Response to Fresh Air with Terry Gross "Interview with Marie Howe

In Fresh Air with Terry Gross "Interview with Marie Howe", Howe shares her deepening and most intensifying happenings of her life. Howe shares the death of her brother, friend and secrets of her “doings” with her friends down in the basement through her poems. I care about the poems because it’s an autobiography of incidents of her life. There’s much more meaning to the poems; rather than lines that rhyme they are lines that tell personal stories in creative literary force. The pieces she share relates to some aspect. She talks about the death of her brother and about how his death gave her a whole 360 on life. That reminds me of when my aunt passed away years back. I used to spend every weekend with her and exactly my whole summer with her along with my sister. It was not voluntary but I choose to be optimistic about the visits. When she passed, I felt bad because I did not drop one tear. I wondered why; I loved her. She and I built countless memories from goofing off to cooking. I will never forget that she was one who taught me how to cook. So, I’m sitting there at the funeral pondering about how soulless am I? She was sacrificed for me and I can’t even drop one tear for her? About a week after the funeral  I saw this article that shared words from Dr.Suess and my answer was there. Dr. Seuss said, “Don’t not cry because it’s over, but smile because it happened.” That simple quote put into words exactly how I as feeling. I know then I wasn’t soulless, I was just pleased with the memories I gave her to take to her grave. Just like, Howe’s brother’s death changed her view of life, so did my aunt’s. I’m not going to waste my time grieving over life’s mishap, I’m just to shrug my shoulders and say okay. If there’s anything I can do to fix it I will but if not I’m going to go about my business with a smile. With that said, at funerals I will share my grievances and give my respects; I'm not heartless. But I will not spend a week grieving I will spend a week thinking of the memories we shared and smile that they happened.

Response to Franks Deford, "Sometime One, Is Enough"

In Frank Deford article, “Sometimes, One Is Enough”, he is informing his audience on his feeling that the “best of seven” game series is no longer needed. He goes on supporting this argument by stating the fact that the “best of seven” dates back to 1894, with The Temple Cup which was the National League forerunner to the World Series. The year 1894 lacked advanced technology so televisions weren’t invented and only few radios were. The only money that came to the games, were from those who bought the tickets to see the game. So of course as his grandfather stated, “the more games, the more money” which then was an economical logical reasoning to earn more money. Now he doesn’t see the purpose in the “best of seven” because due to technology there are many ways we can see and hear the games. In addition to that, Deford believe the “best of seven” games series are being dragged out without the suspense. Due to this he thinks there should be only one game championships but he knows that the MLB, NBA, AND NHL will never comply with this therefore he suggests his solution that the games should be “best of three out of four”. That way the suspense and tension would be blatant and more fans would watch and care.

Personally, when Deford makes his comments about the MLB, I can not agree or disagree with is opposition only because I do not watch baseball other than 3 strikes and your out I know nothing about baseball.

Today I think we care about the “best of seven” because its tradition. We want to see our teams perform their best and make it to the championship or series so we can see them take home the gold. We travel with our teams most often by television supporting and chanting for their win. It as if we one with the team but the only difference is we are not with them physically and we are not actually on the team. The best of seven are the last games of the season; it marks the end of an awing season.

Response to Gilbert Stuart's potrait of Mrs. Michael Keppele (Catherine Caldwell)

 The Dayton Art Institute has a fine collection of art and images, starting from Ancient art going all the way to Outdoor Arts. Touring the institute, seeing the images firsthand is much different than seeing them in the book or online. When at an art museum I am always surprised by the paintings I see, not by the style of painting (although the style is overwhelming) but by the size. Most of the paintings can fit on one wall of a house, they are so huge and I just standing there pondering on how they did it.                                         
The painting that caught my eye was the portrait of Mrs. Michael Keppele (Catherine Caldwell). It’s a portrait of a graceful woman with a smooth face. She is drawn wearing a dark tan clock along with a light tan dress contrasting with the black background color. When I see this painting it’s as if she is looking peacefully at me like that of an elderly lady.                                                                                            
 The portrait interests me because while walking by it made me stop. In a way it reminded of The Mona Lisa done by Leonardo Da Vinci. Now I know there are the distinct differences in the paintings but both painting are of a woman, same pose except the in The Mona Lisa her hand is not in a graceful position they are resting together. The painting also caught my attention because it was in the American section meaning it was painted by an American. I wanted to view American painting because I feel like no one pays attention to American paintings versus European and Spanish paintings.                                                                                                         
  The meaning to the portrait of Mrs. Michael Keppele is to memorialize an important person and to recognize the special people in our lives such as spouses and children. Also he painted her as an portrait because people liked to see themselves at their best , wearing their finest clothes and in their most gratifying pose. This portrait is among many portraits Gilbert Stuart painted. He most famous painting is that of George Washington, we can see his portrait of him on the one dollar bill.                                                                    
Gilbert Stuart lived from 1755-1828; to become an expert in portrait painting he sailed to England 1775 from America the day before the revolutionary war to place, to master the details of interpreting a face with oil paints and a brush. In 1800 when he painted Mrs. Michael Keppel (Catherine Caldwell) I think he was trying to portray the artistic style of using oil paints and a brush see in a portrait.

