Stephen Cruz's American Dream

I believe that Stephen Cruz defines the American Dream as wanting to be higher up in an organization and to have power and control and to not lose. Cruz states, “The American Dream, I see now, is governed not by education, opportunity, and hard work, but by power and fear. The higher up in the organization you go, the more you have to lose. The dream is not losing”. This is the notion pervading American today: don’t lose”.

I totally agree with his definition of the American Dream. Yes, everyone wants to have the higher status and to be the one in control of things. Everyone one wants to have the higher status of having a lot of money and power and with the way our society is, the more money you have, the more power. Cruz also talks about the minorities in his piece. My interpretation of what he is saying is that it is harder for the minorities to “get by”. Get by meaning to succeed. To me, it seems like the minorities, being a black person myself, have to work harder to succeed. Also, my definition of succeed is to have a lot of money, a good job, nice things, such as a car and house. This is just my opinion, however. The world just seems like that to me. He talks about how the black secretary was verboten and that she was fired while he was away on vacation. Sadly, it seems to me that minorities, like the black secretary, can have this type of “good” businesslike personality and present themselves in a well manner, but just because of the stereotype of black people or minorities not being good, she’s isn’t easily well accepted.

But in a sense, there is also something about Cruz’s opinion about the dream being not to lose that bothers me. I don’t think that any in life should have to live their life worrying about what if I do this, what are people going to think of me or if I say this, what kind of person are they going to think I am. All people should aim for the positive things of course, but worry about too much that you do, or worrying about to not lose makes life so careful. I don’t think that a person should have to live their life so careful that they might not be able to succeed because they are worried about making a mistake in their path to success. Of course no one wants to be the bad guy.
[I am really struggling about putting my opinion about the “not to lose” into words, as you can see.]

'engaging the text' #2 - page 322

I believe that Mantsios spends more time in his text about the classes of America, rather than talking about whether or not the wealthy are exploiting the poor. My opinion about the wealth exploiting the poor is that many “poor” people or low wage people do the work that the wealthy don’t want to do. For example, a wealthy person would not want to be a janitor or a construction worker. Wealthy people would have the janitor or the construction worker just do the work for them without even thinking of them as a real human being and thanking them. I see this a lot, I see work being done, like cleaning out public restroom toilets and the ones that don’t have to clean it aren’t thinking about the people that have to deal with people’s waste or the risk of getting e. coli. The janitors are just trying to take care of themselves, while the wealthy are thinking nothing of these people.

Mantsios is arranging America into classes. These classes are lower class, middle class, and upper class. To me, lower class means low wage, middle class is middle wage, and upper class is high wage. However, Mantsios has his actually “household earnings” that classify the classes of the people in America. He talks about how the middle class in the United States holds a very small share of the nation’s wealth and that households earning from $25,000 to $75,000 are considered middle wage. This means that under $25,000 is considered lower class and upper class earns over $75,000.

My opinion about this text is that it is sad that America is divided up by classes. Our society is not classless. I think this is sad because of the stereotypes of all of the classes. Many people find it uncomfortable to talk about which class they are categorized in. I think this is so because it is one of those situations, which it is really no one else’s business. About the stereotypes, for example, you can be said to wear non-expensive, cheap, hand me down clothes in the lower class. As in the upper class, you would wear name brand clothes, or jeans that cost close to $100. I don’t like the idea of being divided up by class.

evaluating an argument

The argument I chose to evaluate is presented in Maybeth Hamilton’s “First Place: A Healing School for Homeless Children” essay. Hamilton is a student who believes that First Place should have more funding. The First Place program’s purpose is to prepare students for returning to mainstream public schools. In Hamilton’s essay, she not only explains much about her argument, but does a good job stating what her opponents would say and opposing their argument.

Hamilton is arguing that the First Place program is able to do so many things for children and it needs more funds to keep on doing so. First Place needs the tax money from the people of the city. She says that First Place can help the city by reducing the future costs of crime and welfare. The students at First Place are at risk for educational failure, drug and alcohol abuse, or many other long-term programs. The program not only helps the children but also the family to get out of poverty. With the help of the program, parents are able to search for jobs and have nice attire for their interviews.

She illustrates her opponents by them arguing that separating the children from the regular classrooms is not a good idea because it justifies their difference from the mainstream students. However, Hamilton would argue back that the children in First Place are actually all sympathetic to each other and they do not have to be so defensive because the children are all the same. They are all homeless, therefore, there is really no reason for the children to make fun of one another.

