My work to date

Up to this point I feel like I'm a little lacking in the research part of the project, which means I'm probably doing just the right amount. I tend to overestimate what needs to be done, and end up getting more than enough because of my lack of certainty. I've done some sit ins at two Starbucks thus far. I hope to do one more this weekend to give me a good opening description of a cup of coffee at Starbucks (the action, not just the drink). I've got one sizable book to read (Howard Shultz' autobiography) and two smaller ones. I have a few online journals, but I'm not sure what they're going to amount to. I'm interested in finding some blogs online that deal with baristas and people who cannot get enough (or get too much) Starbucks. I'm not sure if this will give me resources or just a few good leads, but this will hopefully be comparable to interviews. In other words, some first hand sources that may not be full of facts but will be full of opinion. As far as writing goes, I'm off to a normal start, which means a really rough draft. I've preliminarily decided how I'd like to set up my paper, but the pieces are not necessarily in place. I have a rough idea of format, but I'm not sure which facts best support that format. I feel like I have a thesis, or if not one I keep, certainly one I can work with. I felt like I hit a rut by picking such a broad culture, because it almost seems like they're selling peoples' culture back to them, but I think there is something interesting in that. As far as questions that I'd pose in peer discussion; I think the biggest thing I'd want to know is if the paper is coherent and can hold attention for that amount of time. I find that when I write longer papers, I can be a bit redundant, so the best way to catch that is to have someone else read it.

Argument styles

The arguments of each piece I found to be a bit tricky to identify. It was sometimes also hard to identify specifically what they might have been arguing, but I feel like this question was a bit easier, since I could at least be close to correct.
The first article was the Truck Stop as Community and Culture. This piece seemed to claim that truckers have a human side. The author seemed to address that trucking is a job and a way of life that creates cynicism in its participants, but if one is willing to invest the energy, the human side of the truckers can be found. The truck stop was identified as the focal point of truckers lives, where they were able to meet with fellow truckers and to escape from the rest of the world. The author seemed to be using a Rogerian style of argument, because he seemed to be laying the common ground between truckers and the rest of the world. I feel like his goal was to make people realize that truckers deal with problems akin to those that everyone else deals with.
The next article we read was Dark Webs Goth Subcultures in Cyberspace. This was a bit more clear on its claim since the author explicitly stated it. The premise was that the Internet goth subculture accomplished the same tasks that social gathering places did in the past. He compared online activities and information passing to what occurred before the internet in clubs, record stores, etc. Again, the style was a bit more difficult to determine, but I think Clasical is what best fits this argument. The reason that I pick classical is because the author has a very clear thesis. I felt that with such a clear thesis there was no room left for likelihood, but rather, the author's goal seemed to be certainty.
The third piece was Transmissions from Trans Camp. It was harder with this piece to identify the claim. The author made a valiant attempt to objectively provide information, since she seemed to be writing for the press. I'm not sure if she was specifically arguing for recognition of trans-gender individuals among lesbian cultures, or among society as a whole. I'd choose society as a whole since the audience was presumably a paper or magazine available to all, rather than just to one group. Although, as an afterthought, it may have been directed at gay and lesbian subcultures since such a topic might have been handled with more sensitivity if directed at the general population. In terms of the style of argument, I think that this falls between Toulmin and Rogerian. I pick the inbetween because the author establishes common ground, but seems to be making a strong point without room for compromise.
The last piece addressed by this blog is the House for the Homeless. The author here seemed to be giving a description more than an argument. At times I felt like she was championing hard work and escape from homeless situations being a personal choice. In the next moment she seemed to be calling for support for the homeless. It wasn't until the conclusion that it was made more clear that she was calling on the homeless to believe in themselves. Her style of choice would almost certainly be Toulmin since she seemed to argue that her family and other families like hers were able to create lives for themselves even if it wasn't what they wanted, they took what they could get. I think it fits the style because, again, it firmly argues a point, but it leaves a little room for other opinions.

