Progress 12/8

Worked on the paper some more today. I did some research into the opposing views in terms of Separation of Church and State, so that I could make my paper better balanced. It's interesting reading - one side has got a clear constitutional advantage, while the other main support comes from other sources. I'm learning plenty of new stuff - I must admit I didn't know as much as I would have thought I did going into the project. The issue seems quite simple on the exterior, but once you really get into it, it become extremely complex. There are a lot of legal issues that have yet to be resolved. Every time I come across some new info, I'm simply pulling back another layer to this extremely complicated issue. Hopefully I will be able to shed some light on this in my paper, I am already feeling more knowledgeable about it considering my most current research.

Contract Progress 12/3

Finished up working on my proposition this evening, and did some research into the opposing side of the Separation of Church and State argument. It is really quite baffling that there is such confusion around this topic. It seems that a great deal of the confusion emanates from the fact that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is never found in the constitution. The idea of freedom of privacy is not specifically addressed either, but I certainly contend that it is a freedom we all possess, whether or not it is guaranteed in the constitution.

Just because the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not found within the Constitution, the idea certainly is. Turn your attention to the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

This clearly states that Congress will not endorse one religion over another as the state religion. It also states that no person will be denied the ability to exercise their own religion. Try to reconcile these two notions in a public school - it can't be done. You can't hold prayer in school without violating the Establishment Clause, unless you're willing to allow every single religion the ability to pursue their religion in school with impunity. This is simply an impossibility.

If one has any doubt that the Founding Fathers intended our nation to be a secular one, take a look at The Treaty of Tripoli dating from 1797, with was unanimously supported by the Senate.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Contract Progress 12/2

I did additional research tonight in regards to Separation of Church and State. A common myth that was quickly dispelled upon research of the topic was that our founding fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation and that the United States was founded upon Christian ideals with Christian values in mind. I've recently come across a fair amount of evidence that contradicts several of these points. Be you Christian or otherwise, it is certainly something to take a look at and think about.

The first person to coin the phrase "Separation of Church and State" in its current context was Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and an avid supporter of keeping the government secular. I'll post some of my sources when I get around to it. For now, sleep.

Progress on Contract 12/1

I settled on the topic for my contract, one I feel very strongly about: the issue of separation of Church and State. Anyone who knows me has a fairly good idea of where I stand on this issue. I've spent the evening researching, and there are a fair number of websites supporting both sides of this issue.

Also, something only loosely related, but very interesting I found tonight. This website contains a bunch of information which breaks down religious denominations and where they fall geographically and ethnically within the country. Worth taking a look at for anyone who has interest.

Mainstream and the Norm

In this article, the point is made that the concept of mainstream is inherently a flawed concept, because there is no single over-arching norm that encompasses everyone. This is due to the fact that no single person adheres to every characteristic which makes up what is considered "normal" by any length of the imagination. This piece resonates with all of us, because this is a struggle we all face at certain intervals. We are all attempting to balance who we feel the real us is, and what we feel is the socially acceptable version of ourselves. We are constantly compromising who we really are (although, how can we say with definitive certainty that one of our sides is more real than any other, even if it does emerge under coercion. How are we to say that this is any less real?) This the point made in the article, and it ties in with a theme we has revisited constantly throughout the class. What exactly is normal, and can anyone really subscribe to the notion that any of us conform to this notion?

Incidents in the Life of Slave Girl Pt. 2

My children grew finely; and Dr. Flint would often say to me, with an exulting smile, "These brats will bring me a handsome sum of money one of these days."
I thought to myself that, God being my helper, they should never pass into his hands. It seemed to me I would rather see them killed than have them given up to his power.

This passage underlines the overall hopelessness Jacobs felt at her predicament. What should have given her great joy - the birth of her children - is instead just one more thing for Dr. Flint to use to exercise his control over her. I found this passage particularly unsettling for it does a good job of succinctly illustrating the kind of person that Dr. Flint is. It is obvious that he considers the children, and all slaves in general, as no better than livestock. In fact, less than livestock, for no one in their right mind would flog some of their livestock for whom they had paid a hefty price. Flint's overall attitude, and the pleasure he takes in it, is evidence of how slavery has degraded him morally. I think it quite likely that even if the institution of slavery had never existed, Flint would have still been extremely unpleasant person but the circumstances in which he lived helped to make him much more than unpleasant, instead he became a monster. This is the point that Jacobs is making when she speaks of the degrading effect slavery has on whites as well as blacks. It scarred everyone involved, be those scars emotional or physical.

