messrs: (plural noun) dated or chiefly Brit.
used as a title to refer formally to
more than one man simultaneously,
or in names of companies.

And now to finalize, some vocab words:

Opossum: (noun) an American
marsupial that has a ratlike prehensile
tail and hind feet with an opposable thumb.

Pomp: (noun) ostentatious boastfulness or vanity.