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.