I believe that Hamilton does a good job presenting her argument and presenting and answering opposing arguments of the First Place program. Her organization of the essay allows for readers, like myself, to follow what she is saying clearly. Although, I thought her argument would have been better if there were some actual facts or statistics shown the argument, Hamilton still persuaded me to think that the funding was worth it. I think it is worth it because there are many children and families in this world who would love to have extra help for the child and help for the parents to get jobs. With programs like First Place, children and parents do not have to fight their struggles alone.

visual argument

I personally believe that a visual argument is more persuasive. My reason for this is because when you are trying to prove your side of the argument is right and want to get your audience to take your side, you should have something for them to look at. For example, you want your audience to believe that most NBA basketball players are over 6’0. You would rather have them go to a NBA game to see that a lot of the players are over 6’0 than to just tell them what you believe is right. After going to an NBA game, I myself can prove that this argument is correct. If this argument were to not be proved by a visual element, it wouldn’t persuade many people that this is correct. Also, not having a visual element, would be part of people just going off of what others think and assuming that just because this person thinks that’s true then I should think its true also.

ethical responsibilities && expectations

When an author is using 'ethos' they have to be sure to create credibility. "Aristotle called the impact of the speaker's credibility the appeal from ethos" (Ramage, 140). There are three ways to create credibility. The first is to be knowledgeable about the issue, meaning to be able to argue from a strong point. The point which you are arguing from is usually personal experiences, statistics/ facts, and a strong base of knowledge. This would command your audience because you have your own stories of your argument to tell. Second is to be fair. Being fair consists of making sure you are looking at things from different views. The ethos is stronger when you can take the argument from opposing views. The last way to create credibility is to build a bridge to your audience. To do this you must have to share your values and assumptions with your audience. You also need to enhance your image so your side of the argument is comfortable with you if you were to be the audience.

The ethical responsibilities for an author to have 'pathos' is to use concrete language or use specific examples and illustrations and narratives. When using concrete language you want to have a high interest level and personality from the writer. The writer should give details by creating positive images. Specific examples and illustrations provide evidence for your argument and allow for the audience to know your emotional side your view and how valuable the argument is to you. Using narratives is when you are telling a story that supports your claim. The audience wouldn't really understand where you are coming from until you have examples and backup of your argument.

I believe that our media and our government lives up to the 'pathos' responsibilty, however, not the 'ethos' responsibility. My example for using 'pathos' is when we are told stories from the war on Iraq. When we are told the stories, we are usually shown the negative stuff such as how many have died or how we are going to take more over to replace the others that have died. The thing about this argument is that they don't use 'ethos'. They are not looking at the argument from the different side of view, meaning the media and government aren't thinking about any positive things that are going on and how us people looking at the news feel about the information. Another example is when people are taken to jail for something they have did that has cut into the law. Of course, who ever disobeys the law should be punished, however, we aren't given information about why the person decided they had to do what they did. The media usually gives off the negative energy other than the positive. With the media giving us the bad side of the situation, they are just influncing us to just believe that this person should go to the "bad" part of the book and that we should all think this person is "bad". We all would like to know the other side of things.

'pseudo-argument' encountered in the real world

Psuedo-arguments are arguments based on opinion and have an unmeasureable quality. I have encountered many pseudo-arguments upon many people in the real world. However, the one pseudo-argument that I usually think about is looking over something that is going to be on the test/quiz about 5-10 minutes before class versus studying the night before or long before, which is better? What I believe is that although it is good to study nights before the test, it is also important to look over what you have already studied.
My argument is that when I look over something that I have already studied right before a test/quiz, it refreshes my memory. I am able to remember what I have studied even though it is within a short period of time before the actually test or quiz. I, being a person that can remember more off visuals than being TOLD something, am able to look over a study sheet and usually remember what it says word for word. Being a visual learner, allows me to look over notecards or something 5-10 minutes before a test/quiz and it benefit me more than not doing it at all.
The opponent would vote that only studying days before or the night before is more beneficial. Their opinion for this is usually that looking over something 5-10 minutes before is like trying to cram everything into your mind and not having enough space for the information that you just forget everything.
This argument really doesn't serve a purpose because people are going to do what they want to do and have their own methods of studying. This serves as an opinion based situation.

appeal to 'pathos'

Appeal to 'pathos' is such a powerful rhetorical device because it is the 'corner of the triangle' which deals with the audience. The text says pathos is Greek for "suffering" and "experience" and often associated with emotional appeal. When thinking about 'pathos' in your writing, you usually want to tie some kind of experience that you've had in your writing, or even about a situation that was "suffering", meaning a situation that wasn't good, also known as a bad experience. You would want to write about an experience, or even a bad experience so the audience could have a picture in their mind of what was going on and how you (the writer) felt while they were going through the sitation. Appealing to 'pathos' allows you to get into your own emotion so the reader can also feel and see what you (the writer) is feeling and seeing. When writing to an audience, you think about how you can make the reader open to your message, how you can best appeal to the reader's values and interests, and how you can engage your reader emotionally and imaginatively.

