Rhetorical Analysis of Mao

Purpose: To explain the intentions of the communist party; to identify the dangers of the opposing party (the Kuomintang); to persuade the chinese people to vote for the Communist party; to convince the rest of the world that the Communist party will stand up to America once it is in power.

Audience: The Chinese people, other major international powers.

Context: Concluding speech at the Seventh National Congress of the Communist Party of China.  Given by Mao Tse-tung near the end of WWII (June 11, 1945).

Section I: The Party

             Purpose: To inform the Chinese people of the CPC's plans and establish a bond between the people and the party.  This section shows that Mao and the Party understand the people and want to help them and their country.  Mao presents a plan for the country and tells people how they can help.

              Appeals: Appeals mostly to ethos, especially the first paragraph.  Includes a list of the successes of the communist party to demonstrate the effectiveness of the party.  Also includes appeals to pathos in the form of diction and themes that create a feeling of unity.  Very little logos; mostly establishes ethos.

              Technique: repetition of "we" and "our" (epizeuxis) => unity; we're all in this together.  buzzwords/phrases such as "successful congress" "congress of victory" "congress of unity" => CPC is the best choice.  "will defeat" "will surmount every difficulty to win victory" "we, too, will touch god's heart" => certainty; strength of decision; determination.

• old fable of The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains (allegory) => old, well known fable of Chinese tradition => common bond between CPC and Chinese people (sense of "we all come from the same background; we are one of you").

• Foolish Old Man actually visionary and strong (CPC)
• Wise Old Man desperately clinging to the past (Reactionaries)
• Mountains represent imperialism and feudalism
• God is the Chinese people (major suck up points)

Fable shows the role the PCP sees for itself in China, while stressing the fact that it cannot get there without the help and support of the Chinese people.

               Effectiveness: Very effective.  Draws support from audience and successfully establishes unity, while connecting this feeling to the CPC.

Section II: The World

             Purpose: to demonstrate to the world that the PCP will not allow China to be walked all over.  The paragraph challenges America, which shows that China is serious about gaining power.

             Appeals: Generally appeals to pathos, but includes some logos as well (quotes from Patrick J Hurley).

             Techniques: diction

• "we forbid you" " we will not permit you to nose around everywhere" communicates strength of will and power

               Effectiveness: Very effective.  The paragraph communicates strength and confidence well and clearly states a warning for America and any other world powers.

Section III: The Fate of China Hangs in the Balance

             Purpose: to inform the audience of the evil intentions of the rival party.  To persuade citizens to vote for the CPC.

             Appeals: strong appeal to pathos.

             Techniques: "the aim of one is to liquidate the Communist Party and all the other democratic forces in China and thus to plunge China into darkness" (hyperbole) => portray rivals as evil; links Communist Party to everything good about China (by destroying CPC, China will be plunged into darkness) "reactionary" "scheming" => opposition is just reacting; is not proactive, just reacting without considering actions; scheming sounds dark and menacing  "the Kuomintang's counter-revolutionary line will inevitably fail" (last line) => leaves audience with the thought that Kuomintang's approach will not succeed  either or tactics (Either vote for us or China will fall)

            Effectiveness: Very Effective.  It is a strong end to the speech, with a definite guarantee of glory in the wake of triumph for the CPC, and ruin as an effect of victory by the opposition.

Overall Effectiveness: Very Effective.  Mao carefully chooses his words in order to communicate his message, whether that be strength, unity, or the dangers of the opposition. He plays on people's paranoia in order to turn them off of the opposition while preserving their loyalty to the CPC.  He communicates strength throughout the entire speech, especially when directly addressing the US.  The audience can also connect to him very well, most notably through his inclusion of a fable which is well known among Chinese people.

Cold Logic, or Fiery Emotion?

            Protest comes in many forms.  It can be done silently, or at a loud and excited rally.  It can be peaceful, or violent.  It can function mostly based on logic, or appeal mostly to emotions.  For this reason, protest speeches also come in many forms.  Aung San Suu Kyi’s “Freedom from Fear” speech appeals mostly to the first, while Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech focuses on the latter option.  Often times, while speeches based on logic can be persuasive, they often pale in comparison to speeches that focus on emotional appeals. 

            Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech is powerful.  It points out flaws in government and offers solutions, and many of its lines are concise yet moving, intriguing in the ideas they present.  However, it is based entirely on logos.  The speech is nice for an acceptance speech, nice for saying “hey this should change”, but it lacks the ability to make an audience leap to its feet in enthusiasm.  It does not give the reader the desire to go out and make a change, nor does it really change one’s life.  It just is.  She lacks stylistic techniques such as short sentences and anaphora (both of which emphasize a point).  She rarely repeats herself, and while this is nice for a tired AP student who has read speeches which say the same thing over and over again for 20 pages, it admittedly does lack the power of a speech that does repeat itself, or that does sneak in short, powerful sentences. 

            Malcolm X, on the other hand, accomplishes an effective protest speech through the use of the very techniques that Aung San Suu Kyi ignores.  On the first page, in the first paragraph, he already is using anaphora.  He repeats “I’m not here”, “problem”, “catch hell”, and “white man” three times each, which truly drives home the point of the paragraph: We all have a problem that will bring hell: the white man.  He also repeats the phrase “the ballot or the bullet” frequently throughout the speech.  The phrase is simple, yet elegant.  The length gives it extra power, because it emphasizes the ideas within the sentence. 

            Another technique used by Malcolm X is the use of rhetorical questions in order to engage the audience and make them think about what he is saying.  “What is a Dixiecrat?” he asks.  “What does this mean?” “Why can’t they pass something that will help you and me?”  All of these questions make the audience pause for a moment to reflect on his words.  This time to think makes his message more powerful, because it allows the audience to agree.

            While I wish that Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech was the best speech of all time, it is not.  It uses heavy logos, which is great in theory (and something oddly lacking in wartime propaganda), but drives people away.  It makes writing feel uncaring and cold.  The best protest speech will include logos and pathos, similar to how Malcolm X does.

The People or The Princes? Thoreau vs Machiavelli

The ends justify the means.

This idea has been used to justify many controversial decisions, both on a personal level - such as skipping school in order to prevent an illness from escalating - and on a larger scale - such as dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in order to end World War II.  Is this statement always true?  Do you really fight off illness by staying home when you could have gone to class?  Did dropping the bomb really save more people than it killed?  Thoreau and Machiavelli each take opposing stances on this idea (a result can justify any action), although they frame this in the context of human nature, government, and its powers: What are the qualities a person should value most?  What is the place of an individual?  When should one act?  How Machiavelli and Thoreau answer these questions differs greatly, but some common threads are woven into their ideologies, making the two more similar than they initially appear to.

What are the qualities a person should value most?

Thoreau lauds the man who is honest, independent, and active. Machiavelli, on the other hand, sees the most worth in a man who can “hold his own to know how to do wrong, and make use of it or not according to necessity.”  Thoreau strongly dislikes people who lie through action, meaning that should a person say they oppose something then they should oppose it through action as well as words; his example of this is the elites of the south, who are “petitioning the State to dissolve the Union” and to whom he asks, “why do they not dissolve it themselves?”  Thoreau believes that these men should live up to their talk and go through with what they call for.  Machiavelli opposes this view because “deceit always succeeded” for many past rulers.

What is the place of the individual?

Thoreau is a true romanticist in his view of the individual.  He believes in the power of a person, and his or her ability to make a difference.  Thoreau encourages people to throw their “whole influence” behind something they believe in, and believes that when this occurs it can bring about great and glorious change.  An example he provides is America; he says that America leads in many fields because of “the character inherent in the American people”, not because of the government.  Machiavelli’s opposing view is apparent based almost exclusively on his audience.  He advocates the use of fear and violence, as “long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal” to a Prince, which shows that he believes that the individual has little worth other than a part of the system.

When should one act?

Here is where the similarities between Machiavelli and Thoreau really show.  Each believes that one should act when there is a problem.  Each advocates throwing everything into the opposition of whatever is causing the problem.  Neither of endorses violence as a primary measure, but neither do Machiavelli or Thoreau rule it out.  The only difference is that action according to Machiavelli should be taken against uprisings against the government, while Thoreau believes the action should be against the government itself.

Thoreau and Machiavelli each view the question of “do the ends justify the means?” differently.  Thoreau believes that honesty, dedication, and action is best, and warns against taking rash action.  He believes in situations where the ends would not justify the means.  Machiavelli thinks differently; he believes that power should be kept at all costs, even if that means lying and committing violence against innocents.  However, small connections can be made between the two, which lead to the conclusion that the two are not quite as different as they at first appear.

