The show Criminal Minds Is a unique take on the structure of other “cop shows.” At first glance, the show appears to follow the same drawn out plot of every episode of every new crime series. The killer is introduced, the police conduct their investigation, and the killer is put away in some large dramatic fashion. In actuality, it relates greatly to the Present Shock book for this periodical following. In the novel, Rushkoff uses the terms, “scheduled world,” and, “programmed world,” to describe how the presentation of information has evolved. As Rushkoff describes, a scheduled world would give you, “…half an hour to peruse an exhibit at the museum,” while in a programmed world, “…you are strapped into the ride at Disneyland and conveyed through the experience at a predetermined pace”(Rushkoff 88). In the past, stories were told orally or through literature, where one was not confined visually to what was shown on the screen. In the scheduled society, these stories/information would have selectively more freedoms in their telling, contrasting drastically with the now present programmed world. The programmed society on the other hand, would alternatively set you visually on a strict path, which unlike the scheduled society, would allow you to only perceive what the programmer is showing. The concept of the programmed world is largely seen through modern television, specifically episodic series like Criminal Minds. Being a television show, Criminal Minds tells a story with each episode, however the story is seen through variables controlled by the programmer (i.e. the makers of the show), essentially, strapping you into a ride and letting you watch what unfolds like in Rushkoff’s example. The idea of programmed information being in such a way encompasses a good portion of all television out, so how does Criminal Minds stand 

out of the seemingly endless digital crowd of ones and zeros coming together to tell a story? Well, the way the show follows this structural path is quite different from those of it’s sub genre.

Other “cop shows,” look mostly into the chronology of finding the killer through the police and their point of view. However, Criminal Minds pushes these boundaries by telling the story partially from the investigators’ perspectives, but also the criminals (Hence the name-Criminal Minds!). The show seemingly places the point of view from intense and high pressure investigations with officers pulling together clues and evidence to the dark but intriguing view of the criminal. One scene may find the audience seeing the crew of investigators examining the scene of a crime to create a profile while the very next scene could show the antagonist of the episode going after sheepish victims. This idea of the story being told from two places at once is constantly seen throughout each episode of the series, and is shown, albeit in a different way in the novel. In Present Shock, Rushkoff describes what he calls “Digiphrenia,” or, “…the way our media and technologies encourage us to be in more than one place at the same time”(Rushkoff 12). Throughout the novel, Rushkoff describes how our online presence and our physical presence allow us to appear in multiple places. A person my text or tag or what have you in a certain location, but may physically appear to be in a whole different area. And because digital age technology has been so heavily engrained in society (even taking up our identities), the digital profile may in certain ways have more weight than its real life counterpart. Although this topic is touched on in a slightly different way in the book, Criminal Minds somewhat fits the definition of Digiphrenia. The show uses it’s digital being to give information from seemingly one source but at two different places at once. Not only is information being given from the point of view of the investigators, which could act as the real life person in this scenario, but also from the criminal, or in this case the digital identity. Although both entities make up the same being, in this circumstance the show itself, both project information to the audience from completely different areas. This point of view shift in simple terms is what drives the show to stand out be a long lasting hit show. Not only does it appeal to fans of the crime sub-genre, but it also portrays an important part of the sub-subgenre in a whole new light. 

Works Cited

Rushkoff, Douglas. Present Shock. N.p.: Penguin, 2013. 12-88. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

CBS, . CBS Shows: Criminal Minds. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Web. 27 Oct. 2015. <http://www.cbs.com/shows/criminal_minds/>.

In writing celebrity Ernest Hemingway’s biographical novel, A Moveable Feast, Hemingway uses his profound writing experience to tell previous stories throughout bits of his life through journals and separate writings. Hemingway has a very unusual writing style which tends to play around with the traits of descriptive writing. What most stood out to me was how Ernest used descriptive writing to portray or hint at an event while still writing in a way which didn't tell the full story. One instance is seen in the novel around when he is writing about his affair during the winter with another woman, while still holding emotional ties to his wife. Ernest describes the event as a, “…happy and innocent winter in childhood compared to the next year, a nightmare winter disguised as the greatest fun of all…”(Hemingway 179). Hemingway doesn't specifically tell about the events of the winter or address them directly, but rather compares his emotions he attaches to the winter before and the winter of the affair. Ernest continues on with this trend through portions of the novel, continually avoiding details of events which are quite emotionally impactful, such as with his last meeting with Stein. Choosing to write in such a way about these events could likely be from them being taken from excerpts and journals, where Ernest may not have emotionally been able to write about such events in detail, or they could simply be a part of his “signature style,” which Hemingway himself explains. Hemingway describes his writing style as writing a truthful story and taking out bits and various portions to add more meaning to the overall work, which he may have done in the above examples. Although writing with this meaningful mindset is unusual in autobiographical works, because of Ernest being the fantastical writer he is, it is not surprising that it would be the case.

