Persuasive Essay--Protect the People from Tobacco

Tobacco was first used for Native American rituals long before the “white man” came to the Americas, but the Virginian colony found tobacco to be a very profitable cash crop. Then, they didn’t recognize the detrimental effects it has on society. From the beginning, since Europeans have been introduced to tobacco there have been objections to its use. James I said that smoking was “a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fumes thereof, nearest resembling the horrible stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless” (Edward 44). His opinion was amazingly accurate and nearly prophetic. Even though the harmful effects of tobacco have been scientifically proven, continued efforts in limiting its use have failed. If tobacco (in all forms) was treated as an illegal drug, thousands of lives could be saved.

Regardless of how tobacco is used (snuffed, chewed, or smoked), it is harmful to our bodies. That’s hard to deny. But the most commonly-used and most deathly form is smoking. One cigarette has over 4,000 chemicals, 50 or more of which are carcinogens. Cigarettes have everything from butter to acetone to dirt to formaldehyde inside 12 centimeters of rolled paper; there are even tiny shards of glass used to cut up the back of your throat so the nicotine gets into your bloodstream. The more nicotine in the blood stream, the faster you become addicted to it.

Addiction changes the victim’s way of life. Because their top priority is always having a cigarette handy, their financial situation takes a turn for the worst. Consider this: if each pack of cigarettes was $5 (a low price indeed), a pack-a-day smoker would be spending $1,825 a year, and for what? Smoking causes wrinkles, cataracts, skin damage, psoriasis, and heart disease. The multiple carcinogens are also known to cause cancer of the oropharynx, larynx, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, lung, bladder, kidney, cervix, and also causes myeloid leukemia. Smoking is by far the most important risk factor for lung cancer, making up 125 thousand of the 155 deaths between 1997-2001 (“Cancer Facts” 36). Addiction of any kind also affects your emotional life. Because the addiction is what’s important to you, your friends, family, spouses, often come second.

There have been many programs put into action to educate people about tobacco and others that were intended to decrease its use. Although they worked to an extent, the numbers aren’t good enough. A few people have quit smoking and chewing, but its use is still popular. Youth organizations like Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) and Teens Against Tobacco Use (TATU) have contributed to much of the educating of young people about the side-effects of tobacco. TATU sends high school students into elementary and junior high classes with puppet shows and presentations of the grossness and risks of tobacco. Even so, often times the presentations are given too late because kids are starting to use tobacco at a younger and younger age. Other attempts at limiting tobacco use have been higher taxes and prices on cigarettes and chew. One creative attempt was by codename “Eric the Barfman.” He followed the Marlboro promotion van around the country in his identical van that read “Barfboro” on the side. This annoyance actually led the tour to a crunching halt because people actually mistook Eric’s van for the original Marlboro van. Advertisements against tobacco are even reaching television, radio, and magazines. But the number of users is still too high. People are still smoking with little regard for those coughing around them, and people are still dying from it.

What do the tobacco companies have to say about their poisonous product? One of the public relations of RJ Reynolds has been quoted to say, “We don’t smoke this [expletive]. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and the stupid.” You wouldn’t think calling your customers dumb and supporting racism would be a smart marketing tactic, but 20% of adults in America continue to smoke (“Cigarette Smoking”). So what does big tobacco care as long as their income is large enough? In fact, when one of their own scientists, Victor Denoble, finally invented the “safe cigarette,” they refused to put it on the market because doing so would require admitting they were wrong, which would cause them to lose money. They’ve been saying for years that they were ignorant to the bad side-effects of cigarettes (Moore).

Ignorance was their fighting chance when they swore in Supreme Court that they did not think using tobacco was unhealthy. And who can say they didn’t honestly believe it? For all we know, they could all be hopelessly oblivious to the effect of their products. Perhaps they don’t see that they are killing off their customers and tearing apart lives and families. Perhaps they don’t realize that tobacco is subtly decaying their body. And perhaps no one else has noticed that these deaths are all caused legally and by the choice of the person.

