Commentary #4: Lindsey O.

            It seems like your proposal is for the media to show both sides of the war—the good and the bad.  The reason why I say “it seems like” is because near the end of the essay I get confused as to what your proposal is.  However, I believe the previously stated proposal is what you are trying to get at.  Your body paragraph chunk begins with an example of literature and censorship.  I find that a clever move since you show how censorship has tried to be applied on books such as Huckleberry Finn.  The downside of this is that you focus too much on the literature aspect of censorship when you should briefly talk about the literature censorship then move on to censorship of wars.  If you condense the literature portion into one paragraph then proceed onto your main point, your proposal as a whole will seem more precise and on topic.

            Now on to the proposal itself.  The problem you bring up about censorship of wars does sound solvable since censorship would violate the First Amendment.  Therefore it would seem reasonable to not censor information during wars any more since you can indeed impose legislation against censorship.  As for the support you have for your proposal, your first point seems to propose another proposal where the media can use censorship during times of peace but not during times of war.  If that is what you meant by this support, you should find another source of support since this does not follow up with your main proposal.  When you bring up the Constitution, I find that the strongest support against censorship.  If you want to strengthen this paragraph, you may want to quote the part of the Constitution that supports the unconstitutionality of censorship.  As for the effectiveness of your solution, you don’t seem to provide any consequences of your proposal if it were to be carried out.  You may want to find possible consequences or just plainly state that you do not know the end result of your proposal.  You could always look to see if any other country has stopped censorship of the media and see the results of their actions.  As for the opposing argument, you have one argument about the leaking of military and government secrets, and you defend your proposal, which is great.  However, there can still be more negative consequences from not using censorship.  You should maybe find at least one more possible negative consequence from your proposal and either refute or accept it.  As for the cost of your proposal, there doesn’t seem to be much physical cost (money) involved since the proposal is basically allowing the media to publish almost everything from both sides.

            In regards to other possible counterproposals, I cannot think of any since this basically only needs legislation to be carried out.  However, you may want to strengthen your proposal with maybe one more support, then you should be set.

Commentary #3: Lindsey O.

            Your essay is about how censorship during wars is unethical.  First of all, your title is very straightforward, which in a way is good, but for a title, add some imagination to it.  Next is the introduction.  I like how you added the statistics of how much people watch/follow the news.  It shows how much news has become part of our lives, as you said in the first sentence.  However, when I get to the end of the paragraph, I think I know what your thesis is, but it is worded rather unclearly.  You may want to re-write it so that your stance on the issue is clear. 

The next paragraph is the first body paragraph.  It seems like there are two principles in this paragraph, but I can only spot one.  For that one, I feel like you should definitely just make another paragraph just for that principle since there is a sufficient amount of information you could say about it.  As for the other principle I have yet to put a finger on, you can either make it clearer and with more defense and match, or you can take it all away and just talk about the other principle that is clearly stated.  Moving onto the next body paragraph, the principle is clear and same goes for the match.  However, I can see you defending your principle more to make the paragraph much more solid.  The third body paragraph is the opposing argument and refutation.  You are fair to the other side of the argument, which is good.  However, your refutation is rather weak; it needs actual evidence/proof to make it a strong counterargument.  Then your next body paragraph goes back to being your argument.  First off, I think you should move this paragraph to before the refutation paragraph.  Also, this paragraph, though the criteria and match are clear and make sense, lacks evidence to back up your argument.  You need evidence to show that it happens to normal people like us, not just a select few.  The conclusion is pretty solid.

             As for the weighting of the criteria, it doesn’t seem like you have any emphasis on a certain criteria; they all seem equally weighted.  Now from a skeptical point of view, I would accept your criteria, but some criteria may need some defense to strengthen the argument, such as the third body paragraph’s criteria.  The match arguments also may benefit from more evidence, such as the last body paragraph about loss of privacy in mail.

"Vivisection" Response

*How does pity influence our decisions?

If we knew animals are able to think the same way we do, would vivisection supporters have a different opinion on the issue?

Should there a certain limit to which animal experimentation could reach?

