My Narrative

Intro: Despite having a major academic interest in history, one of my passions I seldom have the opportunity to engage in is acting.
Body: Discuss several childhood anecdotes and stories about how I discovered this interest.
Discuss my 9th and 10th grade acting teacher Mr. Andreassi, and acting throughout high school

Conclusion: Discuss my future in this interest and my limitations.

Dieting: Huge Conspiracy?

I found this essay to be very interesting because the author dove right into a problem that is not very obvious, the relation between Nutrition and poor Health. Modern medicine and numerous dieting pills and supplements have successfully masked the real problem of our diets – the “super” nutritious foods that we eat daily. The author makes a strong argument because he established the history of the nutrition movement. At first I thought I was reading his argument wrong when he claimed that isolated nutrients were the root of the problem. We’re so used to going to the supermarket and buying cereals that boldly claim 50% MORE CALCIUM, or orange juice brands laced with vitamin C without actually considering the implications of these nutrients. Some of us may know exactly what these nutrients “theoretically” are supposed to do, but in reality, the majority of people focus on these items because they look healthy. Pollan addresses the issue of these isolated nutrients well, showing that the supposed benefits of these nutrients are not necessarily guaranteed, but they are just what the scientists expect to happen. Like Pollan said, science is sometimes based around the notion that once things are broken down they can be better understood. Unfortunately, like Pollan explained, the rules of understanding science are not compatible with diet. His theory of interconnectedness and the webbing structure of foods, digestion and genetics seems to be much more plausible than the current “isolated variable” theory of scientists.
Pollan ended his essay well, proposing several ways for you to gain control of your diet. The only idea I felt he could have expanded more upon was the idea of the nutrition system being beneficial to capitalism and vice versa. If everyone ate well, there would not be as many dieting pills and schemes in the market. Therefore these schemes and pills don’t attack the root of the problem; they skim the surface to enable more productivity.

Abortion: Who do you choose to kill?

Abortion has been a hotly debated topic ever since its legalization in Colorado and Colorado in 1967. It usually seems to be a fight between conservative Christians and liberals. I believe abortion is usually hotly contested because it is an argument based on ambiguous definitions. A person’s definition for human, life, soul and person significantly influences a person’s stance on abortion. There are no universal definitions that cross the lines of the argument. For this reason, finding middle ground in this debate would be virtually impossible. Theoretically, there is a scientific definition for human life, which conflicts with the pro-choice stance. According to science, human life is “any living cell or collection of living cells that contains DNA from the species homo sapiens”. So, according to the law, since murder is ending human life, many consider abortion to be murder. This is not the case. Though the embryo being aborted may be considered human life because it is a mass of cells, is it sentient? Does it have a soul? Is it a person? The answer is no. By this definition of human life, the skin scraped of your hand after a hard accident is human life. Even a strand of hair can be considered human life based on this definition. None of these things are sentient, so therefore, why do they deserve human life?
Some against abortion like to take middle ground and say that abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest. I completely disagree. Laws in this case should be universal. What makes the resulting embryo from a rape victim of any less value than the embryo of a loving couple? The answer is that there is no difference. You can’t have it both ways. If you consider it murder to terminate an embryo, then if you terminate the embryo of a rape victim, what makes it justifiable? Based on your own pro-life rules, you have committed murder. So if abortion is legal, it should be legal in all cases, and if made illegal, the same law should stand based on moral responsibility.
Abortion would also be beneficial when it comes to saving the life of the pregnant woman. In some cases it comes to choosing between the woman and the unborn fetus inside of her. Because I do not believe abortion to be murder, I can go in and take the embryo out without any qualms. You, on the other hand, must choose between taking the life of the woman, and based on your moral code, the life of the embryo. Which one do you choose to kill?

