TOW 24: IRB

Judging at face value.. or rather, the back cover synopsis, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers seems like a soberingly self-aware account of loss, responsibility, and the bond of two brothers after their lives are forever changed with the death of their parents. It seems like a sob story, but a sarcastic, thought provoking sob story. However, when one gets past the first thirty pages of the book relating the immediate aftermath of the main character's parents' death, the book's tone changes, and we are left with the author's very self centered accounts of his life in San Francisco as a young, counter-cultured adult, and the hijinks that ensue (the main character's little brother, who is supposed to be the main point of conflict during the memoir as he is now under the care of his ill-prepared older brother, plays a cursory role). So while the book masquerades as a provoking work of "hope and hysteria", it is really just a book written by a hipster, about hipsters, for hipsters. So while I may not have gleaned A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius's (AHWoSG) original purpose, what I did gain from reading it is that throughout modern American history there has been a systemic subculture of "hipster-dom" and that this subculture will forever be (although under different monikers) a part of American culture.

AHWoSG takes place in the 1990's, long before we labeled the plaid-wearing, IPA-drinking, beard-grooming young urban folk as "hipsters". However, the main characters in AHWoSG display many of the traits that define the subculture we now identify as hipster. A hipster is simply a name for the counter culture of young individuals who have renounced conformity in the name of cultural revolution and what the define as the lifestyles and attitudes of the future. The main character and his friends have left behind the normativity of life back in suburban Chicago for San Francisco: a land of young folk and "ahead of the curve" culture. They believe that they are revolutionaries, going against the grain to change the way the masses think by being ironic or avant-garde in the low-budget, too-cool-for-you-to-know-about magazine that they produce. This subgroup of young people who believe in going against the norm, going against the ideas of their parents and grandparents, and seemingly (operative word being seemingly) changing the world has been a large part of American culture for at least the last century, and AHWoSG provides just a snapshot of that group as it manifested itself in the 1990's. The magazine editors in AHWoSG compare their work to that of "The Factory", the place where Andy Warhol and friends produced their art in the 1960's. This comparison is pivotal, because it shows that the group we now identify as hipsters have been around before, but just under different names. Whether it be the folksy Beatniks of the 50's and 60's, the Warhol inspired punk culture of the 70's and 80's, AHWoSG's pre-2000's paragons of young adult angst, or today's Brooklyn-bound unicycle enthusiasts, we will always have a relatively vocal group of young folk who, for better or worse, are bent on changing the world.. for the hipper.

TOW #23: Visual

The U.S.'s corporate tax has long been a point of contention in the United States. Many liberals believe that a high corporate tax places responsibility on the richest of Americans (well, not "people" but "corporations", unless you believe corporations are people). Conversely, conservatives believe that raising the corporate tax will force away business to unregulated overseas markets. This view is what Chip Bok, a cartoonist for magazines such as The Times of London and New York Times, depicts in his April 7th cartoon showing businessmen setting sail from an enraged Barack Obama and the "world's highest business tax". While many conservatives may fear this mass exodus of business, in reality many corporations don't even pay the corporate tax, making evident the need for an even stronger corporate tax.

America's largest corporations largely do not pay taxes despite their grossly inflated revenues. Due to innumerous tax loopholes and off shore accounts, corporations pay close to none of the U.S's 35% corporate tax. According to Forbes, Apple only pays 11% of its income in taxes, and General electric paid only 9% of its 2 Billion dollars in revenue. To put this in perspective, 2 of the world’s highest grossing corporations are paying less than the 15% income tax on persons making only $10,000 dollars a year. This disparity in the taxes paid by corporations versus people is startling, and weakens the argument that the United States is forcing their own businesses out. Due to this, it is easy to see that the corporate tax rather than being relaxed, should be strengthened in order to hold big businesses accountable for their revenues. Corporations in no way will be hurt from these taxes, and it will be the first step in reducing the gaping void between the rich and the poor.

TOW #22: Losing in Battle, ISIS Gains by Attacking the 'Gray Zone' of the West

Following the bombings in Brussels in late March, the already fervent anti-ISIS hysteria in the U.S. has reached soaring new levels. It has precipitated a frighteningly acute Islamaphobia among tense Americans, which has manifested itself into intensifying anti-Muslim and isolationist political rhetoric. Even as ISIS loses large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq as reported by Karl Vick for TIME Magazine, America's fear of the amorphous jihadist group grows. Politicians, media and citizens alike fervently propose ways to stave ISIS's terror; however, this frenzy does not weaken ISIS but rather gives them exactly what they want--it helps them win.