Now don’t get me wrong, there are a few lucky individuals who have smoked three packs a day, every day, for 30 years, and they haven’t faced any side-effects. But few are so lucky. Smokers have an overall death rate two to three times that of the nonsmoker (Lukachko). Smoking is a choice, yes, and as citizens of America, we have the right to choose. Choice means freedom, and “freedom” is what we strive for. But is it really freedom if we can’t curb the nicotine cravings? Is it if we can’t go a day without a smoke or chewing? Is it honestly freedom if our addiction is so severe we can’t bring groceries home because you spent nearly two thousand dollars on cigarettes? Freedom is in the eye of the beholder. Technically, we have the freedom to steal, to cheat, to murder, and to abuse, but we’ll pay for it if we do. And frankly, smokers and nonsmokers alike pay dearly for their beloved Virginia Slims thanks to secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke is a very dangerous thing. Sure, you’re given the option to sit in the nonsmoking section of restaurants, but as a very witty and wise middle school student once said, “Asking to sit in the nonsmoking section is like asking to swim in the non-peeing section of the pool.” It’s not always your choice. For instance, if your job is in a restaurant that allows smoking, you inhale cigarette smoke at least 40 hours a week. This much intake can cause lung cancer and premature death, just for trying to providing for your family. That is unfair by any account. Again, it is a choice to work there, but sometimes options are meager. Even if you’re not in a workplace that allows smoking, it’s still in the air you breathe. Secondhand smoke makes up 30% of the environmental pollutants, and it can affect you just as badly as if you were smoking the cigarette yourself. Like cigarettes, it contains almost all of the 4,000 chemicals and carcinogens in a whole cigarette—just at a lower density. It can cause lung cancer, bladder infections, ear infections and is a known cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Secondhand smoke is estimated to have caused 25 thousand deaths a year in the U.S. (California).

Again, using tobacco, smoking in particular, is a choice. Taking away the freedom to use tobacco would not be welcomed. And is it really the job of the government to take away this freedom? We can’t possibly ban everything unhealthy. That would be illegal and possibly a dictatorship. For instance, a real demonstrated killer in America is cholesterol, and cheese is a major contributing factor. If we are to make cigarettes illegal because they cause lung cancer, why not make the consumption of cheese illegal too, targeted mainly at the cheese states like Vermont? But in the words of Senator Finistirre in the movie Thank You for Smoking, “The great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!” And why not!? There are millions of people dying of heart attacks, which is a much higher number than those dying from the side-effects of smoking tobacco. Well, cheese (regardless of your love for it) is not psychologically addictive like the nicotine in cigarettes. Psychologically addicted means that it starts in your brain so you think you need a cigarette like you need to blink and drink water. Cheese can’t do that.

Washington State, along with fifteen other states, has taken the first step by making it illegal to smoke in restaurants, bars, and workplaces. However, we need to take this a step further. Most people don’t steal because it’s illegal, so if we made tobacco as a whole illegal, my guess is that it would prevent most youth from starting and becoming addicted and would also encourage adults to recover from it.

The state provides rehabilitation for alcoholics, heroin addicts, problem gamblers, and there are even centers for tobacco users. Tobacco and nicotine are not as bad as, say methamphetamines, but it is a problem in our communities. No, it doesn’t cause premarital pregnancies, abuse, or crime, but it is still an unhealthy habit that can be helped. The Food and Health Administration (FDA) has marijuana marked as an illegal substance because it is dangerous to the body. The danger of marijuana is that it poses significant health risks to users and has no medical value that can't be met more effectively by legal drugs (Drug Enforcement.) Although marijuana causes health issues sooner than chew and cigarettes, tobacco has significant health risks as well. As for medical value, nicotine cigarettes actually have a couple benefits. Smokers are less obese than non-smokers and when used in the right dose, nicotine can act as either an anti-depressant, or stimulates alertness and concentration. There is also evidence that it reduces incidences of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease (Marimont). However, like marijuana, its medical value is less than the prescription drugs and medicines. Thus, if marijuana is illegal for its harms to the body, the FDA should have tobacco illegal as well. Many say that tobacco is too widespread to really make a difference because prohibition didn’t work. But with tobacco illegal, it couldn’t be advertised, there would be little access to it, and secondhand smoke would be nonexistent. People often mistake that because tobacco is legal, it can’t be too harmful. As a society, the responsible thing to do is to not allow others to make such a dire mistake.

