Molly’ s AP blog

Learned: I love it when teachers/advisors break AP writing into simple steps (such as the six we learned from David Jolliffe) for when the clock is ticking, the simple steps keep me from panicking. However, at the same time, I am also wary of these steps, for they are finessed solely for the AP writes, and not for writing in general. Thus I am sort of soured by the whole procedure.

Missed: So, while Jolliffe gives us 6 nice simple steps, he sort of forgets the whole idea of writing the essay – that whole procedure is stuffed into the sixth “argue” category. What sort of structure, voice, style should we use? Professional, casual, inspirational, straightforward, bold and direct? Perhaps this info will be in his second article on the subject.

What’s the purpose of this piece?
Swift is commenting on the sterile, harsh, and detached way the impoverished and starving children of his country are being treated. He is saying that we should treat these people better than annoying savages.

How does the satire serve a rhetorical purpose or put forth an indirect claim?
The satire shocks the reader, who then in turn would compare it to their own opinion of what should be done with the poor children. If the comparison shows up with more similarities than thought (ie: the reader realizes they actually DO think of the children as savages or livestock), then the reader might be forced to change their mind.

Please excerpt 3 sections and comment more directly on them.

I have already computed the charge of nursing a beggar’s child
(in which list I reckon all cottagers, labourers, and four-fifths
of the farmers) to be about two shillings per annum, rags
included; and I believe no gentleman would repine to give ten
shillings for the carcass of a good fat child, which, as I have
said, will make four dishes of excellent nutritive meat, when he
hath only some particular friend, or his own family to dine with
him.
Here, Swift emphasizes the ridiculous science with which people are addressing the problem of the starving masses – or at least the science with which one is expected to address it. By doing this he adds further satire to his piece, by making it seem as if he has put intense scientific thought, effort and seriousness into his cannibalistic idea.

Some persons of a desponding spirit are in great concern about
that vast number of poor people, who are aged, diseased, or
maimed; and I have been desired to employ my thoughts what course
may be taken, to ease the nation of so grievous an incumbrance.
But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is
very well known, that they are every day dying, and rotting, by
cold and famine, and filth, and vermin, as fast as can be
reasonably expected.
Swift says that such a practice as cannibalism is better, if not equal, to the atrocity that the poor live as their lives. This is the root of his argument.

Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like
expedients, ’till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that
there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them
into practice
Until somebody comes up with a better idea, a cannibalistic end is better than the state of the poor children’s lives now. He is saying this to emphasize the terrible squalor Ireland’s poor lives in.

With a last name like Chesterton, his work published on, and a picture as dour as they come, one would not expect to read an essay quite like “On Lying in Bed” from this author. However, Chesterton utilizes many different important strategies to create a voice and character that compels the reader to listen to and finish reading what he is saying.

1) Chesterton’s HUMOR drives his piece. He does not take himself so seriously as it seems many of these “born 18–, died 19—“ essayists do. Instead he fills his piece with clever quips and jibes that allows the audience to actually enjoy what they are reading.
2) However, this light tone does not take away from Chesterton’s reputable ethos. He ALLUDES to many well known and respected people or ideas (Cyrano de Bergerac, Michael Angelo), thus letting the audience connect him with these great figures in the audience’s head.
3) And yet, his humorous ethos is preserved, in the many ways Chesterton seems like a NORMAL PERSON. For example, take the following quote, which references wall paper patterns. Chesteron simply “could not understand why one arbitrary symbol…should thus be sprinkled all over my nice walls like a sort of smallpox.” The audience says to itself “yeah, I wonder that too!” and thus the audience realtes to Chesterton.
4) Chesterton’s IDEAS ARE SOLID AND LOGICAL. When he does get to the meat of his essay, he lays them out in a profound and understandable way (not condescending – clear). “A man’s minor actions and arrangements ought to be free, flexible, creative; the things that should be unchangeable are his principles, his ideals. But with us the reverse is true; our views change constantly; but our lunch does not change.” Because his ideas are so grounded and clear, the easier for the audience to understand and agree with them.

most compelling observation
extent that observation holds true for any country or US
appropriate evidence

“Power with us does exist to some extent in courts of law and in police establishments, but it also exists in many other American institutions.”

Intro: When founding fathers wrote constitution, they wanted a good outline for our society, but knew that human people would also develop its own ways to govern itself within society.

Claim: Though the phrase rings true in its division of power in American, Kennan does not give enough credit to America’s federal government and its branches.