feeling about the AP exam

After reading the overview of the AP English Language, and even before reading it, I am nervous about basically everything. However, the main part I am nervous about is the essay part. It is difficult for me to just be given a topic/ essay and told to write about it for 40 minutes. Usually with my papers, it takes my about 40 minutes to even think about how I'm going to write this paper. Yet again, I believe the hardest part of me is going to be the essay part of the exam. I am most comfortable with the multiple choice questions and being able to go back to where the questions would be referring to. With multiple choice questions, you are given a few answers to chose from which one is the correct answer. Just being able to have choices makes it simplier in any quiz, test, quest, or whatever it is. I am not looking forward to this exam at all. =[

"a case for torture"

"There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory" (Levin, 1). I totally agree with Michael Levin's statement. There are situations that you can resist but to take of not only yourself but of your loved ones also. The very situation that stood out more than others is the one about the terrorist group kidnapping a newborn baby from a hospital. Levin "asked four mothers if they would approve of tortuting kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back" (Levin, 1). You kind of get the "heck yeah" reaction. This makes me think of the love of my little brother, who is nine, or even my two neices, one who is one years old and the other who isn't even born. I would kill for them. As weird as it may seem to some one else, it seems like I had this connection with my neice who isn't born. Me and her mother, my sister, being so close makes me feel like this; "I may not know exactly what she looks like but I still see her everyday".
I would argue with Levin, rather than against.

cartoon vs. ad

Both the cartoon and ad are visual arguments, also known as implicit arguments. “Although seldom appearing by themselves without some accompanying text, photographs, drawings, political cartoons, and graphics can have an intense rhetorical impact. Visuals make strong emotional appeals, often reducing complex issues to one powerful perspective” (Writing Arguments, 37). The ad and cartoon are portraying the fact that the food we eat are genetically engineered. Genetically engineered and genetically modified are along the same lines, meaning that the crop, fruit, and meat providers are being controlled by unnatural products, such as “fillers”, or so they can survive for a certain amount of time, even through cold weather.
The cartoon is displaying a hungry child, who is starving and would take any kind of food, even corn. The bigger man, with the corn, is letting the hungry boy know that he didn’t want the corn because it was genetically modified and drought resistant. The corn may have been given some type of “filler” so they wouldn’t have to have water added to them.
The ad has a more verbal argument, but it is still visual with the picture of the can of vegetables saying “None of Your Business”. “There is no label for genetically engineered foods, and no way for consumers to know whether the food they eat contains them” (Writing Arguments, 24). The ad states that up to 70% of our foods have genetically engineered add-ins. The ad is persuaving us, consumers, to join them when asking the Food and Drug Administration about regulating genetically engineered foods, also known as “GE foods”. They would like for us to get the Food and Drug Administration about requiring some mandatory labeling and safety testing of all of the foods we eat.

implicit vs. explicit arguments

“Argument requires justification of its claims, it is both a product and a process, and it combines elements of truth seeking and persuasion” (Writing Arguments, 3). However, there are two types of arguments, explicit and implicit. An explicit argument is directly for a debatable claim, which has its reasons and evidence to support it. Examples of explicit arguments are having a debate in class, or what you would find within a debate club. Explicit arguments have the ordered structure of a thesis, reasons, and evidence. While describing an implicit argument, the text says that in contrast they don’t actually look like arguments. Implicit arguments could be poems, such as the poem on pages 5-6 titled Dulce et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen, which the poem is arguing against the belief that giving up your life for your country is heroic. It is stating that war is so horrifying that there is no good reason for war without getting high noble rankings and heroism. Short stories, photographs, cartoons, personal essays, and autobiographical narratives are also different types of implicit arguments. Implicit arguments portray images that the reader is able to picture in their head to understand what the writer is arguing. Both of the arguments, implicit and explicit, persuade the audience toward a certain point.

my memoir

It was like invisibly jump ropes, we were on a roll. We didn’t stop, this was definitely the best trampoline in my parents bedroom. All of a sudden a big pillow just came across my face, I of course, being so young and playful, thought it was the funniest thing ever. So, I remember us going back and forth, me and my little brother about the age of 4 having just about the best pillow fight ever. But then the bad dream started, this definitely wasn’t one of those times when you’re playing and you both stop then realize how funny it was because that person really wasn’t hurt. I’m assuming I raised the pillow too high and back too far with all my strength. My brother’s head hit the headboard and blood started gushing out the back of his head, it was like running water. But I knew for sure that I didn’t even hit him my hardest, I couldn’t understand how just a little hit would allow for all of this to happen. Not knowing what else to do, I yelled for my mom. I just knew that we were going to be on our way to the hospital in no time, but thank God for my mom being in the medical field she knew exactly what to. She assured me that this was only a superficial wound and we could easily treat it like a minor cut. There was no trip to the hospital but there was this white looking wrap around my brother’s head. When I saw the gauze, it reminded me of a mummy, that was the only funny part of the whole situation. Although I still continued to feel worried, my dad continued to reiterate how important it is that we don’t play so much and how serious this situation could have been. Still today, my dad continues to tell us not to play all the time and to be careful. But the playing we do now isn’t even a good comparison with the playful trampoline incident. My brother and I have never had a pillow fight since then.