What is the same about "Twelfth Night" and "Just Add Water"?

To be honest, a connection between “Twelfth Night” and “Just Add Water” is not something that pops immediately into my head. One of the only things I can possibly think of connecting is all the craziness that takes place in each story. I mean nothing is close to normal. In “Just Add Water” we have: meth-dealing teenagers in charge of the town, no fresh food, no grass, crazy wives and illiterate children. Then in “Twelfth Night” we have: girls dressing up as boys, love triangle that turns into a love square, a devious Maria making Malvolio appear crazy, a madman running around in yellow tights, and people marrying people they’ve never met before! I mean what’s happening in these stories are certainly not things we see everyday.

"Animalcules and Other Little Subjects"

In life sometimes it is better to look at something small then the big picture. Maybe a “little subject” holds the larger image. Didn’t we learn that the very first week of this semester in our “small object, BIG SUBJECT” discussion? Mark Smith has interests in something so small it could fit under our fingernails. His interest in Animalcules is not something many enjoy but learning about these bacteria’s is not the sole purpose of his article. The reason for Smith’s satisfaction is simply because he doesn’t need something big, expensive and showing to please him. He is a simple guy who enjoys the smaller things in his life. “For some reason I often feel calm and reassured afterward, perhaps because I realize how much room remains for more.” (Smith, 260) That is exactly it! Everyday while he is exploring these microscopic worlds, he knows that he has yet to discovered everything. I mean how could someone get board of a new excitement everyday! I mean of course Animalcules isn’t for everyone and I know I would be rather board with the topic, but for someone like Mark Smith it is amazing.

I laughed at the thought of his wife’s, nieces and nephew’s reaction because I know that would have probably been the same as mine. However, all of us who aren’t interested in something microscopic are missing the picture as well. “Life fills and overfills the world from puddle to ocean, from dirt clod to mountaintop.” (Smith, 272) Think of it in the sense of “Just Add Water” and “food miles.” Why fill your life with technology and these big electronic toys when something so magical is right under your nose. Little do you know that every time you look down there is a tiny atmosphere and another organism’s world?

George Carlin

Hmm… well that’s a different way to look at it! George Carlin proposes an interesting view on climate change. He suggests that us humans have no competition with the planet. “We have NO control!” Would you verse a football team who has played together since their 2 years old for the super bowl trophy? I mean so what they were little when they started, what could that possibly mean? It means they’ve grown and experienced changes together, they learned and memorized each other’s techniques inside and out. Hell no I wouldn’t verse them! They have no new glitches and new players to decode. They have it ALL figured out. Well that team called “Planet Earth” has been around for billions of years and our team “The Human Race” just started practicing together about 2,000 years ago. Carlin suggests that wee have no shot at that super bowl trophy. He basically believes that since the earth has gone through incredible changes that it will always survive. The problem is, WE might not be able to survive it. That trophy is our survival. Our race is trying to change the earth so that we can be able to remain alive, however, Carlin proposes the idea that maybe we are the fleas the planet needs to get rid of for his own well-being. This is very interesting because I think that he may be right. As I mentioned in my blog about Phelan I also said “we have no control of our planet.” However, I meant that we have no control over what is happening and we should attempt a more aggressive change. Carlin believes that it is basically useless and has no hope that we have a chance at survival. Looking at history, Earth has gotten rid of species before, why not do it again?

"small object" of "just add water"

In “Just Add Water” Nora represents a symbol of hope. Every time Ray has a rough moment in his day he looks at his tin, which holds pictures of Nora. The thought of her makes Ray keep pushing forward. Day by day he tries to cope with all the negative changes around him. When he visits the supermarket where she works, he smiles for those 5 minutes. I mean after all, she is the sole purpose that he never left miserable Trona. Nora gave him faith that Trona still had a bright side and not all of Trona was negative. When they get together he finally realizes that the way their community is living is not acceptable. They should not settle for something terrible when they can push for a better life. For me, the picnic with Nora is one of the turning points. When she makes Ray homemade food he is in awe. She tells him, “You can’t eat canned food your whole life”. Ray questions where she even got the food from and Nora explains how she drove to a different town because a home cooked meal is more important to her. This whole scene symbolizes how Nora does not settle for the worst. She tries to make her day better by using her own effort. Her effort for a better life shows Ray how change needs to happen in Trona. Nora helps push him in that direction.