            As most of us know, human emotions tend to have some type of influence on our decisions.  There are many emotions we could point out, but let’s focus on one we usually don’t think about: pity.  Every day I have to at least see one thing/person that I feel bad for.  There it is.  “I feel bad for”.  That right there is pity, but I never think of that emotion.  However, this pity that I feel indeed makes an impact on me.  Some times I would go out of my way to help out the person or thing (animal); other time I just walk past but then my day is ruined thinking of the ways I could have helped.  Pity pulls at your conscience with what you could have done to save that person’s day.  As we can see in the article, it is quite difficult to make a decision with no emotional influence.  After all, we are human beings.  The author points out pity for the animals and pity for the sick and dying.  Honestly, for me at least, by the end of the article, I feel like the author still has not reached a decision on what’s best to sacrifice since his pities conflict with each other.  You save one, you lose one.  However, which is the best to save?  At this point, one might think it is a simple decision since logically the answer is quite clear.  The world would have been so much simpler had decisions been based off of logic alone.  When choosing which species to sacrifice, pity and other emotions come into play, and from here, an argument stems.  Pity for one leads to the sacrifice of the other, but when there is pity for both in one’s conscience, who is to sacrifice?  When we actually stop to think about it, emotions play a huge part in our decision-making in day to day life, let alone in a controversial issue like this.

"Shooting an Elephant" Reponse

Why is it that Orwell talks about the pros and cons of his job in the beginning of the article?

*Is there a correlation between Orwell’s descriptions of imperialism and shooting the elephant?

Why does Orwell describe the shooting of the elephant in such great detail?

Some people find it hard to grasp the concept of imperialism and its effects on the conquered nation.  I feel like George Orwell gives a very simple yet all-encompassing description of this ruler and ruled relationship when describing the shooting of the elephant.  Personally, this article really kept my attention all the way until the end since it was so detailed.  I also wanted to know if my thoughts were right.  Indeed, to me at least, there is a correlation between imperialism and the shooting of the elephant.

I’ll keep it simple by pointing out the correlations.  The people that follow the shooter are the imperialist countries.  The elephant is the nation(s) being conquered.  The shooter represents the people who carry out the conquering.  The people back at home sit back and relax, and all they do is take in the profits made from exploiting the conquered people, just like the natives immediately just started taking the meat from the dying elephant.  The shooter may or may not have wanted to shoot the elephant, or take control over the nation, but the pressure from the natives, or the home country, forces him to carry out the action even if it were against his conscience.  He even said that the breathing of the elephant as it died really disturbed him while the people did not even notice that—they just took what they needed and ran off.  Just like the shooter, the people who go out to conquer the nations for the home country may be haunted by the images of the people and villages dying at their hands, but the people at home only look at how much profit is being made and asking for more.

Orwell cleverly uses yet another story using an animal to convey is perspective on political and world topics.  I know he wrote Animal Farm, which had animals that represented certain world leaders and was meant to go against Stalin.

Commentary #2: Lindsey

            Your essay says that Hitchens has successfully used the three rhetorical appeals to persuade the audience that waterboarding is indeed torture.  First of all, the title is self-explanatory, but maybe make it a little more creative since I’m pretty sure we all know it is a rhetorical critique.  Also, something that caught me off guard was the way you started the essay.  The first paragraph of your essay is the summary of Hitchens’ article.  I feel like that should be after a short little introduction about torture and/or waterboarding to draw the readers’ attention to what the essay will be talking about.  Your thesis is rather straightforward.  You may want to add a little bit more detail to the sentence but not too much detail.  In the first body paragraph, you chose to tackle ethos first.  I like how you defined the appeal, but I don’t think the quoted definition from the book is necessary.  Instead of that quote, you could use those extra words to add more analysis to other quotes you used.  However, the end to this paragraph was rather confusing.  You say that Hitchens is knowledgeable on the subject then you give an opposing argument without evidence to support the first claim you make.  I actually think that this part does not need an opposing argument.  If you take that part out, then the paragraph will flow more smoothly.  As for the “showing fairness to other views” part, the second sentence is confusing to follow but I think I understand what you mean.  You also quoted Hitchens for that part, too.  I feel like the inclusion of that quote made the paragraph much stronger.  Moving on to the logos paragraph, it was rather cluttered and confusing.  For the first quote, it didn’t really make sense; if you include the quote from Lincoln and then quote Hitchens’s play on that quote, it will make more sense to the reader.  I feel like the strongest part of your logos argument was when you talk about the contract Hitchens had to sign before undergoing the process.  Next up was the pathos paragraph.  I feel like the pathos analysis could have been taken farther.  I really liked the last sentence of that paragraph though.  The last body paragraph talk about kairos.  I actually don’t believe you need to squeeze this in, unless of course you have a sufficient amount of analysis about this appeal.  It actually seemed like you were getting somewhere with the analysis but the paragraph suddenly ended.  Maybe you could take out this paragraph and add more analysis to the other paragraphs, or if you can think of more analysis for kairos, add it to the paragraph.  One of the things I think you should consider is whether or not the appeals were successful.  Yes, you talk about the appeals and analyze them, but you don’t seem to state whether it was successful or what the example did to the audience.  If you incorporate that, it should be enough to make the minimum word count and possibly more.

