Humorist's Role in Society

Alain de Botton asserts, humorists are a vital function in society because they are able “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” He is right in some ways because it is true that humorists are able to convey important messages that might be impossible for others to do so. However, he is quite mistaken when he states that humorist serves as a vital function to society.

Humorists, cartoonists, stand-up comics, satirical writers, hosts of television programs are all alike in that they can make fun of things or other people but they can get away with it. Humorists can get away with mocking an important figure or laugh at the government while others can’t because they aren’t serious. Comedians, humorists or satirical writers may sound serious when they are telling us the important message but many people will only brush it off as a joke. Because a humorist’s job is to tell jokes then the people won’t take it as a serious matter. Others can’t say the same message since they might be in danger if they said it because when other people say it the others would think that they are saying it as a serious matter. More people would think that he or she saying it is being serious and is denouncing someone or something. The only reason humorists can get away with conveying “impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly” is because most people wouldn’t take them seriously.

It is unlike what Botton has suggested that humorists are a vital role in society. Humorists can be said as people who tell jokes. If one were to think carefully at the purpose of the job of a humorists one would remember that their job is to tell jokes and entertain. Humorists are being listened to and being loved because they tell jokes that enlightens people. Humorists are not as important as Botton proposes because they cannot be taken seriously. Even if an important message were being conveyed through the mouths’ of humorists or cartoonists almost no one would take the message seriously because when it is said by a humorist the message is simply weakened. For example, the satire "On Laziness" written by Christopher Morley states that a person should be lazy because it will benefit them. Morley tells the readers that the lazy people are the ones who gets the benefits. The true message behind his satire is to tell the people not to be lazy; even though it is true that people shouldn't be lazy but will people actually listen to his true message? Because he told this message by being satirical it made is arguments weaker. He said it as though he really felt like people should be lazy. In fact, even if he was using a jockative tone to tell the audience that they should be lazy not much people would consider the message that he is actually conveying. When Morley tells us this message through a satire it weakens the message and the message will no longer be taken seriously. The same important message might be conveyed through the mouths’ of an important figure, such as the president of the United States, more people would take it seriously.

An important message must be conveyed under a serious matter or by someone serious in order for this message to get through the minds of the audience. A good example would be the book 1984 by George Orwell and the television show Spongebob. In the book 1984, George Orwell tries to tell us an important message. He tries to tell the readers that there are bound to be terrible things that will happen if we let a tyrant rule a society; in the book the tyrant, Big Brother, rules the by using Telescreen to spy on the citizens and posters that stares at you when you walk by. In Spongebob: Back to the Past, the same message is being conveyed in that the theme is the same; this episode of Spongebob tries to tell the audience that it is horrible for a tyrant to rule over a place because the tyrant will be a horrible person and just like the book 1984 the tyrant uses Telescreen and posters of themselves to watch over people. Even though both the cartoon and the book had the same message but the level of seriousness is different. Most if not all the people who read this book would take the message in the book seriously because it is written by George Orwell; the message is very strong in the book because it seems like the message that he sends across to the readers might be a possible future of the world. Whereas in Spongebob it wouldn’t be taken seriously at all because it is a cartoon and most people would think that cartoons don’t convey important messages because it is for kids and it is just for entertainment. Not only is the message weakened because it is a cartoon but also because it was told under an absurd situation; nothing can be more absurd than a talking starfish and a talking sponge. Depending on who or what is presenting the important message, the message can differ from being important or a practical joke.

Television/computer + couches=problems

Many people nowadays sit on their couches watching television once they get home from school for students and work for adults. Sitting on the couch watching television isn’t necessarily a bad thing but sitting on the couch for long hours is. When we were kids we were often told to go out and exercise because it is beneficial to ones health.  But some studies have shown that when a person has been sitting on the couch for a long period of time then even exercising won’t reverse the effects. People shouldn’t sit on couches for long hours because it causes health problems.

Day in and day out I have heard my mom and dad telling me to get off the couch and go exercise; they tell me that exercising is good for my health. Many times I have refused to listen because I am just too lazy which I am sure many others have the same thought as I do under the same circumstance. I would think that I get enough exercise from the time I spend in school from basketball training and from walking up and down the stairs to get to different classrooms. A lot of people rather sit on their couches than to go out and exercise because it’s too much work. Many people also think that if they exercise a few hours a week it can compensate their hours sitting on the couch but they are wrong.

According to the Journal of the American College Cardiology “the amount of leisure time spent sitting in front of a screen can have such an overwhelming, seemingly irreparable impact on one’s health that physical activity doesn’t produce much benefit.” It means, even if one did exercise a lot but they sat staring at a screen for too long the effects done by sitting for too long will be irreversible. During a clinical research on cardiovascular disease it found out “that those who said they spent two or more leisure hours a day sitting in front of a screen were at double the risk of a heart attack or other cardiac event compared with those who watched less. Those who spent four or more hours of recreational time in front of a screen were 50 percent more likely to die of any cause.” Sometimes exercising just won’t be enough to maintain a person’s health.