Ad Analysis

Image 1- Pedigree Dog Food Ad
The specific audiences for this ad are owners of both young and old dogs. There are few who think it’s either for young or old dogs. I think it’s for both because the owner should want to give the food to his young dog so it can have strong bones and also it should be given to the old dog so he can remain with stronger bones, still be healthy. This particular ad is effective because it shows the dog digging in a road versus the backyard for a bone. So, the dog must be really strong to make a whole like that in the road. It’s humorous because, there is no way a dog could dig a hole in the ground, that’s just not physically possible. When I looked in the ad I was like, “really?” because I knew there was no way a dog could physically dig a hole in the street. Also I found the dog’s determinability quite humorous because he dug through a road just to go a bone; one little bone.      
Image 2- Pepsi Twist Ad
The Pepsi ad is specifically for Pepsi drinkers considering the fact that if one is a Pepsi drinker he/she is usually not a fan of Coca-Cola and vice versa. Also the ad is for young adults because of the humor being shown. If an elderly woman or man were to look at the ad they probably would think it was gross and be disappointed in their young people of this analogy being used. Personally, I do not think this ad is very effective, more so because I do not drink pop and when I did it was never Pepsi; Coca-Cola all the way. I find it humorous how the background is a wall resembling that of a bathroom wall, where the lime is shown putting “the twist” in the Pepsi.
Image Three- Fish flip-flop Ad
The audience for this ad is people who have had foot fungus and people who are trying to prevent foot fungus and odor. The ad is shows a pair of flip flops that looks like fish. Which means, odor and possibly fungus occurring. No one wants smelly feet or foot fungus. This ad is effective because no one wants to be that person who feet gives off odors and knows that everyone else or someone else smells this terrible smell. It’s also effective because in today’s world freshness means everything, we all want that freshness feeling. I think it has humor because it is relating the fish to smelly fish, since fish smell is known to be unpleasant.

Response to Anjula Razdan’s “What’s Love Got to Do with It”

In Anjula Razdan’s article “What’s Love Got to Do with It” she talks about arranged marriages, love, and online dating. She was born and raised in Illinois by her parents who emigrated to American from India, although she was the product of an arranged marriage she grew up under the “spell of Western romantic love”.  Growing up in the West, she is clearly going to have different views on the East tradition although she is Indian.  In the West, arranged marriages are less likely to occur than in the East. I agree with Razdan when she states, “The very idea of an arranged marriage offended my ideas of love and liberty—to me, the act of choosing who to love represented the very essence of freedom. To take away that choice seemed like an attack not just on my autonomy as a person, but on democracy itself”. We should be able to choose who we love, seeing how we’re probably going to spend the rest of our lives with that person.

Computer culture has greatly changed the way people look for love. Instead of going out to social places and meeting new people, people can just go on match.com or eharmony.com and find someone; their “soul mate”. It may be non-traditional meaning no meet and greet, no first dates, but others see it as the easy way out. People are tired of finding someone just for them to break their heart, or to find out that their not the one. So, they turn to the computer to find someone for them that share the same interest and ideas as they do. In the computer culture, two people connect together on a mental level rather than physical attraction, unlike in the dating world where it’s the opposite.

The Eastern way of pairing off is similar to that of a dating service. In the dating service, the service pairs one up with who they think is the best match based off of similar interest and characteristics. The Eastern way of pairing off is by arranged marriages, where the parents pick who will marry their child, based on comparable interests; who they think is the “right” one. Both the dating service and Eastern way of pairing off; chooses the soul mate.

One of the problems with arranged marriages in the U.S. is that the people in the U.S. are too liberal. Living in the U.S. and growing up in the Western culture, I would not like it if my parents tried to arrange a marriage for me.  It’s not that we think they have our worst interest at heart; it’s just that we believe we should choose the one we love. Our parents choose everything for us, while growing up, so choosing who we love is a way of liberating ourselves.   Also in the West we are allied to physical attraction. Whether or not we like the person’s appearance determines our choice to whether or not we would date them. No one would want a partner who looks like a bum walking with them down the street. In the dating service, meaning cyber world, we do not get to feel that level of physical attraction but instead we have to go off based on a picture on their profile. For all we know, that may not even be them in the picture. One could feel he/she is the one because they have everything in common than when it comes time to meet; they look nothing like their profile pic. I’m not shallow but I do believe looks count for something in a relationship; you have to be at least be attracted to your partner on a physical level. 

 People’s many conflicting ideas about marriage are contributing to the divorce rate in this country. Many people think that marriages are supposed to be “happily-ever-after’s” when really it requires work. Not every day of marriage is supposed to be happily-ever-after; there will be arguments, upsets and difference of opinions but working through them makes the marriage. Instead of working through problems, spouses think divorce is the best solution. Also, pregnancy is a contributing factor. When a girl gets pregnant at a young age, both parents of the boy and girl forces them to marry. When they marry, they see that they are not the right fit for each other, or one complains that they never got a chance to play the field leaving the marriage in divorce.