A main goal of ISIS is to eliminate the "gray zone" (more on that later), and America's Islamaphobic response to ISIS attacks has catalyzed the "gray zone's" implosion. ISIS's online magazine describes the Gray Zone as "any society in which Muslims and non-Muslims coexist" and ISIS wishes to "destroy the gray zone." The Brussels attacks can be seen as a direct attack on the Gray Zone as Europe is largely a Gray area in that Muslims and Non-Muslims coexist there. The U.S. is also a Gray Zone. However, after the Brussels attacks, Paris attacks, and San Bernadino shootings, many politicians have proposed feigned protective strategies that would threaten America's "grayness" so to speak. Republican presidential nominees Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have both expressed their desire to homogenize the American population. Cruz proposed the policing of areas with high concentrations of Muslim citizens, and Trump went even further by proposing a direct ban on Muslim immigrants. These reactionary and fear-mongered responses do not help to assuage ISIS's terror but instead fan the flames of ISIS's war by separating Muslim people from peoples of other ideologies.

In the past, America has had a history of demonizing groups when faced with a foreign threat, and today is no different. It was Eastern Europeans in the first Red Scare and Socialists during the HUAC hearing, but today it is Muslims in the age of ISIS. This demonization and isolationism might create a veil of safety for Americans, but it is a false veil. America's fearful rhetoric hurts American citizens and strengthens ISIS's aims, fracturing the diverse population that characterizes the American ideal. So, if we want to make America great again, then we'll have to make America gray again.

TOW #21: Neurasthenia: The Disease of Living Too Fast

During the turn of the century, as industrialization brought people to the bustling cities and typical gender roles began to fade, a disease known as neurasthenia was created to explain what today we would classify as work related stress. However, according to turn of the century physicians, the rigors of modern living reduced the "nervous energy" of a person and made them lethargic, achy, or generally in a state of malaise. The "cure" for neurasthenia was to (at least for men) take an extended vacation to the great outdoors. In an article for magazine, The Atlantic, author Julie Beck establishes how neurasthenia was complete rubbish used to establish rights of the privileged. However, the heart of neurasthenia as it relates to the American theme of overworking oneself still holds true today, and there is still some merit to slowing down every once in a while.

When neurasthenia was in vogue, Americans were just beginning their indsutrial, enterprising spirit. Today, we uphold this spirit as much as ever as we delve deeper into our jobs, seemingly never leaving a screen or our phones. As our level if work related stress increases to the point of insanity, the need for a break is ever important. The average American works a steady job five days a week, and often brings this job home with them, constantly being connected to social media, email, etc. While this constant connection may be a good thing in terms of increasing our productivity and the ease with which we carry out every day tasks, it also can be exhausting as we are in constant connection with those around us. This increase in our stress levels thus precipitates the need for a mental break, as was the cure for neurasthenia back in the day. Today, rather than taking month long excursions to dude ranches in Wyoming like Teddy Roosevelt did to cure his neurasthenia, it is necessary that we slow down from our stress in other ways. Taking a few hours away from our screens each day, or designating a day each week to get outside and away from our work and technology may behoove us more than we think. Taking up a yoga class, going for a walk in the woods, or simply taking a well deserved nap could provide the respite necessary to cure us of our modern day neurasthenia. 

TOW 20- IRB

The psychological ramifications of cancer to caregivers and loved ones of those who have passed away are often burdensome and life altering. Dave Eggers' Pulitzer Prize nominated book A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius takes a look at these ramifications in a manic, confused, daydreamy way. While the narrator of the non-fiction account shrouds his pain in irony and humor, it is obvious that those who have lost loved ones to cancer suffer from psychological effects much deeper than just loss.

In his book, Eggers, who is also the narrator, skips directly from the death of his parents (both to unrelated cancers and within months of each other) to months later where he acts as the sole caregiver of his young brother Toph. The situation would seem to be a very hard one for a young adult to deal with, being handed so much responsibility in such a short time, but Eggers seems completely unfazed and rather happy about the whole situation. He describes their situation as "collecting on what's coming to us, each day we're being paid back for what is owed, what we deserve, with interest". Eggers initial description of his situation seems selfish and relaxed, but soon one can see that he is really just unstable. His manic attitude shifts his thoughts immediately from "Should I lighten my hair? Does that whitening toothpase really work?" to "Maybe I'm already sick. It's already growing inside me. A tapeworm. AIDS. I have to get started, have to get started soon because I will die before thirty". His thoughts about the mundane easily shift into a slippery slope of unjustified death and despair that shows his mental instability. Thus Eggers psyche is not just affected by sadness and loss, but his entire mechanism of sane thinking has been rocked by the events which have transpired, and the situation he finds himself in. 

Cancer often lingers long after it takes the life of someone, and that is shown poignantly in A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. While many people may pretend to be unfazed by their loss, the truth is that cancer can greatly rattle those it affects for life.