People are dying from HIV, homicide, alcohol, firearms, motor vehicle accidents, and drugs other than tobacco. Combined, all of these kill less than half the number of deaths caused by tobacco (“Tobacco Deaths”). Every time a cigarette is smoked, not only does it take off 7 minutes of the smoker’s life, but it releases dangerous poisons into the air that are inhaled by children, friends, girlfriends, cousins, grandparents, husbands, and mothers. Yes, it is the American right to have a choice, but you can’t tell me that it’s actually a choice for the girl who lives in a house with parents that smoke. You can’t tell me it’s a choice for the school children who walk by the pub to get to school. You can’t tell me it’s a choice for the single mom to inhale smoke at her minimum wage job. You can’t tell me it’s a choice for the newborn baby who died because his mother smoked. If we make it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving and to not wear your seatbelt because they risk damaging our health, how much more important is it to ban cigarettes? It’s not only a risk, it’s a proven cause of death for people of all ages, whether it’s a choice or not. If tobacco was illegal, the annual death rate would decrease by at least 25 thousand from secondhand smoke alone. And those who have power should do everything they can to protect their fellow human beings.

Works Cited

California Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Final report, September 29, 2005, approved by Scientific Review Panel on June 24, 2005 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. Available from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/ets.htm.

“Cancer Facts and Figures.” 2006. American Cancer Society. 14 Nov. 2007. <http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2006PWSecured.pdf>.

“Cigarette Smoking Among Adults.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. 9 Nov. 2007. Department of Health and Human Services. 15 Nov. 2007. <http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/MMWR/2007/mm5644_intro.htm>.

Drug Enforcement Administration. "Marijuana Is Harmful." At Issue: Marijuana. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Spokane Falls Community College Library. 29 Nov. 2007 http://find.galegroup.com.

Edward L. Ayers, Lewis L. Gould, David M. Oshinksy, and Jean R. Soderlund. American Passages: A history of the United States v. I. Belmont, CA: Thomson Advantage Books. 2007.
Lukachko, Alicia M, and Elizabeth M. Whelan.

"Smoking Causes Significant Health Problems." Opposing Viewpoints: Chemical Dependency. Ed. Laura K. Egendorf. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Spokane Falls Community College Library. 19 Nov. 2007 http://find.galegroup.com.

Marimont, Rosalind B. "The Harmful Effects of Smoking Are Overstated." At Issue: Smoking. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Spokane Falls Community College Library. 19 Nov. 2007 http://find.galegroup.com.

Moore, Derek and Rossi, Chris. “Researcher Sheds Light on Nicotine.” Contributing Writers. The Daily O’Collegian. 18 Oct. 2007. http://www.ocolly.com.

“Tobacco Deaths Overwhelm Other Causes.” Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). 2004. http://no-smoking.org/june01/06-28-01-4.html.

Revealing the Ugly Cartoonish Truth: The Simpsons--Ch. 8

I enjoyed this essay because it not only described the Simpsons, but it described the show like The Simpsons. Benlow obviously has a sense of humor to connect a sitcom with the faults of society.

But it’s true that we laugh at television shows that poke fun at our quirks because it’s true, no matter how exaggerated. Even though it’s humorous and we laugh, The Simpsons really does reveal aspects of our world that should be different. In the single episode described in Benlow’s essay, about ten different rifts in our social plain are mocked. The druggie bus driver, the oblivious nuclear factory workers, the prisoners of the jail being let out, the lack of security in dangerous places, the addiction of TV, the faux propaganda, the tedious technical terms of jobs, hiring and firing for no good reasons, and the effects of nuclear waste are just a few.

Under the blanket of humor really lies the seriousness of our situation and how scary our world is. Cartoons make our situation plain without really scaring us. The Simpsons, for instance, makes us laugh with a crude joke before letting us take their points seriously. However, the truth is there.

I never actually watched The Simpsons except for some brief channel flippings. Benlow has me convinced to find the truth behind the yellow faces and purple hair. He has me convinced to look for the point not only in The Simpsons, but in other sitcoms, comic books, and chick flicks. Benlow has convinced me to look for myself and issues that can be changed in even the stupidest of television shows.