Why We Write

            Although Hamid rarely speaks extensively about specific novels or stories, just by the style in which The Reluctant Fundamentalist is written we can see how highly he values storytelling.  Not simply reading, or simply writing, but the experience of telling and being told a story.  He uses the pronoun you in order to make his writing very conversational.  At times the reader feels as though he or she is speaking the words (reading “you” as though he or she were speaking to the acquaintance in the novel); other times he or she feels as though the story were being told to him or her (this time he or she reads “you” as though someone else were addressing the reader).  This method, and the use of other pieces of literature that are scattered throughout the novel, clearly show the two themes of The Reluctant Fundamentalist which Hamid wants us to take away from his novel: first, that the telling of a story creates a bond between the listener (the reader) and the storyteller (the writer); second, that the telling of the story is therapeutic for both the listener and reader.

            The first reference to another text is on page 43: he states that Jim’s home makes him “think of The Great Gatsby” (Hamid 43).  This reference functions on one level as a descriptor of Jim’s house, but it also goes deeper.  The Great Gatsby follows the story of a young man trying to fit into high society, just as The Reluctant Fundamentalist does.  Of course, The Reluctant Fundamentalist takes place much later and Changez is doing much more than trying to fit into high society; he is trying to fit into America in general (a task that proves much more difficult than fitting into the elite).  This bond of not quite belonging is strong between the two characters.  Changez chose to reference The Great Gatsby for a reason other than a description of scenery.  The emotional link between the two speaks volumes about Changez’s acclimation to American society.

            The next text referenced by Changez is The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, on page 171.  Again, the reference is made to create a link, although this time it is between Ichabod Crane and the American.  Changez references “the terror of poor Ichabod Crane” and states that he is “reminded of the sound of those spectral clip clops” when strolling through the streets at night (Hamid 171).  He remarks that his companion appears “decidedly anxious” at the thought, and offers to speak of something else (172).  Hamid then has the opportunity to connect with his listener, by telling him that he is often afraid by it and offering a solution.  Not only does Crane connect with the American, Hamid – the storyteller – does as well, which illustrates the idea that a storyteller and the audience should connect.

            The final text Changez references is the novel Erica writes. Although imaginary, this novel exemplifies the other theme, the other reason for telling a story: it is therapeutic.  In Erica’s words, before the return of her depression she “used to turn to it” so that she could expel negative emotions when she “needed to get something out that was stuck inside” (Hamid 111).  One can surmise that Hamid does the same when telling his story to the American.  He does so willingly, and throughout the experience, he is relaxed and comfortable.  Telling his story aloud feels good; as Erica says, he is getting “something out that was stuck inside” (Hamid 111).  This is the main function of storytelling, according to Hamid, and this conviction – along with the idea that a storyteller and listener should connect – echoes throughout the novel to shape every detail of how The Reluctant Fundamentalist is written.

Toulmin Analysis

Claims

A. The best approach to contraceptives is individualized plans.
B.  The government should make contraceptives more affordable.

Reasons

A.
*because all women are different
*because there are many factors to consider before passing a law.
B.
*Not every woman can afford contraceptives

Evidence

A.
"because all women are different" - No 2 women are the same and therefore, they cannot be treated as though they were the same.
"because there are many factors to consider before passing a law." - speaking economically, a person with millions of dollars can afford contraceptive care, while a person barely getting by already will be weighed down by the cost of contraceptives.
B.
"Not every woman can afford contraceptives" - Can be expensive, especially if the woman can't really afford to spend the money.  However, if the woman does become pregnant or gets an STD, she must pay more money in bills that could have gone back into the economy had she been able to purchase the proper contraceptive devices.

Warrants

A.
"because all women are different" - 

          I. Acting as though they were is demeaning and irresponsible to the health of the people under one's care
        II.  Different factors must be addressed in order to keep society as safe as possible.

B.
"Not every woman can afford contraceptives" -

          I. The government should help people in need

Backing


AI-  All people have value, and deserve the best possible care.  If one has the means and ability to take care of another, they have the responsiblity and should do their best to ensure that person has the best chance at a healthy lifestyle.
AII-  Factors such as economic standing, age, preexisting conditions, etc affect the choices a woman has between contraceptives; what is expensive to one is cheap to another.  Different factors can also affect how well a certain contraceptive works.
B- A government exists to help the people under it.

