Live Free & Uncommited

If Thoreau’s not hinting at becoming humble – by focusing on the necessities, or providing alternative lifestyle skills to avoid being like the pompous rich - then he’s expressing living life to the fullest instead of settling. It's important to "...live free and uncommitted.” In other words; Thoreau is saying to embrace options in life, and live off of them to express potentials and capabilities.

What makes this so powerful, is that throughout the book he’s known as this independent guy that seems like he doesn’t wanna settle down in this formal lifestyle. He’d rather focus on the natural, open, aspects – and show harm from getting caught up with things like mortgaging and house improvements. Right off the bat, he's trying to appeal to his audience. Using “I”, gain's trust. It’s like Thoreau is trying to relate to his audience as much as he can so he doesn't seem controlling. His ultimate goal is to persuade that the advantage of taking control. For instance, “garden” could be symbolic to a carrier, life in general, etc. – and the “seeds” are the opportunities that he lays out for himself. It’s like the famous quote; when you close one door another opens. By constantly controlling the garden and having a lot of opportunities by his side, a sense of empowerment could be taken away as a token to life by.

As I continue to read – the more I understand that there will always be obstacles in life’s path; it’s another piece of wisdom that you can interpret with Thoreau. For instance, couldn’t buy the Hollowell farm; and with vivid details you could see how attached that he became to it.  That's why he's emphasizing (but further establishing his ethos) with un-commitment. Thoreau then uses “I shall plant, I shall be less likely to be disappointed.” Since this is the only parallel, repetitive sentence it stands out, making his point clear. It then leads up to the end. He goes on to say, it makes no difference “whether you’re committed to farm or county jail.” The diction is strong; his form of comparison is blunt, but connects well.  Either way, when you stay committed to something you’re trapped; there may be a way out of it; but it’s very slim. That’s why it’s best to avoid the suffering.

The claim is refreshing. People are so quick to settle down; this would be the slap in the face that would allow his intended audience to see that there’s so much that they could still do with their lives. His diction, intended symbolism/comparisons, work well for him.

 

 

(Sorry this is so bad; sick + dead + tired)

WTF Halliburton !

Oil has seemed to create more problems within our country. Shouldn’t we be saying it effects a million others because our desire and conquest for oil is ridiculously high? James Surowiecki’s bold approach is trying to dissuade free trade. His sole purpose is to convince that if being in the economic market’s not meant for the solders, or the private companies that are supplying them to fight for the resources we need, then having an open market is not worth it.

In some cases, I feel like Surowiecki is raising a lot of solid issues. The U.S. is always getting involved. His first example of how Dick Cheney found it wasn’t enough just to fix Iraq’s oil fields – considering he’s making an assumption that other countries might not have been as aggressive about it as we seemed –  was a transition for a major claim. He goes on to explain that these private markets turned the military into profit making men. He carries a strong tone. In most cases he’s trying to open people’s eyes and the way to do it would be to use army men to bring pathos. I felt concerned, fearful of what would happen just because the government is interested in money.

The further you read, the more it seems like he’s trying to emphasize that there’s no wiggle room in the market. It’s like these solders are being used so more private corporations can be made. That further implies that the U.S. will continue getting into wars – and that would just worsen the country. He labels the relationship between army men and business as a “complex partnership,” and goes on to say how they’ll deal with both “Joint Chief of Staff,” and C.E.O.’s of Halliburton. Halliburton caused a lot of problems. They’re linked to about 80 other countries and he neglects to mention that as well as K.B.R., a partner of the company that does American engineering, construction, and private military contracting. The fact that he’s not giving a background check of the “designated villain and his side kick,” weakens his logos, & credibility only proving that protectionism is a bad idea.

The more you read, the more biased it may seem. It all goes back to the initial statement of how he’s trying to prove that it’s wrong that manipulation of these army men don’t matter to the government. And yet, through protectionism, we’re depending on these jobs to be created. Yes we can avoid expenses, and retain control, but it’s only the surface of the issue. It makes me question who he is to be saying that outsourcing won’t benefit us; that other countries will just take the lead any ways? It’s sad to say, what makes him so strong would have to be his diction and metaphors. Especially how the army is a “lean mean killing machine” – possibly meaning they do all the work, “while civilians peel the potatoes and clean the latrines.” As well as his final statement using iron and blood. As he concludes, he states “Don’t outsource the iron until you can outsource the blood.” By having these men do private business, relating the army, it promotes war. One, we’d be out of the loop in the economic chain, and Two, promoting war still won’t help us. Blood has been shed already, in terms of men and failures. Iron meaning our outputs.