1: Prove that power IS divided
institution1: capitalist economy
institution2: american families
institution3: diversity

2: Prove that the Fed Gov’t IS the largest power b/c of corruption
– times diff from when founding fathers and Kennan wrote their great works
– gov’t has power to override voting, hide info from voters, and override constitution
– gov’t also corrals peopel and has power over economy, families (outlawing gay marriage, etc), immigration

Conclude:
– Some of the founding father’s ideas have remained
– the gov’t, as in dictatorial countries, is not the ONLY power.
– some power still resides in people
– a peopel that must fight ot keep it that way for generations to come

It is obvious that in his home country, Downe’s family suffers in poverty and hunger. He makes many references to times when his ‘children cry for victuals” and how he had nothing but “poverty” in his England. And it is because of this that half of Downe’s rhetorical efforts are aimed at his wife’s stomach. The entire first half of his letter lists the food and ease of its attainability. For example, “pudding, pyes, and fruit of all kind that was in season, and preserves, pickles, vegetables, meat, and everything that a person could wish… you can gather peaches, apples, and all kinds of fruit by the side of he roads…And as for the bullocks’ heads, sheep and lambs’, they are thrown away, no one will eat them.” It is clear that these animal heads were a large part of his family’s impoverished English diet. By appealing to this elementally suffering part of his wife’s psyche, he has an intensely strong argument for moving to the US. Hunger is one of the basic motivators of any human, especially when one sees their children crying for it, and by utilizing this with his long lists and descriptions of food, Downe convinces his wife.

Barack Obama is a tall, strong, intelligent, and mysterious man — similar to the many presidents that have preceeded George Bush. When compared to Hillary Clinton, he is presented as a self-made man, a person who rose from unique beginnings and a childhood in Indonesia. He has built himself an intensely strong support base in the youth movement, and there is a huge power in the support of the generation of the future. It excites a nation that this charismatic and unique man might lead their country — and it should bring hordes of voters to the booths when he is nominated.

Hillary Clinton is a woman ready to change her country; her plans lay ready to jump into action. She has been in the public eye for so long that she has had the experiences needed to deal with the public. She has been in office so long she has the political power and experience needed to save the country. She has had eight years of being in the white house as the woman behind the president — she is now ready to take the lead position herself. Her credentials should bring hordes of voters to the booths when she is nominated.

Of Victoria and Chadors

With even a passing glance, an observer can tell that the balance of this Victoria’s Secret fashion show photo is arranged using a unique combination of elements. Both a perfectly symmetrical balance and a radial balance (Ms. Klum being the center of the radius) make up this picture. With Heidi and her angel’s wings at the direct center of the photo (radial balance), the two shining lights on either side of her (perfect symmetry), the ranks of bare women posing on either side of Ms. Klum (perfect symmetry), and the fabric wings rising up on either side of the background to form a curved top (perfect symmetry and radial), the focal point of this photo is clear: Heidi Klum’s breasts. This is mirrored in the two main points of emphasis (where the eye is drawn): Heidi Klum herself in shining white and gauze, as well as the contorted bikini wearing woman artistically portrayed in the neon-sign in the left of the photo.
These principles of design allow us to delve deeper into the 2002 photograph’s own secrets – and intentions. Bright colors and shiny surfaces abound – the light of the neon sign reflecting off of the mirrored runway, the metallic boots, the models’ shaven and polished legs. Boldly hued vinyl, gauze, feathers, lace, and stilettos all speak of futuristic combinations and ideas in the lingerie fashion world – just as they speak of terrible discomfort for the wearers of these fashions. How comfortable is it to wear wire-sculpted, vinyl-lace cups on your chest? Would a Wonder Woman cut to your panties really make you feel relaxed in your clothing? Should we aspire to emulate a cartoonishly thin woman portrayed in a neon sign? Do we really need vinyl underwear?
These questions lead us directly to the audience for which this photograph was taken, and for whom most lingerie is worn: men. The lingerie of this photo is no longer adorned for hygiene or comfort’s sake; it is clearly worn to attract the opposite sex. The lines of the runway, the arcs of the wings, and the glint of the fabric are all emphasizing not the woman’s mind, her soul, or even her face. It is to accent a woman’s body so that she may be attractive to the opposite sex, and therefore feel confident when confronted with them. This clothing was designed to make a women feel sexy for a man.
Now let us compare this to the other photo – a Tehran fashion show for Iranian designers creating different styles of Islamic dress in 2006. The emphasis of the picture is the bright white light silhouetting the women’s fabric-laden and indistinct shapes. The colors are demure and beige; the only hair seen in carefully manicured eyebrows. Skin peaks out from beneath a sleeve, faces are tightly circled with yet more cloth.
And so it is here where we have reached the end of the fashion spectrum furthest from where Victoria lies. This clothing is not made to emphasize a women’s body, but instead to cover and “protect” it. These women are not futuristic, neon, feisty sex demons growling confidently for a man, but instead the colors and draping of the fabric exude a quiet and serene aura about the picture. There is a soothing rhythm in the repetition of each model’s position (with a left hand out front, and a right hand swimming in cloth, trying to find a hip). This photo was taken to calm its audience.
Yet who is the audience? Who was this photo taken for? Unlike the Victoria’s Secret photo, you can actually see the fashion show’s seated audience itself – and there is not a man’s face among them. Women are seated all around the runway, each head covered with a hijab. Is this photo truly taken for them, the women of Iran? Perhaps – to some extent.
But see how vertical lines shoot down on the right side of the photo, barring this female audience from the models. Notice how this clothing could be uncomfortable for a women just as Victoria’s lingerie was – the layers confining in a hot, suffocating manner, versus the lingerie’s straps and itch. No, the audience for this photo is men. Men who enforce harsh Iranian laws that demand gender segregation in all public places, and for all women to wear chadors or hajibs. Laws that in as recently as the 1980s could whip a woman for showing more than her hands and face. While this is all done in the name of protecting women from the roving eyes of men, who is it truly appeasing?
It is here that we come to a fundamental problem in fashion, and in human society. It is men that define a woman’s confidence, sexiness, and dress code. For whether in a sex-filled pop culture, or an Islamic regime, how a woman believes herself to be perceived by a man can determine how she feels about herself. If she feels attractive – whether that means her hair is covered correctly, or things are emphasized with a wonder-bra – it affects her confidence. Her dress code is controlled by the opposite sex, and in an age of a desire for freedom and equality, the power is in the wrong hands.
It is wrong for men to control the guidelines of feminine appearance, because it is through this that they can control the self-respect and confidence women give themselves. Who is a man to say that he knows women better than they know themselves? This is an invasion of privacy and a negation of respect that must soon be stopped.