If you need anything else, just e-mail me.  I may be forgetting something, but this is the bulk of it.  Good luck! ^^

"A Small Place" Response

*Do Kincaid’s descriptions of imperialistic experiences represent all other imperialistic experiences of other countries?

Does Kincaid give a fair description of the relationship between tourist and native?

Why does Kincaid specifically point out the contrast between the brand new cars and the houses?

Kincaid begins this article describing the possible experience of a tourist in Antigua.  Then she describes the relationship between tourist and native.  She then goes on to describe why it is that the relationship is so strained.  Lo’ and behold, the reason is because of the British rule over Antigua.  Kincaid practically rants on about the negativity of being conquered and the Antiguan culture being molded how the British wanted it to be.  There seems to be no positive comment about these imperialistic experiences.

            However, I would like to bring up something different.  Though Kincaid’s description of imperialism on “uncivilized” countries seems like what is expected of a native of a conquered nation, are these experiences the same for other countries.  I myself am 100% Vietnamese.  My parents fled to the U.S. during the Vietnam War to escape the Viet Cong.  They have told many stories of their ancestors and what they experienced under the Chinese and the French.  Though most of the stories seem to mirror Kincaid’s, what my ancestors actually appreciate was the formation of our Vietnamese language.  Before being ruled over, we already had a spoken language but no written language.  The Chinese formed our accents and the French gave us a written language.  Kincaid seems to not give any positive remarks about the British, but I’m pretty sure there is some type of benefit—be it big or small—that the British have given Antiguans.  However, all in all I must agree with the experiences Kincaid has described of being conquered since your life and culture is in the hands of the imperialist powers.  Now, I am just comparing the experiences of Antigua to that of Vietnam.  It may be different for other countries but I can relate to those of Vietnam more since my ancestors have experienced it for themselves.  There was most likely more bad than good experiences, but nevertheless, those experiences have formed what the countries are today.

"Regarding the Pain of Others" Response

*What are the advantages and disadvantages of having the media catch the events firsthand on tape?

If photographers and journalists were not allowed to document the events, how would the public react to not being informed of ongoing events?

Is the censorship of the press enough or should there be more censorship?

We have grown up living in a world where information of events and such are readily available to us (in HD, too!).  My entire life I have not yet been affected by the media coverage of world events because no pictures that I remember seeing have been visually impacting.  However, the recent Boston Marathon bombing came as a shock to me.  At first, I only heard of the bombing and watched the news coverage of the event right when it happened.  I was glad I was able to see what was going on in the nation and not just read of it.  Then came the next day when pictures were sent in to the media.  I still remember clearly the picture of the man in the wheelchair with both of his legs blown off, bones sticking out, and flesh hanging being rushed off to the nearest paramedic.  That was actually the moment when I really felt fear.  After seeing that picture, it hit me that people are being seriously injured and I could be next.

            I guess one of the advantages of having the media coverage of events is that we can see exactly what is happening, whether it be good or bad.  The entire nation can then be united in those moments of watching what is happening; we can all see and understand what is going on around us.  I feel like this way we are more informed since we humans are visual learners, too.  However, there are the disadvantages to look at.  A disadvantage would be that the gruesomeness of the event (as in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing) would spread fear and panic much faster had the images not been shown on national television.  Those images remain in the minds of the population since the contents of the images are so shocking.  I feel like if the media has more control over what it shows to the public, then it will be safe to inform the public of what is happening.

"9/11" and "A Few Weeks After" Response [Edited...marked the wrong question]

*Is the American government’s way of handling events like 9/11 good or bad?

Is Susan Sontag going too far by equating the U.S. Congress with the Soviet Union?

Is 9/11 similar or different to the events in Srebrenica and Rwanda?

