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.

Talent

Pundits once esteemed talent to be an innate gift that was inherited at birth:  one was either born with talent or without it.  That definition is less one of talent than of the ability to acquire talent.  Contemporary research suggests that talent is not entirely heritable, but is the result of thousands of hours of practice.  An article I recently read suggests a rule:  Mastery of any subject requires approximately 10,000 hours of practice (20 hours a week for 10 years).  The preceding rule suggests that talent is not what most deem it to be:  talent must be learned.  I was quite taken aback by these findings prima facie, but the rest of the article assuaged me.  The article asserted that though talent is the result of study, only subsets of people have the capacity to acquire any given talent; accordingly, certain people are more inclined, whether due to nature or nurture, to acquire specific talents than others.  For instance, if I were to adopt Michael Phelps’s diet and swimming routine, I would most likely not proceed to win any gold medals in the Olympics due to the simple fact that my muscles, joints, and height are not conducive to Olympic-level swimming.  Talent is analogous to proficiency in a language; certain people are able to gain proficiency faster than others, but in order for anyone to become proficient he or she must practice.  It seems that talent is a self-fulfilling prophecy; as people become more talented their lives tend to become more and more consumed by developing their talents since the talents become sources of income and/or entertainment.  While the general public would probably say that a person is either always or never talented, it is decidedly clear to me that talent is the result of labor (but is not universally attainable).  

Georgia Tech Essay: Boy Scouts of America

For ten years—since first grade—I have been involved in scouting. Boy Scouts has inculcated me with the importance of such values as comradery, integrity, and perseverance; furthermore, it has been instrumental in allowing me to develop crucial leadership skills which I would be devoid of otherwise. Progressing from Tiger Cub to Eagle Scout is one of the most rewarding experiences the world over. In short, I owe a great deal of who I am today to Boy Scouts.

            Due to my involvement with the Boy Scouts of America, I had the privilege of improving my community by designing and—with the help of my troop—completing my own Eagle Project: it replaced the trash receptacles in Hanover Square Park, a park immediately outside of downtown Brunswick that desperately needed to have its unserviceable receptacles replaced. Though my goal was simple, achieving it was logistically difficult at times. For instance, I ordered steel stakes that were supposed to have 5/8 inch holes in them to fit 5/8 inch bolts, but the ones that arrived had holes too small for the bolts. Rather than ship the stakes back to the machine shop, which would be costly and time consuming, I decided that it would be better for my dad to widen the holes. (I could not since scouts are not allowed to use power tools during their projects.) After melting a drill bit and spending an entire day slaving away over the stakes, my dad finally completed modifying the holes. Thanks to his efforts my project was completed on schedule. My Eagle Project taught me that achieving an ultimate goal—however simple—is a crucible of perseverance that requires a person to constantly modify his plans in accordance with his situation.

            Similar to a soldier in combat, a patrol leader must adapt to rapidly changing circumstances within his patrol. Amicable play can quickly degenerate into a fight if someone feels wronged. For example, a few scouts under my supervision were playing harmoniously on a hill when one, Chet, decided that it would be funny to throw a pinecone at his friend, Francis. Regrettably, the pinecone struck Francis squarely in the eye. Though Chet was immediately remorseful, Francis became infuriated and tried to tackle him. I rushed over to the scene as quickly as I could and began to assess the situation. I discerned from Chet’s visage that he had not meant to harm his friend; however, I also gathered that Francis was too incensed to recognize Chet’s intentions. I confirmed my understanding of the situation with both boys, explained Chet’s intentions to Francis, and then proposed a solution: Chet was to apologize and promise not to throw anything else for the remainder of the trip. The two agreed that my solution was fair and accepted it. Consequently, the remainder of the campout was pleasantly uneventful. As a rule, a competent leader identifies problems, analyzes situations, and suggests sensible solutions.

            I cannot overstate the impact that the Boy Scouts of America has had on my life; were it not for the organization I would not possess the leadership skills that I do today. Scouting invaluably helped me develop my leadership skills by entrusting me with the responsibility of shepherding younger scouts and solving conflicts that occurred amongst them. In conclusion, Boy Scouts has helped me become a better person.

The Raid

            We were only minutes from completing (and being paid for) the most momentous job of our lives:  packaging and distributing 250 kilos of cocaine to dealers across the region.  This order was our ticket to the big leagues: we would be feared.  We ran our packaging operation out of a small dilapidated house in the worst neighborhood in town.  Our job was to package the cocaine into bricks to give to our dealers, who would then sell small amounts to anyone and everyone who wanted coke.  The amount of cocaine that we were working with was 250 kilos—enough to put everyone involved in the operation away for life without parole.  But we could only think about how much money we were going to make on the deal.  There were five of us in charge of packaging and we were each standing to make $40,000.  Why would we risk life without parole for $40,000?  Because, in our minds, we were invincible.  None of us had as much as a parking ticket on our record.  There was no way we would ever get caught.  Not in a million years. 

