Thursday, February 26, 2009

McKibben needs a different title

After reading McKibbens article it seemed that the title of his article did not match what he ending up writing about. He starts off by telling the reader why he choose to undergo a vasectomy and the many statistics that also led him to the procedure. He explains that about 60 percent of births are unintended and that 6 out of 10 women have abortions due to contraceptive failure. Then he goes on about the how much the population increased and still is increasing. After then discussing these issues he finally tells the reader why he and his wife decided to stick with one child because he also found out that children without brothers/sisters achieve the same as children with brothers/sisters. This I agree goes along with the title, but just when i thought it was going to stay that way, he goes and starts discussing different authors and their view of how children impact parents lives. Whether it be parents could no longer be selfish(time for romance, travel...)or how mothers start to loose their sexuality/ identity or even the complete opposite that having more children "makes people better human beings" (John Ryan).


Another aspect of this article i found interesting was that McKibben brings up religion and not only mentions it but also contradicts it.To be more specific he mentions a quote from the 1st commandment in Genesis "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" and then goes on to explain that "we can check this commandment off the list" Again... this does not relate to his title.


It seems that McKibben has chosen to take a personal approach on this article by discussing why he choose to have only one child. Also, I feel like he is trying to persuade others to have less children as well. Especially when he quotes Genesis and goes on to explain that we should check it off our list and go on to the other commandments such as "feeding the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the oppressed...) (p.384)

Okay another thing, I noticed a difference in his use of writing from the beginning to the end of his article. In the beginning he uses "I" to mainly explain his reasons for only having one child, but towards the end he uses "we" and "our" as if he is the voice for everyone. An example would be on p.386, he is explaining that "we have done such a poor job of planning for our numbers..". I really feel he should not use "we" but instead use maybe specific examples instead of just blaming everyone for the growing population.

All in all, i enjoyed reading his article. It's just that when i first read the title I expected to read mainly about single-child families, probably due to the fact that I am a single child myself.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Obligated to Smile : /

Why do we smile? We smile because if we don't then others assume something is wrong such as unhappiness. This happend so so so much at my previous job as a courtesy clerk. Yes, it is in our job duty to smile, but i noticed that my manager would comment on my "normal face" and never on my fellow male co worker's. I would walk by a checkstand and this particular aggravating checker would say "kayla! remember to smile" Oh how that got on my nerves so much. I dont have to smile all the time... To me a smile should be genuine and meaningful, its just fake otherwise.

But... smiling (even a fake smile) does make a person feel more welcomed. For instance when Cunningham mentioned in her article that women doctors smile more often than male doctors and due this smiling women doctors are more liked by thier patients. This is true, smiling only does become a problem when it is not needed. Such as when Cunningham mentioned that while her friend was in class and not smiling, the teacher talked to her afterwards asking why she was not smiling. Um... unless the subject is that interesting to me, I tend to not smile in class. There is no need for it. It was very rude for her friend's teacher to call her friend out on the smile, rather than just not wanting to smile it also could have been a personal matter that should not be disscussed. An instance like this one, is when expecting a smile is tedious.

It was interesting to read about the history of a smile in different cultures. Smiling is something that i overlook, because I just do it and dont think about why I am doing it. In some cultures women are required to wear a veil to hide thier smile versus our culture, if we do not smile than it usually raises concern.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Thank God for the Atom Bomb?

Although I would like to say that i have a validated reason to why the atom bombs should not have been dropped, but unfortunatley i do not. To be honest I wish i knew more about the war than what i just learned in highschool history. This is a very very very important part of our American past and to not know the details is unfortunate for me. My general opinion would be that the bombs should not have been dropped becasue i just dont believe murdering innocent poeple is the way to stop something especially a war, but as i said before there is just so much more to it than "its not fair to kill innocent people". So about the reading, it was great for the author to include different opinions rather than just his own. People such as historian Michael Sherry who he said believed that we should have waited longer before dropping the bombs to create "second thoughts and restraints". But I wonder, How much delay is Sherry talking about here? Does he have a specific time to how long to think before making the decision? I guess since it was just a quote in the article, that he states into further detail about his views on what to do. Also, it was great that he included people who were enlisted as well. E B Sledge talked about how awful it was that Japanese soilders, women, civilians, and children!! fought the americans with what weapons they had ( rifles to bamboo spears). It is really heartbreaking that children were brought into the war and were killing other people. Not to go way off subject but it reminds me of this documentary I watched about the genocide in some parts of Africa. Men are kidnapping small children as little as 5 and brainwashing them to kill other people. They taught these children how to handle guns and the best way to kill a person.

