Celeron

In the prompt for this week, I was asked to describe my most "beautiful place on earth" and the feelings I have towards this place. I have many favorite places, and at first seemed like I would never be able to answer this question with one single question. For example, I love the basketball court before anyone gets there, or downtown Chicago right before rush hour. However if I had to narrow my favorite places on earth to just one, it would be the "Crib". For those of you who don't know the "Crib" is slang for your house. The Crib is the place where my family lives and were I feel the most comfortable. To me your house doesn't have to be were you lay your head every night. For example, I currently live in Baliey Hall with a stranger I only knew for a couple of months. I refuse to call this my Crib. My "Crib" is were all my memories and friends are located. My "Crib" is were I was raised and attended school. My "Crib" is Chicago.

Posted by Michael Jamison at 1:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

This article was very insightful, event though it was written half a century ago. The article discusses the relationship that humans should have with nature. Thus topics about restoration and preservation came up. As I stated early, this article was written almost 50 years ago and some of the ideas Sigurd Olson explain our now present in our society today. He talks about the population and how it would impact our outlook on nature. He also talks how our negligence to preserve nature would be the failure of mankind. He states that all humans need nature to live a fulfilling life. Nature is the beauty without a price tag, because it is necessary to all men. Olson declares that industrial revolutions cause wall to wall poisoning, because it takes the "ohhh" moments out of life.
Agreeing with Olson I believe that nature does bring happiness. It is pure and beautiful. I also agree that business and structures doesn't bring happiness, because at the end of the day you always need a little moon shine. One point that Olson stress that I liked was when he asked the question, "Is it enough to just live life on an existence level?" If so why even dare to live life.

Posted by Michael Jamison at 2:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For this weeks journal entry I was asked to evaluate my activities and the affect they have on the environment. Some of the things I do on a typical day have a big impact on the environment. For example I consume meat, ride the bus, use plenty of electricity( laptop, T.V., printer, alarm clock, video game, etc.) However, I believe being a typical American you must and will use the earth resources careless because it is the American Dream. For instances this very assignment has to be done on the internet which has an affect on the resources of earth.
The second part of this prompt, I was also asked if possible would I be willing to alter my life style in order to save the environment. Many claim that they would change their life routine in order to save the earth, but were would you start? In a society that demands so much the tasks seems impossible. For example if I stop eating meat, that means I will have to look for a more EXPENSIVE alternative (SOY) which would still use the earth natural resources. Personal changing to me seems purposeless one because not every is willing to make a change so why try. (And don't give me that if everyone jumped of the bridge speech, because its the truth.) Second I don't use as much energy as a normal person. I ride the bus and stay active instead of being a couch potato.

Posted by Michael Jamison at 2:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The essays by Carson, Moore, and Boyle all raise questions about our need to “accommodate ourselves to this planet.� Based on the readings for this week, do you believe we need to do more to respect the “principles by which nature works�? Refer to at least one of these readings in your response.

Humans are the most superior species on earth, hands down. We also tend to destroy the place in which we must live for thousands of years. However some believe that since no one knows the earth future, we must "live it up" while earth is still intact. To me it seems logical to take care of nature. For nature, in retrospect, protects, feeds, and inhabits all species.
Looking at the readings, I kind of like the article that talked about DDT. The author, T.C. Boyle, sarcastic mocked what sometimes goes on in third world countries. He talked about how a chemical (DDT) are used for mosquitoes, which caused all types of problem starting from the bottom of the food chain to the top of the food chain. Realistically, we tend to have this affect everyday on nature. We pollute the earth, trying to fix other problems that irritate us. If you think about what's more important humans being irritate or nature being irritate in the since that food chains are destroyed, Ozone layer messed up, and the problems continue.
In conclusion, as human we need to do a better job with taking care of our environment. Not in the sense that it will destroy nature, but for our own sake.

Posted by Michael Jamison at 5:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For this week blog I will talk about a movie called “Grizzly Man.� Just like the title hints the movie is about a man who spends his summer with bears. In my opinion, this man had issues and should have been in a hospital or institution. For crying out loud these animals are very dangerous and killed for the hell of it. I really don’t care how fulfilling this experience was for him and I knew he was going to die. Heartless, you may say, watch the movie and you will see how dumb of an idea this was.
There isn’t too much I can say about a man whom devoted hot summers full of beaches and woman to rest among filthy bears. Did I mention how big these bears typically get? One stood up about 10 feet and the air just to scratch his back. These bears have muscles and can run very fast compared to a human. Usually documentaries when people die, the people that are getting interviewed are sad and hurt. In this movie there was a tone of fulfillment, like they knew that the man would die any day. One person said, “It was a stupid idea and he got just what he deserve.�
On this note I least he lived his life like he wanted "rest in peace"