Social Change Project PART 2

Social Change Project

Krochet Kids: It’s an organization that helps women in various countries- mostly Peru & Uganda. They want to life women out of poverty to better themselves, their families, and overall lives.

Unlock Hope: It’s an organization raising money to give refugee girls across Africa the same chances as boys; to better their lives and provide them with the necessities that come easy to us here. They also have to work hard jobs and somewhat long hours – through this organization, under Think Humanity.

Think Humanity is a non-profit organization that runs Unlock Hope. They started off with mosquito nets – to ensure good health in countries like Uganda. Now they provide healthcare, water wells, education and other development projects.

What do I plan to do:

I mostly want to focus on Krochet Kids. It’s something I’m really excited about doing.

I’m going Email the men who created it.

- They taught people in developing countries how to crochet to break out of poverty.

-All it takes is a hook and yarn for these women to make beautiful things.

-They’ve done things to globally help our world, even though it’s a small portion of giving back they’ve accomplished a lot.

I want to get donations after I email the CEO;

As well as the donations, courtesy of CGS, I plan on buying something from them. The website has a list of women who make these products. If it’s possible, after everything is said and done, I’m going to mail these women and thank them – give inspiration quote- something of that nature.

You see how hard they work, and how their lives had changed.

Depending on China

Offshoring and Outsourcing may limit jobs in the U.S., but it's the invisible force that drives us to want to be an economic fist in the world. If you ask me, I think the person who started the offshoring movement is the smartest person I've heard of. As a result of it in the United States, China became one of the many powerful countries. Manufacturing companies in China are equivalent to our local dependency on Walmart in the U.S. - in a sense that everything is affordable, and in good quality - to everyday American’s; they become the main source countries rely on.

America is always getting involved with foreign territory. Most of the time, it shouldn't happen. Since we're always trying to "help", offshoring these companies could create a lot of jobs for low wage workers. There's such a huge demand for certain products that a lot of “productivity have... lowered the price of labor as a percentage of total product or service costs.” It goes back to this idea of the capital and how there’s a certain limit to who can work based on supply and demand of that country. If a lot of people are needed, the government has to create a certain minimum wage. Since China is so big, and they’re mostly trying to stay on the top of the economic chain, I could see how the government would find some low wages reasonable.

The Apple Company is an example of a big cooperation. Electronics are what the new trends are aiming towards. It’s also why, as Connor said, we’d possibly never go into war with countries like China. Since eastern countries are by far a bit more advanced, companies like Apple stick around them more. It’s not a bad thing. Without the cheap labor, IPhones, Mac’s, etc. would be like $1000. Nobody needs that. Bloomberg Industries closely study successful companies like this; and it shows how “Apple Inc.…boosted its China workforce 50 percent in two years to 1.2 million” so they can “meet demands.” It’s a big deal. The world is playing in a really fast paced game of monopoly. The Chinese are constantly raking in money because everyone is landing on their “property” for things that they need produced, cheap.

The question that’s still raised is whether or not China outsources. It’s kind of hard to tell if China does offshoring. From the looks of it, they might not do it as much as the U.S. does. Outsourcing is different. China had done it at some point. To boost their own economy they’d tried to get some sort of manufacturing and workers to Africa a few years ago. From the information provided it would have economically harmed Africa. Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation is one of their current top industries. Jobs were outsourced to the United Kingdom for their production facilities. It was kind of surprising though; mostly Chinese cities maintain their own business.

Overall, it seems China attempts to keep their industries/corporations within their own territories. Many countries just want to get their money’s worth when it comes to manufacturing their products. It means more money for the Chinese government, country, and overall economy. The sad part is that no one really thinks of anything else besides how cheap everything costs. It may seem like more jobs are opening up for these people, but work conditions - especially in these rich manufacturing's like Apple - are still unknown; cheap labor could mean that minors are working to survive. You never know. Overall, China is really successful.

