U.S.L.U.

Journal Entry 01.
Commencing Transmission.
Time: 0800 hours, Station time.
August 27th, 2041.

I rolled out of bed, groping the air. My I-Bot stretched towards me, offering a clean uniform and a cup of coffee. As I tapped the front panel to read my mail and the news, it laced my shoes, quickly matted down my hair, and packed my bag with a Bio I copy and last night‘s engineering homework. I scanned over the U.S. Lunar Daily News again:  another rally on the front page. The war in China continued diminishing the government's popularity in the eyes of the people, and president Dana Johnson lost support by the minute. Something tells me she would not be up for re-election. I tapped the glass panel on top of the I-bot again, and watched it compress and roll under my bed, as quietly as it had come.  I threw my bag over my shoulder, kicking my roomate Dave DeMayo’s I-Bot out of the way.  No doubt Dave spent another all nighter chatting up his high school sweetheart. As his bot scurried beneath his bed,, I couldn’t help but step out into the room shaking my head. At 230,000 miles from earth, the guy was giving “long-distance” relationship a whole new meaning.

I give it a month.

Although an eternal darkness enveloped the school, there was no doubt that morning had arrived.  Students shuffled out of their dorms, some shadowed by I-Bots, others half-consciously trying to find their way to class. New faces strolled on a guided tour--the potential future students--and gawked at the meter-thick glass window as Earth slowly rotated beneath them. I hardly notice the scenery anymore. After passing by the same hallway a thousand times, the thrill of seeing my entire home planet in a single panel wore off. If you’re wondering, no, I can’t see the Great Wall of China from here, however, I can see Ciudad del Plata, one of the biggest, man-made underwater settlement in the eastern hemisphere. It was too early to make the math in my head and figure out exactly what time it was back home--I wasn’t a genius. The reason why I even got accepted to the United States Lunar University was because of my father's close personal relationship with the Dean. Actually, that’s how most people get in. You either had the right connections, your parents made an extremely generous donation to the school, or you were a walking, breathing super-computer like Dave. Either ways, it beat joining the workforce. It was either med school or flipping burgers. In this economy, it almost pays the same.
With an exasperated sigh, I  looked over my wrist-phone. Five minutes late to General Aerospace and Aeronautical engineering. I remember groaning when the Office of Career Development decided to include this in my curriculum, and zealously demanded to know when would I ever need that class.  But at this rate, I just might. Human Doctors are rare nowadays, with 90% of the patients preferring their I-Bots to make accurate diagnosis in the comfort of their homes. There were more engineers building machines to revolutionize medical care than there were doctors with a working license.

Journal, exterminate that last sentence.

There are NO human doctors with working license. Competition with the ’bots picked up so fast that Doctor nowadays is just an honorary title. Whatever. It still beats flipping burgers.

Journal, end transmission.

The Graphic Table

When the day is over, I love nothing more than sliding the books off the desk and plugging my graphic tablet in.  The WACOM graphics tablet is an art tool designed  to digitalize animation, mimic signatures, trace and edit common-place graphics.  With a pressure-sensitive pad reacting to electromagnetic waves from a battery-independent pen, the tablet acts as a sketchpad, allowing the artist to draw and project images into a computer screen.  With a little patience and plenty of practice, achieving a professional quality in animation is no longer a niche for the Big Screens.
I adore my tablet. It turned a quiet hobby into a full-blown obsession. Comics, cartoons, landscape, wall paper designs, and maybe a paid commission here and there--the tablet revolutionized the art of “doodling“. I’ll admit I’m not particularly talented--a career in art isn’t my goal-- but using a tablet, I can achieve a cinema-like quality in less time it took you to read this essay. It isn’t a new gadget either. I remember my elementary school teacher doodling over a prehistoric prototype and watching a pixilated version of his “dog” over the projector. So it’s safe to assume the tablet’s been around since forever.
But I love drawing. And  more than I love drawing, is drawing well, which means wasting entire afternoons with a graphite-less pen in my hand, watching a simple sketch turn into a breathtaking fantasy. And I’m not the only one. Entire websites, such as Tegaki e and Livestream  are dedicated to bringing  the graphic-design community together, regardless of artistic backgrounds and level of skill. Typed comments a la Facebook? Overrated.  A sketch of your very expressive “Oh my god” face will suffice.
Its practicality is alluring. The way a writer drafts, a person can daft their art and improve by redrawing over a layer on top of the original picture. Unlike a sketchpad, redrawing can be achieved with 100% accuracy, without wasting a single piece of paper. The tablet allows the blooming artist to practice while still feeding his or hers eco-friendly inner hippy. And when the piece is done, advertising art and selling online is simple. All that needs to be done is upload on the many thousands online communities dedicated to art and buyers, sometimes even attracting potential employers.  For someone with a knack for doodling, the tablet is the perfect tool.