"Killing Time in Iraq"

Even when Buzzell's conditions are obviouosly serious, he still manages to not only write a journal but is able to find ways to ease the tension. Like when Buzzell chose to write about getting bit by ants (the pain, how he reacted, what others thought) instead of describing what he was about to do, before getting bit by ants. He could of easily made his journal entry serious if he explained why he had his night vision goggles while in gun posistion on the hill. There was another journal entry he wrote that explains what car bombs are like in Iraq and it starts out, well just shoking that car bombs could be that explosive, but at the end of his entry he ends it with a lyric from a rap song in the eighties. Am I the only one that finds it odd to be talking about car bombs and their destructive abilities( mushroom clouds seen from miles away, building windows shattered from blocks and blocks away!) and then abruptly end it with a lyric from the eighties? Also, the titles of his journal entries are very... interesting. I really do not know what to make of it, should i find it humurous? When i read it i kinda chuckled, but it seems so wrong to chuckle at a title that has the word Car Bomb and escpecially if know the journal entries are related to a pressing time. "Car Bomb" "Another Damn Car Bomb" "And Another Damn Car Bomb". It seems like he is trying to not make is journal entries so serious on purpose. One of the reasons for keeping a journal is to re read it some time in the future and his journal entries are easier to read( not as depressing compared to the Diary of Anne Frank). So maybe it is for this purpose that when he (if he) re reads his journal it wont as traumatic (sad) opposed to him writing about the gory details on say car bombs.


Even though Buzzell's entries are not what i expected when i read the title "Killing Time in Iraq", I liked his style of writing. Even when situations are pretty bad, not every journal entry has to be gloomy/ somber. He found ways to make is journal more relaxed and focused on the better part of his days (i dont want to say "the better part", but i have no other words). He did not have to include the time he met an Iraqi who was so nice to give him two large bags of ice, or the time he met an Iraqi contracter who wanted a "certain" magazine. I do acknowledge him for being able to find even a little bit of posotive, when circumstances have become so routine that he sadly knows what triggered a car bomb.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Death of Abraham Lincoln

I enjoyed Whitman's style of writing because he was able to write Abe's death in first person through personal experience. Reading this in first person, for me, is more dramatic and almost made it real and in the moment. Whitman is able to recreate the whole incident by using emotions, quotes and expressions from the audience, Mrs. Lincoln and the soilders. His style of writing makes the it seem as if Lincoln's death was happening right here right now. Such as when he describe Mrs. Lincoln as having "ashy cheeks and lips" at the moment she pointed to the figure who killed her husband. Or when he describes the audience in " confusion and terror-women faint- quite feeble persons fall, and are trampl'd on- may cries of agony are heard..." and the soilders are "inflam'd with fury, literally charging the audience with fix'd bayonets, muskest, and pistols shouting..." He is just able to include everyone even if the scene was brief and make the readers feel as if they were there( captivation) from all the consfusion, drama and fright. Being able to recreate this day even though it happend a while ago is a great way to keep it commemorated.

Second Inaugural Address

I must be quite honest, reading through the articles about Lincoln was challenging in the sense of trying to keep reading. Learning about history has never been of great interest to me, but there must be something to write about in all these readings. I noticed in Lincoln's Second Inaugural address he uses God as a way of reaching out to people. Now I am not a history buff at all, but it would make sense that he would put God in his writings because the majority of the people do believe in God. If there is at least one common belief or interest that the majority of the population have then it is easier and more effective to reach out with a common understanding. In this case God was the common understanding/ interest and since many people believe, Lincoln used this let the public understand and even relate to him a little bit more. Also using actual quotes from the bible into his address does make him seem more convincing and credible. Now I do not want to insult anyone or cause argument, but I am a christian and what I observed is that people who believe spend their time understanding his word rather than arguing it. This can relate to Lincoln's address because if he uses God's word than most people, not saying all, will have an easier time believing in Lincoln since it is related to God's actual word.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Don't Hurt the Animals!!!