            Thoughts of invincibility were shattered as the front door came crashing in.  “D-E-A!  Everybody on the ground!” shouted a burly voice.  I heard the back door being kicked in.  Our house was being breached from all directions!  We were being assaulted by a small army of agents carrying automatic weapons and wearing bullet-proof vests embroidered with the letters “DEA.” I dropped the brick of cocaine in my hands; it exploded when it hit the tile floor, momentarily filling the air with a cloud of the substance.  A surge of adrenaline caused my mind and heart to race.  I was desperately trying to find a viable escape route.  My heart was going to explode. 

            This could not have been happening!  Not to me!  I should not have even been there! I should still have been working as a waiter on the South side of town.  How did I even end up there?  My goddamn cousin!  My cousin was the one who had gotten me set up with that gig in the first place.  It was his fancy suits and super-charged car that had caught my attention and made me ask where he got the money to finance his opulent lifestyle.  He told me that if I wanted he could set me up with a job packaging cocaine for his crew, as he described it, an up-and-coming operation that would soon become a major player.  How could I have refused the money that he was offering?  Surely I could not have subsisted on my minimum wage job as a busboy.  I wanted what he had:  money, respect, and power.

I franticly dashed through the 15-foot-long, tiled main hallway to the back of the house.  There was a muscular, 6-foot, white DEA agent gripping his automatic weapon on the other side of the room standing under the doorway that leads to the bathroom, but I ran so fast past him that I could not have been more than a blur in his peripheral vision.  I bolted through the back exit and into the backyard, where four equally large agents were stationed to catch anyone who might be lucky enough to make it outside.  Lucky for me they were preoccupied by Angel, who had the same idea as me.  Angel was lying prostrate in the grass with his legs spread, elbows angled outward, and hands interlocked on the back of his head.  Three of the agents were standing over him with their weapons pointed at him; the other had a walkie-talkie in his hand and was apparently putting word out that one target had been neutralized.   I was spotted by one of the men standing over Angel, who immediately pointed me out to the other agents.  Two of the men pursued me; the other two remained with Angel.  Only twenty feet separated me from life without parole. 

My mind agonized over the thought of life without parole.  The thought of spending the rest of my life locked up was too much to bear.  I pictured what my life would be like in jail.  I would spend my first few staring at the wall of my cell, thinking of how to break out.  After a while, I would realize that I will never be able to escape, and despondently I would break down in tears.  I would join a prison gang for protection and get tattooed from head to toe.  I would eat prison food for the rest of my pathetic life.  I would wither and die in prison.  The death penalty sounded more appealing.

There have been reports of people experiencing super-human strength when in extreme situations; unfortunately for me, I saw no improvement in my speed.  I ran as fast as I could through the yard, ducking to avoid the empty clothes line.  My jump barely cleared the two foot fence that envelops the house.  I ran to the right of the house along the sidewalk, attentively inspecting the distance for obstacles that might impede my escape or assets that might abet it.  The distance between the agents and I was narrowing—quickly!  The sound of their feet beating against the pavement was growing persistently louder.  I was doing everything in my power to keep my lead on them, but they might as well have been marathon-running Kenyans.  Though we could not have been running for more than a hundred yards, my lungs were on the verge of collapse.  But I could not stop—not for a second!  I persevered through the pain in my body.  My pursuers were tenaciously hell bent on sending me to jail.  Much to my dismay, I was merely postponing my imminent arrest. 

I am under the impression that the agent who tackled me either had neglected anger issues, especially hated criminals, or both.  If there had been a camera present to record that feat of athleticism, it would have ended up on Sports Center.  I could hear how close the agent was, so I was trying to brace myself for anything, but I was certainly not prepared to be taken to the ground that violently.  He tackled me straight to the pavement.  My skin was torn from my body as I received a lesson on friction.  I did not dare resist when he was handcuffing me;  in fact, I was in such shock from the pain of skidding across the pavement that I could not have possibly resisted.  As I was read my Miranda rights, the faces of all the people that would be devastated by my imprisonment flashed through my head.  I felt no physical pain, only emotional.  I saw the faces of my mother, father, and sister.  My aunts, uncles, and cousins.  My grandparents.  I would forever be a convict, a disgrace to the family name.  My family would visit me in prison, mourning over the loss of their only son.  I would look deep into their eyes and weep.  The death penalty sounded appealing.