Persuasion

I found the second essay, Inter Arma Leges, to be the most persuasive. When I started reading the essay I was already skeptical to his argument because I previously considered myself a supporter of the suspension of rights of suspected terrorists. After 9/11 and the numerous other threats from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, I felt that if someone was suspected of being a terrorist, detaining them was paramount because they could prove to be a huge threat to Americans. I also felt that since protecting Americans was the main concern of C.I.A and the government, one should not question their methods; the results were the only significant factor. However, Norman opened my eyes to the other side of the story. For every one detained, guilty terrorist, it is possible that there are two non-guilty ones in imprisonment.
While reading his argument, I found myself searching for a response or a sufficient rebuttal to all of his points. He also buffered all of his points with sufficient evidence. For example, when he said the view of America had been tarnished, he provided statistics from various polls from around the world. Norman also made sound analogies, comparing the policies of this government to the mistakes of the post- Pearl Harbor government of the Roosevelt administration. Thousands of Japanese were unjustifiably imprisoned and put into camps. This is certainly something that our government regrets, and is now repeating the same mistake.
I think Norman was successful mainly because he changed my view on the treatment of suspected terrorists. He provided reasonable arguments with evidence that specifically validated each of his points. The statistical point that really convinced me was the fact that 75% of the detainees during Vietnam were innocent. This figure was only determined through fair trial, something not possible at Guantanamo Bay due to the restraining of rights. This data put me over the edge, and now I can say that I am against the new policies on terrorists and their treatment.

Orwell

I found Orwell’s essay and its critique on politics to be very interesting. After reading his essay, I felt as if my eyes were opened to the truth. I have to say that I found myself guilty of a lot of his criticisms. For example, his criticism of pretentious language and its role in “fashionable writing” definitely had some truth. I’m not going to accuse anyone of this, but I sometimes find myself searching for bigger, longer and more advanced words to express my meaning. In my view, these words give credibility to my writing while making me seem more intelligent. The truth, however, is that simply knowing these words makes me no smarter than someone who uses less advanced alternatives. Also, a lot of the time when we think we are using intelligent words or phrases, they most likely have been recycled throughout literature by many different people. And like Orwell said, these words probably have the same vague meanings that can be applied to various situations.
The connection between the decline of language and politics by Orwell was also logical. Using vague metaphors and ambiguous language not only buffers the argument, it hides the true purpose and conceals hidden points. I do disagree with him that language as a whole is declining though. I feel that this type of writing has always been present. There are negative aspects, but it is in our nature to present versions of ourselves that make us seem better than what we actually are. Using pretentious words or phrases is just a manifestation of that desire in our language. This will also not change. I feel that if all writing was short and to the point, some of the beauty of language will suffer. I feel that Orwell’s critique of language was correct, but solving the problem would be impossible.

Letters from Birmingham

Right from the outset of the outset of his persuasive argument, Martin Luther King does a great job of setting up the audience he was arguing against. He also did so in a civil manner, acknowledging the severity of the matter by explaining how answering criticisms was such a rare occurrence for him. Also, he initially makes sound analogies between his crusade and the convictions of others, such as the prophets of the old testament, Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul.

In my opinion, Martin Luther King writes a successful persuasive essay because he employs all of the necessary devices. He literally views his audience as a panel of Jurors, taking into account all of their arguments and criticisms and making adequate rebuttals. In one particular section, he anticipated not only the questions of his direct audience, but of the skeptical Americans he was trying to win over. He utilized "cause and effect" to explain why direct action was necessary and how it pushes non-violent negotiation as a by product.

King also did a good job of referencing scholars and using history as evidence for his position. Although for the most part his analogies were effectual, there was one section where I felt his analogy was not accurate. He likens the possibility of his actions precipitating violence to a robbed man being condemned for having too much wealth, or Jesus being crucified because he chose to be too divine. To me comparisons such as these are way too grand. These comparisons were too much of a stretch. It is perfectly logical to assume that a non-violent demonstration in a completely unstable part of the country could lead to violence. That was my only criticism, however.

Writing on Research

A successful research paper, in my opinion, captures the reader’s interest right from the outset. Even if the topic is incredibly boring, the writer’s main objective is to keep the reader interested and engaged. Changes and writing style as well as using sources other than books and websites and using less conventional sources, such as interviews, aid in this. A good research paper also remains mostly objective throughout with a largely general thesis. A good amount of interest in the subject matter should be exhibited by the writer throughout the paper as well. If the writer enjoys the paper, the reader most likely will too. In a research paper it’s also always important to back check important data and facts from other sources to make sure the information is reliable.
Remaining objective does not mean silencing yourself and delivering a bland “copy-paste” paper, however. A good research paper will still have the voice of the writer imbedded in the writing. When writing a research paper, some just gather information from their sources and reproduce all of it in their papers virtually unchanged. The actual pros may be different, but the writing has no distinct voice or style. It is just a lumped group of data and facts. On the other hand, some write too much with their own voices, not relying on outside sources. This form of writing is also dangerous because it lacks evidence and support. Basically, a good research paper incorporates the writer’s voice and distinct style all the while remaining objective.