I think Benlow’s point isn’t that we should watch The Simpson’s as an educational experience, but to be careful what we laugh at. What makes us laugh may be exactly what is wrong with our society and what needs to be changed to prevent us from becoming the Springfield in The Simpson’s.

Writing Strategies
1. What purpose or goal of The Simpsons does Benlow focus on?

Benlow describes The Simpsons as a caricature of life. He refers to its satirical humor as a way of pointing out the flaws in our society--including ones we barely realize are there. He doesn't think this cartoon is just a means of entertainment, but a playful way of opening our eyes to the issues we have.

Exploring Ideas
3. Explain what Benlow means when he says:
In fact, if we take the show as seriously as it deserves, we might even see the broad strokes of its irony: that we are the cartoons, drawn and colored by the ridiculous institutions that constitute our society.

If we take this statement in pieces, Benlow actually says quite a bit. He is saying in the first sentence that The Simpsons is supposed to be taken seriously, but has a deceiving faquade. The "broad strokes of its irony" is saying that the irony of the show that is often counterproductive and pointless is common in every day life. And by stating "we are the cartoons," he is saying that none of us can escape the problems in the cartoons, and that what happens in Springfield actually happens in everyday life. "Drawn and colored by the ridiculous institutions" says that whether we realize it or not, what we do, how we act, is largely influenced by pop culture, government, and businesses that are the definition of our materialistic life. And because of this, our culture is simply ridiculous.

Is Hunting Ethical?--Ch. 7

This essay is quite valid for our area. There are so many surrounding woods and hunting areas, that it’s important to have an opinion on hunting. Before I read this, I just thought hunting was gross and wasn’t my thing. I didn’t really think about whether it was right or wrong. To me, it was a lot like raising cows to slaughter them. But Causey really went to the core of the issue.

First off, I really liked her introduction. Explaining that it was her job to save the lives of deer, but then she turns around and is roasting venison for a dinner party. It’s almost hypocritical. However, she explains her views well and that it the question of whether hunting is right or wrong cannot be explained with a nod or shake of the head.

I really appreciated how she went to the attitude of the hunter, rather than the base concept, because any action can be morally wrong if the attitude isn’t right. For instance, if you donate $100 to church just for personal attention, it is then made wrong. But if someone asked you if it was right to donate to a church, you probably wouldn’t say no.

Although she sometimes came across as a tree-hugger, Causey explained that hunters need to have a certain respect for the creatures they’re shooting rather than just the feeling of manliness of taking a life.

I also agree with what Causey said about moral learning. That two “moral” people can be given a situation to think about the ethics behind it and they can come up with completely different conclusions. She says that morals are on a more individual level, rather than a broad generalization. I love that this can really be applied to many, many other situations.

Writing Strategies
1. Do you consider Causey’s opening narrative (¶1-7) to be effective? Explain how her opening is or is not a strength of her essay.
Like I said above, I think her opening connected her with both nonhunters and hunters. Nonhunters because she was trying to save the life of a deer and with hunters because she was eating venison for dinner. It also perks the interest of her readers because it is so confounding. It made the reader start to think and want to know what the author was really trying to get across.

Exploring Ideas
2. What points do you find most interesting and why? Which of Causey’s ideas make you think differently?
My favorite point in the essay was “We must act ethically, and we must think ethically.” This is such a vague, but significant proverb for any situation. As for actual points about the actual topic, I like how she compared the different ideas about “Reverence for Life.” She used the example of the “gutpile addicts” and also of what hunters can do ethically to convince antihunters.

Crimes Against Humanity--Chapter 6

This essay felt like someone hit me in the face with a basketball. I understand what he’s trying to say, and I agree with it—to a degree. He was pretty much blaming every person who doesn’t have Native American blood in their heritage for every problem the Native Americans have.

I believe to prove a point, you often do have to take the reader out of his comfort zone. Ward Churchill definitely did this, but he not only took you out of your comfort zone, but he threw you into mud then spat on you. A lot of what he said didn’t speak to me at all. Many of his references didn’t make sense to me. For instance, he mentioned the “Tomahawk Chop” a few times, and I haven’t a clue what that is. Thus, it means nothing to me.

