The Start of Things

Alas, the time has come. This blog and the articles herein contain works that I have spent many hours tweaking, refining and perfecting. While some might advise I should spend my time otherwise, this cathartic process many are inclined to call work has shown me how much I can do with just an ounce of creativity and a glass of juice. I have enjoyed myself tremendously, writing for everyone who has chanced upon them, and hopefully some of these pieces have offered you a little glimpse into the window of my thought processes. This blog is like a loyal friend, always there to publish whatever I had to say to it. It does not judge, nor tell me that I did not adhere to the rubric. Rather, it obligingly takes my works and shows it for all the world to see, in hopes that the people who come along their merry way might take away a little something. I have breached the various topics with a multitude of approaches, as it has always been an avenue for me to try the different styles of writing as I, along with all the other bloggers, attempt to develop our own style and carve our niche.

Maybe some already know where we are headed, some of us don’t. But for all of us, the journey is nonetheless a necessary one of self-discovery and realization, that we all have in us the ability to write, if only we would heighten our senses to the world around us and not be afraid of failure. Like Steve Garrison would say, moving from the familiar to the uncomfortable is the only way we grow, both as humans and as writers. As we begin to find ourselves and what we are passionate about, it is only then that we understand that all writing must come from the heart, and that it really is just a conversation between author and audience. This blog was an essential part of the creative energy cycle that feeds itself; reading what others wrote about greased the old memory cogs in the recesses of my mind and inspired me to write. While I may not always agree with my fellow writers, the respect that we had for each other and our individual quirks (and who can forget pet peeves) fostered a community of sorts, with healthy dialogue and comments populating communal discourse.

Like they say, all good things must come to an end. But maybe this is just a beginning for all of us; I know it is for me. I know this blog, and ILS for that matter, has sparked that childlike fascination in me, with the world and its never-ending source of questions the catalyst for endless ideas and topics to write about. Once in a while, someone or something comes along to give us a much needed kick in the behind, to get us off our laurels and out of our comfort zones, to shatter our rose-tinted glasses and push us to do something we never thought we could. For me, ILS and the blog was just that, and it will always be the source of all the good that is to come.

Language and the Enormity of Experience

The question initially provoked a simple response from me. I thought surely language, if wielded by an experienced enough author, could capture and contain the enormity of experience. That is why we have descriptors, tropes and schemes to paint a mental image and inspire the sensations that experience provides. Upon more thoughtful deliberation however, I realized that experience, like the word suggests, requires first-hand contact. On the contrary, language is inherently limited by the cultures, truths and notions held by its creators.

At the risk of sounding cliché, I have decided to resort to the example of love. Maybe it is such a basal emotion that everyone feels, but I am certain that all who have experienced love whether from family or from their partner can attest to the oft indescribable feelings it stirs in them. Language attempts to capture all of it, but often falls short of describing the subtle intricacies that you experience when you are in love. Granted, language can only go so far as to give us a vague idea of what the experience truly is; it is much like a sign post, pointing you in the right direction and clueing you in on what to expect, but never quite completely capturing the experience itself. Being at the scene of it all does not only create a visual or auditory image, it stirs your very soul.

Take skydiving for example. It is not really that hard to imagine how such an event would unfold, given that we have seen much of it on the television. Using language however might bring to mind the whole sensation of free falling, the wind rushing past you as you hurtle toward what would be certain doom, if not for the chute in your backpack. You notice how small everything is from up above, and the fear that might grip you. Stand in the doorway of a plane before taking that first step however, and it will be a totally different thing altogether. Language might try to describe the sensation to you, but you will definitely see skydiving in a whole new light once you experience it yourself. Like many always say, “you have to try it yourself because I cannot even begin to describe it to you.” Our mind and capacity for thought is very much bounded by our experiences; if we never truly experience it, we might fool ourselves into thinking that we understand the sensation, but it never is the case.

As a speaker of English, Mandarin and some Asian dialects, I have discovered how the very nature of language can limit the experiences it can accurately convey. In Mandarin, idioms which consist of 4 characters are commonly used to convey complex ideas quickly and intuitively. However, the English language is unable to replicate such phrases, and must resort to breaking down an idea into its components. On the contrary, there exist words in the English language that Mandarin does not have any characters for, many of which are more complex emotions. Thus, I have come to realized that language can sometimes be intrinsically limited by its origins and may not be able to convey certain ideas, let alone experiences. They are an integral part of life, possessing the ability to change and shake us to our core, whilst language is merely a tool that complements it, priming us on what to expect, but never quite capturing the enormity of it.

Language Limitations

Our lives have been filled with experiences. From the moment our lives began we have been seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, and doing things. Life is full of experiences; they are never-ending and always happening. Even if you are simply sitting on at a desk bored out of your mind you are living an experience. Everyone’s experiences are different and personal, and it is because of this that language, no matter how sophisticated, will never be able to capture the entire picture of the lives we live.
Think about a time where you had a feeling that you couldn’t put into words. You know what happened and how you felt, but there weren’t words even close enough to describe the event to even yourself. Whether it was a feeling of extreme loss, joy, surprise, or accomplishment you had to “tone down” the experience to fit into a category defined by language. It was only after you put this experience into a category, predetermined by the boundaries of our language, that you could comprehend what happened and transmit that feeling or thought to other people.
Despite the fact that our lives are an amazing composition of events, feelings, and emotions, the capacity of our language defines how we view the world. Take for example the variation between a horrible moment and an exciting, happy moment. When something happens in our life there is a scale between these two feelings, and this scale possesses an infinite number of levels. However, because language limits how we could describe a circumstance, the way we feel about a situation is limited to a relatively small number of increments. You might come home from work and tell your spouse, “I had a bad day at work.” The experiences at work that happened to define it as a “bad day” have a range. Without question, the reasons you had a bad day at work this week are different than the reasons you had a bad day at work last month; however, due to the limitations set upon us by language both days and both experiences were interpreted as bad. We can try to be more descriptive with our words and stories, but the range of feelings associated with experiences, which in theory are infinite, are actually categorized into distinct levels depending on the words we have to describe them.
It is for reasons like this that language will never capture the enormity of experience. Our lives are so diverse and eventful that it would be impossible to invent a language that is able to capture and describe each and every one of our experiences. This language would not be understood by all members of a society; it would only be understood by the individual who lived the life the language is designed for. Language helps us communicate with others, but in reality we are telling them something that is categorized, not specified. When we tell someone “I enjoyed the concert last night”, they adapt that to their own experiences, and truly will never know how you felt about the concert. Language limits our experiences to the boundaries created by it.

Goodbye

I just want to take this time and thank everyone who took the time and interest to follow my personal blog on the Bascom Bloggers. Throughout the duration of the semester, I was instructed to share my personal thoughts and opinions about rhetoric and the use of language. The stages of the rhetorical situation – logos, pathos, and ethos – were the primary focus of this course. I learned how to appeal to the text, the audience and to myself as a writer all through the play of words and language. As the semester comes dwindling to a halt, I want to use this time, this opportune moment, to thank all of my followers for putting up with my thoughts and personal anecdotes. So I say, thank you and goodbye.

