The planet is trying to shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

I had no clue that my sole purpose in life was make plastic for our planet. Thankyou George Carlin, now I know that. All sarcasm aside Carlin did raise some pretty good points. Especially when he compared how long humans have been on the planet to how long the planet has actually been in existence. and meteors and ice ages and shit. Our planet has gone through some way more traumatic stuff than an overdose on carbon dioxide. He's also right. We are so worried about taking care of the "bees and trees and whales and snales" they we havent even realized that we can barely take care of ourselves. Im too lazy at the moment to look up the daily world death rate but Im pretty sure that its high. And I am also pretty sure that about half of those deaths are semi-preventable. The rest are either accidents our the negative effect of nature (whther it be viral, chemical, atmospheric etc) on the human body. In a nutshell, Nature is kicking or fat assess and we still have the nerve to call ourselves boss. I dont thiink we need to focus on eevery tree and bird and snail when our own extinction is approaching much more rapidly. However, we should fight to save pandas because theyre really cute and i like them.

Another Focused Freewrite (btw, if its focused is it really free?...just throwing that out there)

When I think of just add water I think of Ray's pet turtle. (actually is that even a PET turtle or is just a turtle that likes to camp out in Ray's front yard because he's the only non-crazy person on the street?) The turtle is thrivingin that arid, lifeless environment. In fact, it seems to be pretty much the only thing that is doing okay. Why is that? Did the turtle just adapt to its environment? Did it like 5,000,000 years ago? Nvm I need to get back to my point before I end up doing what I usually do and ranting about something totally unrelated.
So here's my point. Trona sucks, the weather the heat the environment suck. However, Ray and his turtle both stand out as signs of life.

iI'll trade you my Euplotes for your chocolate chip cookie

This is the first article in the entire collection of The Best American Science and Nature Writing where I could actually feel the author's passion for his subject, understand his message, and be able to explain it someone else. In other words, I actually really enjoyed this piece. Sure I didn't understand the names and descriptions of all of the microorganisms that ___ writes about, but I was able to really grasp his main message. Nature is beautiful. Its simplicity, its variety, the understated complexity of its internal structures, its constant yet low-mainentance availability are what make it so beautiful. Just when you think you've hit the bottom of the pond, you have seen and studied all that is out there, you dig a little bit through the sand and discover a new animalcule.
To some individuals, the fact that Smith feels that he has "trouble explaining my [his] satisfaction with the animalcules" might seem strange. After all, at the end of the day theyre all animals, theyre just really really small animals. What satisfaction is there to have? How could there possibly be any trouble in finding the apropriate explanation? I might be wrong in the attempt I am about to make in answering this question, but I think that this is how it works. I'll use an example. My mom buys a big tub of tollhouse chocolate chip cookie dough. She bakes a few cookies. I eat one or two and am satisfied because I have seen the big tub I know that there are plenty more and even when that tub runs out there is some supermarket somewhere that will have another one. I know what to expect because it is a delicious chocolate chip cookie, but each batch is never the same so I also am able to contendtedly anticipate what this exact batch will be like.
Smith says that, " for some reason i often feel calm and reassured afterward perhaps because I realize how much room there remains for more." He then goes on to talk about his paparazzi-like fascination with the lives and purposes of the animalcules. "Just one cell, this Euplotes, and barely one-tenth of a millimeter in length, but it scurries with purpose and aplomb in this world."

Smith loves Animalcules and I love chocolate chip cookies (and David Beckham although i love him for very differnt reasons) and I think that the reasons why we are fascinated with both subjects are relatively similar.

this......sucked

In an effort to be a better student I have been actually doing my homework lately. That means that I did indeed read Benjamin Phelan's How We Evolve. This is one assignment I probably would have been better off skipping. I realize that I may not get points for this blog post but at the same time I'll never get back the 45 min of life I wasted reading this article so if I want to pointlessly rant then I am going to pointlessly rant.
First of all, what the heck is going in the first eightpages? I seriously did NOT get that. And angst? What angst? I didn't sense the tiniest bit of angst when he said "The fate of our civlization and maybe our species may be determined by the next five generations. So I don't really give a shit what's happening to our genetic evolution". I did however get a pretty good sense of anger from the guy at the top of the page. I can actually see how this guy's "angst" is justified. Basically his point is that humans might be gone pretty soon so he doesnt give a duck if 2,000 years from now humans have evolved to have like idk 13 toes instead of 10.
As far as angst in the line about self-inflicted extinction goes...im just not seeing it.


actually you know what i take back what i said previously about getting no points for this. I am legit asking for comments if someone will explain this p.o.s. to me then I willl happily rewrite my blog, until them im going to dutch treats i am badly in need of some zero calorie vitamin water.

Now I know why my dad chose not to invest apple...