Incidents in the Life of Slave Girl

It is extremely important for us as the readers of this work that we are aware that it is not fiction, but a true story. If this story were fiction, or even only partly exaggerated, it would be easy to write off the horrors in the book as things that did not really occur. Even though slavery was obviously an evil, degrading institution, we wouldn't have to think about such specific atrocities were the book fictionalized at all. Instead we are forced to imagine these things quite vividly as they are presented to us in an explicit manner. This book allows us to put a face on an institution that it is easy to think about in general terms most of the time. It is easy to simply talk about slavery without thinking of the real consequences it had for individuals who were involved. It is important that the language in this version is not cleaned up because it gives us a sense of the vulgar language and actions people had to endure on a daily basis during these times. Children were forcibly subjected to many lewd and profane things by their masters, things that were extremely degrading and dehumanizing. These sorts of things - I would contend even more than the whippings in many cases -were what caused many slaves to see themselves as truly inferior to white people. If someone is constantly hearing such degrading language, they come to see themselves in an extremely negative light. This was all part of a larger project to keep the slaves subservient to their masters. It is easier to keep someone in bondage if they do not believe they are worth anything, or that they even deserve freedom. So in this respect, it is important for us that the language is not cleaned up because it helps us understand the mental hardships the slaves had to endure, for in many ways these were every bit as damaging as the physical injustices that were forced upon them.

Prejudice

This piece presents us with the idea that children are instilled with prejudices at birth. They are taught these things by their family and friends and the environment in which they live effects these prejudices. Virtually everything around us affects our prejudices, for good or ill. I agree with the main point of this article, that specific prejudices are taught, and not inherent in us at birth. Young children have no qualms about playing with children of different ethnicity, and yet often those same children grow up to be racist. We are a veritable blank slate as children, and we are dependent upon our parents and our environment to help us fill this slate, hopefully with knowledge, though quite often this slate is filled with ignorance. On the one hand, I do believe specific prejudices are taught to us at birth, but on the other hand, I do believe that the capability to maintain a prejudice is something that every human being has inside of them from birth. Simply stated, I believe that the need to be superior to others is a trait inherent in every human-being, albeit in differing degrees depending on the person. If we were to teach our children in a way that did not lead them to develop prejudices, we would likely live in a more peaceful climate than we do now. That being said, many of the problems that exist today would still exist, simply because it is human nature to want to feel superior to others.

Invididual Opportunity in Death of a Salesman

The main character and the author of this story have two very differing ideas about individual opportunity. There is one common theme throughout in the story, and Miller uses his characters evasion of the truth as a means to further his own beliefs about the topic in question. Willy Loman has an unwavering belief throughout most of the story that if an individual works hard, and is well liked, they can accomplish anything. Early on, it is stated that one of his goals is to have a large attendance at his funeral so that his sons will see how well liked he was throughout his travels. His beliefs are put into strong doubt however when he is struggling to make ends meet, and is ultimately fired from his job. Even under these circumstances, Willy believes his sons have it in themselves to be whatever they wish to be. Happy buys this mentality, hook, line and sinker. Biff does too for a time, but he begins to question this line of thinking when he discovers his father has been unfaithful. Biff is really the only character who questions the mentality of individual opportunity throughout the story, Happy and Willy never even come remotely close. Arthur Miller shares a view that contrasts quite sharply from that of his protagonists. He believes that indidivual opportunity is a myth and he evidences this by having Willy, a strong proponent of individual opportunity, fail at nearly ever endevour he puts himself towards. By the end of the story, Willy has died alone and unfulfilled, and Happy appears to be going in a similar direction. Whether Biff will break this cycle himself is difficult to tell.

Question for 'Death of a Salesman'

How specifically does Biff's view of individual opportunity change throughout the course of the story?

Charity Speeches (Day 2)

Once again, I was quite impressed with our classes speeches today, as I was before. People who had been extremely nervous going in went into the speech and delivered it confidently. Hopefully they will take this to heart, and realize they are quite capable of achieving these sorts of things when it really comes down to it. Seeing as fewer people went today, I have fewer comments in general to make. What I wrote yesterday is still applicable today. I was impressed with Matt L's presentation as he used pathos extremely effectively. His story at the beginning captured my attention immediately, and I was apt to hear what he had to say. Bailey's presentation I also felt was quite good. Knowing what her charity was going in, it wasn't something I originally would have seen myself supporting. I thought it seemed like a good cause, but there seemed to be far more pressing ones. However, she quickly convinced me of the worthiness of her cause, and I began to see the need for her charity. It seemed like an extremely effective one in terms of breaking the cycle of poverty. Once again, another fruitful day of presentations. I hope we have all taken out of it that we can all indeed speak publicly, and do it well.