Will Words Suffice?

Language thrives throughout varying cultures as the primary form of communication. Not only does language exist in verbal form, but body language and written language flourish. As effective as language is, some instances occur where the use of language cannot capture the enormity of the experience.

No matter how brilliant of a writer a person is, there are some situations where you just have to be there. As a critique, most circumstances can be thoroughly explicated with the use of language, but the extent of some requires personal attendance in order to grasp the entirety of the picture.

From personal experience, I have had difficulty putting certain events into words. On the day of my father’s traumatic accident, I lacked the ability to form words to give that day justice. The feelings, emotions and thoughts running through my head like a rampant disease simply could not be expressed into words. I did not know how to craft my ethos to successfully portray my experience on the day of August 16, 2009. I felt that if I tried to argue my case, I would undermine the severity of the accident, so instead of telling my story, I kept it bottled up inside.

Other instances can be shared through an adequate use of language. Some people make careers out of doing just that. Journalists and novelists get paid to capture the essence of the experience and artistically paint a picture with words. The simultaneous use of logos, pathos and ethos makes for a picture perfect story.

Language has the ability to encapsulate the enormity of experience depending on the level of emotion of the certain experience. Some things, you just have to be there in order to understand it. However, some great writers and speakers have a gift where they can do just this. Their use of word choice and word order, diction and syntax, grasps the situation and clearly and vividly explains it. To truthfully represent an experience, the right person and correct language needs to be utilized to fully capture and narrate the situation.

Stop and Think

Today, public discourse has taken a tone that is by far too pathetic. Historically referred to as the melting pot, America now fails to evenly mix ideas that logically make since. Americans do not take the time or put forth the energy to evaluate news and choices they must make logically. In this modern technological era we try to simplify all life processes. This benefits us in several ways (no longer do we harvest grain by hand or have to start a fire every time we cook dinner), but unfortunately when it comes to public discourse this “ease-of-life” approach doesn’t always produces the most fair, accurate, and principled results.

I personally believe that pathetic fallacies have overtaken our rhetoric. We are continuously confronted with scare tactics, over simplified ultimatums, arguments portraying a slippery slope, band wagon pressure, Red Herring distractions, and sentimental appeals. Instead of putting forth the effort to logically discover a truth or persuade a truth we often find ourselves reacting and communicating on how we feel about an issue. We may not have good reason for that opinion, and if we do we often don’t explain it to others because we are too caught up in simply trying to get them to agree with it by provoking extreme, and often uncalled for, emotional investment into that issue. It amazes me that with the level of education American’s receive we still fail to carefully develop rhetoric. We also do not dissect what we hear and label it as either an acceptable or unacceptable argument.

The largest change to politics and life in general is that, unlike our Founding Fathers, we argue and do not compromise. Compromises laid the foundation for building this great nation. Today, instead of compromising different views we simply argue about them. What happens is that when we argue about an issue we fear that if we look at it logically we might be proven wrong. Perhaps our position on the argument is the correct one for the most part, but the other party’s position has some good qualities as well. People don’t want to argue logically because when it is proven that the other side has some positive input they are in a way proven wrong. Even if for the most part someone’s idea was correct, if they have to change one part of it to incorporate another person’s idea the original person will feel inferior or foolish that they didn’t think of that before. To prevent this type of self humiliation from occurring we choose to argue based solely on emotion. Emotion, unlike logic, cannot be proven wrong.

One example of avoiding logic to make an argument is the actions of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). They are a political activist group not associated with any local animal humane shelter that works to protect animal’s rights by trying to abolish modern agricultural practices. HSUS does have a more logical approach than PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), but they still fall victim to several pathetic fallacies. HSUS members are driven by emotion and few understand or have any logical scientific evidence to support their claims. If they do find research that they agree with it is typically blown out of proportion and not supported by various sources. They believe it is their right to protect animals. They are convinced that traditional methods of food production are much more animal friendly. They fail to acknowledge that in dairy farming, for example, new technologies and building designs that have been developed over the past decade provide more comfortable stalls bedded with over a foot of sand instead of a thin layer of straw, barns now allow the cows to roam freely amongst their pens that are typically over hundreds of feet long instead of being tied in their own stall all day, and that cows receive better health care (vaccinations and treatments for any diseases) than some human beings receive. Because arguments by the HSUS fail to logically recognize the improvements in animal husbandry and they preach using too much emotion, the arguments that do make since and should be addressed by the industry are not taken seriously. Those on the other side of the argument can be blamed for placing too much of an emphasis on emotion as well. When farmers are confronted with propositions by HSUS they don’t stop and think about how these “city slickers” could actually be providing them with useful advice. They immediately jump to the conclusion that any attack on the way their business is run is an attack on themselves, their family, community, and their industry. Some suggestions and movements by HSUS actually would cause more harm than good but some could be incorporated to improve farms. These two sides fail to combine their efforts in a positive way. They don’t compromise because that would cause them to realize they were wrong about some things. Instead of compromising they simply argue and cut down the other side’s intentions.

This is a common scenario in modern-day-America. We rely solely on emotion and ignore logic in our attempt to change the world. I believe it is time to stop, think, and use logic when making decisions.

What is considered too much?

Tiger Woods gets caught. Brittney Spears shaves her head. Lindsay Lohan enters rehab. The goal of today’s media is to reach its audience and evoke emotion. News updates, celebrity lives, sports stories all employ pathetic language. We enjoy listening to caddy drama and intimate details of the lives’ of the famous and journalists, news anchors, media personnel, authors, and politicians know this. Emotion sells.

For any story to be successful, emotion must be present. In order to reach the intended audience, they must be lured in by bait. The bait is emotional language. Most would agree that a mundane news broadcast would be dreadful to watch. As sad as it is, people are drawn to disaster and drama. You rarely hear any positive information on the news today. Everything involves scandal, devastating homicides, and terror. The connection: emotion. Take educational books for example. Why do most students refuse to read them and instead use Sparknotes to quickly finish the assignment? The books are boring. If they involved topics intriguing to that age group, students would have no problem reading the entire book as opposed to the first and last chapters of boring books. Old English communities are the last thing high school students want to read. For my Women’s Gender class, it was mandatory to read a novel about homosexuals. In each book, the main character was a gay woman suffering though some dilemma. In mine, the narrator was a immobile, handicapped feminist lesbian. The whole book detailed her sexual acts and experiences. It succeeded. It withdrew an emotion. Disgust. I was appalled that I had to read a book that went into that much detail. I will forever be scared for life. Another example is a lackluster gossip magazine. That is an oxymoron. The point of the tabloids is to inform people of the exciting, dramatic, scandalous lives of celebrities. People would not buy a magazine if the main article was “David Beckham Goes Shopping.” We want to see action. Him lying on a beach revealing a chiseled six pack would be a more appropriate choice and definitely generate more profit. Point being, people respond to emotion, but it must be an emotion appealing to them. The media understands this thus abusing it and overusing emotional appeal in the headlines.