Forgive me if I sound like an airhead,
but what the heck is Broome talking about. I mean I get what he's talking about but what the heck is he actually talking about. Personally I think that this piece totally could have been kept out of the book I dont think the guy ever really reached an actual conclusion.(then again i might be wrong, my steady intake of benadryl over the past few days maybe affecting my ability to comprehend things...but i dont think thats the case)

The question proposed to us was what does Broome claim the money market reveals about people's ethical judgements about the value of future well-being. Okay so. Basically I found this one sentence that I think pretty much sums up the answer to that question. Broome asserts that," the evidence shows that, when people borrow and lend, they often give less weight to their own future well-being than to their present well-being." Bingo. There it is.
I guess that statement can be tied to that whole concept of discount rate in the article. People judge their current lifestyle and the goods they have the most access to NOW as being worth more than ones that they will receive down the road. Furthermore, if they are not even going to be the recipients of these future goods or benefits. The less value you place on future stuff the higher your discount rate will be and the less motivated you will be to make sacrifices now. Like investing in stocks in the money market. My dad could have invested in Apple like idk twenty years ago (I really wish he did) but he didn't really see that much future gain, instead it was just like ummm I don't want to buy a shit ton of stocks in that company now because I wont be getting an income from it any time soon.
does that make sense?
if it doesn't...well sorry i dont know what to tell you and i probably wont feel like explaining.

Blogging is......

Okay so i will be honest. I am NOT a blogger. Well techincallly I am because this whole blogging thing is a huge part of this class, but this is somethign that I would probably never do in my free time. The funny thing though, is that i definitely like to read other people'es blogs. Not just for this class (well acctually i dont really enjoy reading the ones for this class at all just because there are about Twelfth Night and Big foot and stuff). But i follow this blog linked to the mayo clinic on healthcare and another one about veganism and a couple other ones like dailycandy and style.com's blogs. Like I have said before I am a reader not a writer and when Im really pasionate about what I am reading then I will read it nonstop.
Writing..mmm. not so much a huge writing fan, blogging especially.

Write-a-phobia

When I first watched Derrida’s video I honestly thought he was being a little umm…over dramatic. Then I took down my to cool for this dumb youtube video mindset and realized a lot of what he was saying is write. He says that he feels that what he has written is important to share with the world. It is easy for us to say “well of course YOU think what YOU say is important” to someone. But them how often do we have something to say that we feel is important. I think that writing something down further emphasizes the importance of a message because now you are making it available to more people and making it available to be reproduced and redistributed, essentially you are making it so that you can reach more people. And Derrida is right. When I have to share something I have written I really can relate to the Freudian analogy of being seen in your underwear. I had one of my blogs read out loud in class and was cringing the whole time. On the surface, in phase 1, writing gives you freedom. Like Derrida, you can be as controversial as you want because its just you, your pen and your paper. Once it is spread and read aloud though all your walls and protection are gone and you are left up to the judgement of others. To top it off not only are you exposed but you often times are not present to defend yourself when others read your work. Maybe I am being over dramatic like Derrida, but I think the fear of writing really could be a legit phobia.

Your'e a writer right?

I will be honest. I am not actually sure what/who a writer is. I know that a writer is not my 4 year old goddaughter who randomly scribbles and writes short sentences on her kindergarten writing tablet. I also know that this blog post probably would not be considered writing. On the surface a writer probably is seen as someone who puts thoughts to paper. If that is the case then does my existence of my 6th grade diary entitle me to call myself a writer? My guess is no.
So then what is a writer?
I think a writer is someone who turns thoughts and information into text to inform, entertain, enlighten or evoke some sort of action or emotion in his or her reader. That is why my diary doesn't make me a writer. I am not trying to get any sort of reaction out of anyone or tell anyone anything.
I am not a writer and do not particularly enjoy writing. However, I am a reader and because of that I share a very close bond with writers. If it was not for writers being who they are I would not be what I am. A reader cannot read unless a writer writes.

Why water?

1. Why is the title called just add water?
Actually im going to attempt to semi-answer my own question. Maybe it has something to do with the town of Trona itself. Everything is so dry and barren and lifeless, adding water at least to the natural surroundings of the town would defiitely perk things up, make them greener and more lively.

2. Why does Nora smile to herself after Troy tells her about his problems with Charlene? The camera does a close up of her walking away and sort of creepishly smiling.

3. What is the signifgance of the can Ray pulls out when he drops his son off, and what is inside the can?

4. How did Dirk end up becoming the "boss" of the neighborhood, especially since he is so young? (yes i know that he is a drug dealer but im guessing that that community wasnt always full of drug using people so how did that happen?)

5. What else is Nora hiding?

6. When Ray asks Charlene if their son knows about her affair she yes. How come he didnt say anythign to his dad if he knew?