 Sitting on a couch and staring at a screen not only causes cardiac problems but also other health problems as well such as blood pressure. According to a research done in 2009 children who watch a lot of television have higher blood pressure than those who watch less even if they do exercise more. Not only is sitting on a couch dangerous but when we decide to stare at the television at the same time it will lead to more health problems. By watching more television or staring at a screen while sitting around people could potentially have health issues but at the same time if people watched less television and got off the couch there could be benefits.

Some people who oppose of this argument might say that if people exercised more each day then they can watch as much television as they want. However that is not true because some people are not willing to get off their couch and exercise and like I mentioned before, sometimes people watch too much television causing some health problems that are irreversible. It is true, however that by exercising people can become healthier. According to a study done about one year ago showed that if overweight adults simply cut their viewing time in half for three weeks used about 120 more calories a day than those who continued to watch television for five hours a day. By cutting their television time the adults were able to spend more time in light physical activities that burn their calories than watching television. It shows that the only thing preventing the television viewers from a health like is the time spent sitting on a couch and doing nothing that might burn their calories. If the viewers simply got up and moved around it wouldn’t cause as much problems but how many people are willing to do that? Some irreversible health problems like cutting the amount of time can prevent sitting on the couch spent on sitting and staring at a screen. If something can’t be cured then there is only one way to stop the health problems from happening which is to know the factors that causes it. People should stop spending long hours sitting on the couch because the effects might be irreversible. Sitting on the couch may be fun but like everything else, too much of a good thing is bad for you.

Sources: 

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/the-hazards-of-the-couch/?ex=1310533200&en=1e11b16ff92c1fc9&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=HL-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M184-ROS-0111-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E3D8113CF934A3575BC0A96F9C8B63&scp=15&sq=roni%20rabin%20TV&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/health/22regi.html?_r=1

http://100daysofhappy.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/couch-potato-cat.jpg

Anorexia Nervosa

I was looking at an article about eat disorders, the first thought that came to my head was that these people are probably too afraid to eat. So I went and searched up what it meant to have eating disorder and the what I found from Wikipedia was that it means a condition based on abnormal eating habits it can be either excessive or insufficient food intakes. As i kept reading the article i saw that a girl had anorexia. This is what i was thinking of when i saw the title of the article.
I went in deeper read about anorexia on the health guide section of the New York Times. I find it kind of sad how some people have these kind of eating problems, in my opinion i think this is caused by peer pressure. In society there are always people that are considered "abnormal" because they are somewhat different from us. Some people are afraid to gain the tinniest of weight because they are afraid they will be laughed at. I have seen people being laughed at just because they are slightly larger in size. So people try to lose as much weight as they can so they can fit in. Some people simply change their clothing styles to fit into society, which i find quite okay because they are not really doing any harm to themselves. Anorexia is a bigger problem because our body needs a certain amount of food to keep us healthy. True, we might gain weight because we eat but if we don't eat it will create a greater harm. I don't like to hear people saying how others are fat even when they have a weight which fall into the average weight of a teenager, they call them fat just because they are heavier than them. 
People should be themselves instead of trying to be like the rest of the world. If everyone tried to be normal than everyone would be the same. People would think only a certain brand of clothes are "cool" or a certain type of hairstyle is "cool" so it would be likely many people would have the same styles and same clothes. A lot of people would look alike, so where would be the fun in life? People should be different because normal is just too boring.

http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/anorexia-nervosa/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Cholera in Haiti

“A cholera outbreak has killed scores of people in central Haiti, President Rene Preval has confirmed.” At least 196 people have died and so many others have been hospitalized because of Cholera. The worst infected are the kids and elderly, like always. They got infected because of the water they drink, not only did they suffer from the earthquake from before now there is a outbreak of cholera.


Cholera is an easily treatable disease. A person who has Cholera should rehydrated immediately so all they have to do is have administration of oral rehydration salts to replace lost fluids. A person would think that with this kind of easy treatment less people would die from it. So why is it that people in Haiti are dying from this kind of disease?

We sometimes spend money everyday to buy things we don’t really need even I do sometimes spend money wastefully. The government also spends a lot of money on unimportant things, they fund for different technologies created everyday. Like the invisibility cloak, why spend money on unnecessary things when we can do so much more with that amount of money. I bet the invisibility cloak costs a lot of money, if we take one fifths of the amount spent on the cloak we can help that people in Haiti who are suffering form Cholera. This is why I say people invent things for their own gains, rather then spending some money to buy some rehydration salt for the people in Haiti we go buy some unnecessary things. I hope that things can turn out well for them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11608551
http://www.who.int/topics/cholera/treatment/en/index.html

Should a Sociopath go to jail?

