"Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

The internet plays such a pivotal role in everyday life that it can sometimes be forgotten that negative ramifications do come about after extensive use. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr attacks this idea by pointing out the potential negatives, but also the potential and proven positives. This unique idea for a paper is complemented extremely well by the "back and forth" approach taken to see if the internet does more good than bad. Carr does not reveal his ultimate personal beliefs on the topic, but he merely sounds his "skepticism" for the effects of the large database, that is Google.
The potential negatives arose as heavy point of interest for the paper because negatives can often times appear nonexistent when using a database that obeys one's every command. There presents several instances in the paper where the potential negatives are sold well. The first is in the context of how searching for information has made us expect the information to be immediate and easy to find. The text from this section reads, "Once I was a Scuba Diver in a sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski." This analogy effectively breaks down this idea allowing people to easily grasp the writer's idea. The idea also makes sense, because the information now that we want emerges much easier than it may have in the past. Similar to this idea, the writer proceeds later on to explain how reading long pieces of text has become increasingly hard. A fine pinnacle of this concept occurs in the paper when quoting Bruce Friedman, who blogs often about the medical aspect of internet use, who states, "I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print." Friedman then carries on by proclaiming, "I can't read War and Peace anymore." This materializes as one example only, but Carr claims at the end of the paragraph that a multitude of his colleagues have faced similar challenges. While these two examples effectively translate the possible negative effects of extensive web use, Carr counters with positive conclusions that also come about as a result of internet use.
The positives that follow can presumably help in not only keeping you on the fence about the topic, but also ensuring that Carr himself is seen as someone who is on the fence. The most effective attention grabbing concept that stuck out surfaces when the writer states, " ... we may well be reading more than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice." This very conclusion must be beneficial to our minds in some way. Although it may be beneficial, Carr clarifies that the style in which we read now is different than in the past. This in turn generates a different style of thinking that we encounter. The style might not arise as the ideal standard of reading that experts agree, but it nevertheless disproves the fact that we do read more today than in the past. Another encouraging objective surfaces when the author writes about Google. The positive that is to come of this is the seemingly positive intentions that the company has. When quoting the company, Carr writes, " The company has declared its mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." The intentions of this ideal seem the have a whole heart approach. Now granted, many variables could go wrong in this doing, but the initial idea appears one that can be acceptable to most.

"The Ethics Of Living Jim Crow" by Richard Wright

"The Ethics of Living Jim Crow" by Richard Wright shows the point of view from an African-American's standpoint very well. Often times when revisiting the mistreatment of African-Americans in the past, the task is handled by a "neutral" party. This idea is satisfactory, but it fails to exhibit the emotional components that can tag along to the subject. This autobiographical sketch exemplifies the emotional attachments that are forgotten regularly when recollecting the past. The part where the woman is brutally beaten by the men who insist their bills arises as a scene that could be rather difficult to deal with. The writing reads, "After a few

minutes, I heard shrill screams coming from the rear of the store. Later the woman stumbled out, bleeding, crying, and holding her stomach." Wright knows he can do nothing about the incident without risking his own life. Although a brutal beating as this should entail consequences upon the beaters, Wright is left with no decision but to hold his emotions inside.
On the contrary to this emotionally evident scene, another event occurs in his life that perspires no emotion emphasizing the "neutral" ground well. This includes the event where he bikes to deliver his packages in a white neighborhood at night. The text reads, ""Get down and put up your hands!" the policemen ordered. I did. They climbed out of the car, guns drawn, faces set, and advanced slowly. "Keep still!" they ordered." In many writings the narrator surely would explain his or her feelings on the situation from their personal standpoint. This writing does not in this particular instance incorporate an emotional component to deepen the reader's intelligence of the scenario. However, it's highly suspect that Richard Wright intended this style of writing for this piece. The reason for this conjecture appears because of the informative style of the writing. Persuasion is absent for the most part, which further makes a case for the informative matter in the piece.
This informative component stands visible to any reader who encounters this writing. It's what makes this recollection of events in words so moving. Wright never retaliates, in his mind, or physically. The reader understandably feels bad for Wright because of this style, and this is why the style works 

"Talk of the Town" Blog

I found "Talk of the Town" to be an extremely intriguing piece of literature. Fitting would be the perfect word for describing the topic in context to the due date. A day where we remember our independence  and praise our country may have felt a little less patriotic after reading the two articles. The two approaches from the two varying authors appeared appropriate because the first article by John Updike served as a precursor to a topic that would be further broken down in the second article by Susan Sontag.
The article by Updike took a story telling approach to explaining the tragedy. His own experiences were put forth to inform the reader of his personal experiences and feelings. This idea exercises steadily in the line where the text reads, "We knew we had just witnessed thousands of deaths; we clung to each
other as if we ourselves were falling." Updike does a polished job of explaining the events without being subjective. He appears to flirt with being subjective later in the reading, but only brings up a neutral idea which states, " American freedom of motion, one of our prides, has taken a hit. Can we afford the
openness that lets future kamikaze pilots, say, enroll in Florida flying schools?" The article works as more of an informative article than a persuasive piece, but it gives way to another article that embodies the word subjective majestically.
Sontag's article surely differs from Updike's. The personal beliefs of Sontag on the topic shine brightly. The first paragraph boldly displays some truths about the event and the reaction of the U.S officials. Sontag disagrees with how the officials go about mending the situation. Sontag goes as far to say, "... whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards." Sontag's statement may hold some truth, but to proclaim this shortly after the happening is to transform grievances into angry people pointing their fingers at Sontag. It can appear that Sontag only wanted to rock the boat, but a statement later clears the air on why Sontag would proclaim these beliefs in such an unstable environment. The section of the article reads, "Let's by all means grieve together. But let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen." In essence this recollection of the articles attempts to ease the reader's tension and explain the entire intent of the article; an article that showed the second side of the situation, an idea America still has to improve upon.