Saturday at Starbucks

I somehow managed to make myself wake up relatively early on a Saturday morning and made my way to what I hoped would be a peaceful Starbucks experience. I chose to go to a Starbucks that was on the north side of Atlanta, more for the convenience of what I wanted to get done afterwards than anything else, but I figured any Starbucks would do for my first outing. I've been to Starbucks before, but previous trips have been to get a cup of coffee and go. I never really hung out to see what all of the people who stayed in were up to. The first thing that I noticed was that most people did what I typically do. They came in and got some coffee and left. Being in the more affluent neighborhoods of north Atlanta meant that most of the customers were dressed in either nice weekend clothes, or expensive exercise suits. I noticed that the "Baristas" had their own vocabulary when talking to each other about ordered drinks, but I didn't pick up on much more of it that drink sizes and what type of milk was in each drink. I'll certainly have to see if there's more to it than simply speaking fast. The shop had newspapers in it for people to read, they had a ratty old chess set that no one touched (how did it get ratty?), all of the tables were set up so if you wanted to accomidate a large group, you would have to do some moving around of furniture. Cafes of Europe? I once went to a restaurant in downtown Atlanta that only had one table that would seat more than four people. I got a bit mad and asked why they planned so poorly, and the manager insisted that it was designed to be like a European Cafe where they never had more than four to a table. This was somehow designed to encourage inter-table socialization. Could Starbucks have the socialization goal in mind, or just the aping of European lifestyle?
The Barista were kept pretty busy serving drinks, traffic wasn't heavy, but constant enough that they didn't do much more than serve people while I was there. That sounds kind of obvious, but the detail I was noticing wasn't them being busy, but rather there were no lulls for the half-hour that I drank my coffee. The other customers who were sitting in the store were very much self-absorbed. One guy read a book, another read a newspaper in jogging clothes, and two had laptops and they looked important. I spoke to none of them, and they spoke to no one else. No one really seemed to notice the presence of other people. I expected a bit more interaction, but all I saw was the typical southern social interaction where people smiled as you squeezed by, but no one was really looking to talk to anyone else. Cellphones. Need I say more? These are mundane details, I know, so I'm wondering if I missed out on some greater scheme. It seems like the customers in this Starbucks were using it as a place to get away from people while still being among people. The Starbucks seemed to be the place where they could be alone, but they had to go out into public to be left alone. I know I'm making a big assumption with that, and I need to make sure to ask someone directly about this later.
My only personal interaction was with the guy working the register. His name was James. I asked him brief questions that had to do with Starbucks. I asked him why Starbucks doesn't have regular sizes? I figured it was because they were being pretentious, but the answer was that once upon a time, Starbucks only had two sizes- short and tall. Customers wanted more, but they didn't want to leave out the old customers who were used to ordering by short and tall, so they added Grande. Even after they added Grande, they still had demands for more. So, they added a twenty ounce cup, Venti, which is butchered Italian for twenty. So, I learned that the size vernacular isn't about being above regular sizes, but rather about making changes to accomidate customers without disturbing the old ones.
Things I need to do later: Talk to customers, visit at night, visit on work days during work hours, different locations (I imagine the Starbucks in Little Five Points will be different than the one in North Atlanta).