Along with his writing style, Hemingway’s work flows through several different time periods of his life, making the novel slightly more difficult to read, but all the more interesting. Being taken from excerpts and journals from his life, the novel doesn't follow any linear or clear structure, rather opting to highlight points in Hemingway’s earl adulthood career. For most of the novel, Hemingway writes from his early days of writing in Paris, where he describes how little money he made, but how cheap it was to live there. While living in Paris with his wife, Hemingway takes the time to record a variety of experiences with other up and coming writers, some of which such as Fitzgerald become legends engrained in the literary community. The combined factors of highlighting important events rather than minuet details, and writing in a nonlinear style give each event more emphasis and meaning in my eyes. Although the work doesn't necessarily have a chronological following of events, it doesn't need to in order to present a biographical and meaningful story. 

The novel was likely chosen for the class reading because of this unique style of writing, as well as for the ability to study a work from a literary great such as Hemingway. Ernest Hemingway is widely seen as a highly influential and powerful figure in the literary world, which contributed much to the 20th-century fiction. Being able to study how he wrote and see actually what he did when he was writing could allow students to gain more knowledge and skills for their own works. Ernest as well wrote in a very unique style using descriptive language while being vague, which could expose students to more complex forms of writing, as well as allow them to think more about the work. 

A New Beginning

Throughout every year of a person’s career in school, they encounter a new atmosphere for the next one hundred eighty days. These days are spent in a variety of ways from person to person, however each undergoes the creation of a new environment, one that builds a family-like environment in some schools. In smaller, k-12 schools, each student is lumped with the same grade largely for their whole stay at the school. Day in and day out that the students arrive and spend the next eight hours of their life associating with one another. Spending this much time with someone can bring out a variety of both positive and negative views. 

By spending all this time with each student, one is exposed to a variety of culture and diversity from person to person. As stated by Postman in his novel, The End of Education, Postman supports a negative view of all of this time spent, saying how the study, “…of aspects of culture… in truth, are likely to make students uncomfortable”(Postman 158). Postman writes about how the constant subjection of diversity actually dissuades people from appreciating other cultures and promotes a superiority complex to their own culture. However, even in the past twenty years since the publication of Postman’s book, toleration/acceptance of diversity has changed. As seen with events such as the legalization of same-sex marriage among others, people accept diversity and difference more. In actuality, many students such as I have felt a strong sense of home and family  even when I am surrounded by students everyday who are quite different from me. Even though a student may not know everyone at his/her school, the school environment is a great place for bonds and friendship to occur above the negativity. School gives students almost an hour to meet and talk with others with lunch, and many schools such as Lake Mary Prep put great value into letting new people and cultures feel welcome. A variety of programs usually exist in different schools, such as student ambassadors, who can help new students or different students meet and learn about each other. Not only does this expose children to diversity, but it also promotes a friendly aspect to it. I myself have made many friends through student ambassadors with people who don't look, talk, or think anything like me. 

Ultimately, Postman continues to push an idea of a flawed educational system due to a problem with diversity, however the truth can't be any further off. Some schools do take little approach to the diversity in the students, however these schools only need adjustments to overcome this hurdle. Schools that take very little approach could quite possibly fix any issues of intolerance with ideas which push communication between different people, not just learning about different people. It’s one thing to hate a culture based off a story in a book, but it’s another to hate the same culture after talking with someone in the culture for a hour or so. Possibly, if more schools took this approach to make their public a more friendly atmosphere, one of the “ends” of education Postman proclaims about will merely be a beginning. 

Works cited

Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Knopf, 1995. Print.