TOW 19: Visual

The second amendment may protect American's right to bear arms, but that doesn't change the fact that gun violence is responsible for the deaths of 30,000 Americans each year. In this ad by gun control activists Moms Demand Action, the images of two children holding two very different objects are juxtaposed. One child holds a Kinder Egg, a popular European treat where a toy is encased in a chocolate egg, and the other an assault rifle; however, only one is banned--the Kinder Egg. This ad effectively shows the absurdity of gun laws: that a seemingly harmless toy is banned to protect children, but deadly fire arms are not. It would seem through this ad that the banning of assault rifles is an obvious necessity in the U.S. However, the author's goal of banning assault weapons in this ad has yet to reach fruition, and in fact probably never will. 

After each mass shooting that occurs in what seems like more frequent increments, there happens to be a period of time where Americans express their outrage regarding lax gun laws. And each time, it seems as if there might be progress made regarding the regulation of guns; however, no matter how many times outrage is expressed, there will never be any progress made. While this seems pessimistic, it is merely the unfortunate truth that is the consequence of a bitter and unbending system. Anti-gun activists continually advocate for gun bans similar to those in Australia and GB, however gun rights groups like the NRA hold so much sway within the American political machine that not even background checks will be approved by congress. The paranoid American is in constant fear of Big Brother taking away their second amendment rights, and this leads them to be against any form of gun regulation. Due to this, even the most minuscule goals of groups like Moms Demand Action such as banning extended magazines will never be reached.  

It seems obvious in this advert and to the majority of the first world that guns and absolute safety cannot coexist. Despite this, the fearful pro-Second-Amendment fervor of Americans will keep any progress from being made. So for now we will saved from the abomination that is a Kinder Egg, but at least we will be able to carry our heavy duty, extended magazine assault rifles. 

TOW #18: Is Trump Unstoppable?

When orange-faced-filter-lacker Donald Trump announced his campaign for presidency what seems like eons ago, we all thought it was a joke. What did this loud, touped, casino monger think he was doing in politics? He'd never last... or so we thought. But, unfortunately for women, Muslims, blacks, hispanics, minorities in general, and basically anyone with a modicum of respect for the American political system, Trump is still going strong--and getting stronger. This underdog--if the word underdog can be used to describe a white anglo millionaire--has led the polls non-stop for months and has won primaries in New Hampshire and now South Carolina. As the nation watches Trump seemingly run away with the Republican nomination, one question (raised by David Graham in The Atlantic) remains: is this angry human Dorito without a volume setting unstoppable? As much as I and many others would hate to believe it, the answer for now is unfortunately yes.

The Republican nomination will go to Trump not because of his careful oration and pandering skills (seemingly winning traits in any other candidate) but because of the opposite: he says whatever he wants. Trump is a filter-less, anti-PC gladiator in the primetime-network-news-channel-Republican-debate Thunderdome. Frightened turtle in disguise Jeb Bush and chew toy Marco Rubio have become Trump's ragdolls: they act as the pussyfooting establishment foils to Trump's blunt, dark horse honesty. Trump has said many things that would in any other presidential race before this would have torpedoed a campaign. From commenting on pundit Megyn Kelly's "bleeding" to feuding with the pope, Trump has run the gamut of offenses. However, each blunder is less of a blunder and instead acts as a surge for Trump. That is his strength, and that is why he is unstoppable. Like a cancer, checkpoints and defenses that should have stopped Trump long ago have failed and instead his support multiplies and metastasizes across the country with staggering unpredictability. People like that Trump says what he wants, that he doesn't pander to outside interests. He represents a refreshing (?) change from the robotic establishment Republican nominees of the past like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingerich and John McCain. Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric is somewhat revolutionary, and thus unstoppable...

...For now. While Trump has bested his Republican foes, assuming he wins the nomination he will still have to face a democratic nominee next November. And while his gung-ho, tell-it-like-it-is strategy may appeal to the majority Republican demographic, he still has to win a majority of Americans--Democrats included. So while the runaway Trump train may be rolling its way to the RNC now, it has a long way to go before it reaches the White House.

TOW #17: The Perils of Presidentialism

The United States' government, with its executive, legislative and judicial branches always checking and balancing each other, is the pride of the patriotic American people. However, this government is more of a Frankenstein's Monster than an Adonis. In his 1996 essay, Professor of Political Science at Yale University Juan Linz reveals the perennial instability of presidential governments compared to their parliamentary counterparts. While it cannot be denied that there are some merits to the U.S's presidential government, it is historically obvious that America's presidential government is highly unstable.

Linz argues in his essay that the dissident powers of legislative and executive branches in the American government have long been a fault line in the U.S. government. This idea, which essentially points out the dangerous clash between the president and congress regarding who holds the democratic "power of the people" has been a long running theme in American government. During the presidency of accidental president Andrew Johnson, this political disparity almost destroyed the American political structure. Johnson disagreed heavily with the legislative majority Republicans regarding how to carry out Civil War Reconstruction. Johnson ignored the party's obvious majority opinion in the Senate and House and vetoed all bills passed by the party. Heavily annoyed by this stalemate, Republicans impeach Johnson on illegitimate grounds. Johnson was not removed from office and a crisis was averted; however, had he been removed it would have set a dangerous precedent that the legislature could remove the president at any time just because they didn't like his policy. Thus, the constant power struggle between the executive and legislative branches undermines the stability of the American Government.