Prison Performing Arts Program

The analysis of the prisoners performance of Hamlet was very insightful and something that I found very well presented to the listener. I think a lot of what the interviewer was able to uncover in his study of the Prison Performing Arts Program were things that I would almost certainly have overlooked if it weren't for his bringing them to light.
One of the reasons that the interviewer was able to provide such detailed and relevant information regarding prisoners was that the group of people included in the subculture he was studying were not many. If he were to study the prison population as a whole, there would have been points that he may have overlooked due to the vastness of that group. By studying such a focused group, he was able to cover their activities and personalities well. Another reason that I think that his fieldsite worked well was that it was not something that most people encounter or even know of in their lives. By choosing to look into such a unique group the interviewer was able to raise interest in the group just by highlighting the uncommon nature of what they did. Another reason for the effectiveness of the fieldsite was that the author was able to show how the program improved the lives of the prisoners. He never seemed to say whether or not they should be released, but he did point out that they seemed to be reformed to some degree by participating in the play. The greatest advantage of the fieldsite is that every prisoner who participated in the play seemed to have a deep connection with the characters they played because of the moral dilemmas that they had faced in their own experiences. If the interviewer had reviewed Hamlet as performed by normal stage actors, it would not have been near as intriguing as the one pieced together here.
The interviewer drew a lot of attention to the fact that the players all understood Hamlet at a level that most people never will. I think the interviewer was attempting in some way to create irony over the fact that most people consider criminals ignorant or less educated, but by showing their thoughts regarding the play, he was able to contradict these assumptions. One of the most important observations that the author made was his attention to the individual players characters. He did a good job of creating an image for the listener about how Big Hutch might appear, or how passionate Mr. Word might have been during his performances. The author didn't seem to waste too much time describing what the prison looked like, because most people already have a basic idea in their head of what they expect in a prison. The author did make a point over certain features of the prison, but he was able to save time and keep the listeners attention by not going into too much detail.
The interesting aspects of the topic that the interviewer chose is that it behaves in many ways that most would find far more sophisticated than their expectations. The set of standards that the players seemed to follow were not quite what one would expect when asking prisoners to put on a performance of a play such as Hamlet. The respect that they had for each other was comparable to what one would expect in a typical theater, maybe even more. Even more striking was their acceptance of each others faults. Whenever one of the actors was unable to pronounce a word, or made a mistake with their lines, none of the other prisoners mocked their mistakes. Instead, they did what they could to help each other. The only thing that approached mockery was when a player would flub a line and they would all laugh, more an example of shared emotion than belittling. The other interesting thing is that through it all, the players did manage to keep the tough images that they found so important in prison. They even admittedly avoiding being too public about their roles in the regular prison population, so that they wouldn't tarnish their image, but as time passed, they seemed to throw caution to the wind and were noted as reading openly from cell to cell practicing lines. The other important observation regarding the social norms of the players is that they still stuck to the prison hierarchy that was so important to them. In fact, the author noted that they even applied the system to the play.
The authors style of interviewing was critical to how he was able to present the piece to listeners. He had to be careful in his questioning and not do too much to upset his interviewees so that he might get useful information from them without upsetting them and driving them away, especially since he noted the rigors that they had to go through just to be interviewed by him. He stayed away from touchy subjects, such as their crimes, until he was almost done interviewing them. This seems to be a very beneficial tactic because not only was he able to build their trust enough to get them to answer the difficult questions when he asked them, but if they had decided to shut him out, he would have gathered ample material to present his case.
I really enjoyed this piece and thought that the interviewer presented a subject that I had many incorrect assumptions about. In this, I think he accomplished his goal by presenting the material in a manner that was able to spark interest in the listener. I'm sure that I have overlooked some aspect of what the interviewer did to make his piece effective, but using simple interviews and observations he was able to compile a story that may influence many peoples' concept regard the humanity of convicts.

Topic: Coffeehouse culture. Specifically employees and patrons who remain in the store for extended periods of time. If I have to get more specific, I'll choose between big corporate coffeehouses or smaller, non-franchised shops.


Sources:
Oldenburg, Ray. The Great Good Place. New York: Marlowe & Company, 1989.

Roseberry, William. “The Rise of Yuppie Coffees and the Reimagination of Class in the United States.” The Cultural Politics of Food and Eating. Ed. James L. Watson, Melissa L. Caldwell. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. 122-143.

Schultz, Howard, Dori Jones Yang. Pour Your Heart Into it: How Starbucks built a Company One Cup at a Time. New York: Hyperion, 1997.

Simmons, John. My Sister's a Barista: How They Made Starbucks a Home From Home. London: Cyan, 2004.

Clark, Taylor. Starbucked: A Double Tall Tale of Caffeine, Commerce, and Culture. New York: Little, Brown, 2007.