Charity Speeches (Day 1)

At the end of the day, I was extremely impressed by our classes speeches. Everyone did extremely well in covering the points they wanted too. They were all succinct and persuasive. Even those who were quite obviously not as comfortable as others with the idea of giving a speech in front of their classmates were able to put that fear aside and give quite a good speech. Everyone far exceeded my expectations, and I was quite pleased with the outcome. I thought Chris' entire presentation was particularly good. He appeared at ease with his speaking, and his easy going manner helped put his audience at ease as well, making them more apt to listen to what he had to say. His arguments were all well-crafted. Also, kudos to Chris for being the only one to not use the lectern, I doubt very much that I myself will attempt such a feat. Jim's presentation was also very good. He managed to connect with his audience down on a very emotional level. As someone who has volunteered at his charity several times, I felt that he aptly captured the spirit of the place itself in his presentation. JD's presentation was extremely effective, especially when he told the story about the little girl and the decimal worksheet. It was a poignant story, and it was told extremely well. It resonated with me personally because this was something that had actually happened to JD, not just a story he had looked up (something I had to do myself, since I have never actually been to Africa) and something I'm sure quite a few of us had to do, as not all of us have had specific experiences that we can tie into our charity. He did it deftly and adroitly. The presentations today were quite good, and I look forward to the continuation and conclusion of our presentations tomorrow.

Self-Reliance

Emerson makes the argument that our own spiritual success is dependent on two things, that we never conform to the opinions of the mass and that our own opinions do not remain constantly constant (pun intended). These two notions seem at first glance to be contradictory, and as such, we must hold two contradictory notions in our head if we are to grasp the essence of what Emerson is saying. Emerson says we must constantly evaluate the things we believe in. In a way, we can not become self-conformists, adhering to what we believe in so strongly that we never question it. This is as much a cause for ignorance as any other. The other major point Emerson makes is that we cannot conform to opinions of a group. But, at the same time, we cannot be completely separate from the group. We must be part of the group and yet separate at the same time. This is the true key to self-reliance. 

The American Class System

I do not feel that Mantsios is making the explicit argument that the wealthy have exploited the poor. Rather, he seems to feel that the current economic system has taken advantage of the poor. Mantsios makes the point that those born into a certain social situation will almost always continue to exist in that particular social situation. Those born into wealth and privilege will most likely continue living this lifestyle while likewise, those born into poverty will find it extremely hard to advance beyond those circumstances. This does not seem to me to be a knock on the wealthy, for those who are born into privilege can hardly help being born into privilege. Rather, it seems to me that Mantsios is bemoaning the fact that a certain mythos seems to permeate America that if you work hard enough, you can overcome any circumstance, while in reality we do not give the poor enough opportunities to do this. The fault does not lie inherently with those in the upper social classes, they can hardly help the situation they were born into. The real fault lies with the fact that many cannot find jobs they so sorely need, or that the jobs they do find do not pay enough. In addition, lackluster education compounds the problem. There is an old axiom that goes "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime". One of the best way to help improve the situation of the poor is to give them the tools they need to escape their poverty. Education in this country is simply not up to the standards it should be in many areas. Is there one simple solution for this problem? Obviously not. If there were, I'm sure it would have been attempted at this point. But the fact remains, if we intend to close the economic gap between the classes, we need to give the lower classes the tools they need to advance themselves. 

Dalton v. Alger

Alger makes the point in Ragged Dick that success can be gained no matter what a person's origins are. Dalton's essay exists solely to make the point that Alger's argument is flawed. Dalton argues that ones social circumstances have an extremely large effect on ones ability to progress up the social ladder.  Dalton makes the point that, as an African-American, he often had to face prejudice in the workplace. There are stereotypes which limit people in certain areas. Dalton noted that being affluent as an African-American often aroused shock from ignorant individuals. This made advancement extremely difficult as people already had preconceived notions about what he could do as an individual. He makes the point that these notions limit us as individuals.  