The argument's claims are reasonable and easy to acknowledge, especially for a more liberal audience. However, in order to reach the more conservative reader, I should have included more of my reasons and evidence in order to back up my claims. In addition to this, I should have stated the warrant behind claim A. Another problem is the lack of real acknowledgment of religious and ethical reasons people oppose contraception. I should have spent more time discussing that side of the argument, because pro-life people can still dismiss my argument by saying "contraception is like abortion, abortion is murder, murder is wrong."  Had I acknowledged this side to a greater extent, my argument would have been much more effective.

Respect Other People's Decisions

                A much debated issue in modern America revolves around the use of contraceptives.  Is it morally right? How does it affect society as a whole?  Each person has his or her own answer to these questions based on their upbringing, religious backgrounds, and beliefs about the what is “good” and what is “bad”.  Therefore, there is a wide range of opinions on birth control. These opinions can range from “this is a wholly positive thing that should be endorsed by the government” to “Contraceptives are morally and ethically wrong and should not be allowed” and may fall anywhere in between.

                First, let’s address the liberal extreme (and keep in mind that even liberals have different views that may be more or less extreme than this.

                According to the far left argument about Contraception, everyone has the right to choose.  Women should have the right to choose if they want to raise a child at this stage in their lives; families should have the right to choose whether they can afford to have (possibly another) child.  Other arguments for birth control are that it encourages gender equality and minimizes the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases.

                This position would be most valid in a society that seeks to emphasize freedom and equality, because the arguments used by the liberal side appeal to the desire to choose for oneself and for equality.

                The far right’s argument is the polar opposite of the far left (as can only be expected).  Those who have a more conservative view contraception as a form of abortion.  They believe the taking of a human life, even if the human has yet to begin forming, is wrong (sometimes regardless of the circumstances).  These people also argue that contraception encourages promiscuity and with it heightens the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.  It is also called unnatural and bad for the family.

                This position is most valid in a community that values safety and stability above all else, including a person’s right to choose.

                I lean more towards the liberal side, although I believe that an individualized approach to contraception is best.  It should not be a requirement of employees to be on birth control, but it should certainly be an option.  The outright banning of contraception is not the best answer because it has other uses than just to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.  The Pill can be used to regulate a sporadic period, or to ease pain during a woman’s menstrual cycle.

                I propose a government supported program that makes birth control affordable for women who need it, but that is not required of everyone.  This program would include government subsidies on the Pill, other birth control methods, and visits to doctors who prescribe the contraceptions.  This way those who choose to use them have the ability to do so.  Birth control would not be made a requirement or anything to that effect, but those who have problems with the use of contraceptives would be asked to apply their choice to themselves, and respect the circumstances and decisions of others.

 

sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/contraception/against_1.shtml

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/contraception/in_favour.shtml

 

Cracking Under Pressure

In my personal experience at high school, students push themselves beyond their fullest potential and often work themselves past the point of illness because they’re afraid that by taking a day off they’ll fall behind in their classes.

 I’m included in this group of overworked students.  To be fair, I really bring the stress on myself due to heavy courseloads and the choice I made to attend school over 20 miles from my house, although my busy schedule isn’t unique to myself.  According to psychologytoday.com, “1/3 of children reported experiencing physical symptoms that are frequently associated with stress.”*  These teens sleep less so that they can study more; if they get back the essay or the test and the grade doesn’t live up to their standards (realistic or not), the teen may plummet into feelings of hopelessness which are often followed by a renewed effort towards their schoolwork.  This can result in even less sleep, and therefore has a negative effect on physical health. 

The problem of declining physical health is a problem in many different ways.  The first is that it makes concentrating more difficult, so grades start to slip and more pressure to do well next time is added.  The second is in taking a day off to recover; many students are worried that if they’re out too often they’ll end up with too many missed days and lose credit for a course.  Personally, when I get sick I tell myself ever day “just one more day and tomorrow I’ll stay home and get better,” but I continue putting off a day of healing until I’m either better or too sick to leave bed.  All while I’m denying sickness to myself, my grades fluctuate and I stay up later to do better while getting sicker.

Health is not the only aspect of a teen’s life at risk from the heavy pressures of high school life; a teen’s mental safety and sometimes even his or her life is also in danger.  According to nimh.nih.gov, nearly 7 in 100,000 teens commit suicide each year (this number makes the 15-19 age bracket the highest among young people ages 10-24)**.  That may not seem like very many people, but considering that in 2010 there were 22,040,343 teenagers in the US, those 7/100,000 add up quickly; going by the 2010 statistic, over 1,542 teenagers committed suicide in that year alone.*** 

And because the number of teenagers rises every year, if the 7/100,000 statistic is true then even more teenagers will commit suicide by the end of 2012.