Reflection: I read the preface to The Great Good Place and was pleased at what I found. The preface to the book seemed to be like a preface on my diving into the subject of coffeehouse culture. The author, Ray Oldenburg, is a sociologist and wrote this book at the end of the 1980s. The greatest advantage to this book is that right away the author indicates that coffeehouses are a place of culture. To be more specific, he proposes that coffeehouses in the U.S. are the only outlet for sharing culture with others in an informal setting. I think that his prospective is going to help me a lot because his study of coffeehouses is academic, and almost completely in line with the type of study that I will end up conducting, in that he is focusing on what exactly the culture is inside of a coffeehouse, what types of people can be found there, and what impact the culture inside of a coffeehouse has on the greater culture in America. One aspect that is both an advantage of the timing of this book is that it was written almost twenty years ago. One the one hand, the ideas might be a bit dated and not pertain to the corporate culture that has arisen in the form of Starbucks-like coffee franchises; on the other hand, his ideas might actually be a great prediction of what coffeehouses were to become. So, it will help me if I can find more current evidence that proves him correct, because this will help me to conclude that any of his predictions that haven't occurred yet, might still be possible. Even if I decide to narrow my focus to corporate coffeehouses, I still think that this book would be useful because it would provide an example of what franchise coffeehouses are attempting to create. The difficult part of this project is going to be reading through all the material I have found, or at least segregating the relevant chapters from multiple texts.

...will have her revenge on Seattle...

The phrase that I was researching was Frances Farmer. Obviously, it is a name and not a phrase, but it is one that was somewhat familiar to me before I begun my research, but I could not remember where from. As soon as I started to look for it, it was clear to me where I had heard it before. It was the name taken for a song title by the band Nirvana in the early 1990s. I had always wondered where they decided to title their song from, and this was the perfect way for me to find out, but I would soon hit many speed bumps in trying to determine exactly who Frances Farmer was.

It was easy enough to find out what her claim to fame was: Farmer was an actress in the 1930s and 40s who became quite a controversial character by being abrasive with Hollywood actors and producers. She also tended to rub anyone the wrong way that she disagreed with. After several years of behaving in this manner she was legally put in the care of her mother and committed to a mental health institution where she underwent hydro and shock therapy and eventually received a partial labotomy before being released (Walter and McDonald). Almost every source I encountered highlighted this facet of her life, so I find it very believable as well as the supposition that this is the main reason her story remains famous. However, beyond these basic facts, it was hard to find information on her. Typically, people simply refer to her in order to make a different point about another subject. So, I had managed to explain her in the context of the piece, “Hey Girl, Is Your Daddy Home?” but I felt I needed to learn more about who she was to complete my research.

Eventually, I came across an article, from Literature Film Quarterly, that noted that there was a movie released in 1982 that covered the story of Frances Farmer's life. The article approached the movie critically, but compared it to accounts of Farmer's life through her own autobiography as well as another one of the sources I had found, Shadowland, a biography of her life written by William Arnold. Reading through the article I was interested to learn that much of the movie was sensationalized, but that Farmer's life had actually been difficult as a result of her mother's exploitive treatment of her. Her mother had conspired with Hollywood producers to star Farmer in highly profitable motion pictures at any cost to Farmer herself. The result was Farmer lashing out against the public, as well as significant figures in her life. This left no one to support her when she got into trouble with the law and was turned over to her mother's care. Her mother subsequently had her committed, in a final act of exploitive behavior and service to her own self-interests (Waite).

It was interesting to learn so much about someone who has become the pop culture reference when referring to the injustices and loss of personality that seem to occur around institutionalization, but it certainly took a large amount of time. I was surprised to find so little information present on such an icon. I think the best way to obtain information would be to read the entirety of Shadowland and analyze the information in there. I would also like to find her autobiography, but it seems to have disappeared with time and cannot be found in the Georgia State Library. An interesting character, to say the least, and now, whenever I'm trying to refer to the injustices of harsh institutional treatment, I can point to the example of Frances Farmer, and know what I'm talking about.

Because I chose the movie, CB4, as my project, I decided to focus my research efforts on the main creator of the movie rather than the director. Chris Rock undoubtedly has more to do with the movie than the director. I ended up researching both just in case, and I found my assumption to be true. The director of the movie generally directed TV shows, and other movies that are not in dire need of great direction. I researched Chris Rock since I felt that his story would have much more correlation to the movie, and my researching proved correct. As the writer, producer, and main actor of the movie, it was obvious that the film belonged to Rock.