This question has bothered me for quite awhile. I remember I heard a law stating that psychopaths who kill cant go to jail instead they go to insane asylums to treat their mental illness (apparently it is not their fault they kill others when they are mentally ill).
Basically this article is saying a male named Yang Jiaqin suffers from hallucinations so he attacked a 63-year- old neighbor, Wu Wenguang, and struck him in the head with an ax. When Mr. Wu was in the hospital getting stitches for his wounds the police chief said to him ““When crazy people hurt somebody, there is nothing we can do.” After a few days Mr. Yang attacked three innocent kids when they were leaving school. He used a cleaver to slash at a first grader, then he turned to a 8-year-olf and sliced his arm and neck, the third boy who was 14-years-old escaped with a slash on his shoulder because he “fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Please don’t hurt me,’ After leaving the crime scene Mr. Yang killed a 70-year-old woman who was making firecrackers, and a man who was watching a television drama on his sofa. He slashed the man’s wife and a girl drawing well water. Later on Mr. Yang got captured and got sent a psychiatric hospital.
I am speechless when I read this article, I don’t know what to feel exactly. Many people say that it is not their fault when they go on a rampage since being a sociopath is largely genetic, but isn’t it still killing. If this sociopath took a life doesn’t that mean that their life should be taken too? There is a saying “an eye for an eye and a life for a like” but does that really apply to this scenario? I feel really confused when I think of this topic because a part of me feels like no matter who kills it is still wrong but another part of me feels like those sociopaths wasn’t thinking clearly when they killed so its not really their fault. If these sociopaths are only sent to a hospital for treating their mental illness then what of the families that had their beloved killed? Do we just ignore them when they are weeping for their dead loved ones just because this killer wasn’t able to control himself? In my perspective I think both sides are immoral because if one supports the killer it would be unfair to the family in sorrow but if one was to stand for the family and demand the killer to go to jail it would be unfair to the killer because it wasn’t their choice to kill.
One may think I am cruel to say that the sociopath shouldn’t go to jail for killing but the thing is, we can’t blame it on a person that didn’t have a choice. This person, or in this case Mr. Yang, didn’t have the option to leave the person alive or not. Gandhi once said, “an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind” it means that we can’t always take revenge because if this cycle continues nothing good will ever come from it. It is wrong to let the sociopath go but it is more wrong to arrest a man/ woman for something he did not have control of.


Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/world/asia/11psych.html?pagewanted=1&hp

A Huge Step Forward or A Huge Step Backward

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11686303

"Scientists in the UK have demonstrated a flexible film that represents a big step toward the "invisibility cloak" made famous by Harry Potter."-Jason Palmer
In this article it talks about this flexible film that can manipulate light to render objects invisible. So maybe there are still some work that need to be done to get the invisible cloak like the ones in Harry Potter but no doubt that with our advanced technology scientist can probably create one perhaps in less then 5 years. What happens when they create this kind of cloak? "Physicists have hailed the approach a "huge step forward" but to me this is a huge step backward because in my eyes new technology never end well. It is true that a invisible cloak can be of good use but what if a person of a evil intention got ahold of it. A person could steal and the camera won't even catch this person because he/ she was invisible. It is true that a item is not good or bad it is how it is used. A hammer can be used to nail, nails but a hammer can be used to wack someone on the head and kill them. I am not saying that it is wrong to invent this cloak because there are still some good use to it but I think it is better not to invent it. If God wanted us to be invisible he would have create a invisibility cloak for us when he created Earth. It is strange how almost all the new technologies might go agaisnt god, eventhough some are there to help us. I think that we shouldn't invent more things like these because we don't really need it and I think that we invent these type of new things because humans are to greedy and they are not satisfied with what they have now. We keep inventing new things and we never stop because we want to step beyond the boundry that is set for us in the world. This new invention will bring us backward and hurt us because this new invention so capable of so many different things if a person uses it in a wrong way.
I think this cloak is a bad idea!

Creation vs. Evolution

A few weeks ago in my language arts class we were talking about different creation stories, including the Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh. About two weeks ago in my science seminar class we talked about evolution. It got me thinking about how the world actually started and the fact that science and religion can never really agree with each other. Science is all about hard facts whereas religions are more about beliefs. The only similarities that those two have is that both are trying to give a reason for the origins of everything. In science the world began with the Big Bang and soon things settled and animals evolved to survive; in religion it says that god created the world in six days.

Personally I am not a very religious person so I don't even believe in god(at least I don't think I do). The question that I have is that if god did created the world in six days then who created god? Or that if it was one divine god that create the world then why are there so many different religions that believe in so many different gods? There is no proof that god made things appear, but at the same time there is also no proof on something that god made happen out of thing air.

I think the idea of the Big Bang and evolution seems more likely then god because for me, I like to hear the evidence before actually believing in what someone told me. Evolution makes sense to me because it states that we humans and many other living organisms evolve because we need to survive and those that don't are doomed. We have to evolve because the things around us are always changing and i believe it because it makes sense to me. But I am not judging anyone who believes in god, all i am saying is that evolution seems more logical then creation. Science might explain to us that how we come to be and science might be around us everyday but it doesn't give us hope. Religion is something people belive in so that people can feel comfort and it can get some people to become more ethical becuase they believe in a higher being that might punish them if not.

http://www.keacher.com/files/comics/evolution_large.png