Linguaphile

Ever since I was 4 years old, I have been interested in languages. I remember smiling while singing Frère Jacques to my mother in the French classes we attended together. From Kindergarten through 2^nd grade, I learned Spanish at school. After I began public school in 3^rd grade, I recommenced French; I continued it through 7^th grade. Cumulatively I have taken 8 years of French. In 9^th grade I became more adventurous, using Rosetta Stone for Arabic. I tried to take Chinese online in 10^th grade, but the applications were incompatible with my computer; I replaced it with Spanish. Now I take German and Russian. I intend to begin Chinese and Hindi soon. My goal is to travel the world without guides and use my language and cultural knowledge to establish rapport with locals. Speaking to a native Frenchman in his own language on a train was an exhilarating experience, and I want to relive it a thousand times over.

I have been fortunate enough to have sterling natives as my teachers for almost every language I have taken. They have inspired me to conquer other languages by showing that it can be done. For instance, Mr. Gervais, my 7^th grade French teacher who was raised by Francophone parents in Quebec, learned English in school and moved to the United States and mastered English while in high school. He proves that a motivated person with a propensity for language can realize his dream of becoming fluent in another language.

Over the years my reasons for learning languages have evolved: Whereas I previously learned to make As, I now learn to challenge myself and to acquire the knowledge to travel unfettered, meet interesting people, and experience new cultures. Recently, to challenge myself to master multiple languages, I bought French, German, and Russian books to study independently. I even rediscovered English while studying vocabulary for the SAT; now I learn 4 or 5 words a day. I am an eclectic and voracious linguaphile.

Beau Sam McGowan

            I am who I am because of the people I have met. Every interaction has edified me; I have learned not only from positive but also from negative experiences. I internalize the good qualities I encounter and jettison the bad aspects of people that I find within myself. Consequently, my character is perpetually improving. More than anyone else, Beau Sam McGowan cultivated my character.
            Beau Sam was an extraordinary man. He was a neighbor. He was a dear friend. He was a legend. As his obituary affirms, “Though he had a heart of gold, Beau Sam was a man of steel.” Proof of this lies in the reason he was awarded the Army Distinguished Service Cross: He led a charge against 100 Germans wherein he neutralized two machine guns, killing three men and capturing six; forced a prisoner to load a German machine gun, with which he killed or injured 12 more Germans; and despite suffering a severe wound that earned him one of his two purple hearts, he reorganized his platoon and placed his men in defensive positions before being evacuated. For his steeliness, Beau Sam earned four medals: two Purple Hearts, the Army Distinguished Service Cross, and the French Medal of Honor. Also, he was an Eagle Scout, which in turn inspired me to become one. Due to his heart of gold, his kith and kin included virtually everyone in Glynn County, Georgia and countless more in Beaufort, South Carolina. Beau Sam knew everyone, and everyone knew Beau Sam. Furthermore, everyone liked Beau Sam. I have yet to hear a bad word about him. He served as a protector to the shrimping community. He would drive himself 15 miles “into town,” as he would say, every day until he was hospitalized at 85 to check on the shrimpers and bail them out of trouble. A more compassionate man has never lived.
            I am eternally indebted to Beau Sam for his contributions to my character. Beau Sam had experienced everything worth experiencing, and he drew on his plethora of experiences to teach me the most valuable lessons of life. He taught me about living, about living vivaciously, and about living respectably. He taught me who to acknowledge, who to appreciate, and who to admire. He taught me what to quote, what to exaggerate, and what to invent. He taught me when to defend my beliefs, when to walk away from a situation, and when to fight. He taught me where to find the best shrimp, where to find productive people, and where to find trouble. He taught me why to love Jekyll, why to love America, and why to love the globe. He taught me how to cook shrimp, how to drive, and how to shoot a revolver. He taught me not to dismiss others, to learn from them, and to respect them—no matter what. He taught me that no one lives forever, that some people need help, that most people have a decent story, and that everyone needs a friend. Though, regrettably, my memories of Beau Sam will fade, the lessons he taught me never will.
            Beau Sam profoundly altered my perspective. Through his years of experience, he was able to enlighten me with the most treasured of life’s lessons and encourage me to experience experiences worth experiencing. He taught me how to drive, urged me to become an Eagle Scout, and served as a paragon of character for me to emulate. Everything about Beau Sam was inimitable; words do him no justice. There will never be another Beau Sam McGowan.