Churchill’s essay made me more aware of the problem and, yes, he did convince me that something needs to be changed about mocking Indian tradition, but he didn’t earn my respect at all. His approach was just angry and he was ranting for six pages.

His use of the word “Indian” rather than “Native American” to me doesn’t really prove anything other than he must not be Indian either. Unless I’m confused, isn’t it politically correct to use “Native American?” And isn’t that exactly what he’s after? Technical political correctness?

Although I appreciate his attempt at using cold hard facts to support his point of view, the statistics he chose didn’t really support his case. For instance, in paragraph 26 recounts that Indians have the lowest income out of all other ethnic group. This can’t be completely the fault of Caucasians and such. If anything, this degrades the Indians further. Another testament to this is in the same paragraph when he states, “alcoholism and other escapist forms of substance abuse are endemic in the Indian community…Teen suicide among Indians is several times the national average.” These cannot possible be completely the fault of the “white man.”


Writing Strategies
2. Identify places in Churchill’s essay where he anticipates his reader’s thoughts. How is he able to anticipate them, and how successful is he at responding to them?
Churchill predicted his reader’s reaction in places such as paragraphs four and nine. In paragraph nine, he uses our initial reaction to naming sports teams “Kikes” and “Zipperheads” in the same manner we name teams “Red Skins” to support his point of view, which is fairly successful.

Exploring Ideas
1. While some people argue that the use of Native American names, images, and symbols is harmless, others argue that it is actually a tribute to Native Americans. Why does Churchill think it isn’t a tribute? What values, beliefs, or assumptions create the difference of opinion?
Churchill believes that reenactments of ceremonies and use of Indian idealogy is more offensive than respectful because our society doesn’t advertise the Indians actually performing it, but white people “pretending” to be Indians and reenacting it. For instance, he says in paragraph 30 that even elementary schools use “their own degrading caricatures and parodies of Indians.” And how it’s a mockery, not a sign of respect. That is assuming, of course, that other Indians aren’t the ones paying tribute to their ancestors.

The Piracy Ban--Argument Essay

“You’ll love this band! I just downloaded their CD last night.” Ben’s friend raved at him about the latest band on the top ten list. He sits at his computer and types in the band name on his choice file-sharing websit. Results scroll down the screen. Ben double-clicks on the song he wants, and within seconds, he has a new song to add to his iPod. It’s easy, it’s accessible, and it’s free. America’s favorite word.

They call themselves modern-day pirates. They’re your friends, your family, your teachers, it could even be you. People who’s “loot” is from the many illegal downloads on the internet, music being the treasure. It makes perfect sense to listen to a CD before you buy it. If you buy a CD and realize this isn’t what you wanted, you just wasted $20. You can’t return CDs. With file-sharing, you can try out the music before deciding if you want to buy the CD or not. However, the “testing” usually stops there. After all, why would you spend money for something you already have?

File-sharing is extremely common: it’s barely ever given a second thought as to the morality behind it. But most consider it immoral to break the law, right? And copyright infringement is against the law. What about theft? You wouldn’t steal a car, for instance, because it’s unlawful. Well, some disagree.

I’ve heard this question answered, “Well, of course we would. If we could get away with it.” This is the level that our society has actually stooped to. A mindset so shallow and so low that we’d do anything to benefit ourselves, as long as we don’t get in trouble for it. If everyone in the world followed by that, we would live in a scary place indeed.

The truth of the matter is that file-sharing is stealing. It takes money away from the very music artists we love, but not very much. The money artists get from records are like spare change compared to what they earn on tour and from their merchandise. So buying CDs doesn’t usually even endorse the bands you love, but it does endorse the record store. Since 1999, record sales have declined by 22% and total revenues for the music industry have fallen by 2.3 billion dollars (Marks). This may not seem like much, but it’s the biggest blow to music stores ever. That means businesses going bankrupt and honest people losing jobs, all for short-termed entertainment. It tears our nation’s communities apart.