Arguing With Aristotle 

Within Gaardner’s novel, Aristotle is seen as one of the big three philosophers who arguably set in motion modern western thought. Aristotle was hugely ahead of his time in ancient Greece, depicting philosophical thought such his “final cause” which would be the basis for future ideas that we still ponder to this day. In Sophie’s World, Aristotle is mentioned for his empiricist outlook as well as for the creation of ideas such as formal logic, which couldn't be closer to the truth about his accomplishments.

Another work that gives insight into Aristotle would be Everything’s an Argument, by Andrea Lunsford, John Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters.  The work goes to describe that, “…language is itself, inherently persuasive and hence that every text is also an argument that is designed to influence readers”(Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, Walters 4). As the authors go further into their claim (that everything is an argument), they discuss different ways in which people argue. Aristotle made claims on a number of various topics throughout his philosophical career, one of which being spoken word/debate. In the Classical era, public speech events were huge, ushering waves of people to watch two well-cultured individuals debate a particular topic. Ancient Rome and Greece had argumentative thinkers whom devoted their careers to debate, and these places can arguably be named one of the birthplaces of modern public speech. 

In Gaardner’s work, Aristotle is credited for his study of changes and his focus on evidence as an empiricist. This can also be attributed to Aristotle’s work on public speech, where he, “…identified three key ways that writers can appeal to their audiences in arguments…pathos, ethos, and logos”(Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, Walters 34). In Everything’s an Argument, Aristotle took notice of such changes to a person’s opinion on an argument based on how the argument appealed to them. As described in Gaardner’s work, Aristotle then uses evidence based upon this idea to devise emotional, ethical, and logical appeals. Emotional, or Pathos, consisted of argumentation which included generation of emotions for the reader, making the piece’s impact stronger, such as seeing a child in need on a commercial for a charity. Ethical, or Ethos arguments include the idea of self presentation. Aristotle believed that people would take an argument more seriously if it seemed credible, or sided with their beliefs. Lastly, Logical, or Logos appeals involve the use of facts or statistics to persuade people to your side.

Ultimately, both novels cross over the philosophical ideas which people hold up to Aristotle, containing his empiricist thought process as well as logical ideas.

Works Cited

Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, Walters. Andrea, John, Keith.  Everything’s an Argument. Bedford: St. Martin’s, 2006. Print.

Truthfully, Cromsky’s opinion on the events of the September 11th attacks are very controversial as he says, however also misguided. In his essay, Cromsky challenges the regular American viewpoint of 9/11 by stating that the following war on terror was exactly what bin Laden wanted, and that previous events (such as the Chile conflict mentioned in the essay) even conducted by the United States put down the travesty. Cromsky later goes on to mention that the following death of bin Laden was ultimately illegal and wrongful, and that if another country had done the same, the United States would be in outcry. 

On the other hand of the points made by Cromsky, there is much to look at. The “tragedy” that was conducted by the United States in Chile was underplayed by 9/11 due to a multitude of reasons. Firstly, the events took place much before 9/11, and by the time the september 11th attacks hit, the world was more connected, with new luxuries such as the internet forming these connections. Being more connected allows more people to be exposed to a topic or event, in this case 9/11, which caused the attacks to be more widely known than the Chilean coup. Likewise, the 9/11 attacks hit home more than the events in Chile because they literally hit home. The september 11th attacks targeted huge buildings in a bustling American city of New York, which would obviously resonate more with Americans rather than the Chilean events. On top of this, Cromsky identifies that there could have been an alternative to the eventual war on terror which Cromsky believes “bled” the economy. Although the war was expensive, it was not the single greatest factor to cause recession, and other problems existed of even greater significance such as the failure of the stock market to start the United States’ recession period. Cromsky continues to put to shame Bush’s response to the attacks, but no matter how draining or depleting Cromsky tries to put them up to, one undeniable result was created from his response, that being American pride and nationalistic unity. Bush’s war on terror, as well as his address to congress after the attacks brought together everyone that encompassed America with open arms to stand up for themselves and the country. And although many of Bush’s decisions in office have been far from perfect, his ability to rally the American people was truly impactful, and noted in his skyrocketing approval ratings at the time. Many people looked for someone to reside their fears in and gain security in return, and Bush was arguably successful in this regard. Along with these claims, Cromsky adds that the later assassination of bin Laden, the man behind the terrorist group responsible for the attacks, was unlawful. Cromsky argues in his essay that with a large amount of military commandos, the Navy SEALs which brought the mass murderer down should have taken him in alive to be put on trial. However, it is known that the SEALs were given orders to kill, and that the mission was ultimately an assassination mission not a capture, disproving the idea that the commandos on the mission were in the wrong. In regard to the orders, they remained completely lawful. Cromsky makes a vague attempt at trying to relate the killing of bin Laden to the assassination of a president or political leader, however this is not the case. In fact, the assassination of political leaders outside of being in war is completely illegal, which Cromsky is right about. Where Cromsky goes wrong is clumping bin Laden in as a “political leader,” which he was not. The reason Osama bin Laden’s death was completely legal was due to him being a military commander, and in military combat, an enemy can be lawfully killed even if they surrender. Speaking of which, one popular justification made by Cromsky and those likeminded is to say that bin Laden was unarmed and tried to surrender. Although partially correct (he was unarmed), there was no record of him ever trying to surrender to the special forces. In fact, he even went on to use his many wives as human shields, something a man who wishes to surrender would most likely never do. There is also the moral side of the argument, where bin Laden’s death is also justifiable. Should the leader of a mass-terror group which has not only put into harms way thousands if not millions of people as well as publicly and proudly claimed its responsibility in these events have a trial? Does having a trial do justice to the millions of people that were targeted by Al Qaeda? Does giving this murderer of a man even the slimmest of chances of being declared “free” give justice to the thousands of innocent Americans like Cromsky who’s lives were ended due to the horrid dreams of another? One would think the clear answer is “no,” and that his death was in fact not even a severe enough punishment for his wrongdoings. 