To be honest, when all these world and political events happen, I don’t even know about the events unless someone tells me.  However, I know at least the basic information of the major events, such as 9/11.  Though I was only in 1st grade then, now I look back at documentaries and realize how much of an impact 9/11 had on America.  Why do I talk of my past?  Well, though I don’t remember with much clarity what exactly happened in my childhood, I know for sure my family and relatives (and friends and their families for that matter) did not show any signs of fear or distress; rather, everything was quite routine.  This shows how the government, like Sontag argues, “infantilize[s] the public” (1).  I am not sure if the people around me knew of 9/11 but they sure did not show it.  That may be a good thing about the government babying us: the entire population does not break out into mass chaos.  However, I do feel like the public needs to be informed of important matters and events like 9/11; the public needs to be prepared and more cautious in case something similar happens.  The public, if they know of the events, will be more aware of their surroundings and notify the authorities if they see anything suspicious and dangerous.  On the other hand, if event details are made known to the public, the population may go around being suspicious of those who are innocent and eventually things would build up into a blame game.  It seems like the best way to solve this is to carefully inform the public of everything happening so that the public will feel involved in the happenings of the nation yet will not cause mass chaos.  I honestly believe the government has done pretty well in the years I have been semi-active in the nation’s happenings (starting from freshman year in high school).  However, the government may have acted differently for 9/11, so I cannot say.

"Believe Me, It's Torture" Response

If there are other ways to get information out of prisoners, why use waterboarding?

How could waterboarding not be considered a form of torture?

What is the greatest torture factor in waterboarding?

This article by far is my favorite.  The way the author uses his personal experiences to draw the readers in to the topic was not expected.  By the time I finished the article, I wanted more.  Anyhow, back to the questions.

Throughout the years, there have been many types of torture and punishment.  Watching old Chinese series has showed me quite a few examples of old forms of torture, ranging from slowly breaking the fingers to making the inner thighs bruise and bleed.  Times have changed and new forms of torture have been created.  Waterboarding certainly seems like a form of torture, but there are some that believe it not to be torture.  Why would they think that (question 2)?

Compared to the other forms of torture I previously brought up, waterboarding does not cause one to bruise or bleed, something the human eye can see.  However, that is all I can think of that makes waterboarding different than other forms of torture.  Waterboarding still causes mental and physical distress.  Hitchens is victim to this effect of waterboarding; whenever he seems to lack oxygen, he begins to panic since he is reminded of his waterboarding experiment.  I do not see how waterboarding would not be considered torture.  It gives the prisoner the feeling of being drowned when he/she is not even immersed in water.  After the experience, it may cause one to be scared of water since the experience is traumatizing.  Though indeed waterboarding does not cause any visible damage to the person’s body, the aftereffects it has on the person will be imprinted in the person’s mind for a long time.

What really surprised me is the fact that our own Special Forces had to undergo these terrifying conditions.  We were basically torturing our own people.  Why?  I understand it is to prepare them for what will happen to them if they are caught in action.  I also understand that these people have agreed to this training knowing what they will be going through.  Indeed they will not have any visible damage done to them in the case of waterboarding, but these experiences will haunt them, if not physically then mentally.

Commentary #1--Lindsey O.

Your argument is against Nicholas Carr’s assertion that the Internet is ruining our brains and that there is almost no way to turn our brains back to normal.  You start off your argument with the opposing view, which is different than the classical argument structure.  I personally think it is a clever way to strengthen your argument since all your support is at the end of the essay, making it more memorable to the reader.  Your essay starts off with the opposing argument, which is stated very fairly.  You use a lot of evidence from Carr’s argument to support the opposing argument, which makes sense since the prompt does ask for us to consider the seriousness of the topic based on “the evidence presented in support of his argument”. 

Then you move on to beginning your (counter)argument with your personal experience with reading.  I find this a very nice transition between the two arguments since it gets the reader to related more with the topic.  The reason why I put “counter” in parentheses is because the counterargument is technically the argument since you put all of your evidence at this section.  What made your argument more solid is the study you cited on page 3 of your essay.  This evidence that there is actually a way to rewire our brains brings up something new to the table, something I wouldn’t think of off the top of my head.  It felt like this evidence is the one that made your argument much stronger in my opinion.  If you wish to, you may want to elaborate more on this supporting evidence to strengthen your argument even more.  Then there is the evidence you provide before the conclusion.  You may have been in a hurry to include another source, but it’s okay!  I actually feel like that evidence is pretty solid if you elaborate more on the quotes you provided.  You could talk more about how our brains are adapting to the changing world.  Possibly in the article, it may talk about how our brains are changing, and these changes may actually not be making us “stupid” but making us more efficient.