A direct relationship between language and emotion exist and when combined, equate to communication. Pathetic languages involve language, emotion and communication and when perfectly deployed, create a popular story. Media messages attack this strategy. Sometimes the amount of emotion used is suitable however most times, too much is used. Some things should be kept private. How would you feel if every single aspect of your life was detailed in a newspaper headline? It would be frustrating. Everyone is entitled to a certain amount of privacy. There are even laws involving confidentiality, yet the media still seems to neglect to abide by the laws and reveal every personal story of every celebrity, athlete, politician, and etcetera.

Personally, I enjoy the gossip magazines, I guess making me a hypocrite, but I do sympathize for the persons featured. Today’s world revolves around pathetic language. In some ways, for example communicating with a good friend, a future employer at a job interview, or a loved one, utilizing emotion to reach your audience is a good thing. But when the media intrudes on the personal lives of the famous for our entertainment is crossing the line. Everyone is given the right to privacy, but sometimes that right is taken away and exposed and that is not right. The media overindulges in the use of pathetic language, making public discourse too pathetic in today’s society.

The Pathetic State of Things

Most would agree that across all forms of media, it seems that everyone has taken a more emotive approach to get their point across. We are bombarded with images of celebrities and their deplorable state of marriage, or a sports pundit’s outrage at a player’s move to another team. Whatever the case, it forms a quick and often strong connection with the audience, and the result is a trend of increasingly pathetic public discourse.

With the exception of a few thinkers and politicians who are worth listening to (regardless of their differing points of view), the middle have relegated themselves to the fringes. This majority of once-reasonable voices have instead launched into a diatribe that has destroyed all hope of a reasonable center, and they have taken over most of what we see and hear today. The lunatics, leftists, rightists, conservatives, liberals, conspiracy theorists, capitalists, anti capitalists, sports pundits, radicals, armchair fascists, and environmentalists (just to name a few) begin with a cloudy objective and repeatedly stab anyone who comes along with a contrarian view, stamping out any hope of reasonable public discussion. The victims themselves turn to the same tactics that is so widespread with the mantra “If you can’t beat em, join em!” Unfortunately, this only serves to aggravate the problem. In the end, the discussion is not about the conservation of our planet, or issues of national security, but rather, it is about denigrating your opponent with obscure “evidence” to incriminate him and support your cause. The result is two parties further convincing themselves that they are right and entrenching themselves in their beliefs.

It is not hard to see why society values people like Noam Chomsky, who relies on facts and logic to put his point across, not a saliva-spitting emotional outburst on television with a shocking/tragic image inserted for “good” effect. I must admit that the pathetic appeal is a very powerful tool; emotion often supersedes logic and is more likely to compel the audience to action. It is seemingly easier to wield than logic, for the latter requires careful research and irrefutable evidence. Divorced from civility, present day discourse is guided by restrictions forbidding things such as dependence on research, empirical figures, mutual respect, equitable studies, or objective introspection of one's own beliefs. Instead, public discourse celebrates wild accusations, condescending dismissals, name-calling, statements made with absolute certainty, and any opinion based on partisan bias.

Moreover, the medium of speech seem to catalyze the pathetic public discourse right now; blogs, text-to-television posts, forums and twitter feeds create an anonymous, less inhibited and less technical environment for discussion. It has now become a free-for-all melee of sorts, where anyone, regardless of the amount of thought you have put into your argument, can join in the “discussion. The alacrity in which material is spread through the medium also forces participants to come back with quick responses that are valued for their impact. What better and easier way to do so than with a pathetic appeal?

My gripe with the state of things is that public discourse norms seem to dictate that the only effective form of persuasion for all matters, big and small, is an emotional appeal. Unfortunately for us, nature has hardwired our emotions as an Achilles heel; the desire to help another at the sight of distress is an evolutionary adaptation that is constantly exploited by the media. In short, we just cannot help it.

When it comes to scientific research and articles, one can find a plethora of material offering verifiable results that are used to support completely different and even contradictory conclusions on what the research means. While science is all about facts, the accuracy of "scientific fact" is often not open to principled, research-based disagreements. There are numerous opinions and interpretations that proffer no scientific value; crackpot theories, unstated agendas, political pressures, personal rivalries, and studies conducted (or commonly quoted and cited by amateurs) to confirm already-arrived-at results are among many of the factors that taint supposed "facts." Take for example the topic of global warming. Though most would agree that mother earth is on the verge of irreparable damage, there exists a camp that claims otherwise. They rattle on, most with little or wildly misinterpreted research about the “deception”, “lies” and how our energy conservation steps are part of “one big hoax”. While the veracity of this argument is outside the scope of this discussion, the plain and simple fact is that unsubstantiated claims lose all credibility especially in an empirical field like science.

The political arena is another aspect where emotional appeal is repeatedly exploited. In Singapore, reports about Obama’s performance from pundits were an everyday affair in the papers. While there is a natural inclination for attention to be directed toward the new American president, many of the concerns raised were so ridiculous they were almost irrelevant. Coming to America, I literally stepped into a firestorm of questions about his religion, loyalties, racial views and even his birth certificate. Emotions were so frequently part of the public discourse that it soon degenerated into controversy of formerly mundane presidential activities. Who could forget the teleprompter incident at Graham Road Elementary School and the inquiry over his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize?

It is immediately apparent that rather than doing the serious work required to put forth a logical argument, it is so much easier to deal with differing opinions by attacking those who hold them. Rather than according ideas with facts and reasonably interpreted data that take time to research, it is so much easier and more convenient to brand others with pejorative labels, calling them frauds, liars, politically motivated hypocrites, first world elites and the like, all in a bid to make a quick comeback. However, such insults are not fair, accurate or principled, and are more juvenile than thoughtful. They do nothing to advance an argument and their sole purpose seems to be making the ones spewing them feel better about themselves – which must be the point, since that really is the only thing accomplished.

"Lah, Leh, Lor"

The article by Geoff Nunberg delves on the topic of linguistic pet peeves. He casually introduces some commonly misused words, phrases and notions that both he and many other writers have regarding the English language. He appears to take a moralistic stance toward the whole issue, as he opines that we have no right to mar the language with our incorrect use, owing to the fact that the English language was here longer than the present day world.

As individuals, we all harbor our own set of personal and idiosyncratic annoyances. It can result in minor displeasure, or escalate into sheer rage if left unchecked. Often, language misuse is one of those things that drive people absolutely batty. An aversion to certain words might be the result of being chided publicly when young for incorrect usage and likewise, a preference for words can be the result of a stronger memory trigger in an individual, hence leading to a greater ease of recall. We begin with a definition of “peeve”, which is something that is particularly irritating or annoying. It is considered a relatively recent word though it originates from the 14th-century word, “peevish,” meaning disagreeable or unpleasant in demeanor (source: Wikipedia).