MLA CITATION
Chernin, Stephen. “Victorias Secret Fashion.” Stand Alone Image. Associated Press.
14 Nov 2002. 10 April 2008 <http://apimages.ap.org/OneUp.asp>.

Sarbakhshian, Hasan. “Iran Fashion.” Image. Associated Press. 22 Jul 2006. 10 April
2008 <http://apimages.ap.org/OneUp.asp>.

It began happening gradually in September, barely noticeable at first. A slight sticky sensation on the soles of her sneakers, adding an infinitesemal increase of difficulty to each step. What with her increasing load of essayshomeworkapplicationsdeadlinestutoringcreditextracreditsprocrastinationhomeworkstresstresstresstress a slight stick to each step resided low on the priorities list.

By November her ankles swam in it. Black thick muck, hinting at transparency but with tiny bubbles so thick and dense it was impossible to see through. Her ma thought it sounded like molasses, but She knew it didnt smell as nice. Her muscles groaned with each labored steps, and her shoes were ruined forever.

In March she was drowning, the ooze clogging her throat and nose, her ears sealed with it. She flailed to school in the mornings, the stuff slowing her arms, dragging her feet. Each class period was a struggle to stay alive, her backpack dragging her down down down to the bottom of the waves.

The entire priority list drowned with her in her struggle for a gasp of air, and the homeworkdeadlinesdecisionsdecisionsgraaades were nearly dead. Struggling to the office, pink note in hand, She feared not the counselor’s reprimand, but instead her own sticky death. It sure didn’t taste like molasses.

When she described this to the counselor, asking him for advice, help, a life jacket, anything, he sighed once, took a sip of coffee, and gave an exhausted smile.

He told her to go home, take a shower, and wait for June. Though it was sticky and slow, senior year wouldn’t kill her.

Every image accompanying the essay filled me with concern and worry. Americans use their flag as a symbol of everything good in America; it flies from house fronts, ships, adorns politicians jackets, is folded for mothers in return for their dead sons. To see this symbol of America in first, the photo of hte title, caused me to react in a grimace — this is a snapshot of America seen by the rest of the world? Our flag used in such a way?
But most of hte worry and concern caused by this photo was fueled by the ring of truth present inside of it. America uses its power to beat, control, attack. The racism present in the photo bespeaks a 200 year long abuse of that power.
And then to see this shocking photo juxtaposed with the Iwo Jima photo — in which the American flag is a symbol of triumph, justice, and goodness — shows there is all the more duality in our flag and history. There are two faces of America, two sides of the flag: that of justice, and that of brutality.

Canaday uses solid background information to convince us of his analysis. He gives us the background on all these families, the time of their painting, the way the paintings have been received and analyzed in the past. And then he uses his own ethos to convince of his own analysis — he is a Yale univeristy grad, teaches art history, has written as an art critic. It makes us feel as if our piddling little “analysis” (if it can be called that) would not measure up.

However, I disagree about some of his analysis of the Peale family’s portrait. The two groups they are divided into must have some meaning beyond Canaday’s explanation of “they would be too crowded otherwise.” There are naught but four woman on the right side of the the painting, perhaps showing the power of maternity united. These are more serene looking faces, while on the left, with the menfolk mixed in with the womenfolk, their faces have greater variety of expression.

The Bellelli family seems completely over hyped up — Canaday seems way too excited about small expressions and composition. There could be much more drama and emotion within the painting, and so the superlatives (i like that word!!!) that Canday bestows upon it seem overwraught. Instead, it seems like a succinct clip of the family at this point, but not necessarily a work of genius.