The first place I knew to look when researching about anyone who has any part in film is the Internet movie database, or IMBD for short. Imbd.com was a great resource in researching both the movie and Rock himself. It contains a lot of information about movie components in a specific detailed manner, such as who was in the movie, what other movies they've been in, when the movie was made, etc. It also contains short biographies of individual actors, but not in too much detail. The site is a great starting point when trying to discover anything in this area, but unfortunately, it is a lot like wikipedia in that it is user edited. It pointed me in one great direction indicating that Rock had written a book. I'll get back to the book later, but first I wanted to cross-reference some of the material with a more reliable source, so I next checked yahoo movies.

Yahoo movies is a bit more reliable because it isn't a composite piece made by many users, but rather a database composed by some group whose job it is to ensure accurate information. Sometimes they can be a bit lacking since not everyone is a superstar worth writing tons about, but with Chris Rock's super-stardom, it was full of information about him. Many of the facts lined up between these two sites. The only problem is that there is a good chance that some IMBD facts could have come from yahoo movies. So I googled his book to see what I could find from that.

Unfortunately, the book seemed to be nothing more than stand up by Rock in written form. I didn't actually find a print copy of the book, but all the reviews indicated that it was funny, but that it was simply a collection of comedic routines rather than a serious biography. I then realized that maybe the best source about Rock's life would be his stand up routines.

Of course, every comedian embellishes in order to enhance the comedy of their stories, but Rock's routines often times involve factoids about his life that don't seem to be overblown. In the end, I realized that there aren't too many sources of information on Chris Rock that aren't from a short interview, or a comedy sketch, or a quick biography on a website designated to movies. I guess that might be one of the problems of being an actor that performs comedy – no one takes you seriously enough to write much of an honest biography.

Teenage Wasteland

Teenage Wasteland: Suburbia's Dead End Kids was a book written by Donna Gaines about youth culture in America. Specifically, the book targets troubled youth in the form of rock 'n' roll kids in the 80s and 90s. I read the introduction to this book and gathered both the basis for the writers decision to write the book as well as her own credibility in writing it. Gaines starts by pointing out that her decision to write the book is based on her journalistic investigation of a teenage suicide pact in 1987. Four teenagers committed suicide together and she was dispatched by her newspaper, The Voice, to write a story on the subject. She then realizes upon investigating the incident that she had lost touch with youth culture. She explains that she has always felt that she was in touch with youth because she describes how her own youth was troubled. She grew up as an outcast rocker who had problems common among youths such as drugs, sexual deviance, and other teenage vice. However, she goes on to explain that she had eventually grown out of such habits and focused more on family and professional life. As a result she felt like she had eventually lost her grasp on what modern teens were experiencing. When she began investigating the suicide pact, she began to question what it was about modern teens that drove them to behave in the way that they did. She also found that the boundaries of social status did not affect how teens felt or behaved. She noticed that poor urban youth seemed to display traits similar to wealthy suburban youths.
Gaines' book obviously targets youth in a time that may not touch on hip hop culture directly, but the book seems to target youth aggression and its impact on society. Although her focus is on rock 'n' roll youths, the subject may be applicable to hip hop as well, especially when considering how one of the largest demographics of listeners to gangster rap is suburban youth. I think this book would be a fascinating read because it would address the issue of why youth need such heavy outlets for aggression. It may provide insight into why youth feel such aggression and what possible solutions might be available. It could also say that the sharing of aggressive music is a way to safely vent such frustrations. I would certainly need other sources if I wanted to tie this into a paper that addressed hip hop impact on youth culture, but this book could prove to be a huge resource when analyzing modern teens.

