Throughout this essay Appiah discusses how the world today is no longer filled with isolated groups or local tribes. The world was once filled with people groups that had little to no interaction with people that were not directly in their community or in a nearby location. Today, due to technology which allowed the spread of culture all across the planet, we are now a "global tribe". Appiah describes this change with the word Cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism involves two main ideas. One involving morality and the other in valuing the lives and culture of other nations. This idea that everyone has a responsibility to everyone in the world despite country, race, beliefs, and values comes from the spread of technology. Thanks to technology we now have the ability to know what is happening to people in different countries around the world no matter what part if the planet we happen to be on. It is very easy to hear of the customs and practices of those people as well as what is happening within their government and environment. Simply by knowing these facts Appiah suggests that we have a moral obligation to help anyone that is on need simply because we know about their misfortune and have to ability to do something to help them. However, Appiah take it one step further by saying that not only do we have a moral obligation to the world, we have a responsibility to take an interest in the practices and values that make that group of people who they are. Appiah believes says, "theres a sense in which cosmopolitanism is the name not of the solution but of the challenge". Appiah promotes this life style of unity or at least mutual respect for others cultures, but realizes that this task is not an easy one. It will take a while to generate such a transformative social change. However, he believes that the best way to go about this is to start a conversation between all the different people groups. Yet, he is not ignorant to the fact that many people find it hard to accept opposing values from a different culture. He argues that we do not necessarily have to accept their way of life as our own, but one should be willing to have a conversation about each others lives without creating a huge fight or misunderstanding. In reality, many people have similar values but it is just the reasons behind those values that people differ on. Appiah says, "We can live together without agreeing on what the values are that make it good that we live together: we can agree about what to do in most cases, without agreeing why it is right. The important factor is that differing communities and countries can converse in a way that will open communication between different cultures in order to solidify the idea of cosmopolitanism that is charging ahead whether people learn to appreciate each other effectively or not. Appiah sums up these ideas by saying, "I am urging that we should learn about people in other places, take an interest int their civilizations, their arguments, their errors, their achievements, not because that will bring us to agreement, but because it will help us get used to one another.

David Foster Wallace explores a wide variety of subjects throughout his essay "Consider the Lobster". At first his ideas nay seem a bit scattered due the the broad range of material he covers, but when one takes the time to examine the work more closely it becomes apparent that he has designed this essay in a way that provides great emphasis to the points that he is trying to convey. Wallace opens with a very negative commentary on the Maine Lobster Festival. He explores the various events that occur during the festival and more specifically the hoards if tourists that the festival  brings each year. After that he moves to a more scientific explanation of the lobster such as its taxonomy and history. From that he moves once again to the Mane Lobster Festival, comparing it to the likes of Midwest corn festivals and Texas chili festivals. One might think that these topics which account for the first three pages of the essay are irrelevant to his main point, which is exploring the morality of lobster consumption. However, by expounding on the history and bioligy if the lobster while putting it in a modern day context allows the reader to have a greater understanding of the lobster and therefore they can form a more educated opinion when the main topic is finally dicussed.

Moving past these points, Wallcae still does not jump right into his main discussion. Instead he proceeds to explain the various ways that lobster is cooked, served, and eaten in both restaurant and home settings. He briefly includes a section on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals which foreshadows his point on the morality in eating lobster. The part of the essay that i find most fascinating follows this section. Wallace explores the lobster's ability to feel pain through a very scientific exploration of the lobsters anatomy.  It is here that he finally starts to being out his main argument. Is its right t eat these animals if they must suffer before you consume them? By going through these various phases in his writing Wallace is able to more greatly emphasize his main argument. Although it may seem disorganized intiitally by examining his structure one can seet that it was a very effective way to make his points very clear.