Despite the relative instability of American Government, there are still benefits to the American political system. The constant checks and balances between the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches protect the country from polar decision making and excess political expediency. French philosopher Montesquieu believed that government needed checks and balances between its major institutions in order to ensure that no one interest could carry out highly polarized actions. The American system of government upholds this belief as the presidential veto, legislative power to pass bills, and judicial review allows all governmental decisions to be checked before being passed into law. This means that no rash decisions (hopefully) will be pushed through the government into law, but also means that almost nothing ever gets done. So while this system may provide necessary checks, it also is extremely inefficient and overall largely unstable.

America has thus far been able to operate with relative effectiveness under our current system of government. However, as Linz shows in his essay and as history has shown us, there are many faults in America's system that will inevitably lead to its downfall. The question that remains is when?

IRB Intro #3: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius

I generally try to stay away from "feel good" books with a tragedy that ultimately leads to a warm and fuzzy moral about the triumph of the human spirit--sentiment makes me nauseous. Due to this, I thought that A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (just look at the title) by Dave Eggers would be the same type of heart-warming-turned-into-a-made-for-TV-Lifetime-movie memoir that I try to stay away from. However, after seeing the book crop up in various lists of top nonfiction reads online, I decided to check it out. The book is a "memoir" by Dave Eggers, but its clear that the book is trying to chew off more than the title memoir would imply just based on the reviews. The book is about Eggers' hardships as the sole guardian to his little brother after both of his parents died of cancer. While this sounds like the prime subject matter for soppy, sad, beach reads, apparently the book is rather known for its sardonic nature and bitter self consciousness. In other words, it has been likened more to David Foster Wallace than Jodi Piccoult. This makes me extremely interested in reading this book as I really do not know what to expect, and I hope to gain (perhaps) some moral or philosophical insight into the more human side of loss through reading this.

TOW #16: IRB (2)

Sebastian Junger's book War, an account of his time in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan during American occupation of the country in the late aughts, spends much of its time humanizing war. Junger focuses much of the first half of the book on the relationships between soldiers and the psychological effects of war that are seldom seen in press clippings of numbers of dead and progress made. The human aspect of war is a very important part of Junger's attempt to show war at its rawest and most honest, and in the second half of the book Junger also highlights the distortions between the progress we think is being made oversees in short news clippings and what is actually happening. In comparing the distorted and overly optimistic view of the U.S's progress in Afghanistan to the haphazard reality, Jungr effectively shows how war is much less black and white, and (in the case of Afghanistan) much more dire than the average civilian American would know.

Junger's account of the war in Afghanistan is far from saccharine. Much of the book consists of first hand accounts of the bloody, gruesome firefights between the Taliban and Battle Company on the Abas Ghar in the Korengal Valley. The death's of Americans are frequent and ironically unheroic, and the deaths caused by the American's follow in the same way. However, if you listened to military press officers, who presented only part of the truth about the war (the positive truth), you wouldn't know that. Junger shows this distinction to the average civilian by comparing the truth of war (which he has been describing throughout the entirety of the book) to what he calls "Vietnam moments". According to Junger, "Vietnam moments" were when journalists "weren't so much getting misled as getting asked to participate in a kind of collective wishful thinking" (Junger 132). Junger provides an example of this when he recounts how "more American soldiers were killed that year than any previous year before" (Junger 132), but this was distorted as being the cause of soldiers "taking the fight to the enemy"(Junger 132). This tweaking of the facts often distorts the public's perception of a war, and simplifies it into a black and white conflict that is an easier pill to swallow. Through showing the disconnect between how the war is presented and how it actually is, Junger demystifies the often-shrouded-in-mystery nature of war. This, along with his harrowing descriptions of the fear felt by soldiers in firefights and the connection between soldiers, does not necessarily argue against war but seemingly shows it in its rawest and most unadulterated context.

TOW #15: Visual Text

The line between body acceptance and complacency is a fine one indeed. Should acceptance of one's body mean complacency in terms of health goals? Can you love your body but still strive to become healthier? The short answer is yes. However, there is still controversy surrounding the reconciliation of body acceptance and fitness goals, and this can be seen in the iconic sports company Nike's controversial "Find Your Greatness" ad. The ad has come under fire for its image of an obese child struggling to run down a street. Detractors of the ad believe that the image is demeaning to the child, and portrays him in a body-shaming, unflattering light. Despite this, the ad's striking and blunt imagery effectively creates a rousing and determined message that forces the audience to, in accordance with Nike's famous mantra, just do it.