Momentous Speeches for Momentous Occasions

            A speech can only be as great as the reason for which it is delivered: momentous occasions make speeches epochal. Consequently, Obama’s Inaugural Address, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, and Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream are all consequential addresses as their themes are consummately significant. Obama’s Inaugural Address, delivered to the American people on January 20, 2009, seeks to convince a disheartened, emasculated nation that it will weather its crisis in spite of those who “fear that America’s decline is inevitable” and comport itself valiantly as a nation so that future generations will be able to say that their ancestors “carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely” (391, 396). Similarly, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, delivered to the Union on March 4, 1865 but intended too for the Confederacy, strives to convince an effete, warring nation that the outcome of the American Civil War is God’s will; that it must “strive on to finish the work” of the war and “bind up the nation’s wounds” afterwards; and that it must do all it can to “achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace” with itself and all nations (467).

Likewise, King’s I Have a Dream, delivered on August 28, 1963 for all Americans—regardless of skin color, informs America that the Negro can no longer endure “the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination” that it has for generations and that America must end its strife with itself or end itself with strife (481). Though all the speeches have pivotal themes—especially Lincoln and King’s, only King’s words inspired action directly. The inaugural addresses’ words did not inspire action per se; rather, subsequent policies did. Since it was the only speech to instigate action directly and since it evoked the largest popular reaction of the three, before I read the speeches I imagined that King’s I Have a Dream would be the most effective. After reading all of them, it is decidedly clear that King’s is the most effective. It artfully employs repetition, consummately appeals to emotion, eloquently demands change, and thereby effectively delivers its message of freedom.

            Both Barack Obama and Martin Luther King adroitly utilize repetition in their addresses to engage their audiences, but King’s employment of repetition is more effective than Obama’s. King exclusively repeats emotional phrases, while Obama repeats relatively unemotional ones and under-repeats the one emotional one in his speech. The most frequently repeated phrases in I Have a Dream are “I have a dream” and “let freedom ring” (484, 485). Both are emotional phrases that deliver ocular or aural frissons; when you read or hear them, you shudder. These are some of the most heartfelt lines ever uttered:

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today. (King 484)

Even the most despicable racist must be moved on some level after reading or hearing those sensational words. On the other hand, Obama repeats phrases that are unpoignant:

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West—know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. (Obama 394)

Though his words are substantial and his message is clear, Obama’s use of repetition does not have the same chilling effect that King’s does. To give him some credit, Obama did have one phrase that was particularly moving:

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. (Obama 392)

Regrettably, he repeated “for us” only three times. King repeated “I have a dream” three times as many and “let freedom ring” twice as many. In short, King’s I Have a Dream excels Obama’s Inaugural Address primarily because the former is more passionate and applies repetition more skillfully than the latter.

            While King eloquently quotes lyrics, President Lincoln’s bible verses only serve to perplex his audience; and Lincoln’s speech is unemotional. Ideally, a quote is included within a work because it accentuates and augments the author’s message while concomitantly alluding to another work that has significance to both the author and his audience. King’s two quotes do just this:

My country, ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring. (485)

Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (485)

Both emphasize and expand King’s message; both add emotion to an already emotional speech. Contrastingly, Lincoln’s bible verses, while clearly significant to both author and audience, serve only to confuse those who are not well versed in verses. With its antediluvian language, this verse is a compositional nightmare: “Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!” (Lincoln 466). Try saying that one ten times fast! Instead of adding to the speech, the verse detracts from it. Also, Lincoln’s address is in effect devoid of emotion. This is probably due to the President’s conviction that the nation had no time to waste and therefore did not have time to listen to emotionally appealing yet largely impertinent words. Regardless, King’s emotional appeals and use of poignant, comprehensible quotes make his speech more effective than President Lincoln’s.

            King’s I Have a Dream is decidedly more effective than either inaugural address. It is a masterpiece with universally heartfelt emotional appeals and eloquent employment of repetition and quotes that contains a momentous message. It directly inspired millions to demand nothing less than equality; it has continued to inspire for nearly a half century; and it will indubitably influence future generations. Because of his speech, King’s dream materialized.

Obama's Inaugural Address

I claim neither to be an Obama enthusiast nor critic; however, I do claim to have been affected by his inaugural address. The address thoroughly appealed to my—and most Americans’—emotions. Almost every line alluded to American greatness. For instance, the first sentences of paragraph 19 were especially allusive:

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.” (393)

 Obama’s sentences were deliberately crafted to inspire Americans to unite and persevere through the Great Recession. His words were intended to reenkindle faith in America. Obama proclaimed, “What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility—a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.” (395) Like the iconic Gettysburg Address, which appealed to the emotions of a strifeful America at war with itself, Obama’s Inaugural Address will surely be studied for generations because of its consummate evocativeness and nonpareil sterlingness.

Rhetorical Analysis: Should Batman Kill the Joker?