MC Solaar

MC Solaar is a hip hop artist whose cultural surroundings contribute greatly to what makes up his unique sound. Solaar was born in Senegal. His parents had Chadian origin. Later they immigrated to France. Solaar's large African as well as French background shape much of his sound. The decision by Solaar to take elements of French culture and incorporate them into his music has given him an edge on other hip hop artists. While Solaar doesn't necessarily take samples for all of his songs, many of the songs that he does sample are French in their origin. One famous sample that he took was from another prominent musician, Serge Gainsbourg. Gainsbourg gained international recognition for his music decades earlier. By sampling one of Gainsbourg's hits, Solaar was able to establish his own reputation internationally. Later, Solaar would collaborate with well known American performers gaining success in America as well as France. This is quite an accomplishment for anyone since hip hop seems to be so language dependent, and Solaar speaks French. Much of the credit for his success is how he conveys much of his message through tone as well as language. Solaar is also widely revered in Africa for his French hip hop. Due to his origins and use of a language that many Africans recognize helped contribute to his success. One of the things that makes Solaar's music different as a result of his culture is possibly that his music appeals to such a broad age spectrum. It is arguable that catering to a more age diverse group is something that one might have to consider when producing music in France. Solaar is credited with having created music that isn't limited to a young generation of listeners, but rather that his music appeals to a large age demographic and is enjoyed by people of varying ages. In the U.S., hip hop is rarely credited with appealing to any of the older demographics of Americans. Another contribution that French society has had on Solaar's music is that he tackles problems that affect French culture. While these problems are certainly not unique to France, they are the root of the reason that Solaar chooses to focus on them.

Peer review

For me the peer review session on Monday went far better than I expected it to. I was a bit skeptical based on the performance of my English 1101 class. In that class most people who read my papers just told me that it was good. This time I actually got some productive feedback. I don't think I was that great last semester, or that bad this one, but I do think that I had better reviewers and I also think I benefited greatly from the question sheet that we worked off of. It might have been a bit demanding to find 3 good and 3 bad from both prospectives, given the amount of time and length of essays, but having a format to follow really seemed to help. I know it helped me analyze the papers I read. I was guilty of sometimes getting lost during review sessions without a guide, so I enjoyed the fact that I had something to give some order to the process. I think it might be better to have the guide as an optional thing. Some of the questions weren't really relevant to what I had to critique about. Other questions seemed to be a bit more like a reading quiz that a critique sheet (ie. The point of the essay question). Overall, I thought it went really well and hopefully I'll be able to use the criticism I got well and revise my own essay to a higher standard.

Droz: Hi, is Sam in there?
Womynist #1: "In there"? What the hell's that supposed to mean?
Womynist #2: Yeah, cock-man-oppressor!
Droz: Why, thank you. Could you just tell her that Mr. Pokey stopped by.

This logical fallacy is a good example of the "Hasty Generalization" fallacy. The basis of a hasty generalization fallacy is that a person jumps to a conclusion without all the relevant information and makes a judgment or counter-argument because of a bias. In this case, Droz has asked to speak to someone without stating his intentions, but before he is even asked what they are, the womynist attacks him, assuming that he has sexually aggressive intentions. Whatever his intentions were, the womynist was quick to judge Droz and therefore made a hasty generalization of the information provided.

Death of an innocent?

Christopher McCandless, AKA Alex Supertramp died alone in the woods in the summer of 1992 from presumably starving to death. The story that Jon Krakauer leaves the door open for the reader to decide whether to glorify Mr. McCandless or to condemn him for his actions. McCandless could be revered for being so strong willed and unlike other college students, or at least people who have just recently completed college, but the truth is that he never really did anything that many college students wouldn't do given the opportunity. Of course, no one wants to die doing what he did, but the reality is that he probably didn't plan on dying, in fact, I firmly believe that he didn't think it was possible for him to die until it was too late.

Many college students live the life that McCandless was trying to avoid by being so boldly anti-establishment, but the reality of college life is that while the fraternity/sorority student is the first image that pops into one's head when recalling college life, the next step of thought brings to mind images of people just like Chris. As the author points out, Chris's friend, Wayne Westerberg, admits that what might have hurt Chris is that “maybe what got him into trouble was that he did too much thinking.” This is too typical of many college students. Fortunately, most aren't actually as ambitious as Chris was and they don't actually live the life that they glorify, and for those that do, most are lucky enough to avoid death. It is unfortunate that Chris ended up dying by living the life that he found so noble, but the personality that drove him certainly encompassed an inherent risk. During the article, the author Krakauer compares himself at 23 to Chris. He acknowledges that he too didn't respect death properly. His desire for adventure outweighed his fear of death. This is very common among young people. Their inexperience leads them to forget that death is final, and for people of Chris's ilk, who are so convinced that they are invincible in some fashion, don't heed the advice of those more knowledgeable than themselves.