The visual was released in a 2012 pre-olympic ad campaign containing diverse images captioned "find your greatness". The campaign strove to contain not only images of physical-adonis-pro-athletes, but also average people in order to show that greatness resides within everyone. This particular image's stark placement of the struggling obese child against sprawling fields and an open road creates a very powerful effect. The audience can feel the perseverance of the child who, when faced with nothing but open road, continues to run despite his physical hinderances. The setting sun in the background and the emptiness of the frame hyper-focuses the audience's attention to the running boy, and simplifies the image to nothing but a boy and his goal, at odds with each other but destined to meet. The placement of the words "Find your greatness." written in sans serif font with all capital letters underscores this perseverance by not fussing with motivational words but bluntly stating the ultimate goal of everyone's physical endeavors--to reach greatness. This message, characterized by the running boy, causes the audience to see a nobility in striving for greatness, and shows them that greatness manifests itself differently for everyone. It shows that greatness, no matter if it is just running a mile or winning a marathon, knows no excuses and can be achieved by anyone as long as they put in the work.

This image can be criticized for its portrayal of the boy; however, criticizers cannot deny the power of the image's message of undying determination in the name of greatness. This image appeals to any person who has ever debated not going to the gym, ending their run early, or slowing down their game pace. If they simply recall the image of the running boy, they will remember that greatness knows no boundaries and can be achieved by even the most unassuming of athletes.

TOW #14: The League of Extraordinary Assholes

In our modern world of regulated capitalist democracy it is increasingly easy to see the inflated entitlement of the wealthy or privileged, whether it be while we are driving, in line at Starbucks, or waiting for luggage at the airport. While we look on from our relative squalor compared to these paragons of privilege, it is easy to see how their false air of superiority can contribute to, as University of Toronto Philosophy professor and writer for The Walrus Magazine Mark Kingwell rather gracefully calls it, "assholery". While this characteristic disregard of other human beings is often reserved for the privileged, Kingwell argues in his op-ed that there is a logical reason for "jerkiness", and that this "jerkiness" can be manifested in all of us whenever we are in a position of superiority.

Kingwell writes for the common man--but with an academic's flair--and deftly illustrates the tenets of "jerkiness" by defining and then providing examples for its various parts. He paints the picture of the jerk in everyone, saying that most people "may not be a jerk most of the time--except when I feel myself superior". By defining the superiority complex that enables jerkiness, the reader is able to connect to the concept of jerkiness, for they themselves have probably felt entitled in their superiority at one point or another. In order to reinforce this idea of "jerkiness", Kingwell provides examples of where jerky superiority might be manifested. He gives an example of  feigned superiority, saying "Thus servers, clerks, students, cashiers, and—especially—strangers can be seen as easy targets. Without fear of reprisal or loss of status, indeed with a sense of confirming it by getting one’s way or securing an advantage, jerkiness can seem justified".  Through showing how jerkiness grows and rears its ugly head, Kingwell thus shows that jerkiness is not just reserved for the over-privileged (who he describes to be not just jerks but rather at a more unsavory level of entitlement) but can be seen in all of us when we lose our sense of empathy and see ourselves as better than others. Thus, Kingwell begs the question, are you or have you ever been a jerk? And for most of us, the answer is yes. 

TOW #13: Führer Humor: The Art of the Nazi Comedy

Many a user of YouTube has seen a parody meme that goes something like this: a scene from the German movie Downfall, a biopic about the last days of Hitler, depicts an enraged Hitler screaming in fury over Nazi failures; however, the subtitles are parodied to make it seem as if Hitler is screaming about late pizza, learning Santa isn't real, or any number of ridiculous topics. This lampooning of the genocidal dictator has become commonplace in the decades following WWII, and is seen as a "defanging" of the Nazi regime. However, turning one of the most insidious leaders in history into a joke has its detriments according to Atlantic writer Daniel Gross. Following the release of a German Hitler comedy, Look Who's Back, Gross argues that while seemingly harmless in nature, these comedies dehumanize the atrocities committed by Hitler. 

As early as Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator Hitler has been the butt of comedic ridicule as society tries to demystify Hitler and reinforce the fact that Nazism was defeated. However, Gross argues that this demystification has distanced society from recognizing the magnitude of Hitler's atrocities. To prove this point, Gross effectively presents a counterargument and then refutes that counterargument in order to develop an objective and analytical view that proves to the viewer that Hitler's lampooning detracts from society's admission of his horrendous acts. Gross explains how this lampooning can be good, saying "Every time Hitler dies on a movie screen, every time he's reduced to a pathetic and bumbling fool, society reasserts its loathing for Nazism. Films that ridicule past injustice can help distance society from a history we’d rather not repeat". However, he then asserts that this distancing from history can be too effective: "But that distance is also the key disadvantage of Nazi slapstick. When audience members laugh at The Great Dictator or parodies of Downfall, it can become harder to imagine the thoughts or motivations of actual Nazis". Through juxtaposing his counterargument with his refutation, he not only establishes ethos as a level headed source, but logically conveys to the reader that Hitler comedies have good intentions but detrimental effects. In doing this, Gross shows us that while we must distance ourselves from the horrors of the past, we must not go too far or else we are doomed to repeat. 