Besides the direct affects on our economy, pirating music teaches us that we can get away with theft. It’s so easy, younger and younger kids can do it. This leaves little room for moral maturity. According to Hewlett-Packard’s Carly Fjorina, “The sense of right and wrong does not evolve as quickly as technology” (Marks). Who’s to say that if we can get away with stealing music, we can’t get away with other petty crime? The simplicity of it makes this idea blossom in youngsters.

Aside from its effect on our society, peer-to-peer file-sharing is morally wrong. The word “pirate” alone triggers many connotations, mostly from the movie industry. Hollywood has successfully turned a buccaneer into a pop icon. Free and unrestrained adventurers who swordfight and connive, all in the interests of themselves alone. Sounds just like American philosophy, right?

Much like the pirates of today, buccaneers in the past used to outnumber their victims, making success easy and certain. There are so many people who file-share in modern times that it makes reforming the extensive pirating movement especially challenging. In the 18th century, governments fought back against pirates with heavily armed naval ships. Though we can’t bring out the infantry at everyone with a computer, we can crack down on the perpetrators just as forcefully.

In 2001, Napster was shut down by lawsuits of copyright infringement from several record companies. This was a drastic blow to millions of youth in particular who depended on Napster for their music downloading needs. Today, Napster is in business again, but you have to buy songs rather than just download them. If we can do it with Napster, who had more than 25 million unique users worldwide (“Napster”), record companies can sue the countless others until they’re forced to make an honest profit.

At the very core of the issue is the sad moral decay in our society, and it’s starting with our youth. Moral decay is hard to document, but 74% of high school students admitted to cheating on an exam at least once in a 2002 poll (F. Lee). That tells us something about the American way of life. That we want everything we can get for ourselves. The ends justify the means. We’ve somehow created this idea that if we can get away with it, do it. Downloading music illegally isn’t as bad as doing drugs, or committing heinous crimes, but it is a problem. It takes away jobs and money from our economy, but mostly, it encourages and enables people of all ages to break the law—some without even realizing it. We need to get past the Jack Sparrow outlook of piracy that makes it okay. We need to realize that as a society, our duty is to look out for each other, even if we don’t know the owner of the record store that just went out of business. File-sharing is just a small part of a bigger, dark picture that has every potential to become something much worse. It takes one step at a time to change things, and starting with something as simple as banning music piracy sounds like a good place to start.

The Use of Curiosity--Concept Analysis

Ever notice how the information you cram into your head the night before a big test seeps out after you turn your paper in? That’s because cramming isn’t really learning. Learning is knowing and knowing for years to follow. But how do we actually learn? What psychological attitude do we need? The first step to achieve anything is the desire to do so. The desire for knowledge is curiosity. Evidence of an inquisitive spirit include treating assignments as learning experiences rather than just work to be done, chasing rabbit trails of subtopics, and, the most obvious, incessantly asking questions.

Many children are known to have played the “Why” game. A child asks, “Why is the sky blue?” and the adult answers “Because God made it that way.” Forever after, every reply is followed by an innocent “Why?”

“Because God likes the color blue.”

“Why?”

“Because it’s a pretty color.”

“Why?” It’s an endless cycle. This is an example of curiosity (or obnoxiousness, depending on the child).

Another similar example is right in the classroom. The curious students are the ones in the front row with their hand raised the entire hour asking questions and getting on everyone’s nerves, slang term being “geek.” Those disinterested in the class are in the back, throwing pencils into the ceiling and making paper footballs, slang term being “slacker.”

These typical stereotypes don’t distinguish intelligence; the slackers just may not find a particular interest in the class so they don’t put as much effort into their work, because without a hint of curiosity, humans can learn nothing, nor do they want to. There is a very crucial difference between curiosity and intelligence. Rather than those labeled “smart” being curious, they are smart because they are curious. Curiosity is a trait we’re born with. Proof of this can be found in any baby as they persistently grab at the lights on the Christmas tree. As a child grows up, their curiosity is either squelched or encouraged. This will effect them

In terms of creativity rather than education, S.I. Hayakawa described proof of curiosity. “Another trait of a creative person is idle curiosity. Such a person asks questions, reads books, conducts investigations into matter apparently unrelated to job or profession—just for the fun of knowing. It is from these apparently unrelated sources that brilliant ideas often emerge to enrich one’s own field of work.” As a student, our field of work is learning. But how is it that we learn?