Ragged Dick

In the story 'Ragged Dick', the author makes the point that so much of success is dependent on chance, rather than skill. We hear about such circumstances quite often throughout our lives, the 'self made man'. Certainly they had skills which allowed them to climb the social ladder, but the real reason they succeeded and a contemporary did not is due to chance. Pure happenstance, being in the right place at the right time. An example from my own life illustrates this concept: I chose to go to a family gather one night instead of using my time in some other fashion. The outcome of this fateful decision was that a met a far-distance relative, who, upon learning that I wished to pursue a career in audio-engineering informed me that he had a friend who was a musician/producer who would be frequenting the studio frequently (no pun intended) for the next several months. In addition, he volunteered to take me into the studio. Which as I intend to pursue working in such a venue as a career, I found extremely appealing. This entire set of circumstances was completely up to chance. Had I not chosen to go to the gathering, or if I had not paused to talk to this relative, and I would not have received such an opportunity. What will come from it remains to be seen. This is all success really boils down to, being in the right place at the right time. 

Pathos vs. Ethos

Does an author have a moral obligation when using pathos and ethos? The answer is yes. In fact I visited this topic in my earlier blog post pertaining to pathos, unknowingly covering some of the same topics I will be covering here. If you read the previous post pertaining to pathos, kudos to you. And if you didn't, fasten your seat-belts; it's time for a ride on the truth-train.

Pathos is an appeal to the emotions of your audience. This can add a little spice and something extra nice to your argument. An argument based on pathos however, is not really an argument at all. It's fanaticism. We hear it constantly today. It is much easier to make an appeal to the emotions of your audience than the reasoning. This is partly due to the fact that you do not need to be particularly well informed in order to appeal to the emotions of your audience. All it takes is a knowledge of what makes the audience tick. And here's the fun part: no real information is really required. I watched both party conventions in the past several weeks, and I heard much of the same arguments coming from both sides of the party line. The phrase "The (insert opposing party title here) want to raise your taxes! McCain/Obama and Palin/Biden will keep your taxes low!" How can we sort out the truth from this statement? It offers no evidence to support its' claim whatsoever. It only plays on the emotions of the intended audience. The emotion being a dislike of taxes. It is safe to assume that most Americans do not enjoy paying taxes. At best, if you are extremely wealthy, you don't mind paying taxes. No one enjoys the paying of taxes, and the arguments play off of these emotions. This power is abused far too often today. Appeal to pathos has become an art-form, promising people what they want to hear, then never delivering. If people are ignorant, it is easy to prey upon their fears, which is what the majority of political figures find enticing. It is extremely rare to find a politician who will dissent from this pattern.

A Case for Skateboarding

Overall, while I agree with Langely's overall assertion that skateboarding is a bona fide sport that should be acknowledged, I do not feel he utilized the arguments in his piece as well as he might have done. The points he brings up are all legitimate, yet it is unclear in my opinion who exactly the audience of this paper is. There was quite a bit of it that I had trouble understanding, and it felt almost as if Langely was addressing other skaters as a fellow skater himself. This is likely due to the fact that it is a culture that is part of his personality, and is easy for him to express, yet I feel it would have behooved him to pick a different persona. You would be hard pressed to find a skater who doesn't agree with him; what he's really trying to do is to convince non-skaters, such as myself, that skating is a sport that aught to be acknowledged by the greater population as a whole. There was almost an assumed knowledge of skater culture in this piece that limited it. Unless you were a member of such a culture - and if you were, this piece was obviously not directed at you - it is easy to assume that much of these details could be lost upon you, as they were on me. On the whole, I agree with Langely. I am not a skater myself, as was previously mentioned, but I sympathize with his plight. His examples allow us as readers to identify more readily with the author, and the piece succeeds in this regard.

Pseudo-Argument

A pseudo-argument is an argument in which one or more of those participating is so set in what they believe that they are not willing to acknowledge that any portion of there belief set might not be wholly correct. In this sense, an argument with such an individual is not an argument at all, but rather a quarrel. This is where the name is derived from; pseudo meaning an occurrence that is not entirely real. Examples of pseudo-arguments are easily found. A very common example, in what I realize must be becoming an all too familiar topic in my writing, is politics. We run into radicals no matter what the party or belief system. They exist everywhere. Be they republicans, democrats, libertarians or independents, there are always extreme members of these groups whose sole purpose seems to be to spread dissent and fear. Whether or not these individuals are aware of this fact is not evident to me. It is the supreme mark of ignorance to consider yourself right, and never consider that you could possibly be wrong. No single opinion or ideal is completely right, and there are always things we could learn from our enemies. We often are just too stubborn to see it that way. Rather life is simply a war that we intend to win. But when it really all boils down to it, there is no right way or wrong way. We just have to live.