Harrison Bergeron

“Harrison Bergeron,” by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. is a short story that depicts an oppressive, dystopian society where everyone is equal, not just in rights. At a centralized level of intelligence, beauty, athletic skills and talent, the U.S. Government attempted to create a harmonious culture by banning competition and aggression in the country. The H.G. Police (Handicapper General) handicapped anyone that set the  rest of the “average” population at a  physical or intellectual disadvantages.  Those with a higher I.Q. were lawfully required to wear a radio in their ear at all times. Every twenty seconds, the radio would blast off and cut short any coherent thought, numbing the subject down to an ideal level of brainpower, which didn’t go further  than few, short unintelligent thoughts at the time.  Those gifted with breathtaking looks, strength, grace, or speed were leveled down by atrocious masks and heavy lead-ball sacs to hang over their bodies and slow them down. Those that outgrew all handicapping equipment were imprisoned for life.
The despotic regime as described by Vonnegut reminded me of the novel This Perfect Day. Less efficiently than Ira Levin’s Uni, the H.G. police achieved equality and peace by physically altering the population thought brute force and torture: Headaches to null the mind,  heavy sacs to impede athletes, humiliating Halloween props to mar a beautiful face and metallic junk to ruin a well sculpted body. Jail and fines met anyone attempting to relieve themselves of their equipment. Death met those that readily defied their government. In the same way that the Family saw conflict appalling and primitive, the “handicapped” population was conditioned to believe that the unfair advantages each was born with lead to competition and violence, such as those in the times before the H.G. assumed power. Characters who could think long enough, concluded that defying the law would only bring back those dark times. One could even say a "Pre-Uni" age. "Harrison Bergerson" treads over the fantastical, fictional line of dystopian genre, and invites the reader to experience a version of the country in which equality is valued and pursued over individual rights.

The Great American Melting Pot?

Jae Ran Kim’s “The Great American Melting Pot?” argued that the comforting, 1970’s notion of America’s “melting pot” she grew up with may not be so comforting at all. Between 1973 and 1985, Disney produced an educational, children’s show called America Rock, and upon revisiting her favorite episode, “The Great American Melting Pot,” the author noticed that Disney’s take on global diversity only included the faces of Europeans. “America was founded by the English, German, French and Dutch,” Kim quoted (699). She notes that only Russians and Italians make up the immigrant population, leaving out Korans, Iranians, the Chinese and Guatemalans, etc. The author also explains that the episode failed to address the subject of slavery, and the attempts to remove Native Americans from their land during colonial times. As an adult, Kim continued to recognize racial stereotypes in the media, and although she allowed her children to watch the Schoolhouse Rock, she encouraged them to think critically when valuing the way they and their friends are portrayed (Kim 700).

I can only agree with Kim half way. True, the series failed to mention that amongst the founding races that built the country, Native Americans were part of the initial congregation.  And immigrants were misrepresented when only Russians and Italians made it in the scene. However, the fact remains that it was a children’s show, produced in the seventies! The show was meant to target a very young audience,  and the basic concept at the time wasn’t only to celebrate diversity (however much of a failure the show proved to be) but to teach tolerance. Incorporating the brutal past of slavery and the elimination of Native Americans is too mature a content for a kid’s show, so Disney opted to teach kids to “play nice” despite their differences in religion, nationality and race. Even in the present, I’ve failed to see a children’s show that tackles the subject of slavery and the colonist’s attempts to push Native American’s out of their land. However, as I sit with my younger sister to watch “age appropriate” channels, I didn’t fail to notice that Disney’s still preaching the same message they were nearly four decades ago: Play nice, and celebrate your differences.

Work Cited

Kim, Jae Ran. “The Great American Melting Pot?” Perspectives on Argument. Eds. Leah Jewel, Craig Campanella, and Brad Potthoff. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson, 2009. 698-700. Print.

Argument is Everywhere

According to an old high school teacher,  man kind will not  reach its grand finale through dinosaur-killing asteroids,  global warming, nuclear warfare, religious phenomena, or a world wide plague.  Instead, he predicted that earth’s most competitive creatures will continue to march on to a less glamorous, yet equally devastating end.

“We’re going to breed ourselves off the planet,” he asserted. Moreover,  he enjoyed comically pointing out one‘s individual responsibility to the globe‘s rising population. “If your parents had more than two kids, they’re selfish”.

 The cartoon above depicts a stork struggling to ferry a multi-racial group of new-borns, while the word “resources” is stamped across its belly . The picture reminded me of my teacher’s argument regarding the issue of overpopulation. On one hand,  human numbers are rapidly escalating to astonishing numbers, depleting natural resources to accommodate the growing masses. For example, in order to make room for more people, the demand  for urban development exerts pressure on the environment: deforestation is needed to create space. Industrial waste is produced. Pre-existing species are either expelled from their natural habitats or pushed to the brink of extinction.  More land and water are required to farm and expand. More fossil-fuel is extracted to power every vehicle on the planet. Every year the demand for these resources grow. More food. More space. More oil. More. More. More.