Jr., Ben. "Why We Can All Stop Worrying About Offshoring and Outsourcing." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-we-can-all-stop-worrying-about-offshoring-and-outsourcing/274388/>.

Branigan, Tania. "China 'wants to set up factories in Africa'." theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 4 Dec. 2009. Web. 29 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/04/china-manufacturing-factories-africa>.

"SAIC Motor." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAIC_Motor#Production

Worstall, Tim. "Once Again Apple's Foxconn And Offshoring The Best Thing That's Ever Happened To Chinese Labour." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 4 Mar. 2013. Web. 29 Mar. 2014. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/04/once-again-apples-foxconn-and-offshoring-the-best-thing-thats-ever-happened-to-chinese-labour/>.

Code Switching

 

If you’re the type of person to say something like “the quantitative analysis on the usage of pie in a substantially long math problem…” I hope I don't offend you.

I don’t know what it is. Seriously. If I ever have to give up code switching I’d die. Language is supposed to be fun. Yes, there are rules to follow, but allowing code switching – at the appropriate times- would make it easier to get our points across. Personally, if someone were to use a million big words, it’d take me five hours to understand wth they were talking about. I’d feel offended and pretty stupid, like my intelligence has been insulted. And I most likely wouldn’t talk to them EVER again. In reality, most hi-falutin and French/Latin words are probably only used amongst us because Ivy League college’s set the norm or helped emphasize that Standard English is one of the best “dialects” people should use. As if.  Everyone wants to sound smart, “high – techy.” If they didn’t use any form of code switching they’d might as well be robots.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to bash on Standard English. I just want to say spicing up your language a little bit won’t kill you. I’m sure if I didn’t code switch once in a while, my mom would keep me in some kind of problematic language asylum. When I’m with my friends, I don’t have worry about what I’m saying. I’d end every sentence with “tho,” try to get away with saying “Nah b” and, say something stupid, and not be judged. Just the other day my friend and I were talking about wanting to grub on some fatty foods. She was like: “If someone were to hit me up right now and say hey, do you want some Mc Donalds I’d be like f* yes!” I’d probably say “Those diabetes tho,” or “Hell no. I can’t even with those nasty fries. Are you trying to kill me?” In the car, the code switched version of me would say: Mom, can we get fast food? Not McDonalds, I’m not really in the mood.” It’s different, especially when talking about teachers. Everyone has done this at SOME point in their lives. There’s one in particular that will just drive you crazy. Instead of saying “he needs to calm his mctits, he’s so mad,” I’d say, “he just needs to cool down. Or he needs a vacation,” to a teacher or parent. It all depends on your audience.

Overall, code switching can be extremely effective for a certain idea or viewpoint. The only problem is, it can’t be used all day – every day. It sucks. Specific or unknown audiences have to be targeted. It’s like, something you say to a friend, can’t be said to a teacher; something said to a native English speaker, would be hard to explain (with code switching) to a foreigner. It could get difficult. I realized that with this blog. I still feel like I have watch what I say. It’s a pain in the butt too. When I speak verbally, I can easily code switch and say something funny, irrelevant, and stupid that could explain how I feel in seconds. I wouldn’t have to break down with adjectives, and fancy phrases. I’d communicate freely and not feel pressured. But, when I write, it’s like the structure of Standard English is still in my head. I still think about clear sentences, or the clarity of what I’m writing. Even while typing the code switching. It’s redic.

Overall, I think using code switching at times can still make your statements meaningful and insightful – unless you’re releasing the F BOMB ten million times, or cursing way too much. In fact, there’d be no meaning at all.  Just sticking to Standard English is so dry. We DO need it, but making code switching apart of it would be cool. Like Anzaldua, Jordan, & Williams, basically showed in their texts, gaining control over what you say and how you say it gives you a sense of identity, allowing you set your own norms; I’d no longer be stressful, confined, or degrading (social class wise) to speak what you want.

Ukraine

 

To be honest, the situation in Ukraine is devastating. As citizens, we are entitled to have a governing system ensuring the wellbeing of the country; Ukrainians should be benefiting from Victor Yanukovych’s actions, not suffering. With him denying to sign the EU membership, Russia will not only continue the political unrest amongst those in Crimea, and Kiev – primarily the major locations – but other countries will face a lot of hard decisions as well.