Pathos

To appeal to one's pathos is to appeal to their emotions. This is a rhetorical tool used to great effect by many. The reason it is so effective is that it plays with an audiences' fears, their hopes and dreams. In many instances, such emotions can overrule logic completely. Some rhetorical speakers will argue directly with pathos in mind, playing off of the emotions of their audience, using it to further their goals. In fact, we see it more and more today in politics for example. Many political pundits tend to appeal to the gut feelings of their audience, rather than the rational, logical side. This is due to the fact that these rhetoricians do not intend their audience to think (for thinking would invite people to see the number of holes inherent in their arguments) rather they intend to tell their audience what to think. This is not a partisan trait, it belongs to members of each and every ideal set. I believe this was said best by the venerable, Stephen Colbert.

"That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works." - Stephen Colbert, 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

If used wisely, the appeal to pathos is a strong rhetorical tool. When abused, it can have unintended effects. Throughout history, mobs of people have been convinced by their leaders to do unspeakable things. The secret? Their leader plays on their fears, goading them to actions that would not normally consider. As such, we must be careful how we use pathos. We must not come too dependent on it, it can never replace logic and real facts, but in moderation, it is a strong tool.

The Humanity of Torture

In the article advocating torture, the author makes some valid points while allowing his argument to move at a pace that discourages independent thought. While the author presents us situations in which torture seems to be the only option, he does not give any thought to situations in which torture could potentially not be the best course of action. A simple fact the author tends to ignore throughout the duration of the article is that a person, when placed under extreme duress will admit to absolutely anything. If you placed me under extreme enough pain, I would admit to killing John F. Kennedy, despite the fact that I would not be born for another 30+ years. This makes torture an unreliable method of extracting of information; gaining information that is credible is oftentimes impossible. Another erroneous detail in the article is the author's assumption that we know with absolute certainty who the perpetrator of an attack that has not occurred yet is. This is almost never the case. This assumption is what leads to innocent people being hurt. Throughout the paper, I felt as though I were reading a novelization of the television program 24; a show which I thoroughly enjoy, but usually do not reference in attempts to make an argument. I do however, agree with the author of the article on some points. The fact that he doesn't allow his argument to become too large aids this piece of work. He is not arguing that torture should be used as punishment for crimes, something I agree with. He is also not making the argument that torture is humane or even desirable. He is simply arguing that in some extreme cases, torture is a viable option. This I agree with, however the situations he envisions seem somewhat farfetched. I realize that there are instances in which torture may be the only realistic option; I am not idealistic enough to believe that we can do away with a practice that has been a staple of crime-fighting since humanity began. I do believe however, it should be limited as much as possible and that the scenarios the author envisions are somewhat unrealistic. 

Organic vs. Inorganic Food

I feel that both cartoons in the writing arguments book, while politically biased one way or the other, make a fair point. On the one hand, we do deserve as consumers to know what is in the food we are purchasing. That being said, it, anyone who wants to consumer inorganic foods should be allowed to do so. This is rather a sticky subject all in all, for it's relatively difficult to make a decision either way. In some situations it makes sense to regulate food production, in other instances there is no real precedent to do so. In some countries, simply supplying its’ inhabitants with food and water is the whole battle. There is really no reason to be worrying about what all goes into the production of the food. Now this may sound somewhat ethnocentric, as to imply that our food should be held to higher standards that others food, but I do not mean it as such. Rather, those that have the means to control such aspects of their economy should do so. If not, they should not make it a priority.

 

Arguments

The picture on page 24, as well as the one on page 1, both exist to make an argument, though they differ in several important ways. For one thing, the picture on page 24 makes an explicit argument. What it is arguing is obvious at a glance. The photograph on page 1 however makes a much more implicit argument. It is up to the person looking at the photograph to infer the argument. With the picture of the can of food, the argument being made is fairly apparent. The photographer is suggesting that the consumers of in-organic food do not deserve to know the contents of the food. They do not back up this assertion in the photograph itself with any real evidence, simply playing on the emotions of the viewer. The photograph of the veterans does not itself present an argument outright. Rather it is simply a document. The implied argument however is that those who chose to go to war are honorable people. The picture of the can of food exists simply to make an argument. Therein lies the difference. 

Implicit vs Explicit

An explicit argument is an argument which states a point for which it is arguing then proceeds to try and prove that point. An implicit argument, on the other hand, is oftentimes not obviously perceptible as an argument. The argument itself is quite often more subliminal. Examples of this type of argument include pictures and poems. An example of these differing types of arguments is included in Writing Arguments. The first is a picture of an older veteran hugging a younger one with a prosthetic hand. This photograph states nothing explicit, the details of its' argument must be inferred. From this photo we can find the argument that soldiers are honorable people whose service to their country is something to be honored and applauded. The poem however makes a somewhat unrelated argument explicitly, that war is a dishonorable affair. The poem uses explicit arguments to make its' point. This is the difference between explicit and implicit.