Studies show a correlation between scholastic stress and teenage suicide; most suicides among teens occur during exams, which are usually periods of intense stress and pressure to succeed.  In cultures where both students and others put pressure on the teens to succeed, the rate of suicide is higher. **** That’s not to say that school is the only cause of teen suicide; merely it is a significant one.

If we want to protect our teens, we need to relieve some of the pressure that causes them to crack.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

*http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/teen-angst/201109/teen-stress-how-much-is-too-much

**http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml#children
***http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf (page 4)
**** http://mres.gmu.edu/pmwiki/uploads/Main/schoolMED2010.pdf (page 2)

Poll Questions

Do you feel overwhelmed now in your freshman year?

Do you feel pressure (from family, friends, teachers, yourself etc) to take higher level courses in the coming years?

Do you think that teenagers are overworked?

Slipping

Good morning.  It’s 5:30 in the morning; it’s a random Monday during Junior year.  You were up until three in the morning last night finishing an essay; it’s perfect and you’ve never been more proud of an assignment in your life.  As you lie in your dark room listening to the alarm, you feel as though your soul were withering and dying at the notion that you have to get out of bed and go to school for another week.  You tumble out of bed and shuffle to the bathroom.  The shower sings to life and you stand under the scorching water, trying to warm up.  You dress, grab some food and coffee (the coffee is what matters; food is secondary), and sprint out the door to make your bus.  While you drive to school you read the article you were supposed to finish last night and scrawl some annotations down in the side margins.  Sweat makes your grip slippery as the fifth stop rolls by and you realize you aren’t anywhere near done.  You arrive and sprint inside, nodding to your friends before slamming your books onto the desk of your first period class and frantically completing your annotations.  All of your classes blur together into a whirl of people teachers tests textbooks questions homework vocab until it’s time for lunch.  You feel the heavy backpack cut into your shoulders as you make your way to the cafeteria, the weight of the world weighing you down and bending your back into submission.  You sit with your friends and joke a bit, but mostly you work on homework, which either is due next period or was assigned last period.  You proceed to your final classes and then the bell rings, setting you free.  However, you’re in your junior year and colleges are looking at you, so despite the heavy weariness sapping your strength and the mountain of work to do, you drag yourself to a club for your resume and enjoy the meeting as much as you can as evil whispers in the back of your mind speak of the homework you need to finish and the tests you think you failed.  The club ends and you hurry to a sport, because it’ll make you appear balanced even as your mind teeters out of control.  Your thoughts are numb as your muscles automatically stretch and flex to do what they must in order to complete the practice.  As you walk out of the door you run into the teacher for whom you wrote the essay.  He’s finished grading it, and lets you see your grade before he leaves.  Staring up at you is a big red 84, and you calmly hand it back even though on the inside you feel everything in you crumbling.  That’s not nearly good enough; with grades like that you’ll never get into the college you want.  You wander to the bus, sit in silence, and shuffle home, where you sit and work all night.  Repeat.

Imitating Kincaid: A Rant About Rights

"That the native does not like the tourist is not hard to explain.  For every native of every place is a potential tourist, and every tourist is a native of somewhere.  Every native lives a life of overwhelming and crushing banality and boredom and desperation and depression, and every deed, good and bad, is an attempt to forget this.  Every native would  like to find a way out, every native would like a rest, every native would like a tour.  But some natives - most natives in the world - cannot go anywhere.  They are too poor.  They are too poor to go anywhere.  They are too poor to escape the reality of their lives; and they are too poor to live properly in the place where they live, which is the very place you, the tourist, want to go - so you, they envy your ability to leave your own banality and boredom, they envy your ability to turn their own banality and boredom into a source of pleasure for yourself."  --A Small Place by Jamaica Kincaid (18, 19)

Long ago we were promised that in America each person has the same rights and freedoms. It is apparent that even now and despite numerous struggles from minorities, there are still groups without certain rights. Despite the infamous words of the Declaration which promise the right to the pursuit of happiness, there are still those who, despite the promise our forefathers made, try to take this right from others.  Every person should have the right to be happy, the right to live their lives, the right to love the person of their choice.  But this fundamental right – that of happiness and life – is forbidden to homosexuals.  They are outcasts. They are shunned by friends and family alike.  Even strangers on the street may taunt or jeer at them; there are many cases where an individual from any one of these groups has harmed a young homosexual, many cases where the outcast has been teased, has been beaten, some to death – these pariahs, thrown from home and from social group to walk alone, are treated nearly subhumanly by those with the misguided belief that to love whom you love is wrong and should be punished.