Pet peeves are a very personal issue that may not always have a root (even to the “peeved”); it often seems illogical to everyone else who does not share it. As a result, there is a large variety of pet peeves, ranging from the usual overuse of words like “I think”, to the more eclectic, like starting a sentence with “Again”. Pet peeves in word choice are similar to pet peeves in grammar usage, thus giving rise to the term, grammar Nazi. However, I believe grammar is more like a set of rules which do not change; this is as opposed to vocabulary and words which constantly evolve with the ebb and flow of time, culture, and beliefs. This consequently gives rise to new (and inevitably, archaic) meanings of words.

Moreover, given the widespread influence of the media, incorrectly used words can be spread virally. Social networks, internet forums and advertising exacerbate the damage on the English language with the use of stereotypes and misconstrued meanings. Take for example the word “chauvinism”. It originated during the time of Napoleon, and was used to characterize people who wildly estimated the excellence and importance of their own country while denigrating others. Following this, female activists in 1970 coined the term “male chauvinist” to label people who considered women inferior to men. Unfortunately, this was the context in which many people encountered this term, thus leading them to believe that this was the origin of the term without understanding its broader meaning. “Chauvinist” was soon a synonym for “sexist”, and still continues to be used like so today.

That said however, I believe that words which have altered meanings are not all that bad. They may not mean exactly what they did however many years ago, but the evolution of language is necessitated by the zeitgeist of times, and I am all for it. While the logos at work here clarifies some glaring mistakes in modern day English, the pathos helps maintain a flow throughout the essay, as readers find the article engaging. However, taking it at such a superficial level would be missing the point; Professor Nunberg’s approach to the whole issue appears contemptuous. For example, he talks about the adverb “gingerly”, where he declares that “I can take a quiet satisfaction in knowing that I’m marching to a more logical drummer than the half billion other speakers of English who haven’t yet cottoned to the problem”. Surely if these half a billion people had knowledge of their error, most of them would choose to correct it. Just because someone else is using a word incorrectly, that does not make one more logical than the other. This Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy devalues the author’s argument on the issue. Moreover, the comment by Pedantic Puffery that “oblivious to” could mean “lacking knowledge or awareness” further buttresses my point. If there comes a time where mistakes are made in the English language, education, not contempt, will always be the answer to this problem.

My personal pet peeves are words and phrases that are bombastic, and unnecessarily lengthy. For example, we have all heard “The fact of the matter is...” and “The point I wish to make is….” The use of flowery language likely stems from the image that the author wishes to project to his audience, and often, it is one of intellect. We are a society drowned in unnecessary words, circular constructions, and frilly jargon as it is fairly common for people to mistake length and clutter for intelligence. Being concise takes effort, but once we get over the notion that quantity is better, society will be better off.

Generally, I have a preference for words that take me a long time to understand, only because I frequently turn to them for practice. For now, “zeitgeist” is one of them, while “hitherto” is something I am having difficulty with. Also, coming from Singapore where we have developed our own English-based creole known as Singlish (Singapore Vernacular English), I find myself having to switch to American English to save myself from blank stares from the locals here. The use of Singlish back in my home country is a hot-button topic as it has been accused by critics that it denigrates the English language, and causes the young to lose the ability to compete on a global scale with their poor mastery of English. Back home, “lah”, “leh” (pronounced lay) and “lor” (pronounced law) pepper my speech as I code switch between Singlish and English based on the various situations. This is imperative as trying to speak in grammatically correct sentences whilst shopping at a market will draw disdained stares from everyone; your cavalier behavior will undoubtedly earn you the title of haughty upper-class person. In short, the author-audience relationship is an important factor to consider in your use of language. Before we write or speak, it is important that we understand the context in which we are doing so, and our audiences’ background, whether geographically or culturally. Sometimes it might be helpful to be understood, instead of being right.

Professor Nunberg’s article on linguistic pet peeves overlooks the fact that words frequently take on new meanings, and his moralistic and contemptuous stance toward its constant evolution only devalues his argument. Nonetheless, he does raise the salient point on the proper use of the English language when it comes to speech and writing, which I feel will always be important in formal writing.

(For those interested, “lah” is the ubiquitous Singlish tag, used like a full stop in a sentence. “Leh” is yet another Singlish tag, similar in usage to “lah” but adds a quizzical tone to the sentence. “Lor” on the other hand, acts as a tag that adds a slightly resigned or cynical tone to the sentence.)

Sentiments of Rhetoric

Geoff Nunberg effectively diagnoses different linguistic pet peeves in his article “’Equation,’ ‘Gingerly’ And Other Linguistic Pet Peeves.” Everyone has a certain word or phrase that negatively stands out to them and sounds like nails on a chalkboard. For Nunberg, the words “oversimplistic” is the definition of “simplistic,” so he sees no point in adding “over.” Utilizing rhetoric, more specifically Logos, the author breaks down his numerous pet peeves and explains the logically reasoning behind it. For example, using the word “gingerly” as an adverb is ridiculous because there is no corresponding adjective. Nunberg goes on to agree that over the years, the English language has changed. Words now have different meanings and usage than they did in the past. Culture shapes the way people use different words or sayings. Naturally, words changed with time. Sometimes words are compounded to sentences based on their appealing sound. It may not fit correctly in the phrase based on meaning, but it sounds correct to put it there. Kingsley Amis for example feels like it is incorrect to say “I was oblivious to the noise” but to me, this sounds like a proper sentence. Amis believes oblivious can only mean “forgetful,” but in this context, I think the word can be substituted for “unaware.” Most people would agree with me because when you look oblivious up in a dictionary, the words unaware, unconscious, unmindful, ignorant and insensible come up, but the word forgetful is not present.

Wording of sentences can also change its meaning. I agree with Nunberg when he explicates that “I made no money last year, I had to live in a dilapidated shack with a dirt floor with 10 other people” does not make sense. In today’s culture, people usually speak more casually than they talk, so when said aloud, this sentence sounds correct. However, the word “made” should be replaced with “earned.” The technical definition of the sentence “I made no money last year” means that one literally did not make any money, as in the sense of perhaps baking. You didn’t cook up or produce any money. Swap out made and insert earned and the sentence completely transforms into the version meant to be said. “I earned no money last year” confirms the fact that you are poor and explains the fact that you are living in a decrepit, dirty shed with multiple roommates.

Logos is the rhetorical technique that breaks down the text to find the logic and reasoning behind it. In every example which he presents, Nunberg first rationalizes his thoughts and then uses proofs and linguistic structures and definitions to logically explain why a certain word or phrase do not equate within one another.