TOW #12: IRB "War"

War is a concept that is almost incomprehensible to those who have never experienced it first hand. It matters not how many times someone has seen Saving Private Ryan or American Sniper; ultimately, war is still fantasized and glorified to them. One might think that they have a good idea of the PTSD and mental trauma that soldiers experience, but they never will until they find themselves in a firefight. Sebastian Jungr, author of the critically acclaimed and harrowing nonfiction account Into the Storm takes on the challenge of portraying the effects of war in their most raw state in his book War, an account of his time in the Korengal valley of Afghanistan while on assignment from magazine Vanity Fair in 2007. In this book, Jungr does not glorify the valor and courage of war but rather presents it at face value in its rawest form. In doing this, he uses extremely vivid and lifelike imagery to thrust the reader into the real world of war and its barbaric, dehumanizing nature.


Written for the American whose only exposure to war has been in the form of TV, movies, or short news clips, Jungr's main purpose in writing War is to objectively expose average Americans to the harrowing nature of war. Jungr spent varying increments of time over two years in the Korengal valley with American soldiers at the extremely remote and constantly imperiled Restrepo Outpost. His accounts of the constant threat of Taliban insurgency are extremely detailed and tense, and he perfectly encapsulates the constant state of heightened anxiety that the soldiers in Korengal constantly experienced. In one expository passage, Jungr's imagery perfectly encapsulates the constant grinding stress that the soldiers of the Korengal endure: "First Squad goes thirty-eight days without taking a shower or changing their clothes, and by the end their uniforms are so impregnated with salt that they can stand up by themselves. The men's sweat reeks of ammonia because they've long since burned off all their fat and are now breaking down muscle.  There are wolves up in the high peals that howl at night and mountain lions that creep through the KOP looking for food [...] one species of bird sounds exactly like incoming rocket propelled grenades; the men call them "RPG birds" and can't keep themselves from flinching whenever they hear them" (Jungr 53). This exhaustive passage, a passage fraught with tormenting imagery, takes the reader right to the heart of the Korengal. The reader feels as if they are there themselves, waiting in a constant state of fear and exhaustion for the next RPG to soar past the outpost, or worse, hit it. Jungr's imagery appeals heavily to the reader's sense of sympathy as it creates a feeling of constant suspense that could be cut with a knife, or the gunfire of a Taliban sniper. The reader is easily able to see how soldiers are in a constant state of mental and physical stress, and this reveals to the reader that soldiers are in a much worse state than short apathetic news clippings and movie glorifications admit. Jungr shows us that war is not a fantasy of valor and heroics, but instead a purgatory--constantly waiting for hell to erupt.

TOW #11: The Genius of Star Wars

There is something about the substance Star Wars that makes it so recognizable that at the first screech of a passing TIE fighter or the blaring horn section of John Williams sprawling score the viewer knows exactly where they are and where they are going. This familiarity, a kind of nostalgia comparable to coming home to the same smells and sounds of childhood but for millions around the world, is the biggest challenge facing J.J. Abrams and the team taking on the franchise's newest reboot, The Force Awakens. With the movie set to release in mid-December, seasoned TIME Magazine entertainment writer Lev Grossman explores what has been called "The Star Wars vernacular" and argues that J.J. Abrams has not only achieved creating this vernacular but has brought it into the light of the 21 century.

Star Wars is perhaps one of the most widely known and beloved franchises in the history of motion pictures. This worldwide love of the classic space opera is what creates such an exacting pressure for the new franchise to deliver the same phenomena that the original trilogy did. In his essay, somewhat of an attempt to assuage the fears old fans have about the new movie's merit, Grossman uses comparison and juxtaposition of the new movie to the original trilogy in order to show that The Force Awakens does indeed live up to its momentous expectations. Grossman follows a pattern of first stating facets of the original trilogy that distinguished it stylistically as a film, saying of the original "One of the eternal mysteries of Star Wars is that it looks like science fiction, with robots and lasers and such, but at the same time it's set far in the past and has the dustiness and feel of ancient history" and then following up with how the new movie holds true to this style, saying that Abrams intended the new movie to "have a history that stretched back before the start of the movie. [That] it was the weat and tear that was on a particular ship or a droid, all of these things implied this very rich history from which the story came". Through comparing how Abrams kept true to the extremely specific stylistic details of the original movie, Grossman shows how The Force Awakens lives up to the original movie's vernacular. However, Grossman also juxtaposes the new and the old, showing how The Force Awakens has a more modern spin by saying that the old movies were essentially "a movie about white men fighting to regain their rightful position as rulers" whereas with the new "the cast alone is more diverse" and "women figure in a more dynamic, physically powerful capacity". Through juxtaposing the outmoded parts of the old movies with the progressive additions to The Force Awakens, Grossman shows how Abram's was able to reconcile the essence of the original films with modern day sentiments. Thus, Grossman shows that while some things have changed in a galaxy far, far, away, to the delight of the viewer many things will remain just the same.