When you see a preview for a new action movie out, doesn’t it make you want to go watch the movie? Learning is the same way. You may be presented with a morsel of trivia that perks your interest, so you delve into that subject until you learn all about it you can. Like Hayakawa explained, the inquisitive individual does this willingly without outside encouragement. Just like a trophy won, your newfound information is valuable to you. You cherish it in the depths of your mind and you keep it there until you can draw it out again.

How is it that our interest is perked? In general, subjects that interest us are the ones we find most mysterious or ones we have less experience with. For instance, we know little about the Bermuda Triangle, so many find it intriguing. Or if a family is really into the sciences, a child may find literature more interesting because it’s different than what they have everyday.
But how do we learn things that don’t perk our interest? How do we take a bland topic and force ourselves to learn like with more appealing topics? A trick is to relate the boring topics to ones we are interested in. For instance, I’m not particularly fond of science, so I related my biology terms to characters in my favorite books to help me remember their meanings and traits. It was kind of an abstract way of learning, but it helped.

“Curiosity killed the cat.” People will always find curiosity somewhat dangerous, because it opens the door to what we don’t know. The only thing worth fearing is what we don’t understand, but curiosity can also pose other problems. Besides bothering those around them with too many questions and sometimes nosiness, the inquisitives can often miss the main point because they are far too busy delving into minutiae. Sometimes it’s most important to see information from outside the box to draw conclusions of your own.

The original phrase didn’t even include “curiosity.” The first known usage was by the British playwright, Ben Johnson in 1598. “...Helter skelter, hang sorrow, care will kill a cat, up-tails all, and a pox on the hangman,” “care” being interchangeable with “worry” or “sorrow.” There isn’t a known trend from how “care” became “curiosity,” nor how curiosity is linked to worry. Even so, this still gives insight about how curiosity started with bad connotations.
If I may make a couple guesses of the evolution of our key phrase. I am assuming that in the Middle Ages, when the church ruled all and questions were frowned upon, curiosity became known as a sin, thus creating sorrow. Also, to many in the Medieval era, asking questions posed too much pressure, or worry, on an individual. Fortunately for mankind, the Enlightenment was not long after, where most asked questions and many discovered.

In pop culture, negative curiosity is displayed in the movie “The Prestige.” It’s about a feud between two magicians and Magician One spends his entire life and fortune attempting to replicate Magician Two’s trick. His curiosity leads him to immorality and near insanity from lack of closure. Though this is a drastic example, it illuminates the darker side of curiosity. It can cause you to disregard the big picture.

Even though the cat was killed by curiosity, “satisfaction brought it back.” Curiosity can help you deduce individual ideas and beliefs, but is a thirst that can’t always be quenched. However, when it is fulfilled, you learn something that’ll stick with you. Not for a day, not for a week, not just long enough for you to take a test and be done with it. That kind of learning instills information in your head for years to come.

According to Elizabeth Loftus, “it should be almost automatic to ask about any idea, ‘What's the evidence?’” It’s far more dangerous to take information for face value than to give in to an inquisitive nudge. She not only encourages us to question the evidence, but the exact evidence. The scientific procedures, how many trials were done, who did them, whether or not it was replicated, et cetera.

The secret of learning is the desire to learn, also known as curiosity. The cat may have been killed by it, but least it died satisfied. Nothing is wrong with asking questions; just don’t let it cloud your view of the big picture. No human can accomplish anything without a desire to do so. Curiosity is the initiative of learning, so next time a child asks you why the child its blue, don’t roll your eyes and assume they’re playing. Answer them to the best of your abilities, because today’s questioners will be tomorrow’s brilliance.

Works Cited

Hayakawa, S.I. “What It Means to Be Creative.” The Composition of Everyday Life. 2nd ed. Ed. John Mauk and John Metz. Boston: Wadsworth, 2007. 149-150.

Loftus, Elizabeth. “Who is the cat that curiosity killed? - importance of psychology in life.” Skeptical Inquirer. Nov.-Dec 1998.