All while incorporating the use of Logos, the main point of his article, “’Equation,’ ‘Gingerly’ And Other Linguistic Pet Peeves,” is to reveal how language establishes a connection with the audience. For the most part, the contents of this article stand true in the minds of the readers. While I read this, every time Nunberg gave another example, I completely agreed with him. Everyone has their certain pet peeves in writing and language. Mine are when people use “literally” to begin, add to, or end a sentence. There is not point to that word other than to sound absolutely annoying. A popular trend this year was to shorten normal words and just use their abbreviation in a sentence. I blame texting, IMing, Emailing and the overuse of technology. I cringe when someone says “dec” instead of decent. It is not a long word. Say the whole thing! With that, people think they are so cool when they say “legit” in replace of legitimately. Don’t get me wrong, I have said it too, but there are some people who say it as a substitute for “okay,” “sounds good,” “alright” and so on, and after two or three “legits,” you want to rip your hair out.

Nunberg’s validations of his pet peeves belong to Pathos, or emotional appeal, to the rhetorical situation. He uses logical to explain why they bother him and the reasons the words are grammatically incorrect, but his own personal opinions are the sentiments used to rapport with the audience.

The knowledge of Logos, Pathos and Ethos have aided and improved my understanding of rhetoric and the way language works. Before, I just thought people write to write and the entire prose was the author’s feelings. Now, I understand that an article is not solely consisted of emotions, but also logical reasoning and ethics as well. Geoff Nunberg successfully describes the list of his many pet peeves in writing by making use of all aspects of rhetoric to sell his audience on his personal thoughts and opinions.

Tricky Balance

Drake Bennett’s article sheds light on an intriguing topic that few of us have ever previously considered. We know, and at times even proclaim, we are lazy people and that we search for the easy path. However, the power of our lazy, or more appropriately, efficient, mind truly shapes how we view and react to the world around us. Rhetoricians can use this knowledge of cognitive fluency to carefully present an argument.
The key is finding a happy medium between cognitive fluency and disfluency, utilizing the best characteristics of both worlds. A fluent and easy to interpret statement provides several benefits. First, it makes the statement seem more familiar. By staying away from confusing word choice or format the statement will enter a person’s mind with ease. If someone has to really focus and think about what is being read or heard they will most likely conclude it is a challenging topic. Also, if they are presented a new format for something the brain must first decipher the layout of the piece and then it can focus on the written work itself. I know that I notice this problem whenever I open up a new text book. Each book is formatted in its own unique way. One might have the key words in bold and their definition placed within the reading itself, while others have them in the margins of the page or in the glossary in the back of the book. The fact that the formatting is different forces my mind to learn how to appropriately navigate through the text and become familiar with the layout before I am able to solely focus on the written information. If books were designed in a more familiar and fluent manner I would be able to focus on the reading material and learn what the text presents without being first confused and sidetracked by the awkward layout. Another example of the importance of cognitive fluency in text books is the word choice used by authors. All too often the topic of interest seems complicated simply because the author fails to write the book in more layman’s terms. Obviously the challenging read increases the brain’s ability to read and grow, but it would help a student understand the material better if, after the complicated jargon was used, there was a paragraph simplifying it. The paragraph might be used to explain it in less confusing words or to take a different, more easily interpreted, approach to teaching the material. I know personally that authors of text books who do conclude each section by simplifying the contents help me to go back and understand the, what at first seemed like challenging, material better.
Cognitive fluency may seem all fine and dandy but too much of it can create for a sterile and non-thought provoking environment. That is where the balanced use of disfluency comes into play. Elaborating on the first example above, what would be worse than each text book being unique is if each were exactly formatted the same. Yes, there would be great familiarity with them and the brain would know exactly what it is looking at, but there would be no thought provoked. Going from one text to the next would not be so noticeable and the brain would combine the subjects and not be able to separate what was learned reading one text book from what was learned of a different subject. Also, reading would become extremely boring because each and every page would look the same. Words would have less meaning due to their alikeness. By utilizing some disfluency authors help to make their work attractive, distinguishable, and thought provoking.
I agree with the author’s explanation of how cognitive disfluency can promote thought and critical thinking. If things are too similar and predictable the brain does not pay as much attention to them. We often forget days that we simply woke up, went to class, work, and studied. However, the days were there was some sort of disfluency we remember easier. Days where events are different stick in our mind because we think about the situations more and share stories about it with our friends and family. Disfluency can be used effectively to ‘spice things up’; however, over using disfluency and unfamiliarity confuses readers. As stated in the article strange fonts cause people to interpret the information as difficult to understand. Writers should be aware of this fact. If someone creates a blog with strange and unpopular font it is unlikely to become popular because readers want a sense of familiarity when they read. A disfluent and unfamiliar font causes the brain to uncomfortably have to interpret this and get used to it. This can be related to why people fear change. Changing situations and policies are often opposed due to the fact that they present a sense of risk and uncertainty. People do not know what to expect out of these new situations, this challenges the brain to work hard to predict possible outcomes. The brain would much rather know from past experiences what is most likely to happen in a particular situation. Discovering a comfortable balance between cognitive fluency and disfluency in our writing proves critical for its successful impact.
The author discussed the positives and negatives associated with cognitive fluency or disfluency, but he failed to engage in just how important the balance between them is. In the field of marketing this balance is crucial. Product names, slogans, and logos need to be simple enough so the consumer is not overwhelmed by their complexity. By creating a simple name or memorable slogan there is a higher chance the customer will find that product familiar and pleasing. If they see a familiar, and thus comfortable, logo that is most likely the product they will purchase at the store. A strange logo that is not understood will challenge the brain and give off a feeling of discomfort to the potential consumer and that product will stay on the shelves while the more generic and cognitively fluent product will be purchased. The balance cannot lie too far to the cognitive fluent side however. In marketing the idea is to get people to look at your product, stop and think about it, maybe talk about it with friends or family, and purchase the merchandise. If there is too much cognitive fluency this will not happen. By utilizing what we know about cognitive disfluency, a marketer can design a slogan or logo that will catch the consumer’s eye. They might stop and think about a certain product they never planned on buying because there is an amount of uniqueness to it. Interest is created and thought is sparked through using a cognitively disfluent approach. But if the product is too strange or has an extremely complex name that is not understood it will be bypassed for a more comforting and familiar designed product.
This balance comes into play in politics as well. When a candidate is running for office he or she needs to come across as a common, well understood American, and at the same time needs to seem educated and create public awareness and analysis. Using an extremely fluent approach in a campaign would have the benefits of looking like an average citizen. This could help gain trust compared to someone that uses a fancy, unique campaign that seems disfluent and different. Perhaps where the need for fluency comes into play most is in the candidate's name. Think about this last presidential election; the two final candidates where McCain and Obama. They were simple, short, and easy to pronounce. The fact that their names were simpler and easier to think about than, Huckabee, for example, lead voters to feel more comfortable giving them their support. An extremely simple campaign slogan might relax voters and help them support you, but too simple would not help your name or campaign promises stick in their head. There has to be some confusion through cognitive disfluency so that voters talk about you and the media analyzes what you say. If you are well understood the media won’t spend countless hours trying to break down and decipher your plans. Obviously, before any campaign starts it is crucial that everyone on the team knows what type of balance between cognitive fluency and disfluency will be used.
This article was the first time I have ever given thought to such a simple, yet influential, topic. People in various sectors of business and politics should be inclined to learn as much as they can about the dramatic impact of cognitive fluency. Their findings will be used to propel them into more prosperous and respected careers. Everyone needs to develop their own balance between cognitive fluency and disfluency to best utilize the resources around them.