Okay just to make things clear, I do eat meat. What would I do without my hamburgers, general chicken, bulgogi (korean beef), and pepperoni pizza?!. Now that that’s clear I just have one question, why is it necessary to keep the chickens and pigs in such confined spaces? Conserving land can not be an issue because there is still plenty of it ( in America at least) or is it just that it would cost way too much to have the chickens and pigs spread out a little?

It is really very sad to read what chicken operations do to the helpless animals. I was in shock that operations 1. Gave them no space to spread out 2. Cut off their beaks due to the confinement stress 3. Kill ten percent of the chickens due to their living spaces. I just could not believe that these operations put the chickens under so much stress that the chickens went basically mad and started to eat each other and kill themselves. Is it really necessary to do this at all? I’m sure if the chickens were accommodated a little more they would feel less stressed, live longer, and thus being able to lay more eggs for a longer period of time. If there was a way to single out the operations that did this, I would not buy their chicken products at all. Which is probably why this does not happen, and there is probably some law that prevents it from happening. So I really do not know what to do in terms of not supporting the chicken killers. If I somehow become a vegetarian it will not change anything, the chicken operations plant will still be going strong. The same support goes to the all the pigs suffering in the processing plants. Can a person really be so heartless to see pigs day after day biting each others tails and screaming in pain. I mean come on I just find it difficult to go fishing once in awhile because that would mean killing a fish. But to actually purposely hurt an animal that is just as smart as a dog, if not more, is just something else.

After reading Pollan's article as of right now I am going to change the way I shop for my meats. I will start looking for the meats only labeled " the American Humane Association's Free Farmed" Assuming that this label is one hundred percent true, this could be the starting point for me not to support the questionable processing plants. If everyone could boycott the processing plants that are not certified by the American Humane Association, then it could be very possible to force all plants to become certified.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Should you eat the Lobster????

When I was little, maybe around six and younger, I lived on a very small island called Guam. And guess what I did?.. I ate Lobster and lots of it! But I did not know any better, how was I supposed to know that the lobster I ate was boiled alive and died very unhappy only with a purpose of filling my hungry belly? And now that I know now, I am going to give a shout out to all the lobsters I ate -- I am so sorry all of you died in pain just so that I could eat you.

Okay, there should really be a much more humane way to cook lobster than to just boil it alive. I mean can killing a lobster before cooking it take away the freshness? I do not see how it can because red meat is still considered fresh when it has been slaughtered before being cooked. Just because the lobster may not scream in pain when being boiled, it does not mean it cant be felt. Wallace even mentioned that lobsters have complex migratory cycles because they can detect change in temperature. He explains that lobsters tend to travel deeper in the water due to less sunlight. This proves that lobsters prefer colder water because the ocean does get colder the deeper you go. That being said, how can cooks still kill the poor lobster like this?

I guess partly it comes down to culture and what morals a person was raised with. When I visited Korea a couple years ago I remember being at an open fish market and being traumatized by how the cooks prepared the eels. This evil man ( he is evil because of what he did) took an eel and started skinning it ALIVE!!! and then put in a big bowl with other skinned eels. Is this sad, disgusting, and inhumane or what? I asked our tour guide why this man would do this and the tour guide responded saying that "this is the way some cooks believe in preparing food here" So it must be custom and traditional for this man to cook eels this way. Or maybe the man just sees the fish as a fish and not as an entity that feels pain and deserves to be treated fairly.

Okay now that I start thinking about this, do we not do the same thing when fishing? I mean most people usually kill the fish by taking out the water, suffocating it and then cooking it. It may no be as inhumane as the whole horrible eel incident but it can definitely be compared to the lobster and how we cook it. This goes back to my original question "Is there someway to cook a lobster without the painful boiling process?" Now I am not a an expert on lobster anatomy but there must be some vein or artery or something that can be punctured to kill the lobster quickly.