"How We Evolve"

Our species really does not realize what we are doing to our environment, our world and ourselves! Phelan’s fear that humans are self-inflicting extinction is a fear that all humans should be aware of. Thinking about “Just Add Water”, other articles we have read and now this one, I have come to the conclusion that everything such as pollution, climate change and evolution starts off slow but once it ignites going its hard to put out the fire. Throughout this article Phelan talks about how evolution and genes have changed blah, blah, blah. That really isn’t the important part. When I got to Ehrlich’s quote on the last page that’s when I realized “Woah, now this is important!” “The fate of our civilization, 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.” (202)

In combining Erlich’s and Phelan’s ideas, I understand where I want this article to take me. Over the past few days, I have realized that we have no control over what is going on in our planet. Everyday all of us are destroying it more and more. The ozone layer started to disappear slowly from human abuse throughout thousands of years but the more we pollute the air the faster our ozone layer is going to decay. That is where we can compare evolution. Evolution started very slowly then took off which Phelan believes eventually led us to the human race. Our genes mutate themselves in regards to our change in environment. For example, people that live in colder climates may grow more hair because their body recognizes that they need more warmth. Erlich doesn’t “give a shit” about this though because he believes that our change in our environment is happening to fast for our genes to even grasp and then eventually mutate for our well-being. I agree. We don’t have enough time for our body to take control and save us from this world we are destroying. If we physically don’t do something about it the future generations are… well, screwed. We need to be like Ray! Although our environment has changed so fast around us that we haven’t had time to accept or realize what took place, we need to now be like Ray and realize! In my mind think in 3 R’s. Be like Ray, Realize, Reconstruct!

"The Effects of Climate Change"

Have you ever thought about how you are personally effecting the climate change? How about, how your negative contribution to the climate change causes deaths of other civilians? Are the people in our “wasteful, limitlessness, creative destructive” society responsible for those deaths because we didn’t take a stand to change our environment for the better? I honestly have never felt so guilty. In John Broome’s article, he proposes ethical questions regarding climate control. Some believe that we should focus on today and worry only about now, while others argue that future lives are important and that we need to take a stand now to save them. Recently, this past year I have been bothered by all the natural disasters that have taken place and killed hundreds. The earthquakes, hurricanes, storms, blizzards have all been extreme. I don’t know if I am just becoming more aware of them because I am getting older or are they happening more frequently? Many people argue that these natural disasters cannot be controlled because it is Mother Nature and that’s why they are called “natural”. However, after reading this article my mind is thinking how much are these disasters really “natural”, has our society and past generations destroyed the climate so much that all this is happening now, and if we don’t do anything to slow down the climate change is it just going to get worse? I know all the questions I am suggesting have nothing to do with the money market piece of this article. However, after Broome’s article this is all my mind can think of.

In regards to the money market, I have come to the conclusion that our generation is selfish. I personally do not think people in today’s world would give up the luxuries of their lives in order to prevent something that may or may not happen. I don’t think people’s ethical judgments are intentionally negative, however, that is the way it looks. John Broome answered that for us in his fourth paragraph. “Sometimes you cannot avoid harming someone, and sometimes you may do it accidentally without realizing it.” (12) But now if I don’t do something to change my personal contribution to greenhouse gases I have this thought in my mind that I am responsible for a death of another person in the future because of my selfishness. Maybe Broome is right; maybe we just don’t truly believe that we are harming our world THAT bad. If economists did something without the people’s consent regarding money percentages, I think that would be the only way change would happen. I personally don’t think our materialistic society would be willing to just give up things they’ve had every day. Maybe it just needs to be snatched out from under us.

For me, blogging is a writing experience that I feel...

For me, blogging is a writing experience that I feel double sided about. One day I won’t mind it and then other days I despise it. Is there a need to constantly re-write every little thing so other people can read it. I actually hated blogging at first because I was afraid for other classmates to read my writing. But then I got kind of used to it and I enjoy the comments from others. When the comments are personal it takes away the whole “school” mindset and blogging becomes more enjoyable. I despise answering questions and writing Abstracts about the readings. However, it does help keep your memory about what you just read and it also helps to read other peers blogs so you can get their intake on the readings. In a way they are beneficial so I guess that’s why sometimes I don’t mind them. But the times I despise them it is because there just time consuming and inconvenient. My feelings about blogs are very double sided. I am not sure why some days I really just hate them. Right now I am feeling the hatred.