Easy = True?

Being a facts and figures junkie, this article speaks to me on many different levels. For one, it serves to solidify my understanding of Logos - from a theoretical aspect to a more practical one. It connects the dots that have been placed in the last couple of weeks at ILS class, whereby we have mainly focused on more abstract concepts. Moreover, it opened my eyes to the whole idea that virtually everyone trying to sell something to me, whether via promotion in person or via advertisement, taps into Logos (and most definitely Pathos and Ethos, though that is out of the scope of this discussion) in an attempt to sway me.

In working through the writing assignments during the Logos phase, I’ve come to realize that many aphorisms chosen by my fellow students are constructed with simple words by their authors. Clever permutation of simple words allows authors to create more complex structures and convey multiple ideas. As such, I’ve noticed that the benefit of an author’s use of accessible language is twofold – one, to reach out to a larger audience, and two, to ensure that it “sticks” with readers.

A particular finding which struck a chord with me talks about how fluent things are familiar and comfortable. As an international student, I often crave simple, Chinese food. The very taste of my carbohydrate staple back home, plain white rice, is something that I have to go back to once every week. Potatoes and pasta just don’t fill me up like white rice does. That also probably explains why grandma’s brownies and mom’s apple pies always taste so good.

As we have dealt with much theory over the past couple of weeks, a real-life example of Logos in action definitely helped to sensitize me to the whole idea of the “science” of persuasion. It all started to make sense – semantic value, word choice, diction level, schemes, word order, arrangement and syntax, all had a place in every aspect of our lives. Think about it, our everyday conversations with people, advertisement, literally everything we see and hear goes through the whole process of rhetorical figure. What is ultimately transmitted strongly defines our emotions, thoughts and actions. Such is the moving power of rhetoric.

The article got me thinking, why do college students choose to do chapter summaries? Well, with thorough revision of the material, they are able to better sort and compartmentalize the information into simpler, more organized pieces. What was previously a spew of information in the textbook has now become a useful, coherent flow of ideas. It is always through this flow of digesting dense information, breaking it down into an understandable format that processing really begins. The same concept applies to language.

Unfortunately however, the notion most commonly conveyed nowadays is that intelligent people speak in complicated prose. It seems desirable to speak in flowery language, where only a select few, if any, can understand. Our society is conditioned to believe that people whose opinions are more intricate, more complex, more multi-faceted are smarter than those who communicate in clear and intelligible thought. Culture often associates simplicity with ignorance. It is most certainly not a good thing if someone calls you a simpleton.

Despite what we are all led to believe, I feel that people who over-complicate things are not necessarily more intelligent. On the contrary, they may be less experienced, more confused and lack the mental flexibility to grasp the material in different ways.

Therefore, enlightened is the person who can take a complicated issue and express it clearly in simple terms.

In conclusion, I feel that the article by Bennett is a useful piece in giving just one of the many real-world examples of how rhetoric is so pervasive in our lives. It reinforces my understanding of the integral part that Logos plays in expressing a thought and putting forth an argument. After all, who doesn’t want to sound convincing?

First Hand Witness

Sitting with my dad, brother, and some of our employees just three rows up along the first base side of the diamond I anxiously waited for the warm-ups to conclude and the game to start because for the first time that season I was able to enjoy the game surrounded by forty thousand other screaming and passionate fans as we cheered on the Crew in hopes of a thrilling victory; today I wouldn’t have to just hear Bob Uecker’s hall-of-fame voice call the game over the Brewers Radio Network while I tilled the soil or just watch it on FSN Wisconsin while play-by-play announcer Brian Anderson passionately called the game with color analyst and former Major League catcher Bill Schroeder, but I could first hand watch the action as Yovani Gallardo went through the windup to throw an opening pitch breaking ball that just caught the black and fooled the batter into looking at strike one, and I could hear the batter up song as the left handed hitting Prince Fielder marched towards the batter’s box with hopes of adding another RBI to his yearly total, and, if the first eight innings went as planned, I could hear and feel the sound as Hells Bells rang loud enough for the neighboring community to hear while Trevor Hoffman trotted onto the field to close out a win in the ninth inning of another Brewers’ victory!

Home Run

I’m not sure what possessed me then, but it was just one of those dog day afternoons when I decided not to take the big old red bus; I sprinted across the road briskly, past the rows of swanky restaurants, malls and offices thronged with a sea of well dressed professionals, along the row of shop houses that were overflowing with the delightful scent of saffron and cinnamon, through the empty soccer pitch strewn with tawny leaves and onto a sturdy stone bridge that towered above the bustling highway, leading me to a narrow, helical staircase which I bounded up, inadvertently brushing past a weary old man hobbling with a hefty load of newspapers; Sorry I say, it is just one of those days, and I earnestly burst through the wooden door, only to step into the quietness and eventual realization that once again, I was alone.

8/16/2009

Arriving at the scene the victim was no where to be found, but his bike, a Suzuki 1200 Bandit S, was totaled, practically unrecognizable laying motionless on the jet-black asphalt (battered by the overturning motion of the flying motorcycle and resembled a golf course with divots more than it did a road) and sat on the edge of a subterranean ditch, a ditch my family and I passed about a million times every day since our thirteen years on North Birchwood Lane, a subdivision so secluded from the outside world not even the delivery boys know where to find; it used to be a peaceful ditch, where deer and squirrels merrily pranced and played, but ever since that dreadful day, I pass by the ditch on Pioneer Road and shudder and hyperventilate and break down because the last time I closely gazed upon that ditch, my father was laying in it.

He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. – Confucius

Today, thinking and learning are considered positive habits but rarely have the both of them been collectively emphasized. While schools generally encourage students to think for themselves, the process of learning new material and getting the grade devalues the thought process that is quintessential in development. This topic of learning and thinking is often the subject of the maxim that many great thinkers delve on. One would be hard-pressed to think that someone back in the day could come up with a saying that rings ever so true even today.

Flashback to 551 BC. Confucius – thinker, philosopher and educator whose influence on Chinese history has been compared with that of Socrates and Aristotle.

Preferring silence over the utterance of scholarly prose, Confucius chose his words with due caution. One would think that spending a highly contemplative life would lead to the procurement of much knowledge, and quite rightfully so. Over the years, he has been cited and parodied for his sayings and words of wisdom. He founded the Confucian school of thought that centered upon the pillars of how one should live their lives and interact with the world around them.

