TOW #24 - IRB

One Man's Wilderness is a book compiled by Sam Keith from the journals and photographs of Richard Proenneke. It is a lovely book which explores the beauty of the Alaskan wilderness and the challenges one man must overcome to survive in it. Proenneke uses vivid diction and explores his emotions in his journal to convey the beauty of the Alaskan Wilderness and how he struggles to survive in it. The reader feels Proenneke's emotions, experiences his thoughts, almost as it happens. When describing the sheer beauty of the valley which he occupies, the author says "Somehow I never seem to tire of just standing and looking down the lake or up the mountains even if it is cold. If this is the way folks feel in church, I can understand why they go." (Proenneke 141). He shares his thoughts as if the reader is a close friend, and the emotions that this all instills have a great range from joyous to somber. The book becomes extremely enjoyable due to the reader feeling like they are in an extension of the author's conscience. The author's vivid, yet borderline terse, diction carries the experience even further. When describing his observation of a pack of wolves, he says "Through the spotting scope, I could make out the narrow heads, the erect ears, the long muzzles. I would like to see those green eyes up close... suddenly one bolted nervously and loped down the ice" (Proenneke 129). Even though he condenses his days to the length of a paragraph or two, they never cease to be beautiful. This is the loveliness of the book. This is what makes it truly and profoundly special, how descriptive it is in such a brief amount of space. Proenneke's vision, his description, take this book, in all of it's glory, to the next level, making it one of the most impactful testimonials of all time to the power, and beauty, or nature.

TOW #23 - Visual

Neither facts nor light can escape from the loud mouth of Donald Trump. At least that's what this political cartoonist thinks. What he says mostly holds truth. Donald Trump is illogical and ignorant, but to say that everything that leaves his mouth is false is a vast overstatement of his ability as a leader and his honesty. Much of what Trump says is borderline fascist rhetoric, such as discussions about "illegal immigrants", islamaphobic generalizations, etc. To say, though, that all he says and does is ignorant unfounded rhetoric is misguided. His viewpoints on Chinese labor, ways to draw manufacturing back into America, is quite achievable and realistic. His viewpoint on tax reform for lower income Americans is certainly achievable and realistic, though it fails to actually raise the minimum wage and punishes small business over large enterprises. So is it fair to pigeonhole him into a purely reactionary, racist, and unrealistic cubbie? I don't really think so. This sort of rhetoric is exhausting, it fails to rise above the very tactics that the artist believes Trump uses. How hypocritical and ignorant is that? The reliance on the same stupidity that Trump alleges to use gives him the power to ridicule the media and Democrats for being unequal and unopen to new ideas. So yes, I do disagree with the artist, who fails to realize their own hypocrisy.

TOW #22 - More Than Just a Symbol

Hillary Clinton. Certainly a controversial figure. Is she a symbol of fading late 20^th century feminism, or a dynamic leader that will bring us into a new age? Many young women believe the former, and instead support Republicans or Bernie Sanders, however most others find themselves supporting Clinton. The article argues that Clinton has, and will, continue to address Women’s rights, but I can’t help but disagree with the author. Hillary does not address, or even understand, modern day feminists, at least in my definition. Clinton fails to understand a more recent, and popular adaptation of feminism, intersectionality. This idea states that all oppression, whether it be Women’s LGBT, or other minority, is interconnected and must all be addressed as one problem, and Clinton fails to realize this. She only recently supported LGBT rights, and probably only does now to get the support of her audience. Her belief in a Woman’s rights to choose is central to her campaign, and she criticizes Sanders because he does not have this as a central issue, but I cannot help but to disagree with her. Sanders plans to address all oppression at once, and not simply address women’s issues like Clinton plans to. So who really is the progressive candidate that Women need in the 21^st Century? To me, it’s Sanders. He truly believes in his word, does not flip flop for whatever is popular or easy to do, and is a true visionary, rather than the uncreative political juggernaut that Clinton is. Li Zhou would tell you that Clinton has a better track record, but as for me, I am more interested in the future, and not simply relics of the past.  