On the other hand,  finding solutions to the issue of overpopulation becomes a matter of moral conduct. If an individual isn’t entrusted to diminish the number of offsprings they allow themselves to have, who is?  The family? The community? The Government? Ideally, reducing the world’s population would mean two children per family, one to replace each parent as they grow old and die. But granting a higher authority the power to determine how many children each individual is allowed to have brings the issue dangerously close to  a totalitarian arena.  Debate would thread on where to limit this new authority, how would one ensure people obey this “ideal” law, who should be punished if the individual exceeds child capacity, the parent or the child, and how? Should the excess offspring be sent to foster care, or should the parent be allowed to keep their kids under financial penalty? The problem in trying to decrease the world’s population is that approaching the matter seems heartless in nature and too dangerous to individual freedom.  But choosing a passive approach to the issue means harming the environment in order to extract its resources for the sole purpose of sustaining the inclining numbers.  Drawing back to my teacher’s original argument, individual responsibility is key to saving the environment.

He would have chastised my parents for being selfish: a unit that did not plan on having a son and two daughters. However, my family, and millions of others in America are seen optimistically as the beginning of the decline.  In an age were contraception is widely used, the working force encourages both men and women on board, and financial stability means having a small family, results in each generation having fewer children than previous one: A great-grandmother boasted of a family of 14 children. My mother’s mother had seven, my mother only had three, and I don’t expect to support more than two.

The issue of overpopulation is not black and white. It invites argument, new ideas, more efficient use of resources, and better tools to encourage smaller families for each generation.It inspires individual responsibility for the sake of well-guarded personal freedoms and a healthy planet. After all, we don’t want be selfish.

Three Ways To A Good Argument

 As long as an issue provokes more than one opinion, argument will prevail. From the combat-oriented debates between family members, to the complex, yet consensual agreements amongst international leaderships, argument takes place in our everyday lives.  While underage, you argue with your parents to secure a broader spectrum of personal freedoms. In school, you argue to let your opinions be heard. In a job, you might argue to increase your salary, or reach a consensus amongst your peers, such as ways to run a business, or simply how to build a house. The best  ways to argue  lies in your ability to control your emotions, to  find common ground--as stated in Perspectives on Arguments by Nancy Wood--and to understand the issue and its facts well. A well-rounded argument using those three key goals sparks confidence in such ways that allows you to control the situation, weather its nature is traditional or consensual.

   Although it’s good to argue with passion, letting emotions get the better of you hinders your ability to think clearly, causing you to quickly get offended and engage in angry, un-intelligent disputes that might turn your listener off.  One of my parents is a prime example. That  parent’s style is well suited while going up against a haughty teenager: it’s aggressive, relentless  nature leaves no room for  an opponent to think clearly, much less speak, for that style is composed of  one continuous rant after another. But it also leaves no room for debates and hinders all possibility of establishing common ground. The opponent cannot disagree and argue back, ending the debate fast. Most times, the opponent will have no choice but to tune the arguer out.  Keeping your emotions in check allows you to understand what your opponent is saying, keeping yourself open to a different perspective and ideas that you might not have thought of until you heard them from someone else. Thinking clearly without emotional setbacks also allows you  to stay on track with the factual side of the issue, rather than dwelling on pure emotions, and in cases where facts are scarce, such as the arguer dealing with a new issue altogether, having a cool head allows the you to search for new, innovate ways to retaliate in a debate.  For example, a student might be new to the topic of immigration, but might form an opinion by drawing information from past experience or stepping into the shoes of an advocate.

Establishing common ground draws both an audience and an opponent to your words. This method is key when the arguer attempts to either reach an agreement or change the minds of their opponent and audience.  Again, another example is one of my other parents. That parent’s passive-aggressive style won over listeners by first finding shared interests, then spinning their own ideas over that. As a child I dreamed of a luxurious home, and by exploiting the method of common ground, that parent not only convinced me to keep college as a number one priority, but also to work hard on my grades, extracurricular, and search for financial aid.

While finding ways to establish common ground and keeping your emotions in order is efficient, relying on facts is crucial to staying on top of an argument.  You gain credibility and dominance of the issue if you employ solid information as your evidence. For example, the Eco Action Service Learning team promoted a smoke-free school, and while at first I failed to understand why anyone would support the removal of a “personal right”--as a team member put it--I agreed on a personal basis as the very same member offered facts: The number of cigarette butts found around campus infiltrated and tainted fresh groundwater, while second-hand smoke posed other students, particularly those suffering asthma, a number of health problems. The member also reminded of the campus’ luscious canopy, which posed a threat should a student drop a lit cigarette there.  The member gained support over the issue of a smoke-free school, by finding common ground with an audience that cared about the environment, kept her head leveled and open to any suggestions, thus attracting her audience’s attention, and concluded her ideas with useful and reliable evidence.