"Big Foot"

What ever happened to the times when families would grow their own crops and make their own food? I mean yes, there are still farms out there in today’s world and yes some families still have a vegetable garden in their backyards. But what about when EVERYONE needed to grow their own food and have a farm to keep a healthy and stable living. I can tell you what happened…technology happened. After technology came into our lives it made everything much easier. We no longer have to make our own crops in our backyard; we can just go to the grocery store that gets the processed, chemical infested vegetables from some plane and delivery truck. Of course this is much easier for us Americans to do but haven’t we realized that the easier things got the worse it was for the environment. In regard’s to Specter’s claim about “food miles” it made me think of the old days when there was no such thing. As technology grew our world became more efficient and fast paced. However, as the good qualities increased so did the bad. All those big 18-wheelers that travel all over the countries send a ridiculous amount of pollution into the air. We Americans have become so dependent on the fast technology and fast society that we haven’t even stopped and really made an effort to stop our destroying of our earth.

I agree with John Elkington’s claim that, “we are in an era of creative destruction”. While I was reading this article I was constantly thinking of Berry’s argument of limitlessness. I don’t think our society really thinks that our ozone layer is diminishing. Yes there is proof, but what I mean is you don’t see everyone running around worrying about how they can change our earth for the better. To be honest I am guilty of contributing to global warming. I always am on the argument how it is terrible no one does anything but I find myself falling short as well. I recently started recyclying though so I guess that’s a start but I still do my everyday activities without thinking twice about how it is effecting our earth.

Just Add Water

Observations:

California, hot, dry, deserted, strange town, crazy neighbors, wife afraid to leave the house, supermarket low on supplies, Norah, angry son, Ray, kids collecting rent (Dirk), smoking cig, in control, ray's sister not upset about coma mother, tension between Ray's brother and brother's wife, dirtbags run the town, mother in love with her son, Ray takes son to see hookers, Ray seems bothered, tin, Ray-fake money, Rays brother and wife have been having an affair, Eddy not Ray's kid

Infer:

lack of life in Trona, Ray's wife is unstable...something is wrong, Ray and Norah have a connection... they seem like the only sane people in town, son is no longer optimistic, Ray shows optimism, drug dealers have control over the town, tension might be because of affair, more instability on Charlene is seen through her son and the affair, Ray thinks he's doing the right thing but seems uncomfortable, Ray's smart, his life can't get any worse!

Recall:

I have not been able to connect any of these things to our in class assignments. Hopefully as we continue the movie it will tie together!

Just Add Water- Questions

1. Why has Trona become a run down, deserted town?

2. Why would a man like Ray, who seems to be the only person with his head on straight, take his son to a whore? I know he promised for his birthday but I can't believe he would actually consider going through with it. It just doesn't seem right.

3. Why isn't Ray's sister upset about their mother in a coma? On that note, Ray's son and wife aren't really concerned either. Why? Has something happened with her that has made her not that important to them and their lives?

4. What is in the tin that Ray keeps opening?

5. How hasn't Ray noticed that his own brother has been sleeping with his wife? Also, how hasn't he realized that he is not even Eddy's real father?

6. What is wrong with Charlene? She seems cracked out, yet is aware of everything. She seems as if she's creepy in love with her son and is clearly aware of what she is doing with Ray's brother. So what is wrong with her? Did something traumatic happen to her? Was she always like this?

What is a writer? Are YOU a writer?

A few days ago my answer to this question would have been no. I previously have thought of a writer as a professional author, someone who REALLY knows his or her stuff. However, after reading my blog comments and conversing with other peers, I am proud to admit that I too am a writer. Whether you write something that is terrible or brilliant you are still considered a writer in my eyes. A writer is someone who has ideas in their minds and then projects those ideas on paper or even a computer. In my opinion, anyone can be a writer!

Writing Center

When we received our second writing assignment I was immediately confused on what I was going to be writing in my paper. Several times I sat down to start writing but I could not get anything out. I wasn’t sure what direction I wanted to take or even what topic I could pick and elaborate most on. I was hoping that when I went to the writing center I would be able to grasp a better idea and be able to at least come up with a thesis. However, I felt like my conversation at the writing center just left me more confused. I went in there with the two topic ideas of lust and sport. When I left I felt like my two topics were mashed together and I just had a big mess. On the other hand, I did take some notes of our discussion that at least gave me enough push to be able to complete my paper. Overall, after my paper was over I was not extremely happy with my outcome and I don’t feel like the writing center was worth my time. It was hard discussing a paper with someone who could barely remember the book Twelfth Night. I feel like I would have been more successful talking more with Professor Lay and a fellow student rather then a trained tutor. I personally don’t like tutors for that reason. They are never certain on exactly what’s happening and class and in my experiences tutors have always just made things more complicated.