At the end of Wallace's article he concludes that he is not entirely sure  whether it is morally corrupt to eat lobster. He says, "Im also concerned not to come off shrilly or preachy when what i really an is more like confused" (Wallace 510). Therefore, instead of stating a direct opinion in his article he presents many different interesting and informative facts regarding the typical methods used to cook lobster, the morality behind it, and explores a setting, the Maine Lobster Festival, that examines the way that people participate in the activity. He does this in order to make the reader really think and consider all the implications that surround lobster consumption. I think that the facts regarding whether lobsters can feel pain or nor was particularly interesting because that is where i believe the main conflict with eating lobster resides. The best way to enjoy a lobster is fresh and that entails boiling them alive. However, if the lobster feels no pain because it has no brain then people can cook and consume their lobster essentially guilt free. However, if in fact the lobsters do feel pain, perhaps even more pain than humans do due to their lack of natural opioids (Wallace 508), then questions start to arise about whether it is alright to eat lobster. I think that whether the lobsters feel pain or not it is okay to eat them because they are killed just like every other animal that we eat. The differnece comes because we are doing the killing ourselves. If you are alright with others killing the animals for you to concume then it is hypocrtical to think that it is immoral to consume lobster. I think that Acheson's essay support the fact that consuming lobster is immoral because he seems to have a very negative view of the lobster industry in general. Throughout his ethnography he seems to portray the lobstermen as grown men that often act like children as they are caught up in the competition of being the best in the industry, or at least in their gang. Both authors work is connected in the fact that they both seem to think that at least morally, the world would be better off without the ridiculous competition of lobstering and the millons of lobsters that are boiled alive because of the industry.

Towards the beginning of this article when the author was describing the events of the Maine Lobster Festival I found myself very irritated. The author had a very pessimistic attitude and was constantly complaining about anything and everything that he could regarding the events of the festival. Personally, it was really annoying to read and if I was reading the article for pleasure than I would have seriously considered closing the book because it is not enjoyable to read something that presents such a negative attitude. However, once I moved past that section, I think that Wallace’s thoughts were very well developed and persuasive. I do not believe that boiling lobsters is morally corrupt or something to look down upon, yet I found the article is informative and mildly interesting to read. For example, I did not know that lobster was once viewed as food only for poor and prisoners. Yet somehow it made the switch so “lobster is now the seafood analog to steak” (Wallace 500). 

One line that I found particularly interesting addressed how eating lobster is an eerily personal experience. It says, “Most of us have been in supermarkets or restaurants that feature tanks of live lobsters, from which you can pick out your supper while it watches you point” (Wallace 502). I agree that is part of eating lobster feels very uncomfortable and can seem crueler than eating other animals. However I don’t think that you can condemn it an immoral act because other animals that people eat everyday are slaughtered and people do not question consuming then just because they don’t see it happen in front of them. Therefore I think it is hypocritical if people say eating lobster is wrong and then proceed to buy a hamburger for lunch.  Wallace argues that if someone did openly slaughter cattle in front of people just as they do lobsters, it would be completely unacceptable; yet people openly watch lobsters boil to death. While this is a very interesting point, I do not think that it is necessarily a fair comparison. With the boiling of a lobster there is no blood, knives, or sounds of pain which are the things that would distress people. Plus, we know that cattle experience pain, yet what lobsters can and cannot feel is very unclear. Overall, I believe that no matter what arguments one puts forth, eating lobsters or any animal is acceptable (although it would be difficult to accept people breaking our norm of abstaining from eating what we consider household animals) because I think that humans have domain over animals.

Throughout the majority of this story one can hear Gladwell’s disappointed, sarcastic tone ringing through, culminating in his final jab of “Viva la revolucion”. Gladwell is clearly far from impressed with how activism in the modern times is carried out. This is demonstrated through the obvious shift in tone that occurs just after the first couple pages. As you begin the story the author conveys a tone of pride and triumph. You applaud these brave, young people that were willing to place themselves in harm’s way in such a volatile time in our nation’s history. You cheer for them and hope to yourself that you would’ve taken part in the sit-ins if you had the chance. Then, you feel the author switch from this feeling of pride to one of critical questioning and irritation. Gladwell is trying to make the point that there has been a major shift in the way that people approach revolutions and activism these days. Though he does not deny that social media had been beneficial in many ways, he is very critical of those who believe that they are accomplishing the same weight of change that others have accomplished in the past.

Gladwell believes that the weak ties that are established over social media coupled with a lack of hierarchical structures within these groups have seriously inhibited our ability to make effective changes. Gladwell says, “Weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism” (234). People are not really willing to commit on the level that is needed for significant change to actually occur. He claims that the only reason people participate in the causes are because nobody “asked too much of them” (235). While equal rights and the celebration of the individual are highly prevalent in our culture today, Gladwell point out obvious flaws with this system of networking contrasted with a hierarchical system. He poses the question, “How do you make difficult choices about tactics or strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?” (236) Overall, Gladwell is trying to make the point that although social media may affect our culture in a big way, it will not and cannot move people towards  big changes due to inefficiency and  lack of meaningful relationships; not to mention there is often a lack of worthwhile causes to participate in. Gladwell sums up his disapproval in this blunt statement, “We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro (235)”