Hello Bigfoot

Labeling products with their carbon footprint seems like a pretty solid idea. If you can give people the option to choose one semi-destructive product over a not-as-bad or completely neutral one, then result could be really beneficial to our environment. But the author is right. So what? So you slapped some labels on some pears. What is that really going to do? What do those labels even mean? What is considered to be a “good” amount of carbon footprint anyhow!?!?
According to Michael Specter “ This is not an equation like the number of calories or even the cost of the product. There is no one number that works.” So what do we do? Do we overhaul our entire way of life? Do we grow our own wheat and sew our own clothes and kill our own beef? In a perfect 100% environmentally friendly world we do. However, in our fast-paces society no one actually has time to do any of that.
So really, how do we create change, is it even worth it to be eco-friendly potato chips? Specter is absolutely correct he writes, “Personal choices, no matter how virtuous, cannot do enough. It will also take the law and money.” We cannot consume eco-friendly products unless someone produces them for our consumption. We cannot make companies change their practices and products unless a) laws are passed requiring them to do so or b) there is some sort of monetary incentive for change. At the same time we definitely cannot have our economy and our current structure of living fall apart just to save the atmosphere 200 years from now. Until someone can come up with an answer I guess we are stuck with well-intentioned carbon-conscious potato chips from England. Who knows though, maybe carbon-consciousness will become the new Kaballa and be so damn trendy that celebrities and in turn regular folks jump on the bandwagon.

Really real

First of all, what the heck was going in this piece? Second of all, seriously what the heck was going on! Okay, okay, all joking aside I did sort of understand it and with the aid of some googling and rereading it like three times I can FINALLY make a blogpost. I guess in answer to the question, you decide what’s real. I mean there are certain elements, certain concrete facets of everyday life whose existence cannot be ignored, but other than the like the realities of the existence of air and water and dirt and bugs and stuff, almost everything is subjective. Especially ideas, emotions, symbols… all of that kind of stuff is left up to the individual. How can you prove that something like love exists for example? We have “created love” by observing that particular emotional force in people and assigning the name love to it. That still doesn’t answer what is love though, and you can ask different people the same question and get a bazillion different answers.



btw dont comment on this im not sure that i know what im talking about...

ignore that first writing center post

When i went to the writing center i had honestly planned on it being a one time ,in and out, no longer than 10 minutes, meeting. To my surprise i stayed for close to a half hour. Because I hadn't actually written my essay the guy (sorry i dont remember his name but he had a cool blue mohawk) helped develop an outline. I really ended up benefitting from choosing to go as I realized that I was going about the essay completely the wrong way. Also, I liked that this nice, blue haired young man didnt try to write my essay for me or try to get me to do things his way. He worked with my writing style and topic of choice and basically just served as an extremely knowledgeable guide along the way.

Writing center

Kenneth Bruffeeeee

According to Kenneth Bruffee, “not to have mastered the normal discourse of a discipline no matter how many ‘facts’ or data one may know, is not to be knowledgeable in that discipline.” I can honestly say that up until this sentence I didn’t really comprehend what I had read so far. I mean I understand what Bruffee is saying about how conversation is the necessary foundation for the accumulation of knowledge and subsequently the ability to form, categorize and process thoughts. I agree. You really don’t know anything until you’ve had a conversation with someone else. I guess you could say that all you really have is a muddled and jumbled collection of observations without any idea of how or even why to analyze, process and make meaning of them.
Bruffee then goes on to explain that, “we can think because we can talk, and we think in ways we have learned to talk”. I know that what I am about to say probably is going to seem kind of strange, but I took a second to think about what I think. I then wrote down my thoughts on a piece of paper word for word as I thought them. For the most part, I found that they were structured the same way they would be if it was my turn to speak in a conversation with someone. In order of development Bruffee lists speaking/conversing, thinking and writing in order from first to last. Basically you need to have conversation with another human being to write. It would make sense that more conversation/more intellectual discourse would result in better knowledge and understanding and subsequently better writing.
This concept, the concept of conversation and instruction fostering thought and understanding actually makes a lot of sense. In the article, Bruffee talks about how medical students learned more when they worked in groups and were able to bounce ideas off each other than they did when they were alone. As a student I can totally relate to this situation. When writing a paper for example, I find it easier to write if we have frequently discussed it in class.
The quote that I started this little rant with is something that I would like to go back to again. You don’t know anything about anything by just knowing the facts, the stats, or the definition of the subject. If you haven’t learned the ideas circulating on a topic and gotten a second and third and so on opinion on it then you don’t know anything and you cannot make any real meaning of whatever it is you think you know.