TOW #10: The Silicon Valley Suicides

Times have changed in high schools. Whereas adolescence used to be associated with rebellion and carelessness, it is now associated with high expectations, stress, anxiety, and depression. Especially in affluent high schools, students are continually becoming more unstable as the pressure to do well is piled on from peers, parents, and students themselves. Hannah Rosin, national correspondent for The Atlantic and author of the book The End of Man, takes on this topic in her investigative essay "The Silicon Valley Suicides". In this piece, Rosin analyzes the negative implications of overachievement by focusing on a cluster of suicides in highly affluent Palo Alto, California. She uses poignant anecdotes from former students who dealt with academic pressure in order to show that the pressure to succeed in affluent areas has created a toxic culture of depression amongst adolescents.

Rosin writes her essay to the unknowing parents of stressed out students, who unconsciously catalyze the ideology amongst students that success is the only option. Rosin argues that despite positive reinforcement, achievement based parenting is still detrimental to the mental health of teens. After delving into the lives of many of the afflicted former students of the Silicon Valley area, she deduces that parenting where achievement is seen as the only justification of parental satisfaction is extremely damaging to students. She argues that this causes students to think that success is the only way to gain approval from their parents. To support this claim, and her main claim that the culture of achievement has created and extremely depressed group of teens, she uses heart wrenching anecdotes from students who suffered from achievement based depression. One such anecdote is of former student Taylor Chiu, who said that after an academically drowning semester that she wished "that someone had broken up with her, or that she was anorexic, or that she had some reason to explain to her parents why she felt so sad." and that  "She didn’t want to ask for a break, she said, because people would think she was lazy. “But having a mental disorder? That’s serious. People would listen to that.” It would be, she thought, like a man being held back from a fight: He would never have to admit he couldn’t win" (Rosin). Through including Taylor's anecdote, Rosin is able to aptly embody what goes through the minds of stressed students. Her inclusion of the last metaphor, relating Chiu's unwillingness to quit to a man being held back from a fight, especially encapsulates the mindset of students who believe there is literally no other option but success. 

Thus, Rosin adeptly shows parents how the values which they covet so much--studiousness, intelligence, overachievement--are making their kids absolutely miserable. Rosin's essay is heart breaking and revealing. After reading, it leaves the reader with a sense of bitter irony; that good intentions and dreams of the best success are what are slowly killing students. 

TOW #9: Visual Text

There have always been two definitive parties within American politics, whether it be federalists and antifederalists or democrats and republicans, there have always been parties representing two different sides of the political spectrum. However, in recent years it has been more common to see smaller more radical factions developing within the two larger fundamental parties. This is topic of seasoned political cartoonist for the Chicago Tribune Scott Stantis's September 2010 cartoon, The Tea Party. In this cartoon, aimed at the average American voter, Stantis uses juxtaposition to show how the Tea Party had become a large burden on the Republican party.
This visual text depicts a fiery young girl demanding that a large, seemingly bewildered elephant drink his tea at her tea party. However, on a deeper level, this humorous cartoon jabs at the American right wing political faction: The Tea Party. The elephant, the symbol of the GOP, represents the Republican Party. The little girl represents the Tea Party: a radically conservative (perhaps that is an oxymoron) faction of the Republican party. In this cartoon the Tea Party is depicted as having a comical control over the larger, yet scared, Republican party. Stantis shows this through his juxtaposition of the little girl and the large elephant. The large elephant would seemingly be stronger than the little girl, reflecting on how the Republican party should be stronger than the grass roots Tea Party. However, the little girl appears to be extremely loud and demanding, whereas the elephant is passive. This comparison of the small but verbose Tea Party to the powerful but easily cowed elephant shows how the Tea Party is able to control and hinder the Republican party despite its power. Thus, Stantis's comical juxtaposition effectively shows the absurdity of the fact that the small Tea Party is deeply and negatively affecting the larger Republican Party.

IRB Intro Post 2: War

For my second independent reading book I will be reading War by Sebastian Junger. This book was recommended to me by a fellow friend and classmate, who said that the book read like a narrative and was very fast paced, which are qualities I tend to look for in a book. The book, written by Sebastian Junger (Author of the famous book Into the Storm), focuses on the time Junger spent as a journalist in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan with U.S. troops. It follows the American soldiers through their harrowing experiences, and shows war from an objective point of view. I was especially interested in this book after realizing it was the text that corresponded with the documentary Restrepo, one of the rawest and most moving documentaries I have ever seen. I am very much looking forward to reading this book, and am interested in seeing the un-romanticized and un-hollywood aspects of war.