"The Reality Tests"

“Do we create what we observe through the act of our observations?” (Roebke, 230) When thinking about Roebke’s query I think about everyday life. Ever since I was a young girl I was constantly told, “don’t judge a book by its cover.” Many people go through life observing and only believing what they see. As Roebke has showed us, in regards to physics there is much more to an atom then what is observed. “There was an inherent distinction between atoms unseen and their collective motion, which we witness with out eyes.” (Roebke, 233) This same thought can be applied to writing and everyday life. When a person reads an essay he should keep an open mind. Not only should he take into account the physical words he is reading but he should also take into consideration the meaning behind those words. Many times in literature and music there is a deeper meaning behind the spoken/written words. Not everything on our planet is physical and many times we need to look outside the box at the more abstract and deeper meanings. In regards to Roebke’s query I think that we do create everything based upon our direct and physical oberservations. However, I do not think we should live like that. Behind the cover of that book many pages lie.

Throughout Roebke’s article it was hard for me to follow his thesis mostly because of all the examples and scientists brought up. My mind was not focused on one specific thing but on the many different obstacles he included. Personally, when a article is filled with dates, many examples, and different theories it is hard for me to stay focused. I was also confused on his thesis because in the beginning of his article I interpreted that there is more information to be learned besides from what is observed. However, by the end of the article Roebke states, “To repeat a famous dictum, ‘All information is physical.’” Is he arguing that this statement is true or false?

Greed and Waste Metaphor

When I think of a greedy person I picture an old grumpy man in the park who is sitting on the bench about to eat a sandwich while a poor and starving child in the sandbox cries of hunger. Instead of splitting the sandwich and sharing half of it with the poor child, the grumpy old man eats it and keeps it all to himself. People who are greedy sometimes do not even realize how greedy they actually are. A greedy person like this may not only keep the sandwich to himself but also then throw out what’s left over. Once again being selfish and thinking of nothing but himself. Why waste the sandwich when you could hand it to a starving child?

"Faustian Economics"

In "Faustian Economics" Wendell Berry brings about the issue of human wastefulness. Berry believes that for generations humans have been so wasteful due to greed and limitlessness. “We will keep on consuming, spending, wasting, and driving, as before, at any cost to anything and everybody but ourselves.” (Berry, 1) Since humans have believed that there is no limit to anything, we constantly waste away the resources we have in order to produce “necessities”. For example, instead of using other resources besides fuel, we continue to waste away all our fuel in belief that we will “always” find a way to produce it. Of course people KNOW that fuel will run out but do humans actually believe it? I personally think no and I think Berry would agree.

Even though we watch plants and animals go extinct, humans never stop to worry about resources. Yes there are global warming programs and save the environment organizations but if humans really believed there was a limit to resources then EVERYONE on the planet would try and make a change.

This goes into Berry’s idea that humans are greedy. “—the real names of global warming are Waste and Greed—and by now it is manifestly foolish.” (Berry, 1) For how many years have our scientists and culture begun to question global warming? Yet, there is still this fear of it worsening. If the human species weren’t so greedy in giving up things they love, desire and “need” then maybe our environment wouldn’t be withering away. But oh yes I forgot about Berry’s point of limitlessness. No worries because things are never going to run out for REAL, right?

“We are, in short, coming under pressure to understand ourselves as limited creatures in a limited world.” (Berry) Sooner or later or species will realize that our world is truly limited and our resources will diminish to nothing. By that time it will be too late for any significant change and we will end up in an unlivable world. (Like the Pixar film WALL-E!) How many clues will people need to see before there are no more? Eventually, “Where there is no more, our one choice is to make the most and best of what we have.” (Berry, 10)

"Conversation of Mankind"

In “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’”, Kenneth A. Bruffee discusses the relationship between thought and conversation. Bruffee believes that in order for a thought to be considered something that is learned, it needs to be discussed with another person. In my opinion this is a valid statement because discussion brings out not only an individuals thoughts but also responses and others thoughts, which eventually allows the original individual to start thinking again. For example, when Bruffee brings up the medical research of M. L. J. Abercrombie, he discusses how “the result of her research was to suggest that diagnosis, the art of medical judgment and the key element in successful medical practice, is better learned in small groups of students arriving at diagnoses collaboratively than it is learned by students working individually.” This type of discussion makes the most sense because it allows all the ideas of all the doctors to come together and form a more intelligent decision.

When I am sitting in a lecture hall listening to my teachers voice the entire class, I receive hardly any knowledge. I find it extremely boring and it causes my mind to wander in different directions rather then causing a thought inside my own head. However, when a teacher proposes questions to their students my mind stirs and my thoughts open up. It is not until the teacher then opens that question up for a class discussion that my mind is in full motion. While listening to other students it allows me to receive different points of views and helps me reflect on my own ideas. My WSC 1 class, fairytale literature class and my History class have all been my favorite classes because they were strictly discussion based. It’s kind of funny to think about that in these three classes we always sat in a circle and the teacher was basically there to help push and direct the discussion but the discussion of the students was the main basis of the class. I have learned that I receive the most knowledge in a discussion-based setting. My mind remains focused and I am so concentrated on listening to what other people are saying in order to gain the most knowledge I can for future purposes and to help me better understand. In these class settings I also always found it interesting that when discussing the teacher will sometimes say, “wow, I never thought of it that way.” Discussion allows new knowledge to constantly take place.