Among his library of works, I have chosen this aforementioned aphorism as I feel that it captures the whole learning process succinctly – the very reason why we are here in college (and ILS for that matter) - so that we learn to think, and as Confucius will concur, think to learn. He purports that they are not mutually exclusive, linear processes. But rather, they are ongoing, and seamlessly transition into each other. For an education to be considered successful, thinking and learning have to be part of a continuous two-way process.

Confucius never limited his choice of students or audience, evident in his overarching choice of words. This broad appeal unconsciously prompts readers to “think” and “learn”, and the mere mention of these two verbs catalyze the thinking and learning process. Upon reading the blog title, you might find yourself pondering its true meaning, maybe you might begin reading up on Confucius, his teachings, philosophies, analects and I am certain that you might find something within to apply to your own life. Therein lays the effectiveness, and beauty, of the quote.

Like many Confucian sayings, the inductive logic at work holds more substance to this saying than there appears to be. While the message is clear, its implicit meaning holds substantial truth and gradually unraveling its layers will reveal a deeper significance.

Principally, thinking and learning does not refer to getting an education alone. If someone is a good thinker and learner, does he mean he is learned and educated? Perhaps Confucius meant to cover more bases than we initially thought. Though society has generalized notions that these terms refer to getting an education and in a very loose sense of the term, “academically intelligent”, I believe being a good thinker and learner can also apply to other aspects of our lives, say for example, physical intelligence. Any athlete can tell you about the mental fortitude and perceptiveness it takes to outwit and outplay their opponents on the field. Being able to self correct, pick apart weakness and ultimately win, involves a great deal of thinking and learning, both on and off the pitch/court/field. A seamless flow between these processes is ideal; one cannot exist without the other. They enforce each other to create a snowball effect that leads to the stimulation of cognitive activity, generation of creative ideas and the stimulation of analytical and evaluative skills.

Being lost conjures the image of lacking a compass, intellectually, morally or spiritually. To learn without thinking means the absorption of knowledge without reflection; to be a passive absorber, much like a sponge. Without actively ruminating and making sense of what is before us, we do not have a perspective on it, and we are thus lost. From any existing body of information that is presented to us, we have the capacity and opportunity to churn out new ideas and share these with the world. The ability to analyze gaps in knowledge, fallacies, assumptions, stereotypes, strengths; such is the power of the human intellect. If we merely absorb the knowledge (which might mean learning to some, but definitely not to me) without actively thinking about it, the information is lost on us. The whole point of learning is to gain something useful, but it will only be so if we think, discuss, and form opinions about it.

To be in great danger, as Confucius puts it, is to jeopardize one’s life or career, whether working or academic (just to name a few). For example, college students would be at the danger of failing their exams if they simply answered essay questions based on what they thought, without being able to explain with concrete evidence and facts they are supposed to have internalized from material during the course of their learning.

For a more literal interpretation of being in danger, I shall begin with a question, “Why do we have laws?” If there weren’t any laws to govern us, there would be complete anarchy and chaos (literally, great danger). People would act impulsively and there would surely be much display of unrestrained behavior. Having laws keep people in check; we learn about the law at an early age, and are assimilated into society to think in a certain lawful way so that there would be order and peace.

Everyone has the capacity to think and form their own opinions, but our points of view are baseless without some sort of foundation, and this is where the knowledge we learn come in. Facts, theories, evidence, case studies and knowledge that we pick up in books and in school help to buttress our opinions. They are anchors to our thoughts. We must always be able to justify our reasons/thoughts with some form of logic. It would be hard to get by otherwise because it is the linchpin of society. Should we choose to think without learning or vice versa, society and man are doomed.

Reading through the phrase quickly, one would get the idea that there is repetition involved. However, clever permutation of his subjects (thinking and learning) and consequence (being lost and in great danger) provide suitable juxtapose of structures in both sentences. It turns both sentences in on themselves and with only a seemingly minor change, this stirs the want in the reader to give it another pass. The reader is rewarded this second time around with a more logical understanding of the whole idea. Along with this, a second pass yields a different and deeper meaning, reinforced by Confucius’s employment of concise words which forces the reader to contemplate his intended meaning. It is useful in this scenario, as it creates a pensive mood, which I believe is the intended effect. In essence, a simple and ingenious play of words and structure help create the very act of thinking and learning, playing right into the author’s assertion.

Its uncomplicated choice of words and epigrammatic structure distill the very essence of Confucian thought and philosophy. How thinking should not exist without the learning, and how both aspects are interdependent. The beauty of this timeless aphorism lies in its simplicity and cleverness, and it is a maxim that I feel everyone should always have at the back of their minds.

Without the will to prepare...

Without the will to prepare the desire to win means nothing.

Embedded, not so deeply, inside each and every human being is the must win attitude. We can’t simply accept that another person could possibly be better than us. Whether the competition is academic, athletic, financial, or involves a relationship ‘I’ believe ‘I’ have to be victorious. However, this statement sends a stern warning to those who simply hope to excel at their particular activity; one fails to celebrate victory unless the proper preparation is carried out.

We can hope, dream, and desire to achieve a goal all day long, but if we lack the motivation, passion, and will to prepare ourselves to reach our goal the desire to win means nothing. In eleven simple words this maxim sums up what coaches, teachers, parents, and employers want their pupils to have engraved in their mind. This maxim is not ground shattering news. It simply states a truth we have known for millenniums. Despite the fact that everyone knows it takes focus, determination, and work to reach the pinnacle of any dream we try to achieve our success by putting in as little of that work and time as we believe we can sneak by with. The problem with this attitude is that we then ask ourselves, for example, “Why did I just receive a B in that class while Joe received an A?” The obvious answer lies in the fact Joe put as much time into studying as he needed to achieve success where ‘I’ did not. However, we commonly will try to avoid accepting that fact and try to spin the truth into blaming some other extenuating circumstance. We do not want to admit to ourselves that our own laziness caused our failure. If when striving to win or achieve goals we keep this maxim in mind we will stay focused on the correct path to success.

Using inductive reasoning this statement sends a clear message of how to avoid failure when trying to achieve success. It does not necessarily explain how to achieve the success, but says how not preparing results in no real chance of success. Taking the small and focused statement, without the will to prepare, we are exposed to the broad truth that the desire to win means nothing. By just failing to accept the specific fact that we must work hard and prepare to win, everything about winning (even our desire to win) means nothing because it won’t come true. Inductive reasoning is essential to making this maxim meaningful because it demonstrates that by skipping one step (albeit an important one) in the process terminates the entire chance of winning.

The presentation of this statement is strait forward. No fancy clues, no analogies, and nothing has to be assumed in order to understand it’s in depth meaning. It avoids humor because it portrays an essential message. Without the will to prepare the desire to win means nothing neither overstates nor understates the importance of its meaning. This statement could be considered a coaches best friend because it targets the problem (not wanting to prepare), and it shows that unless this challenge is overcome the hope of success will not mean anything.