TOW #21 - Quit Your Job

Barbara Hagerty, contributor to the Atlantic, wants you, a middle aged person, to quit your job. She backs up this claim with irrefutable scientific research and personal experience, giving her argument a great deal of clout. Hagerty's claim holds true - you should quit your job if you find it tiring and aimless, and move onto something new and exciting. This should be done for a variety of reasons. Firstly, those who change jobs or even find meaning or continue to learn new things in their work generally are mentally healthier, but are also physically healthier, dying at a later time in their lives and are less susceptible to heart disease, cancer, and Alzheimers. Furthermore, people who switch to new jobs are generally happier workers, and it gets them through the lull that many who are middle aged experience. Furthermore, hating one's job should cause the to change it, why stick with a career that you despise or makes you hate your entire life? People who work at jobs they do not like are more likely to come under the influence of depression, and again, they are generally unhealthier than those who do like their jobs. So quit your day job. Do what you love full time. You will be happier, live longer, and live better, all reasons to change your career and move unto something superior to it. Fears about being unsuccessful and failing, those are all possibilities. However, being unhappy versus seeking new opportunity and pursuing what you love should not be a question. The journey will be worth the outcome, and you will come out a more seasoned and better person because of it. So do it, quit that boring job, and pursue your wildest dreams, your body, mind, and soul will thank you for it.

TOW #20 - IRB

One Man's Wilderness, a book compiled by Sam Keith who used the journal entries of Richard Proenneke, is an intriguing story about a man living in the Alaskan wilderness with very little contact to outside groups. He shares his stories about how he builds a log cabin from scratch, and lives off the land and explores it. His journals provide excellent insights of his time spent by being terse yet descriptive, and also showing overall patterns of change in order for the reader to see things growing from week to week, month to month, instead of a slower day to day process. The author starts out being dropped off at twin lakes, having nothing but his backpack and a run down cabin which is not his own near him. Through a great deal of work, he is eventually able to build a home. After two months, he says "The cabin was complete now except for the fireplace and, maybe later on, a cache up on poles. It was a good feeling just sitting and reflecting... I don't think I have ever accomplished anything as satisfying in my entire life" (Keith 98). The author shares his thoughts with the readers in such a candid way that they feel as though they are in his mind, and it really gives the book a lovely and personal touch, without being overly descriptive to the point where the language that he uses is obnoxious and superfluous. As the author grows, and builds, and succeeds, and fails, the reader grows, and builds, and succeeds, and fails, too. The reader is rooting for this man to succeed, and wish him the best; he is an example of human ingenuity surviving on his own in not the most ideal conditions. This beautiful book deserves to be read by many, as it is a truly intriguing personal and physical journey.

TOW #19 - 9/11 Address to the Nation

George Bush's powerful 9/11 address was perhaps the most important speech in this century. He had to comfort Americans, build their morale, and drive them towards defeating terrorism. He was largely successful in doing so, however time has poked holes in his argument. The gleaming rhetoric of the speech has rotted away and time brings out the fundamental flaws that started here.  The most fundamental problem with the speech was the claim that America would continue to be a beacon of freedom for the world. This is far from true. In our own nation, we have the restrictive Patriot Act that allows the government to spy on it's own citizens, and even an FBI case now calls for the government to have an ability to get a back door into iOS. Overseas, we forcefully broke into Iraq, violating the freedom of it's citizens, to looks for weapons of mass destruction, which we never found, but planted seeds of hatred for America in Middle Easterners. Now, we use drones to take out ISIS targets, and kill many innocents in the process. This is far from freedom, as we decided multiple innocent human lives were not worth the life of one evil person. America is no longer the beacon of freedom stated before, but a beacon of oppression and cruelty, one that actually leads many to extremism. The eloquent simplicity of George Bush's brief address seemed to be in unanimous agreement, but the way in which it's goals were carried out contradicted the very hopeful nature of the speech.

TOW #18 - The Supremely Old, Supremely Sharp, Supreme Court

Ryan Park, author at the Atlantic, explored the ironic nature of ageism in his article, the Supremely Old, Supremely Sharp, Supreme court. The article explores the sharpness of all of the judges on the supreme court, and shows how ironic this is because of their age. In this article, the author uses logical reasoning and expert evidence in order to show the ironic nature of ageism in America. When talking about the supreme court upholding a law in Missouri forcibly retiring Judges after the age of 70, it shows that Justice Ginsberg, age 83, chose to support that law. If she was smart enough to make this decision, then why did she contradict her own position? The supreme court is an obviously able group of people, Scalia was bright and aware until the day he died, and they too are generally quite old. Park quotes a professor at the University of Edinburgh to show that people who are smart as children maintain their intelligence throughout their life, showing why the supreme court justices are still as bright as they are. This article questions why the laws are the way that they are, and shows counterexamples as to why they are wrong. In this way the argument is successful. The author shows the contradictory nature of the court, and wants them to change their policies. By showing the intelligence of the supreme court and their age, the author brings into question the validity of their decision - why do they encourage the ageist policies established in places like Missouri? Nevertheless, the author was successful, and wrote a great article contradicting the decision of the supreme court.