The first few paragraphs of the story involve Chris hitching a ride from James Gallien, who offers advice to Chris and tries to help Chris avoid a situation that might kill him. Chris stubbornly refuses the help. This alone takes Chris out of the realm of wise people. Most people, even those that fancy themselves experts, are wise enough to listen to others who give them advice. This isn't to say that everyone listens to everyone, but Chris behaved like most college students when he refused to admit to himself that he was inexperienced in the Alaskan wilderness. Not only that, but he refused to recognize someone who very clearly knew more about what he was getting into that Chris himself. This bullheadedness is something that binds Chris to other youths. Most people with life experience will tell you that recognizing good advice is part of maturity. Chris fails to break the mold of a college student when he listens to no one.

Chris was an adventurer in every sense. He took great risks and relished the reward of surviving those risks. One thing that Chris didn't grasp until it was too late was that risk one's life is a type of risk that cannot be taken lightly, because failure means that your ability to try again is gone. Most college students who fit the stereotype that Chris himself typified don't realize how fragile life is. They haven't lived long enough to realize how death is something more than an inconvenience. Chris probably failed to realize the impact that his death would have on others as Krakauer showed. This short-sightedness is something that keeps Chris from being more than just another college student. Krakauer tries to prove that Chris was more than just your common thrill-seeking college student who was looking for an epiphany, but the reality is that he is just that. Had he lived, there would be nothing extraordinary about his story that would be any different than the ones that many other people experience during their late college years. The largest proof of Chris's conformity to the mold is in his note which he posted to the bus door. The seriousness of the note hints that Chris never really understood the gravity of the situation that he was in until it was too late. This lack of understanding makes Chris nothing more to the world than just another college student who was unfortunate enough to get lost in the wild.

All references were taken from Death of an Innocent by Jon Krakauer

Response to "AIDS and Advertising"

AIDS and Advertising

This ad for Benetton clothing does little to prove anything about their product at first glance. It's hard to imagine that a company that is selling clothing could be so bold as to use a dying man as part of their advertising campaign for collared tee shirts. I think there is a much greater message present in the picture than simply a preview of Benetton clothing, especially since there is no implication that the clothing worn even comes from Benetton. I think the most important aspect of analyzing this ad is to look at the time period in which it was released. The early 1990s was a period where many people chose to go against the grain of society. After being different was glorified as 'hip' in the 1960s and 1970s, the popular desire was to be among the number that went against popular convention. During the Reagan/Bush years many felt that they were trapped by society to behave in a certain manner. The desire to be different became stronger than ever. In the early 1990s the road to meltdown was complete and breaking free from the mold of society was more popular than ever. The decade is defined by groups of people going against what they thought were the moral guidelines of the times. Musicians became more popular when they moved to being more edgy, politicians won elections if they could convince their constituents that they were young and different than the stuffy old bureaucrats currently in office, and fashion was defined by the rule of there being no rules. As people broke away from societal norms, it became popular to focus on problems that weren't being properly addressed. The problem of HIV and AIDS not being addressed in the USA or the world at large was a huge target for the hipsters of the day. It was hard to catch any respectable celebrity without the now famous red ribbon. The demonstration that they were privy to the AIDS epidemic that was sweeping the globe helped to communicate to other 'cool' people that they could rest assured that the wearer of the ribbon was in fact 'with it'. Since the ad apparently has nothing to do with clothing, it is almost automatic to assume that the goal of the ad isn't to prove that Benetton makes the best clothes, but rather to prove that they are also 'with it'. This is an intelligent move on their part because people didn't really care what they were wearing, as long as they felt good about it. The necessity of fitting in with what others wore was out the window when the hippies showed up. The best the to do for a business was to sell themselves rather than their product. It is clear to me that the hope of the advertisers is that people will see the ad and say to themselves in their head, "Oh my God, how horrible... well, Benetton is with it because they're not afraid to confront the harsh realities of the world." and then, once they had embraced the company the natural flow of thought would go from: "I hope I'm cool--> Benetton is cool-->I like Benetton-->I buy Benetton clothes-->I know I'm cool." It's the goal of every advertiser in the modern age. The goal isn't to prove that Nike shoes are the best, it's to prove that Nike shoes are the coolest, and if you wear them, you will be cool by association. So, by Benetton showing the world that they are brave enough to publicly display what they are passionate about, that others will see them being so passionate and enjoy the name, not necessarily the product. But in the end, people will buy their product to be cool through osmosis.