All in all, I do think your argument could convince a neutral audience.  Why do I think this?  Well, I myself am on the fence for this subject, though it may seem I am strongly on one side of the fence in my essay.  However, there is a small possibility that your argument may seem so strong because of the way you organized your essay.  You may want to check with the professor if it is okay to change the structure of your argument to not follow the classical argument structure.  Good luck! ^^

"Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid" Response

What exactly should women be fighting for freedom from--other people (like from Germany in the war) or their own social restraints?
 
Will thoughts and words alone be able to bring "peace" to the world?
 
Are men's hearts filled with "Hitlerism" or are they filled with the feeling of male superiority and dominance?

 
Virginia Woolf talks of freedom from the German bombing and freedom from war.  Then she talks about the possible freedom from societal restraints, especially the restraints on women (question 1).  For the women, she points out that other than "making arms, or clothes or food" (1) women are stuck at home to take care of the house and the family.  Women were supposed to partake in what was labled the "cult of domesticity", which was basically a society in which women enjoyed staying at home to take care of the house and familiy while the men were away at work making money to support the family.  However, as society rapidly progressed, women like Woolf developed the view of a gender-equal society where men and women could share their views, where everyone's voice is heard.  Therefore, besides "making arms, or clothes of food", Woolf argues that women too can fight, not with firearms, but with the mind.  Woolf believes if women were able to voice their opinions and ideas, maybe the world would not be in fear of war day and night.  In my opinion, indeed women should fight for social equality since the world has progressed to the point where if all voices weren't heard, society might blow up in chaos--the women might hold a rebellion and there would be social unrest.  Maybe if women were able to voice their opinions at that time, the seeds of war would not have been planted and many lives saved.  However, during these critical times, I think it best if social problems were delayed until after the war since countries should unite to solve the problem faster and not be distracted by other problems.  Possibly if women had gained social equality before the war, countries would have had freedom from other countries penetrating their boundaries.  Nowadays, I feel like women--and everybody else--should be fighting for freedoms that would benefit the entire population, not just one particular group.

"What's So Bad About Hate?" Response

What should be classified as “hate”?

Is the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” really necessary or could they simply be labeled as the crime committed without the word “hate”?

Is this hate really fueled by hate or is hate fueled by other feelings such as jealousy?

Humanity is full of emotions.  There are many emotions and feelings we put a label on, such as happiness and anger.  Yet the feeling/emotion that I doubt is hate.  Do you really hate somebody or something or do you feel something else towards them (question 3)?  Whenever somebody says they hate something, I always ask, “Why do you hate it/him/her?”  I firmly believe there is a reason—another feeling/emotion—behind this hate.  Why do I say this?  Well, simply because I have been a victim of this so-called hate.

In junior high, I attended a private Catholic school (K-8).  Nothing bad should be happening here, right?  Well that’s what I thought.  Long story short, I was isolated, shunned, bullied by my three “friends” who got the entire class to partake in their actions—to put it simply, I became an outcast.  I, being the naïve child I was, thought my class hated me for something I did.  However, after having a talk with those three girls, it came to my realization—they were extremely jealous of what I had and achieved.  They wanted what I had so they put me down.  At the end, when they apologized, they said, “We like you and your personality, but since you had what we wanted, our actions were fueled by jealousy, forcing us to hate you.”

Hate fueled by jealousy not hate?  This experience is what caused me to firmly believe that “hate” is just a word that society has used to cover up the true emotion behind what they feel towards somebody or something.  There is a reason—an emotion/feeling—that causes you to “hate” something.  The article talks about these “hate crimes”.  After reading the article a second time, in my opinion, these crimes are not filled with “hate” but rather another emotion/feeling, such as jealousy, disgust, or even superiority. 

Response to Kimberley

I also agree with you—just because there has not been any news regarding Gaga being a “misfit” when she was younger does not mean she was a perfect child.  After all, no one is perfect.  Paglia fails to consider how one thinks of themselves; maybe to Gaga, she stood out from the crowd.  Since everybody is unique, Gaga is merely finding herself and what makes her unique.  Her outrageous actions and appearances show her finding herself.  Also, since her actions are so unique and different, it helps those who are insecure of themselves to embrace their true identity and not be a fake.

"Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex" Response

Is the Gaga Revolution the death of sex or did the sexual revolution die before she rose to fame?

Are Gaga’s actions (such as music videos and her fashion) meant only to portray sex in her own way or are they actions to make herself stand out from the crowd of celebrities and be remembered?

