The New Fundamentalism

It was good that Easterbrook did use the comparison to establish his stand on the issue. By using this tactic it can show that things haven't changed in that long of a time. The trial of John Scopes happened in 1925, and he is writing about an event that is ocurring in 1999. It can show that this is still a difficult decision to make but over that time you can build up more facts to the arguement and maybe be able to come out with a better answer, instead of when it first occured almost 80 years ago. However do I think its "fair" that he put it in his arguement, doesn't make sense. To not question God and the head of the biology department, what does that mean? Personally, I was raised catholic and attended a Catholic higschool and was taught you could believe in either creationism or Darwinism as long as you knew that God had part to do with both of them. I think that by him not questioning those two sources his essay seems bias and really don't get much of a debate but more of a lecture. Just re-reading it now I see that he is mocking society of how they are handling the situation and I do agree with him. We are inquisitve humans and need to know answers to the unexplainable. So I think that we should question religion and science. Easterbrook's piece was confusing to me, so sorry if this blog makes absolutely no sense, and if it seems that I am on the fence with the issue as well.

Pollan: Part Two

The entire pieces as a whole was very enjoyable to read, and I liked doing some critical thinking on the piece and how it made me ponder, and make up an opinion on the situation. Pollan is talking about "tail docking" on pigs and how it was cruel and really had not method to its madness. Then he mentions Matthew Scully's, Dominion, and it mentions about the issue on a biblical sense. "God did give man "dominon" over animals ("Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you"), he also admonished us to show them mercy." This line just stuck with me and I found it very interesting, because we as humans do live and could be meat for eachother. Pollan also talks about how certain humans and different, but we don't mutilate or torture them, but rather try to help them through life. Then why are animals so different? This quote says that we show the ones that we kill mercy, that doesn't mean that we treat humans or animals cruel, but with the "consciousness, cermenoy and respect they deserve."
Many farmers think they are just animals and they can't show suffereing, we could say the same thing about a mentally challenged person that they can't show suffereing either. Just as long as we avoid eye contact, which is another point that Pollan made in the begining of his piece, which I agree with. We avoid eye contact because we subconsciously don't want to sympathize for an animal that we kill and might be eating later. Pollan had great references and his argument was strong, and his facts were able to back up his point, which I think is key into having a debate.

Pollan: Part One

Michael Pollan's piece An Animal's Place, was very well written and it had many great points to it. He did make me laugh about certain things, I could picture him at a Stewart Andersons, with a nice rib eye and reading Animal Liberation. It was rich and he wasn't trying to be funny, but how it was presented was humorous. But I did get the feel that he really didn't pick a side, rather more on the fence of the problem. It seem that he would provide a lot of facts on other sides of the issue and then question the reader what they should think about the subject. He wouldn't really choose either black or white but stay more in the gray area. Pollan did very well on gathering facts and using alot of outside sources though and although he didn't make clear his view points on the subject he did have an opinion on the topic. It is good that he didn't just flat out state his point of view on it and just rant on how he thinks its right, because then it would have no strong supporting facts to back it up. But here in the first part he got alot of information to the reader so they wouldn't be quick to judge and already make up their minds on the decision. Pollan did have a good arguement and yes it was well written, but I don't think he deserved as much praise as JR has given him.

Foreigner! No, Not the Rock Band

Bich mentions in her story about the time her teacher would award the best student with a stuffed lion for a week. And then at the end of the year she would give it away to the best student for them to keep. At my elementary school I was in 4th grade and they would do something similar. They would announce in front of the entire school the best student of every class. Well I was so sure that I was the best in my class, I even tried extra hard to pass everything and be as courteous as I could to everyone! Well I was so sure that I would be the recipient of the award I invited my dad and my mom to come and see me receive this award. As it turns out, I didn't get the award, no my best friend Danielle did. I was crushed and wanted to cry because I made both my mom and dad get off work to come and see me, receive absolutely nothing. I felt that hurt that Bich felt, when you are for certain to earn something and then it goes to someone else who you knew in your heart that you deserved it and not them!
What Bich does in her story that really makes it believable is the details she puts into every memory she had. She really sells the story and she doesn't blow it out of proportion, she says how it was and gives off this vibe, that you the reader feel are going through the same thing she is. Her authentic voice is real, you feel the hurt and embarrassment that she had to experience growing up during that time and through those conditions. By putting in so much detail about every episode she had, the audience develops this sympathy for Bich, and want her to succeed in her education.