Response to David Foster Wallace, "2005 Kenyon Commencement Speech"

David Foster Wallace, “Kenyon Commencement Speech”, is not your average commencement speech. Instead of the traditional speeches where the speaker tells the graduating class that they’re going to do great things and etc, Wallace gives them a reality check and basically tells them that adulthood is boring and routine.  In his speech he is addressing Kenyon’s 2005 graduating class, bequeathing among to them one of the biggest fundamental truth of life. His main point that he’s trying to get across is that the choices he/she make have an effect on how he/she view life. Basically anything can be miserable if one chooses to view things in a negative aspect. For instance, he talks about the supermarket, how one gets mad  and full of anger about the long, long, very long line because there aren’t enough checkout lanes open or how there is always someone in your way at the store who wont move their cart, or being slow taking up the whole aisle. Because of this, one deplores the idea of going to the supermarket. From this he tells the graduating class to not allow petty stuff like this to frustrate them and that this is where the work of choosing comes in. Instead of getting mad about the crowded aisles or the extensive wait in the long line at the checkout lane, just consider the probability that everyone else in line feels the same way; tired and frustrated  and that they probably had a horrible day or live a more tedious life.  

I personally think that Wallace has point; just like him I think that everyday choice about how to view instances in one’s life is an effect on how one view life. But, in times we all forget to view things differently because of the situation that we’re in, whether it’s long waits at the line in the supermarket or someone driving fast and cutting you off in the road, human nature is going to come in to play and humans we are going to get mad. When it comes to road I am very impatient, so I know I’m not going to think about why the driver cut me off, I’m going to think that the driver is crazy, rude and about how he could have almost killed me. What Wallace is trying to say don’t get mad because no one knows why the driver is cutting the other drivers off, the driver could be rushing his son could the hospital. We need to learn to put others situations before our own sometimes, which is hard because being human we automatically going put ourselves before anybody else. That concept is one of the valuable things you can learn from his speech.

What I found so moving about the speech is his analogy with the fish. In the beginning he says, “There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”” He then says goes to say the story simply means that the important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.  But, its not that, that moved me, it’s what the fishes symbolized that moved. The two younger fishes symbolize youth and ignorance (not knowing) and older fish symbolizes knowledge. It moved me because although the younger fish don’t know what water is, but they will know later on in life, because they are going to be swimming in that water for the rest of their lives doing the same routine everyday. This reminded me of the younger folks today and how little we know than the elders. Also it made me think about how my life is routine, I wake up, shower, put clothes on , go to school, hang with friends, do homework and sleep to wake up and do the same thing the next day. From reading this, I was thinking, “holy crap, my life is routine, I do the same thing every freaking day,”, “I must be boring.”, “Am I going to end up like my parents”. I haven’t ever thought about my life this way until I read this speech.

Response to David Sedaris, "Old Faithful"

In David Sedaris, “Old Faithful” he starts talking about his relationship with Hugh and past relationships including the one with his parents. He title this article, “Old Faithful” that’s one of the thing that he values and faithfulness is the main topic of this essay. In a relationship he values faithfulness because he following after his father. One night, while he and his father were in the car his father comes out of nowhere and says, “I want you to know that I never once cheated on your mother”. He goes and says he talked about it with a friend and how his friend thinks he said it because he had a guilty conscience but Sedaris knows better, he knows that his father never cheated on his mother. His father said it to remind himself that he was not completely worthless. Throughout the article, I see along with this flashback, and others that he starts reflecting these flashbacks with his own relationship. He thinks of his relationship at routine and awkward but no matter how habitual his relationship is, at least he can say, “I never once cheated on my boyfriend”. Also in the article he has this boil that brings him the utmost pain and he’s embarrassed about it. He talks about the boil because it symbolizes his pasts and current relationship. In his past relationship he was hurt, pain similar to the boil, the relationship didn’t last because Sedaris wanted a monogamous relationship and who he was with wanted something different. Also, from this relationship what it feels like to have somebody be unfaithful towards him. How the boils signify his current relationship with Hugh is that it stinks! There’s hardly any spark left and when they go out to eat they have to research topics just to have something to talk about. Because of that, Sedaris fears that Hugh will leave because he may see that he’s boring and non spontaneous. But, I guess none of that matters because at the end of the day Hugh will always be there to pop his boil.

This article relates to me in such a way of how I deal with fidelity in my relationships. Like Sedaris, I highly value faithfulness in my relationships. I can honestly say that in everyone of my dad’s relationship he has not been faithful. It’s one thing to know that but another thing to actually see it. I see him with these women and I just don’t understand why?? Or does he at least feel a little sorry. Just by seeing this, and looking at the faces on these women I feel sorry because they think they’re his one and only when really they're his one of many. I don’t want that, I want a nice, stable, honest relationship and one who is faithful.