TOW #8: IRB Please Kill Me (2/2)

The first half of the book Please Kill Me by Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain focuses on the early roots of the Punk movement, as well as the burgeoning careers of many Punk symbols such as Iggy Pop and the Ramones. The second half of the book does the opposite: it focuses on the fall. While the book in its entirety is an amalgamation of the chaos that made up the Punk movement, the last half seemingly acts as the swan song to a movement that could never be maintained. McNeil and McCain artfully show--rather than tell--the labyrinthine odyssey of punk, drawing on their first hand experiences as pioneers in the movement: McNeil was the first to coin the term "Punk". They present the chronology of punk as a linear narrative not told by the authors themselves, but rather through first hand accounts from the punk symbols themselves in order to create a feeling that resembles that of a documentary. Through the use of these varied snippets of first hand accounts, McNeil and McCain are able to skillfully convey to the reader that the chaos that birthed the punk movement was also responsible for its death. As the first hand accounts of punk lead the reader down a path of sex, drugs, nihilism and insanity, the instability of those involved becomes evident. There was no unifying mantra or code amongst the vast and varied subgroups of punk, only a common sense of rebellion. This is expertly exemplified through the carefully chosen first hand account of Jeff Magnum, bassist of the band The Dead Boys. When recounting an extremely tumultuous encounter with law enforcement, he says "All I wanted to do was play the base real loud. I didn't want to hang out with these maniacs. Jesus what is this" (323). What prompted this outburst were the actions of bandmate Cheetah Chrome, who "threw a bunch of shit out a window and called the cops" (324) and said "'Come get me. I'm mental. Please come and get me'" (324). Magnum was further baffled by these actions, and said "I'm on mars. This can't be right. This can't be the way you're supposed to be in a band" (325). Through including this first hand account, McNeil and McCain show the chaos and disparity that plagued Punk bands. Magnum's description of his bandmate's crazed behavior and his obvious disapproval of it shows how the punk movement had no linearity, and that there was extreme polarization amongst those involved. Thus, McNeil and McCain showed how this polarization would crumble the punk movement as fast as it was built. McNeil and McCain's hands off approach to Please Kill Me in this way accurately epitomizes the rise and inevitable fall of punk culture.

TOW #7: Pond Scum: Henry David Thoreau's Moral Myopia

Walden Pond is one of the best known works of American Literature. The book, written by celebrated author Henry David Thoreau, focuses on the benefits of embracing wilderness, solitude and simplicity. It is seen as a keystone in the mythos of America's "Great Outdoors" and is a common read for many high school students. However, as Kathryn Shulz--writer for the New Yorker and Pew Research Journalism laureate--points out, Thoreau's Walden Pond might not have been as idyllic as the American nature lover might think. In "Pond Scum" Kathryn Schulz explores Thoreau's most famous work, as well as opinions of his contemporaries, to reveal the darker side of Thoreau. Using his own quotes as well as those of his friends, Schulz argues that Thoreau was not a champion of nature and living the simple life but rather an egotistical, narcissistic, self absorbed nihilist. Schulz's criticism is intended to be read for the modern American who is familiar with the works of Thoreau, but not necessarily educated in Thoreau's personal life or the deeper implications of his works. Due to this, Schulz juxtaposes Thoreau's reality to that which he fabricates in Walden Pond to discredit the idea that he is a paragon of simplicity and environmental virtue. For example, in order to paint Thoreau as a pompous and condescending hypocrite, she fleshes out all of his exacting standards of living without luxuries only to point out how some of his descriptions in Walden Pond might have been slightly blurred. She says "In reality, Walden Pond in 1845 was scarcely more off the grid, relative to contemporaneous society, than Prospect Park is today. The commuter train to Boston ran along its southwest side; in summer the place swarmed with picnickers and swimmers, while in winter it was frequented by ice cutters and skaters. He also fails to mention weekly visits from his mother and sisters (who brought along more undocumented food) and downplays the fact that he routinely hosted other guests as well—sometimes as many as thirty at a time. This is the situation Thoreau summed up by saying, 'For the most part it is as solitary where I live as on the prairies. It is as much Asia or Africa as New England. . . . At night there was never a traveller passed my house, or knocked at my door, more than if I were the first or last man.'" By juxtaposing Thoreau's reality with his impossible fabricated realities, Schulz shows not only how the values that Thoreau preached so pompously to his "lessers" were unrealistic and impossible to obtain, but also that Thoreau could not keep to the morals which he himself fabricated. Through this juxtaposition, Schulz shows that Thoreau was not a god but rather a charlatan and a hypocrite.