Problems with Society: From the Petty to the Problematic

Personal:
    Person to Person contact

• Ignorance.  This is one of the things that I hate more than anything else.  Please, think before opening your mouth and if you don't know about what you're about to discuss, either don't say anything or search simply to broaden your horizons and learn something.
• Stereotypes.   They aren't always true; in fact, they rarely are.  And even "positive" stereotypes have negative effects.  Often the stress of people expecting you to do well can be as damaging as the expectation of failure.
• Irrational fear of/sense of superiority over a minority group.  Here's looking at you, racists, homophobes, and sexists.  Your way of life is not better than the group of people you look down on, nor is it any worse.  we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness.  You have no right to deny people their rights

School:
   Problems within my school

• Homework assigned just to give us homework.  I understand the homework is necessary to reinforce the lesson, but make an effort to keep it reasonable, at least.  A worksheet going over the new verb tense you learned or the key points of the lesson is ok.  A 30 page packet due the next day is not.  It will just stress out kids, we'll resent you, and we'll lose sleep and not pay attention the next day.
• Guidance.  Be less strict with schedules.  Yes I know that you don't want kids changing classes on a whim, but if within the first wek of school a student comes to you nearly in tears and begs to be allowed to switch because the work load is already too much, you should have a responsibility to allow the student to transfer into a class that is more reasonable. 
• Clubs.  Don't take up entire hallways.  I don't care about your signs if they're just a piece of paper with the name of your club on them.  And if you're doing a demonstration in the hallway, please leave enough room to get to class.  I know that you think you're bringing our attention to the issue, but honestly, if you make it so I can't go through a hallway and I'm late to class, I will kick you the next time you do it.
• Course pacing.  Depending on a person's level, they'll have different views.  But personally, I believe that if only a few kids in a class don't understand a topic after a teacher has explained it, it should be the responsibility of the student to look it up later, ask a friend, or go in for extra help.  Otherwise kids who understand more are dragged down, and more time is spent on reviewing than on learning. 

National:
    Problems with the government and the US (in my eyes)

• Tax cuts.  I'm a huge fan of graduated income tax.  To me it's a great idea.  However, if the super wealthy isn't doing their fair share, the entire nation is losing out on money that could be put into increasing education and health care to improve those with no money as well as those with an abundance of it.
• Socialized Medicine.  It seems to be working pretty well for Canada.  And if we spend more on preventing illness then workers don't have to take time off of work for sickness for which there are vaccinations or can be found during a routine check up.
• Pretending to sympathize with a certain group.  *cough*Ann Romney*cough*.  Ok I understand that you used to not have much money. But you aren't part of that class now; you're part of the elite.  People don't really admire you for eating tuna and pasta.  Many I have talked to feel patronized and resentful.  Talk about what you know, and go ahead and mention being poor for a while.  Just don't try to present it as if you are still poor, and not one of the elite.
• Education.  College students take out exorbitant amounts of money on their student loans, and end up spending years paying them off.  A higher education should be available to all students; how far you go in college should depend on your ambition, intelligence, and perseverence, not how much money your family has.
• Abortion.  If you are a male, you can't fully understand this and you have no right to make legislature for it.  If a girl cannot raise the child well then it will probably grow up miserable.  And she may end up losing credit for school due to pregnancy, which will be an impediment later in her life and in providing for the child.  At the very least, either give us contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies or give us the option of an abortion if it comes to that, although preferably both.
• Homosexuality (or rather, homophobes).  These people are searching for love and acceptance just as much as you are.  They aren't trying to destroy your happiness or your way of life.  Even if you don't agree with the idea of having a same sex partner, give them the same rights that you have; everyone deserves to spend their lives with the person they love.