A Memoir

I remember the grass as it blew upon the windy hilltop. The sun was shining, casting a warm glow upon the surroundings. The sun shining made everything seam so much brighter, both literally and figuratively. It always had done. I sat with her upon the windy hilltop, where she smiled at me. It was just a smile, and yet it was so much more. It seemed to communicate so many things I could not put into words, even if I'd wanted too. And I didn't. It meant so much more when it was left unsaid. And upon that hill we sat, not speaking, simply coexisting until the sun was setting in the western sky. Years later, I still come back to that hilltop with her, though I never went back. I recall it so vividly, although the details seam to slip away a little more each day. Some day I may return to that hilltop, though I doubt it will be the same without her there. Until the day I return however, I'm already there. 

Class Thus Far (Part Two)

I would like to reflect for a moment upon 'The Great Gatsby', a book that I found to be a very rewarding read. Gatsby's story struck a chord with me, not because I've had similar experiences to him per-say, but because I found the overall message relevant as both an American and as and individual. Gatsby's steadfast devotion to his dreams ultimately led to his death. But I do not believe the moral of the story was not to pursue one's dreams. I think rather, that the message was to choose wisely when to pursue one's dreams, and when to move on. Gatsby believed so firmly in the past that he did not even realize the past had gone. He had continued searching for something that had ceased to exist a very long time ago. In the end, this realization wreaked havoc with him emotionally. Whether he would have been able to recover or not, it is hard to say. We will never know for certain, as he was never given the chance. Gatsby's folly is one we see quite often in our own lives, when we adhere to something with such diligence that we do not even notice when it has gone. I feel that the Great Gatsby is first and foremost a novel about moving on. The economic themes aside, Gatsby is about what can happen, both emotionally and physically when one doesn't move on.

The Evolution of Language

Language is constantly changing and evolving. This is a consistent occurrence, when a word that was previously considered slang begins to enter the common vernacular. More than ever, slang that is associated with poorer urban areas of America is coming to prominence. Evolution of language is much like the evolution of a species, it is a slow process. Our parents spoke quite similarly to how we did, although there are certain words they would use that we do not, and vice-versa. Language is constantly changing, new words being introduced and old ones being cast out. A powerful example is to look at the language of Shakespeare, or Old English. Much of it sounds foreign to modern ears, and the reverse would be true as well. Language has changed gradually, over time to reflect new trends and ideas, and it will continue to do so. Documents from this period in history will gain more and more mystique until our descendants are scarcely able to read them. It is quite likely that many languages will cease to exist in the future, being accumulated into other languages or simply wiped out all together. These outcomes are other potential results of evolution. 

Response to 'Red Sky in the Morning'

It's amazing how a simple realization can alter your perception of someone almost completely. Especially a person for whom you've felt a certain amount of animosity towards for quite awhile. While someone's actions may seem inexcusable to you at one point in time, oftentimes more information can change the way you think about something. It is quite often easier to live with a misconception of someone than the truth. The truth can quite often be painful, whereas a misconception is convenient. You can shape it any way you so choose. The truth forces you to look at things in a different light, something that is naturally difficult for us to do. It is so much easier to use our lens of experience to judge everyone else. What we must learn is that we cannot do this. Everyone has a diverse background, a different way of looking at the world, a different lens as it were. While this in itself is a truth I had excepted for some time, I really had not begun to live by it until this summer. That was when I learned that a person for whom I cared about very much would not be with us much longer. This cast a whole new light upon a year's worth of experiences. I understood now the reason for this individual's dark moods, and the times he would yell. I could not even begin to understand how oppressive the doctor's sentence must have seemed to him. He would often confide in me when I was younger about the things he still wished to do with his life. He would smile when he finished and say "Someday, Ian." But last year, he realized someday wasn't coming. But eventually, the darkness had passed. He was still dying, nothing would change that, but he had resolved not to let it ruin what remained of his life. He began to smile again. And best of all, he began to live. Because none of will live forever. "He not busy born is busy dying" the immortal bard Bob Dylan once sang, and how true those words ring. Life is sweet, and oh so short. I realized that this summer. If you allow the sadness to overwhelm you, it's not really living any more.