Is Paglia going too far by labeling Generation Gaga as basically automatons?

Nowadays, sex has intermixed itself with the social world through the network of the media.  It is being broadcasted all over—in movies, TV shows, pictures with sexual innuendos, and even our music.  Something that used to be shared privately between two lovers is now out and about.  One would think something like sex would never die, but it has.  Paglia argues that Lady Gaga’s crazy antiques have slaughtered sex in the world.  Of course, one could never completely destroy sex since humanity needs it to keep the population growing.  However, in the media world, it has died, but I believe it is not because of Lady Gaga and her actions.  Rather I believe it is because of sex being so widely spread for the world to see.

I myself have been taught to be modest and conservative, which means that I believe what is meant to be private should be kept private.  However, ever since before I was born, unnecessary skin was already being shown to the world.  As producers and media people started getting more competitive in revealing sexual things to gain larger margins of profit, the private soon became the public.  Yes, when all of these sexual things were first released to the public, it indeed attracted attention and money was made since these sexual things have never been on media.  However, once everything sexual was revealed, after a while, the sexual became the normal.  Lady Gaga was not the one to kill the attractiveness of sex, but she was unfortunately in the spotlight during the time when sex became the norm and no longer the exotic.  Paglia forgets that if something exotic is shown and exposed for too long, it no longer holds the same attractive force it had before.  Something secretive and mysterious always attracts attention since the person will want to find out more about this mysterious thing.  Sex and the human body has been exposed to the media for much too long and now no longer has the same power they had over the audience; they will never again have the same power unless sex and the human body are removed from the public’s eyes for a while then revealed (but not fully or else the cycle begins again).

Response to Rachel's Google Response

Indeed I understand your point of view--this ease of access to the Internet and information makes it so much easier for a person to stray away from their main intention of using the Internet in the first place.  I, for one, am guilty of this act and I am pretty sure anybody who uses the Internet is guilty of this act at least once in their Internet lives.  My brother is also prone to this disease (if you could call it that).  However, I guess he is one of the few that browse around from link to link yet still retain the information he has read for quite a long time.  Most of the time the information he obtains from these periods of browsing is somehow relevant to what is happening around the world--be it celebrity news or international crises, he knows it.  It's sort of freaky at time, but it goes to show that this access to information is indeed useful is one chooses to use the information provided in the right way.

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Review

What advantages does the increased use of the Internet have on humanity that Carr does not address in his argument?

What other components in our modernized lives affect our capability to enjoy reading for long periods of time?

Do Carr’s examples (such as Nietzsche and the typewriter) really show some type of correlation between the use of the Internet and our short reading span?

In this article, Nicholas Carr discusses how the increased use of the Internet has negatively affected our lives and way of thinking.  Indeed, with the Internet so readily available to the general public through places that have free wi-fi, it’s hard not to log onto the Internet and surf around a bit.  Also, another added “evil” of the Internet is the ability to jump from link to link—something we can’t do so quickly with books.  The speedy Internet can possibly be a reason for our short reading spans, but it is not the reason.

I believe there are other components in our lives that affect our capability to read for prolonged periods of time like we used to (question 2).  Besides the Internet, the presence of the television may also affect our reading span.  Nowadays, since there are so many TV shows on at certain times, once one gets home from school or work, there is only a short amount of time between getting home and one’s favorite TV shows.  This short amount of time is usually spent undressing, taking a shower, eating, doing chores/homework, and then some down time before picking up the remote and warped into the world of graphics and pixels.  There is very little time to actually pick up a book or read a long article and soak up the words.  When one watches TV, it’s very difficult to be able to read a book for a long time and watch TV at the same time.  Also, since there are so many TV channels and shows, when one show finishes, people simply pick up the remote and change the channel.  The world of TV takes away from the precious reading time one used to have before the TV became a big hit.

Another component in our lives that takes away our capability and time to read for long is the invention of smart phones.  Not only do these phones have access to the Internet, they have the ability to occupy someone for hours.  This touch-screen texting makes it much easier for people to communicate quickly back and forth, similar to a face-to-face conversation, which leaves no space for a book to make it into people’s hands.  Though one could argue that texting has been around in flip phones, which I can’t argue against, I bring up another point that smart phones have the capability to download a lot of games to entertain anybody for prolonged periods of time. 

All of these time-consuming activities keep people from having time to pick up and enjoy a book.  People don’t feel the need to read to entertain and update themselves; they have the Internet, television news and shows, and electronics to fulfill the same desires.