Throughout Aburawa’s “Veiled Threat” Princess Hijab’s main focus is to re-humanize the men and women that are being objectified in advertisements. Most of the world perceives these models on posters and billboards as nothing more than they appear to be just a picture on a piece of paper. However, Princess Hijab saw much more than toned abs, flawless skin, and a perfect figure. She saw actual human being. Human beings that had been stripped down to nothing more than what they had to offer at face value. She saw women objectified as things that did not have feelings or opinions and ideas. Princess Hijab was greatly distressed by this de-humanization and greatly desired a way to bring the life back into these models. In “Veiled Threat: The Guerilla Graffiti of Princess Hijab” Princess Hijab says, “Like that poster of Farrah Fawcett…with her teeth clenched in fear above her perfect polyester swimsuit. When she revealed her cancer, we had to see her and her body as something capable of tragedy. It’s that sort of re-humanization that I aim for with hijabization.” I believe that this quote sums up Princess Hijab desire re-humanize and would serve as the thesis statement of article. Although Princess Hijab’s intentions can be easily misconstrued due to the secrecy that surrounds her work of hijabization, I believe that this statement clarifies her point in a very bold manner. However, I do not think that it is a very well formulated thesis statement. Her intentions could be misunderstood or maybe even found offensive due to the fact that it is about such a sensitive subject as cancer. Also, it may appear that she is implying that she wishes some sort of ill on others due to her comment about seeing tragedy in someone’s life, but in reality she is simply referring to the fact that in that picture of Farrah Fawcett one is finally able to see actual human emotion instead of the standard, pre-made looks of all the other models. This statement can be easily misinterpreted which is why it is not the most effective thesis statement, but if one take a minute to study what Princess Hijab is really about, her message will surface with clarity.

            Nathan set out to study the life of college students, and in her studies she discovered a lot about diversity and community on the college campus. She found out that the traditional definition of community is not what actually exists on the college campus. In her book “My Freshman Year” Nathan discovered that, “Community is the American University is paradoxically a private and an individual decision.” I think that this statement serves as the thesis from the chapter that we read out of her book. It is a strong thesis statement because it clearly and concisely defines how community exists on campuses in the U.S. Community can be defined as a feeling of fellowship with others due to shared beliefs, goals, or interests. However, Nathan discovered that in college, community is not a campus-wide or even hall-wide occurrence. It is much more personal to each student and usually involves those only directly in the individual social circles. This idea is clearly conveyed in the thesis, especially in emphasizing the unexpected results by calling them paradoxical. Through this statement Nathan shows the differences in community on a college campus as opposed to community in daily life.

                Commercial advertising has a significant hold on society as a whole, as well as on the individual. According to Princess Hijab in Aburawa’s “Veiled Threat”, advertising is not only influential, but has progressed to be “visual terrorism”. There is a strong connection between advertising, the objectification of women, and the desire that women have to be “normal”. Advertising has an especially strong grip over the way women view themselves and those around them. Advertisers present women in a very stereotypical way. To be considered beautiful or sexy you must be extremely thin with flawless skin and perfect hair. Women’s bodies are the focal point of most advertisements and they are always flawless. When viewing these women’s bodies you cannot see their expression, understand their emotions, or hear their opinions. Nothing matter besides how well their bodies can sell a product. In short, they are being objectified. They are no longer people, but objects that others can criticize or compliment without giving thought to the fact that they are discussing an actual human being that has insecurities, fears, and dreams just like themselves.

Since women are taught that these models are the most beautiful women to ever exist, and in fact, you cannot be beautiful unless you look exactly like them, there is a desire that is created within women everywhere to change themselves until they are the mirror image of the women in the advertisements they are subjected to everyday. However this goal is unattainable because just as Kilbourne says, “failure is inevitable because success is based on absolute flawlessness”. Women desire to be “normal”, like the models they see on television, billboards, and magazines. However, many women know that what they consider “normal” is not actually reality. Supermodel Cindy Crawford said “I wish looked like Cindy Crawford”. This goes to show that even these models admit that the way that they are presented is not true to life. Nathan points out in her book “My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by Becoming a Student” that what society perceives as a norm is often very misconstrued from reality. Women need to come to the realization that the way that advertisers portray beauty in their commercials and advertisements is not reality, and that beauty runs deeper than the pictures of women’s bodies that are so carelessly displayed.