            Pop culture is a useful tool for analyzing ethical approaches to emotional issues objectively. Mark D. White and Robert Arp’s essay, “Should Batman Kill the Joker?” (published in The Boston Globe in 2008), proves this by using Batman to analyze America’s “issues with terror and torture” (405). The authors apply the principles of the three major schools of ethics to the question of whether or not Batman should kill the Joker—which they claim is analogous to whether America should torture terrorists to obtain information that could save innocent lives—in order to demonstrate the value of their method of analysis. The essay effectively utilizes several rhetorical strategies to support the authors’ thesis: viz., using simple diction, referring to Americans as “we,” critically analyzing Batman’s quandary, and using inductive reasoning to suggest a general rule (i.e., pop culture can be used to analyze ethical approaches to emotional issues).

            In order to appeal to most Americans, the authors use one of the most famous characters ever created to demonstrate how analyzing pop culture can lead to worldly conclusions. Since Batman is known by people of all ages, the essay’s examples are relevant for people young and old. By using Batman the authors are able to instantly connect with the majority of readers and leave them with a memorable example. Furthermore, using a massively appealing character makes the essay more interesting. Also, rather than having to explain a hypothetical, using a scenario that most readers have prior knowledge of saves readers time and effort. Using Batman as its primary example allows “Should Batman Kill the Joker?” to captivate nearly any American reader.

            Like the use of Batman as their primary example, the authors’ diction is intended for the average American. White and Arp refrain from using recondite vocabulary in order to appeal to as many people as possible; they even use slang and contractions. For instance, the authors ask, “Does Batman want to be the kind of person that takes his enemies’ lives? If he killed the Joker, would he be able to stop there, or would every two-bit thug get the same treatment?” (405). “Two-bit” makes the authors’ questions seem quite informal. One can imagine two friends talking amongst themselves in much the same fashion. Also, the essay states that if Batman killed the Joker he would be replaced by one of the “masked loonies ready to take the Joker’s place” (404). “Loony” and “two-bit” help the essay seem more nonchalant than it truly is. Like a dog that swallows a pill inside of a slice of cheese, the unsuspecting reader swallows an ethics lesson masked by the essay’s entertainingness.

            Also, the essay’s use of “we” in reference to Americans betrays its intended audience. The authors ask, “[W]hy aren’t we tougher on actual terrorists than we are on the make-believe Joker?” (405). Since the essay was published in The Boston Globe, an American newspaper, it is reasonable to assume that the authors are referring to Americans when they use “we.” Later in the piece they use “we” in reference to Americans again: “Many Americans who oppose torture explain their position by saying, ‘It’s not who we are’ or ‘We don’t want to turn into them.’” (406). After considering both quotes together, it becomes apparent that the authors are using “we” to refer to Americans, and thus expect Americans to read their essay. Again, the essay uses informal language (make-believe) to make the essay seem more insouciant. To summarize, the authors use elementary diction and slang and refer to Americans as “we” in order to appeal to an average American audience.

             In almost every paragraph White and Arp appeal to logic or critically analyze whether Batman should kill the Joker—and thereby analyze whether or not America should torture terrorists. The essay begins by presenting Batman’s dilemma and logically transitions into implications which can be derived from it: “Batman should kill the Joker. […] But if we say that Batman should kill the Joker, doesn’t that imply that we should torture terror suspects if there’s a chance of getting information that could save innocent lives?” (404). The authors begin with an unemotional solution to a fictional problem and apply it to a highly emotional, earthly issue. Though the jump from Batman and the Joker to America and terrorism is sudden, the authors effectively demonstrate how the former can be used to analyze the latter—thereby proving their thesis.

 Next the authors apply the Utilitarianism, Deontology, and virtue ethics to Batman: “Utilitarianism […] would probably endorse killing the Joker, based on comparing the many lives saved against the one life lost. […] [Deontology’s] position would be more ambiguous than [Utilitarianism’s]: While it may be preferable for the Joker to be dead, it may not be morally right for any person (such as Batman) to kill him. […] Finally, virtue ethics […] would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be the kind of person that takes his enemies’ lives? If he killed the Joker, would he be able to stop there, or would every two-bit thug get the same treatment?” (405). All three schools of ethics suggest a different solution to Batman’s problem. The authors use those solutions to analyze the debate over torture: “The same arguments apply to the debate over torture: While there are good reasons to do it, based on the positive consequences that may come from it, there are also good reasons not to, especially those based on our national character.” (406). This type of analysis—starting with an unemotional issue in pop culture that parallels a real, emotional one, critically analyzing the fictional issue, and then retranslating the analysis—effectively demonstrates how pop culture can be used to analyze real-world problems.

            In conclusion, “Should Batman Kill the Joker?” persuasively utilizes a number of rhetorical strategies to convey its point that pop culture can be used to explore “uncomfortable and emotional” topics (406). The essay’s elementary verbiage and primary example allow it to appeal to a large audience, while its sound critical analysis vindicates its thesis. White and Arp prove that fictional problems have real value.