Welcome

Hey!
In the spirit of this being a new blog, I thought I would start it off right by setting the tone for things to come. I haven't given this too much thought so bear with me. I wanted to present a quote from a book that doesn't really do too great of a job of analyzing mankind, but this quote struck me as profound. The book is Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein. It was written in the late 1960s and really carries the tone of the era regarding free love and peace on earth, etc., which is all garbage really, but at one point he is discussing the motivations for the ministers of a new church that claim to do all things out of the goodness of their being. One of the characters in the book, who is the stereotypical wise old man, critiques the salesman-like behavior of one of the bishops and goes on to say:
"Of all the nonsense that twists the world, the concept of 'altruism' is the worst. People do what they want to, every time. If it pains them to make a choice- if the choice looks like a 'sacrifice'- you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness... the necessity of deciding between two things you want when you can't have both. The ordinary bloke suffers every time he chooses between spending a buck on beer or tucking it away for his kids, between getting up to go to work or losing his job. But he always chooses what hurts least or pleasures most."
All of my experience in this world have taught me that this is absolutely true. No one ever does anything for the sole purpose of serving others. There is always a self-serving motive behind their actions. Whether it's as direct as getting the assisted to behave in a certain way that would benefit the doer, or something as discreet as the feeling of holding a moral high ground and gaining access to a wonderful afterlife, there is always a reason for someone's good deeds. When the speaker is discussing a parents care for their children, it is hard to realize what the self-serving motive could be, but the payoff is there. Parents hope that one day their children might care for them as they cared for their children, or at least see to their being cared for. Of course, there's never a guarantee, and that's probably not what a parent is thinking when caring for a child, but the benefit is there.
Governments don't get involved in foreign relations without some form of benefit. Our middle-eastern policy is dictated by the desire for positive trade relations that will result in us receiving oil at lower costs. I'm certain that we would ignore any problems their if there wasn't some jackpot in it for us.
The strange thing is that people deny that their behavior is guided by their own self-interests. US citizens often seem ashamed at the notion that we would go to war over lower oil prices. They seem ashamed of the fact that they help others because it makes them feel good, not because of the feeling the other person has at being helped. Why should people feel ashamed about doing things for themselves? Who decided that was a bad thing? People should serve their own interests. If everyone were to do what best served them, instead of trying to pretend that they want to help others just because, it is likely that things would improve overall. Of course, some people would lose out. If someone wins, then someone loses by default. Not everyone gets to win, but the world would be a stronger place. We wouldn't have people who rely on the kindness of others. Everyone would know that they have to fend for themselves. I'm not asking for isolation, but just the mass realization that coalitions are formed to serve each party's self-interest, not because of some higher calling.
This is a pretty bland blog, and I know it lacks order, but I wanted to lay down the idea that I hope to elaborate on later. As was written once, the story of Robin Hood has been changed in its meaning. Today, people view the hero as someone who distributes wealth among the poor by forcing the rich to hand over what they have earned. The true meaning of the story has been lost with time. Robin Hood was a man who felt injustice for those who had been over-taxed and felt that the only solution to the problem was to take back from the government was wasn't rightfully theirs and return it to those who had earned it. If you don't know whose idea this is, I won't tell you more now than that it's not mine, but I believe it. I'm sure it will become abundantly clear later who this came from.