Two poems, countless meanings

How do both of these poems address the nature of making meaning?
Both Hass and Jones wrote poems that address the nature of meaning. Hass, grapples with the issue of reader interpretation and ultimately decides to leave that interpretation, that overall meaning, up to the reader. As difficult as this might be for a writer to do sometimes, he or she must realize that the reader is going to make their own sense, their own meaning out of what they are reading. Jones's poem addresses the topic of releasign and writing down ideas. What happens when an author writes somethign and then realizes that she or he needs to make changes. That they never should have released that work to the public and that the truly intended meaning will be absent from the piece? The answer to this is a guaranteed change in meaning. However, in the end it doesn't really matter almost-finished meaning or finished meaning will still be changed and twisted by each reader who will form and define their own personal meaning for the piece.
How is language a slippery vehicle?
In The Problem of Describing Trees the author struggles to find the write word to articulate to the reader about the movements of the cottonwood tree. He then goes on to claim that "there are limits to saying, in language what the tree did". The author then goes on in the last line to say that the aspen trees are doing something in the wind, after he had in the first line claimed that they were glittering in the wind. He is essentially handing the meaning and interpretation over to the reader to do with what he or she will. This is what is meant by language being a slippery slope. Everyone will have their own personal interpretation of something and the actual intent of the author may never even be addressed. Instead of trying to find that perfect word that will enable as many readers as possible to understand his meaning, Hass decides to leave it up to the reader letting them decide for themselves what that "something" is that the aspen is doing in the wind.

Two years ago my really annoying cousin Enzo who would always flick me in the side of the head like he was some creepy five year old got lime disease. Basically what happened is that a blood sucking tick decided to attach itself to his body and have a field day (WHAT NOW ENZO!)
Where was I going with this?
oh yes.
Ticks. I was thinking about it and ticks are pretty greedy little bastards. They attach themselves onto someone totally without their permission and in complete violation of that person's personal space rights. To add insult to injury that take drop after drop of life-nuturing blood without any thought of the possibilities or realities of that dreaded disease that they carry. They bury their little heads under their unwilling hosts skin so that they are surrounded by the feast of blood that they have been looking for. Instead of stopping when they are full, ticks keep going and going and going until they are completely gorged and even then, will go and find someone else to attach themselves onto later.
Ticks are greedy. Ticks are greed. If i were to make a thesauras that used only pictures instead of words I would place a picture of a tick next to the word greed. Only greed can motivate a person to burden someone else with their desires, cause them to be able to focus only on their wants like the way the tick does when it buries its head under someone's skin. Only greed makes you keep going when you've had enough and even then keeps you on the hunt for more.

Wendell Berry's name makes him sound like an asthmatic 75 year old nerd....but im still going to read his writing.

When I was first told that I would have to read an article whose title was “Faustian Economics: Hell hath no limits”, I pretty much became dead set on skipping the assignment. However, due to the fact that my grade partially depended on it, I decided to go ahead and read it.
Honestly, I am glad I did.
I found what Wendell Berry wrote to be not only interesting, but also hauntingly accurate. Americans have lived in a seemingly limitless existence for far too long. However, because not everyone can be without borders or constraints some people’s limitlessness is going to come at the expense of other people’s (or things’) basic freedoms. By basic freedoms I mean those freedoms that are constitutional/human/ necessary freedoms, not the constant add-ons that we Americans constantly reward ourselves. This concept of limitlessness, of moveable, changeable and extinguishable borders is best illustrated by viewing the complex entity that is American economics. According to Berry, “the commonly accepted basis of our economy is the supposed possibility of limitless growth, limitless wants, limitless wealth, limitless natural resources, limitless energy and limitless debt”.
Even attending college (the reason for why I am reading this piece in the first place) hold true to this idea. For many people post-secondary education can mean upwards of $40,000 in debt. But let’s face it, is debt really that big of a deal? I mean in American we really can live with no money at all, as long as that’s not how we started out our lives. In our world debt is okay becayse some place somewhere there is someone who can loan us something so that we can get something else that we might (or might not) not.
Our desire to live without limits has been resulted in widespread and unfortunately widely accepted greed and wastefulness. We want more and more and more….and more and then underuse, or exploit to the point of ruin the things that we get. As Berry puts it, “ it is now and forevermore too late to use thriftily the first half of the world’s supply of petroleum.” First half. That means that there is a second half. Which must mean that there is a limit……No. Impossible. Maybe over there, maybe in some underdeveloped nation. But not here. Never here. But think about it for a second. Maybe we should be preparing, just in case. I’m probably wrong about that seeing has petroleum consumption really hasn’t slowed down at any significant rate in the past decade. I am sure that most of us are guilty of getting in our cars and riding somewhere we could have easily walked or to some place to get something that we don’t even really need. Whether we like it or not Berry is right. “We will keep consuming, spending, wasting and driving as before, at any cost to anything and everybody but ourselves.” So let’s have some fun for now, and let our great-grandkids foot the bill.