Ultimately, Cromsky pushes some flawed attempts to try and put a new spin on the viewpoint of 9/11. However, the claims mostly all come out with little evidence to back up the arguments (the “essay” is posted on the Huffingtonpost, not the most trusted source in the world), stating vague statements and polls which don't really do much other than try and persuade.  

Dang, is Lang devolving?

        Dang, is Lang devolving? Aside from the silly presentation of this question, the fact of the matter is that the serious topic posed by this is a real problem. In today’s world, people are almost overcome with simplicity, having new slang and shortened words to describe what people want to say. The modern world hits everyone almost like the cup of coffee you may be drinking as you read this, it puts people on edge and pushes society faster and faster. What is meant by this analogy is the fact that everyone sees value in the speed of activity. Whether it be making newer model cars to see how fast their engines can go, or simply sending a few-word text full of abbreviations such as the infamous “lol,” people want to see how quickly they can accomplish a task while still maintaining the idea. 

       Some scholars, such as George Orwell believe in the idea of modern prose being quite on the other side of the spectrum, full of unnecessary “fluff” which takes away from the overall meaning of the prose. Although excess is also a problem that can hinder language, a more pressing matter is apparent in today’s society: that of restraint. Today’s people restrict themselves to abbreviations and shortenings, which can end up doing the same amount of damage to the original meaning of the prose as excess can….only without the pride of making a 10 word sentence with 60 syllables. Everywhere people go, they are always reminded of this underlaying social motif of speed. This motif is now beginning to show in today’s written language, with paragraph meanings having to be portrayed with abbreviations or even emoticons. On the topic of emoticons, these visual representations not only take the basic foundation of language away from it (the written language part), but then try to convey a message, most times too complex for the visual representation. Although one may notice a person’s happiness by their smile alone, they are unable to see why they are happy, or to what made them happy. Complex ideas such as “why” are unable to be conveyed through these emoticons in the timely manner that our rushed society has put us under.  And even if one was to try and convey a complex prose in emoticons, the receiver would still have to merely guess based on observation and abstraction the original context of the sentence, rather than the concrete basis of proper written language. The ideas of abbreviations and emoticons are all examples of influence from this rushed world everyone lives in, and are just now starting to be seen as a problem.

     Ultimately, the replacement of clear yet complex prose to faster and almost meaningless abbreviations are the first signs of the collapse of modern refined language. If people begin to lose value in the better but longer way, taking only the easy but riskier way of abbreviation, modern english will be replaced totally with faster shortcuts. Although yes, this would mean information could get to someone faster, it also means that this information could be incorrect, meaningless, or sometimes not even information at all, simply garbled gibberish as seen by the receiver. 

-With best wishes, Kieran