Ukraine is smack in the middle of Europe and Russia. It’s a borderland, literally, for the chaos. Russia shouldn’t still be an issue. Within media we’re constantly reminded of Russia’s communist/soviet ties.  Ukraine was a part of the USSR at some point. After Stalin and the economic issues that followed after WW2 Ukraine went downhill. That history should have been enough to stop Yanukovych from making such a crappy decision. There are constant reminders in international news sources. After Soviet Union was over Ukraine wanted independence. Unfortunately, they still don’t have it today because of Putin.

With the history in mind, these other foreign news sources also provide their interpretations of the conflict. In France, they mostly shadow what’s been happening between Moscow and Washington (U.S.). They mention how they don’t want to get on Russia’s bad side; it’d be pretty bad having such a big country as an enemy. There’s a neutral tone in the news article. Honestly, I feel like other countries should step up and get involved – especially if they’re closer to Ukraine. China for instance has mentioned that something should be done (politically). Putin is a stubborn ruler; it’ll take force for change his mind. As for The Moscow News, from Russia, you get more of a defensive perspective. In the particular news article, it’s practically stating that Ukraine is being helped, that they’ve stuck by its “territorial integrity” since the end of the cold war. It’s still looked as a partner of NATO. Basically, like any other ruler would, they’ve installed values that their intentions aren’t to involve harm. Russia just wants to benefit the “future” of EU. The U.S. is not in a position to give out free waivers because we can barely deal with our own economic issues.

Thelocal.fr  ; The Moscow news

Overall, all news coverage is similar. Ukraine is in turmoil. Although there are a variety of opinions from foreign countries, all has to be taken into consideration. It’s important that Ukraine gets help; hopefully it won’t end in corruption and more bloodshed. Being the Good Samaritan that many of us are… I’d hope that they could talk it all out; but a war between the two could very much be possible in the near future.

The Bluest Eye

I have to say, the best part of The Bluest Eye is seeing the community being taken on by a young girl in Ohio during the early 1940’s. Cat Moses states the key components present in the literature, and without Claudia giving backgrounds of everyone in this book, it’d probably be serious, crude, and a lot less impacting.

Claudia takes everything into her own perspective. She analyzes and questions every situation to give a feel for the time period, and she depends on someone else to give her an answer. It most cases it’s effective because it’s easy to understand the lifestyle from a little girl’s view. It’s best shown through life lessons she’s learned. One of them had been: put out vs. being outdoors. Claudia states, “Being put out means there was always a place to go. Being outdoors meant there was nowhere to go.” She doesn’t know anything about being put out. She lives in a decent home, and her mother takes in people that had to deal with situations they couldn’t handle. It’s effective in the book. It kind of makes you think of Pecola. She was put out, but she was also an outcast in the community. They shoved her “outdoors” with their assumptions and prejudices. Though her mother made sure she had a physical, yet broken home to stay in. I mean, with Claudia’s simple approach you can kind of grasp how this leads up to her tragic life throughout the rest of the book.

Unlike her serious sister, Claudia also questions love. She wants to seek the nature of it in a few situations; after Pecola gets her period, when Mr. Henry touches Frieda inappropriately, seeing the prostitutes, etc. Since she’s ten, it leaves the reader to form their own perception of love in terms of the context given in the prologue. She’s helping to foreshadowing the events to come. The scene with Mr. Henry was especially memorable since he was looked highly upon. It was almost like Cholly at some point when he met Pauline; both were respectable, and somewhat nice, until they molested and permanently scarred a little girl. They remain scarred; in relation to Moses, I feel like no one in this book had a sense of empowerment. I looked at Frieda as a strong girl, until the incident that turned her into an alcoholic. Same with the prostitutes; Marie had a voice until the two girls told her their mother thought she was ruined. Her empowerment no longer there. And of course Pecola is the only acceptation. She had some sort of empowerment over her Blue Eyes, but she’s still affected by Cholly inflicting his ugliness on her.

Overall, even with the contradictions Moses points out about Claudia, you have to take in the fact that there’s somewhat a better understanding of advantages and disadvantages young black girls, broken families, and dysfunctional relationships at the time.