“Intimacy of Blogs”
Michael Snider
What is it that makes people willing to share their lives with complete strangers, people they have never met face to face? Why are things normally kept in a diary displayed for the world to see?
If Michael Snider’s purpose in writing the essay was to make the audience question the motives of those who keep a journal for all to read, his essay accomplished that purpose. Even his title made me wonder. Intimacy, honestly, makes me think of a bedroom or a marriage, something sacred, closed-off, and highly-personal. When I think of blogs, I think of the internet, a huge data wasteland, cold and devoid of personal interactions. It was strange to think that the two can combine. I find it hard to believe that genuine relationships can be formed by staring at a screen miles apart. I wouldn’t be able to trust people because of the ability for that person to create an alternate persona. They can be whoever they want on the internet, and no one will ever know.
However, I guess I should get used to friendships being formed this way. People who have never spoke to each other are becoming Facebook friends. Couples are being created through Match.com. Apparently, online relationships can be meaningful.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Russell Baker
“Work in Corporate America”
Russell Baker
In his essay, Baker added interest to his topic by beginning and ending with a perspective of a child. He discussed what a child might think about his parent’s work and how that child might be confused by the jargon-filled description and with no tangible results. Since children are seen as truthful and not calloused to the world, it helped the reader to imagine corporate America with a fresh mindset. In seeing the confusion of the child, the reader questions whether work in corporate America is appropriate and necessary.
In reading the child’s perspective, I wondered how many people are being paid to do nothing. I wondered if people get any satisfaction from “selling space” or “analyzing systems”. Do they feel that they are making a difference without any tangible results?
Viewing the topic as a child made the author’s point simply and was a catalyst for questioning corporate work.
Russell Baker
In his essay, Baker added interest to his topic by beginning and ending with a perspective of a child. He discussed what a child might think about his parent’s work and how that child might be confused by the jargon-filled description and with no tangible results. Since children are seen as truthful and not calloused to the world, it helped the reader to imagine corporate America with a fresh mindset. In seeing the confusion of the child, the reader questions whether work in corporate America is appropriate and necessary.
In reading the child’s perspective, I wondered how many people are being paid to do nothing. I wondered if people get any satisfaction from “selling space” or “analyzing systems”. Do they feel that they are making a difference without any tangible results?
Viewing the topic as a child made the author’s point simply and was a catalyst for questioning corporate work.
Henry David Thoreau
“Civil Disobedience”
Henry David Thoreau
As I was reading this essay, I thought about one of E.B. White’s confusing similes- “Democracy is the sneaking suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.” If White meant this as a positive attribute of democracy, Thoreau would disagree. Thoreau thought that many times the majority is wrong and should not be the basis of laws. Letting the majority make laws does not insure the legitimacy of those laws. Thus, Thoreau believed that when the laws are not consistent with what is right, people should disregard them.
I was interested in this concept at first. After all, God-decreed morals should come before man-made laws. However, people do not hold the same set of morals, and a government where people simply disregarded rules they didn’t agree with would be an anarchy. Although the majority may not always be right, I cannot think of another way to create laws to which most agree. Our form of democracy is flawed, but it is better than the alternatives.
Overall, I think that Henry David Thoreau and I would get along.
Henry David Thoreau
As I was reading this essay, I thought about one of E.B. White’s confusing similes- “Democracy is the sneaking suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.” If White meant this as a positive attribute of democracy, Thoreau would disagree. Thoreau thought that many times the majority is wrong and should not be the basis of laws. Letting the majority make laws does not insure the legitimacy of those laws. Thus, Thoreau believed that when the laws are not consistent with what is right, people should disregard them.
I was interested in this concept at first. After all, God-decreed morals should come before man-made laws. However, people do not hold the same set of morals, and a government where people simply disregarded rules they didn’t agree with would be an anarchy. Although the majority may not always be right, I cannot think of another way to create laws to which most agree. Our form of democracy is flawed, but it is better than the alternatives.
Overall, I think that Henry David Thoreau and I would get along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)