Bruffee also discusses how peer tutoring and peer criticism exercises are seen as a successful way of collaborative learning. I agree with this statement as well because in regards to my own experience it is much easier to discuss with a peer who is on your level then a teacher who exceeds your knowledge. For example, in our WSC 2 class, during our ink shedding exercises I receive the most knowledge because all of our classmates are correcting and learning from one another. I love receiving a card that has so many responses and notes on it because it is the easiest to comprehend. Something that I would have never understood before is now so easy to understand thanks to our peer discussion groups. I always find myself turning to my peers and asking them questions regarding assignments because I want to see their thoughts and compare it to my own. I don’t think I’ve ever done a paper without asking someone in my class, “What are you writing about and what do you think of this?” Using peer groups and peer criticism’s helps me gain different ideas and concepts and add them to my own. Bruffee’s ideas on collaborative learning are ideal and in my opinion the most successful way to learn.

The Fear of Writing

In Derrida's interview he expresses his feelings on the power of writing. He talks about how when he is thinking about what he is going to write he becomes scared and believes he is a crazy man for thinking what he is thinking. If you think about writing as a whole, people use it to express their ultimate feelings. When a person says “put it in writing” it is usually referring to the idea that the word of mouth is not trust worthy but if that person writes it down then it cannot be changed. Even on all the police and detective shows they use writing as a way of truth. When someone pleads guilty they immediately need to make the criminal write it down. This makes writing extremely powerful because it is believed to hold the truth in words. People can easily tell a lie by changing what they heard or what they say, but when something is written it is too difficult to change. When writing is changed or there is forgery it is considered a crime. Students can get kicked out of schools for forgery! Changing of writing is no joke. While students are on topic, lets take into account papers. When a college student is discussing events in class it is easy to recite what someone else has said or believes. When speaking you do not have to cite yourself and say, “Billy said this last Tuesday”. However, when writing a term paper it is a MUST to cite your work other wise you are cheating! I agree with Derrida’s fear of writing because once words are written down I feel like it is set and stone and what’s said is said. I know for me I encounter this fear because I am not that good of a writer. I find it difficult to search for the right words to describe exactly what I’m trying to say in my head. It is much easier to speak and change your words then write a paper and have to decide right then and there what words you’re going to hand in. Are they good enough or does it sound like a three year old just wrote it? Derrida’s fear of writing is very common in most of my days. Writing has been turned into this ultimate power of words and truth. If you take texting into consideration, sometimes it is easier for a person to text you and express your feelings because they are writing it rather then saying it. But I know once I send that text I go “Oh no” and get that nervous feeling in my stomach. Written words can be saved forever and always be brought back for proof. Spoken language cannot. Spoken words can be twisted but writing cannot. That itself is a very intense feeling that causes a feeling of anxiety. Derrida expresses this power in his interview especially when he talks about what he writes is done. There is no going back to change what he said. For Derrida and many people that could be terrifying!

Language is a slippery vehicle...

At times, language cannot be used to describe something. Everyday people fish around to find the "perfect" words to illustrate a special moment. It is not always an easy task to find those words and at times words can simply not recapture what one would like it too. Many believe that words hold the truth and stand as the basis and evidence for actions; however, there are times when words do no justice. In the poem "The Problem of Describing Trees", the author Robert Hass searches for the right words to describe the gorgeous and memorable moments of the trees. However, he runs into difficulty in describing exactly what he saw. Several times Hass stops himself and says, "No". "There are limits to saying, in language, what the tree did." (Hass) This author believes that this special moment cannot only be described by just words. Even though he yearns to tell us of his encounter it cannot be done. For Rodney Jones in his poem “Hubris at Zunzal” this is not the case. Jones experiences the opposite feeling and believes that words describe everything. For him there is “No image like the image of language.” Jones writes his poem with descriptive details of his day on the beach in 1984. This allows us as the readers to be able to close our eyes and envision exactly what he was seeing at that specific moment. For Jones it was easy to find the correct words for his description. Both authors have opposite views of language. While one believes that language is the key to remembering everything, the other believes that at times words are not enough. This whole concept is what makes language such a slippery vehicle.