Grammar: Comma Usage

When considering whether or not to set an element of a sentence off with commas, you must first determine whether the element is essential or nonessential to the meaning of the sentence.  If the sentence’s meaning would be altered by removing it, an element is considered to be restrictive; if the element only serves to augment the sentence, but does not change the meaning of the sentence, it is nonrestrictive and, therefore, requires commas.

Nonrestrictive:  The man, who had formerly been a member of the MIT blackjack team, won over 2 million dollars at the casino.

The man won over 2 million dollars at the casino.

In the above example, the element is nonrestrictive because the sentence would have the same meaning, though would lose detail, if the element were to be removed.  Notice that the meaning of the sentence survives the omission of the nonrestrictive element.

Restrictive:  Priests who molest children should be prosecuted.

Priests should be prosecuted.

In this example, omitting the bold element would indubitably alter the meaning of the sentence.  Without the restrictive element, the sentence would mean that all priests should be prosecuted, rather than just priests who molest children.  

Autodidactism vs. Formal Education

            Society overemphasizes appearances; it is concerned with superficialities rather than the truth—the prestige of the school attended and the grades achieved at said school rather than a person’s true knowledge.  It might appear as if grades equate to knowledge, as if a more prestigious school conveys more knowledge, but in actuality this is not necessarily the case.  In substance, a student can learn more independent of the curriculum of formal education by tailoring his studies to his specific learning style (versus the learning style of the majority) and speed.  Autodidactism is superior to formal education in that it does not concern itself with grades (which can be manipulated), but rather knowledge; allows for the student to work at his own pace rather than be hindered by the speed of the majority (whether hasty or sluggish); permits the student to tailor his studies to his individual learning style; and develops self-discipline.

            In essence, formal education attempts to summarize knowledge in the form of grades.  This system has merit, for a higher grade typically indicates more knowledge of a particular subject, but the system is also deeply flawed.  Grades are flawed in that they can be manipulated by the unscrupulous through the practice of cheating.  Another shortcoming of grades is that they promote lethargy amongst the brightest students.  For instance, a capable student wishing to minimize his workload might choose not to study—or even not to read entire chapters in textbooks—because he can achieve his desired grade (be it an A or B) without doing so.  The above student might rationalize that it is acceptable for himself to earn a 92 rather than a 97, since both a 92 and a 97 translate to a 4.0, and therefore are equivalent in the eyes of college admissions officers, but this rationalization is detrimental to the education of this student—who, by not studying (or reading chapters), is depriving himself of knowledge.  By liberating himself from formal education’s emphasis on grades, the student can realize the true goal of education—the retention of knowledge.      

            As is mentioned above, the pace of the classroom is seldom the pace of the student.  Regardless of which end of the spectrum the student may be, the student suffers from the inequality between optimal pace and actual pace, if the actual pace is too slow, by not covering as much material as possible or, if the actual pace is too fast, by not achieving a proper understanding of the curriculum.  By isolating the individual from the majority, the needs of the individual can be satisfied.  Autodidactism allows for the student to work at his optimal pace, because he is the only person in the classroom, allowing for increased understanding, depth, and/or breadth of information.      

            In addition to learning speeds, learning styles vary between individuals, and therefore between specific individuals and the majority.  Classrooms do a good job of teaching information in a variety of learning styles in order to allow virtually all students to be successful.  Though teachers tend to spend the most amount of time teaching to the learning style of the majority, they typically cover all grounds as far as learning styles are concerned.  But is this the most efficient way of learning for the student?  By high school (and hopefully before), most students have determined their learning style.  Autodidactism provides the student with an opportunity to ignore the learning style of the majority and focus on himself instead.  By concentrating on his individual learning style, the student can achieve higher rates of retention than in traditional classrooms, and therefore will have a more genuine understanding of covered materials.

            In addition to increased amounts of knowledge, autodidactism encourages the student to develop work ethic.  In contrast to formal education, which follows a strict curriculum, the autodidact has the ability to choose what to learn and how to learn it.  Similarly, there are no mandatory school hours during which the autodidact must learn; the autodidact must self-motivate or his education will pay the price.  Though it can be argued that students of formal education must self motivate or pay the price as well, in some cases (Such as the one described in the second paragraph of this essay.) there is absolutely zero merit to this argument. Regardless, the autodidact has to develop much more self-discipline than the student of formal education; self-discipline will help in essentially all aspects of life—until death.

            In conclusion, autodidactism offers a number of benefits that cannot be attained from formal education.  Namely, by eliminating the concept of grades, the student can focus on what is truly important—knowledge.  Furthermore, the student gains the advantage of being able to learn at his own pace and in his own style.  Additionally, the student gains work ethic which in formal education is minimized in many of the brightest students.  In a word, autodidactism offers many benefits over formal education and more efficiently serves the purpose of equipping students with knowledge.