The one thing that ties this maxim together is the structure, most notably the first and last words. Both without and nothing are extreme words. They do not describe or allow for an intermediate opinion. The placement at the beginning and end of such clearly defined words magnifies the importance of preparation if one desires to win. These are the only two words in this statement that have such clearly defined and passionate meanings. With these two bold words capping off the statement, the more emotionally driven middle part injects feeling into the maxims reader. Will, prepare, desire, and win all mean something slightly different in each situation, but they trigger an emotional and heartfelt response. With these more vaguely defined words surrounded by intense, clearly defined words the structure helps support the message of this maxim. The presentation and the structure make this a clear-cut and strait forward message.

When analyzing the diction used I found that it was closely linked to the structure. There are no rhymes or extremely elaborate words used, but they all tie each other and the entire statement together. The word choice is similar to the overall impact of the statement which is plainly presented and clearly defined. The effect of this diction is that anyone who hears this statement should understand the importance of its meaning.

This maxim is original. Even though one could argue that a statement so simple and obvious should be considered a cliché I believe it is not because it is not as commonly repeated as the clichés our society loves. This statement greatly impacts anyone who hears it because it is original and yet means so much. The fact that we must face the challenge of preparation in order to even hope to win hits home with everyone.

We know that success does not come easy. People posses certain talents, but none of us can win what we set out for if we fail to work hard and prepare for the challenges that face us on our journey. This simple sentence carries so much meaning because it reminds us in a compact way that we must have will and determination to prepare if we hope to be considered a winner.

When Bad Things Happen to Good People

In every household, there exist certain sayings that light up the room. For example, my mom loves the phrase, “Buck up!” She usually utters it when I am down on myself, my dad is having a tough week at the office, or when my brother just got a bad mark on a test. My dad on the other hand, sticks to more comical remarks sucks as “How y’all doin?” or “Yeehaw maynard!” You see, his family first lived in Missouri, then reluctantly made its way up to Wisconsin, where people refrain from saying “y’all.” Now, however, my family lives by a more serious, more important saying: Bad things happen to good people.

On August 16, 2009 my life changed in a split second. My mom and I sat upstairs sorting my closet for college. My brother, like every sixteen year old, was at the local Sendik’s bagging groceries for nominal pay. My dad came up to let my mom and I know he was going for a quick motorcycle ride. Literally 3 minutes passed and my dad was back. He forgot to grab the movie we rented the night before. He was trying to be thoughtful and return it to the store so one of us didn’t have to, but my brother took it back on his way to work. I told this to my day while also modeling my mom’s old prom dress. He gave out a laugh and was on his way out again.

This is the part that begins to blur. Five minutes later, the phone rang. It was a random number so my mom tried to persuade me to let voicemail get it, but I had a gut feeling. I should answer this call. Scott Bergman. 262-673-2060. I will remember that name and number for the rest of my life. “Your husband has been hit on his motorcycle.” That’s all I had to hear before I started to hyperventilate. “Where is he? Where is he? Where is my dad!” I screamed.

“On the corner of Pioneer and I-43” Mr. Bergman answered.

“That’s a mile from our house! We will be there in two minutes!” I hung up the phone and my mom and I were out the door before I could even grab a pair of shoes. Thoughts were racing through my head. How am I going to find him? Who hit my dad? Is he going to be all right? I was so nervous because I saw my dad leave and I remembered that he did not have his motorcycle jacket on, the one with all the protective padding, for the first time ever. It was the first eighty degree day of summer, he was working outside all day and he was hot and wanted to take a quick ride to cool off. This jacket was his protection. If he didn’t have it on, how did he survive this crash?

My mom and I cruised down our road going a million miles per hour. We reached the intersection – no dad. I saw a minivan, a dented in SUV, but no Suzuki 1200 Bandit. Then I saw him. I was out of the car and at the bottom of the ditch before my mom even stopped the car. “DADDY!” My father was lying helpless in the ditch. He was conscious, breathing, lucid…

“I’m O.K. Jess. Daddy’s O.K. It’s just my foot.”

I looked more closely at him and his left foot was twisted, bent, turned around…not his normal left foot. He has an impeccable pain tolerance so he laid there and described what happened. He was driving down our quiet road, when a lady in her SUV made a left turn, not realizing he was right in front of her. She made a left turn and ran over MY dad. He tried to swerve and almost escaped. Three more inches would have done it. His bike went flying in the air, he landed in a ditch 200 feet away. A lady ran over my dad. How could someone do this?

If you know my dad, he is the safest driver on a motorcycle you will ever encounter. My brother and him would ride their dirt bikes as a hobby, but now Corey is sixteen and wanted to drive on the roads. My dad was always cautious with Corey and told him repeatedly, “You have to drive like you’re on defense. There are some inattentive drivers out there who will not notice you on a motorcycle, so you have to be on the lookout for these people constantly.” Like I said, he is the safest motorcycle driver you will find. His helmet that he was wearing that day saved his life.

Luckily the ambulance, five police cars and a fire truck arrived. Good thing too. If I had to wait another second at the scene, the unaware woman would have had my fist in her face. The paramedics loaded my dad into the ambulance and I rode with while my mom went home and locked up the house. The paramedic in charge told me my dad’s break was so severe it could possibly be an amputation. Amputation. Hearing the word just makes me shudder.

I stayed by my dad’s side, but he was air lifted to the best orthopedic trauma hospital. I am going to skip the gory details, but after long hard work, there was nothing else the surgeons could do for my father. Two days after the accident, they took my father’s foot.

It has been almost six months since my father’s accident and that day still haunts us. He has maintained such an optimistic outlook on life. Instead of thinking about what he doesn’t have, he remembers what he does: his life. It is miraculous that he survived the crash to begin with. When an SUV rams a motorcycle, the outcome is never this good. My dad’s life, my life and my family’s life will change forever, but it slowly improves as the months pass.

The small phrase, bad things happen to good people, never crossed my mind until August 16^th. We have always been such a privileged family. To this day we wonder why on Earth this happened to us. My dad wasn’t a crazy Harley owner who raced down freeways with a T-shirt and a do rag. Instead, he was a cautious driver, always wore his helmet and constantly was on the lookout for inattentive motorists.

Bad things happen to good people. A short, upfront sentence that presents its idea clearly. It doesn’t present the in a comical manner, nor does it understate or overstate it. The saying applies a serious tone that essentially achieves its entire meaning. Irony. This six word sentence ironically changed our life in an instant. One would assume that only bad things happen to bad people. However, in this scenario, a traumatic accident led to a dramatic life change for an amazing man and his entire family. August 16^th came and gone. We are not going to let a six letter saying paralyze our entire lives. Therefore we chose to live by another one of my mom’s sayings, one that picks us up on the cloudiest days: don’t let this tragic accident define who you really are.