Kyle McCrossin

Playing the part of kiss up to get a promotion or being a brown nose-er to get on a bosses good side is basically the foundation of any promotion in todays world.  But in the passage the author is suggesting that for one to keep their job and have financial security with the job, he must not standout in any way other tahn in their work.  An employee must blend in with the masses and do as everyone else does.  This idea that people only want to work with and hire people they relate to has been a constant for many years now.

The employee that must blend is not the masses the most are the salesmen.  Due to the fact that many humans will only buy stuff form people they feel compatible and comfortable with.  Whether they are car salesmen, clothe clerks, or huge unit salesman their customers wish to feel a connection.  So salesmen tend to be Christian, easygoing, not pushy, and friendly.  Those salesmen who are overly pushy, and obnoxious tend to be fired to work at places like used car lots where their customers are expecting salesmen with such qualities.

Bosses need to have people who can get along together and who believe in the same things concerning life, religion, and social habits.  Not to go so far as to say that employees can’t stand out in like being witty or having a different style hairdo, but to be an atheist employee in a sea of Christians then you’ll stand out if the information every got out.

So as to the authors opinion I agree with and believe that an employee must play the business world game “of blending in” if they wish to truly feel secure in their job.  If they do differer from the majority on an issue that could come back to hurt them then they should hide that quality until they arrive at the point that their work can secure them in the company.

2.  That the male counterpart still terrorizes but not with words but with bullying pranks.  That he gains his position of popularity out of fear and admiration of his skills on the football field.  The male is not the brains of the popularity kingdom but the brunt force who acts out the instruction of his trophy female girlfriend.

3.   his tone changes only slightly once in the gap on page 710 and another time on the gap on page 711.

4.  These breaks signify a change in tone.  In his first change he stops talking about the typical popular girl and guy and talks about the feelings associated with watching a teen movie, and a high schoolers mind set.  The next change he talks about the emotional feelings we attach to high school and the connections we make when we see the unpopular kids in teen movies.

5.  his essay talks about how genre films reflect the feelings of reality and the basic idea that they are similar enough to count.

6.  As a critic he knows that no single opinion truly matters that much.  So he uses his equal counter parts to back up the views that many critics share about teen movies and its main characters.

7.  I would say that he argues about the truth in high school stereo types and their portrayal in teen movies.  I think that he also has a strong secondary argument that geeks rule and they are the kids who truly achieve after high school.

9.  he ties in this idea of misery makes one better by attaching the simile of “wound and the bow” to the high school nerd.  How their pains threw high school allows them to strive to exceed later in life.

10.   He argues to a point that high school is to tough with every kid out to get one another.   Some kids find the pressure to be to much, and can’t wait the few years till its their turn to be successful.  He placed the shooting kids in this category say that if high school could stop all this pressure to be in the in crowd then maybe this would have never happened.  (A great strengthener to his argument because anything that would stop a school shooting, people tend to back much more willingly)

11.  He lists the movies that for the most part agree with his argument threw beautiful concept, ideas, or making.  Also listing a few that support side arguments.  This is great because it in a way distinguishes his ethos, while also listing videos that people who are interested in his subject can watch.

12. College kids and teenagers, because it these kids who can relate the most.  Though most likely this essay appeared in a news paper I feel that Denby’s real audience were the kids who had a chance to change it not the people who feel an emotional rememberence to it.

The concepts and ideas that this man has come up with are over simplified but well reasoned. His argument, which looks at the disadvantages of either taking or not taking action, is not one that already has pre chosen sides. This is the key to his entire argument. Also by putting his video on the internet he allows himself to be critiqued by everyone who has an opinion, or who disagrees with his ideas. I find that the more videos I watch in his series, the more in-depth and convincing his argument becomes.

He looks at it not by the already existing argument of weather or not global warming existence. He argues that the outcomes of taking action rather that not, is the best solution when faced with uncertainty. The uncertainty is the current argument about global warming existence and seeing as everyone can agree that there is uncertainty this becomes the backbone of his argument. His genius is that he uses the idea of uncertainty to unite his audience and provides the graph as the focus visual to intrigue his viewers.

After moving past his initial video he starts to support his argument by going further in-depth. The real strength in his argument is that he does videos about the science of global warming, courses in risk management (the bases of his whole argument), scare tactics, and the most important of all the video series an actual solution. Although his initial video is very oversimplified and not entirely fool proof his concept truly comes into undeniable flourishion with the other series

I can’t find any real problem or flaw in this man’s logic. I think that he does a great job of not just analyzing data but also education his audience in a non biased way so that they make the correct choice for themselves. His argument is well rounded and I find myself impressed by his “every day man” logic. (I hope this gives me some kind of extra credit)