Miscellaneous:
      The random things that bug me

• Religion. Religion itself doesn't bother me; sometimes I wish I was more religious so I could maybe deal more easily with obstacles in life.  No, my problem with religion is the conviction that there is only one true religion. Stop with all the anger and hatred of other religions besides your own.  Be open to new ideas and willing to accept that people may view the universe differently, but those differences aren't necessarily bad things.  Are all Muslims evil? No, and likewise not all Christians are good.  And also, don't preface an argument with "Well the Bible says..." Please, I am literally begging you.  It makes you sound close minded and ignorant, especially if you're arguing against scientifically proven facts.
• Media.  Stop presenting these unrealistic expectations for people.  Not all girls are supermodels, and even some supermodels don't look the way they do on the cover of magazines.  People come in all different shapes and sizes, and it's time to just accept that and move on with life. 
• Television.  Reality tv shows are not interesting or funny.  The people on them set a bad example for how we're supposed to behave, and the fact that they tend to have a target audience of teenagers makes it even worse.  Written shows are so much better; off the top of my head, I can come up with How I Met Your Mother, Sherlock, and 30 Rock, just three of hundreds of incredible shows that are funnier, more touching, and more interesting than reality tv.
• Corporations and manufacturers.  Make products that are of at least decent quality.  Your products should last longer than a few weeks or months.  At the very least, I should be able to take a frame out of the box without it falling apart in my hands.
• Increase the number of magnet schools.  If a student has an idea of what they want to do, they should go to a school that specializes in that area of study.  Preferably changing during Junior or Senior years, perhaps with a general school for the people who still don't know.  It would give students the opportunity to get ahead before going to college and see if the work in their chosen line of studies would be something they could do for a long time.

A Little Rant (the first of many)

Hello there.  My name is Jaime Lee Anderson and I’m a junior at Brien McMahon High School.  What do you think of me, based on that?  You probably think I’m bubbly and enthusiastic, although that may be different based on different Jaimes you know.  You probably think I’m intelligent, and probably athletic, with a lot of friends.

Unfortunately, my name isn’t Jaime, or anything even remotely exciting.  I’m Sarah Elizabeth Breault, the most boring name my parents could possibly have picked.  How about now? Has your opinion changed based on my name?  You probably think I’m not trustworthy, although I’d die before exposing another person’s secrets. (I’m sorry about lying; I was curious about how a person’s name affects other people.  Comments below please!)  You probably assume I’m white – as one of my friends pointed out, Elizabeth is a rather generic white girl middle name.  If you’re being racist like this, you’re absolutely correct.  You probably stumbled over my last name in your head, and if you didn’t you’re almost guaranteed to mess it up out loud (I don’t mind; I’ve gotten used to it).  I can’t guess how you’ve reacted to the rest of my name, because I don’t know the other Sarah Elizabeths you know and I don’t know how your brain works.  Instead of trying to guess, I’ll take you through my name and my personal reactions:

First off: Sarah.  Hebrew for princess, which I suppose is a reasonable way to describe myself.  I’m spoiled and stubborn and usually don’t take kindly to being told no.  As far as I can tell, there’s no reason for my name.  It just is.  I suppose my parents like it, although it’s a bit plain for my taste. 

The real problem for me is how common it is.  Personally, I think that being an individual is incredibly important.  I want to make a difference, which isn’t really possible if I’m one of the crowd.  One of the most common complaints about my name I have is that it doesn’t really express individuality.  At least 8 or 9 times per week, I hear “SARAH!!” screamed in public and often whip around and respond before realizing that the other person was not talking to me. 

Second: Elizabeth.  Meaning: God is my oath, which is ironic considering the fact that I tend to lean towards atheism.  Yet another painfully plain and common name.  I don’t mind Elizabeth; it only irritates me when it’s shortened to “Beth” and stuck after “Sarah” to form one painfully southern name.

Finally: Breault.  I’m sorry; my European is showing.  It’s a French name, and from it is born my hatred of French.  No one can pronounce it; too many unnecessary vowels.  Maybe it’s been a blessing as well as an extremely annoying curse.  Maybe it’s why I’m tolerant of other’s mistakes and don’t take insults too personally.  Regardless, I look forward to getting married. 

Another problem for me is that the name “Sarah” is rather rigid.  There’s not much to do with it if you’d rather be known more…interestingly.  Yes I could go with Elizabeth, but no one I know would find the transition easy. 

Maybe it’s a good thing that I have such a rigid name; it’s given me the motivation and desire to express myself in other ways, such as how I speak and how I spend my time.  Maybe if I had been named differently, I’d be a different person; maybe I’d be more quiet and ashamed of my weird name, or maybe I’d live up to it.  Either way, Sarah is my name and I guess it’s not so bad.

However, if you know a good nickname for Sarah, please leave it in a comment.  I’ll be forever in your debt.