"Curiosity killed the cat." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 15 Sep 2007, 01:17 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 11 Oct 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curiosity_killed_the_cat&oldid=157967756>.

Piccone, Jason. “Curiosity and Exploration.” California State University, Northridge. Spring 1999.

Svoboda, Elizabeth. “Cultivating Curiosity.” Psychology Today. Copyright Sussex Publishers, LLC. 2006

What It Means to Be Creative--Chapter 4

This particular essay really stood out from the other ten we’ve read through this quarter. Though it’s the shortest, it really defined one of my aspirations better than I’ve ever heard it defined.

To be creative is more than painting a picture. It’s thinking of something original from anyone else, something that makes people make a double-take, so people say “Why didn’t I think of that?”
I loved how Hayakawa described that average people don’t read their emotions as well as creative people because they feel what they think they should feel. Not what they actually do feel. Or they appreciate something based on their denomination, stereotype, or political party. For most, it’s a thin line between what you do feel and what you should feel. But it’s clearly drawn for those with creative souls.

Creativity is definitely something I strive for. Unfortunately, the harder you try, the more impossible it is. I always try to make a formula for it, instead of just letting the creativity flow out of my head. I’ve found that when you’re most relaxed you write the best. Personally, I prefer to write just before I go to bed.

The most encouraging characteristic of creativity Hayakawa described was “idle curiosity.” Curiosity is like my sixth sense. I love knowing things. If I’ve given a clue, I tackle it and milk it for all it’s worth.

A specific example of what dams up my river of creativity is the inability to trust myself. The author quoted a Dr. Hans Selye about how the most brilliant scientists went with their instinct over all. I like the comparison to scientists because I envision a clean white lab with chemists and physics professors bustling about, trying to discover the meaning of everything. Theoretically, every day is an experiment for us. Learning, trying new things, analyzing, without thinking about it.

Hayakawa wanted us to view creativity through the eyes of the scientist and see that it can relate to anything and everything in daily life.

Writing Strategies
1. Describe the strategy Hayakawa uses to help the reader to understand the term "creative." That is, how specifically does he make the term clear to the reader?
I really appreciated the way the author described creativity. He gave specific examples that anyone can relate to. We've all thought "Why didn't I think of that?" Hayakawa said that a creative person goes beyond what everyone knows already, doesn't limit him-/herself to the confines of other (i.e. political parties), and has open-minded curiousity. He also uses other sources, like Dr. Hans Selye. His most important point that really defines creativity is that it can take any form, even a supermarket layout. So even the average Joe can be creative.

Exploring Ideas
3. In what ways is writing an essay an act of "creativity"? List Hayakawa's main points (or characteristics) of creativity and apply them to writing an essay. Which ones apply? Which ones don't?
To write an essay that is worth reading, you need to use creativity to come up with something new to bring to the reader. There are so many cliches in society, that to grow, we need more material. Viewing writing as a maturing process, we need to recognize our feelings and interpret our thoughts to do so. This is a creative point.

Another characteristic of creativity is not allowing yourself to be confined by roles. Whether religious, polical, stereotypical, etc. In writing, you do need to stay with one point of view, otherwise the text can be confusing. You have a role as a writer that you can swing right and left.

Playing with ideas that are often construed as silly or foolish make the best writers. Lewis Caroll had simply insane ideas (often from insane doses of drugs) as does Shel Silverstein. Nearly anyone can be persuaded towards an unfounded notion if the argument is creative enough.
But when you don't have an argument that can sway the masses, creative persons but be strong enough to stand alone and not conform.

My favorite trait described of creativity was the curiousity. This is one of my favorite words and little did I know how it could relate to what I hope to attain! When it comes to writing, research is frequently involved, but the deducing of information gathered is where the creativity comes in. You can have all the frivolous information the world has in its tomes, but if you can't connect them to life, they're useless.

Going with your gut feeling is the final trait of creativity that can be easily linked to writing, the most obvious being sentence flow. It's not a structure you can exactly follow, having shorter and longer sentences strung together. Sentence flow is just a rhythm that you feel while you write.