Look at the Confusion

Posted by Michael Jamison at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This week I read to interesting articles about environmentalism, science, and religion. The first was a speech by Michael Criction called “Environmentalism as Religion.� In this speech the speaker had many central points about environmentalism and how its based on religion. Criction believe that as humans we tend to live in fantasy and not reality. He backed his conclusion with observations and historical events. For example I remember him talking about the world never being perfect because of the numerous of wars in the past. Criction thought that the whole idea of environmentalism was a belief backed by nothing but people conclusion and no hard on evidence.
The other article I read was entitled, “ A Gospel According to the Earth� was similar to that of “Environmentalism as Religion,� because it also talked about environmentalism and how its based on religion instead of science and facts. When I read this article I felt as though the reader was sarcastic talking about religious topics. For example, the author talk strongly about Noah’s Ark and how it didn’t really happen. This article seem to lend toward having factual proof and scientific back up.

http://www.environmentalism.com/

Posted by Michael Jamison at 3:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“For God So Loved the World,� talk about God and nature. The article mainly talk about a gathering, in which Christians get together for fellowship. As I recall, the event brought forth thousands of evangelical Christians all dedicated to the God. Here in this particular article, Peter Illyn ( a 42 year old former Gospel teacher) attracts youth through a llama. Once he gathers a crowd he talks about God and his creation. Basically he expounds own how it’s our job to preserve the earth because we are not the only species sharing earth, only greater in value. He introduces Target Earth and Earth Three: which is the love for God, love people and love creation. Ironically the title which is For God So Loved the World, ties into the central message that we should love the earth as much as God does.
The article talks about other things such as the NRPE or the National Religions Partners for the Environment which is the nations largest interface coalition. This articles also expounds on the political issues of this conservative movement. They believe that because of presidents Bush being in the White House, new administrators environmental policies will be steer and changed.

Posted by Michael Jamison at 2:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The short essay, “ The City’s Laughter� was very interesting. Couturier looked at nature different from the most people view nature. Stereotypically we think of nature as the woods, river, and mother nature. Couturier allows the reader to see nature in relationship to the urban society. She talks of her experience in New York. She points out the various forms of nature that can be seen in the city. I recall her explaining the rats in the subway, the roaches in the apartment, and the pigeons. Each of this animals can be considered pest and travel in packs. Using these type of animals, help her convey how nature is inevitable. Why then as society do with try to prevent this form of nature in our lives? Couturier also compares our busy lifestyle to that of nature. She first compares us to an ant colony; the anthills are the skyscrapers and are social system consists of leaders and workers.
The Pigeons Ladies seem to be social outcasts because they embrace this urban nature. She describes them as withered old women shoes hanging off her heels, with drooping and torn brown coat. Why are these women social outcasts, shouldn’t they be embrace by society?

Continue reading "The City's Laughter" »

Posted by Michael Jamison at 5:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I read “Heaven and Earth in Jest,� I couldn’t help but to thing about nature. However, I didn’t think of nature as mother nature. No, not flowers, birds, trees, and sun. But nature as nature. Dillard forced me to see the reality of nature. “ I knelt on the island’s winter killed grass;� the harsh, and death of nature. Using creative diction Dillard allow the reader to see the evolution of the earth. In the sense the truth about life. For example, as I read about the frog and the water bug I couldn’t help but to think about the reality of it all. How nature kills nature, but and the same sense creates nature.
Dillard allows us to see nature’s tender form as well. Dillard goes on to elaborate on a mockingbirds descent and flight. Using this imagery she describes how the beauty of nature is inevitable. Dillard then goes on to say, “least we could do is try to be there.� Enlightening the reader of how it is our duty to see this beautiful aspect.
So it is safe to say Dillard wants us to not only to see the horrible form of nature but the tender side as well. Maybe the possible central theme could be the balance of good vs. evil. Diction such as, “the canary that sings on the skull,� to allude to the reader of a precious animal with an object commonly associated with death. Thus, Dillard believe that in order to understand creation you must embrace both death and life.

Posted by Michael Jamison at 4:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As I read Where I Lived and What I Lived For, I believed Thoreau chose the woods to conduct his experiment because of the isolated nature this setting held. For the woods holds no corruption or order. The woods are a place of tranquility, in which you can live life unexpected. Here Thoreau could live deliberately and learn the purpose of life. Compared to the woods the village was corrupt with ideas and thoughts of what life holds. For the village holds stereotypes and expectations of men. These expectations or guidelines bound individuality and might differ completely from the overall meaning of life.
By retreating to the woods, Thoreau allowed himself to live without the influence of others. He allows himself to receive the most of life, because he is not held back by others thoughts. In the woods Thoreau was not restrained from sucking the marrow out of life. Thoreau was not satisfied by the teachings of man but wanted to know the meaning of life beyond man. Nature is unpredictable and it allows you to understand life the way it was meant. Instead of living life the way man intended, nature reduces life to the lowest terms and not take life for granted. Thoreau lived life in the moment and believed it was a waste to life in a hurry. He didn’t believe in routines and daily spectacles. Living in the woods allowed Thoreau to live deliberately and understand the meaning of life.

Posted by Michael Jamison at 5:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)