<p>lets break down the FRQ's</p>
<p>i posted this somewhere else too but heres what my cool self did</p>
<p>1- i said she basically had a bemused distaste for American consumerism.
her critique was very subtle/comical in its "jibes." like when she says "but no matter" after talking about how the earlier american consumerist-esque desire for flamingo plumes/meat resulted in the extinction of the modern consumerist want of the moment. </p>
<p>2- my essay basically amounted to how the guy thought that life with a lack of money was horrible, and that it's only ironically made moreee horrible, by the fact that (with the last sentence) the only goodness from a penniless life comes when your dead. i talked about how this wasn't necessarily supposed to be an assuaging detail ;-) then i talked about that mother of a middle sentence, how it's longness translated into tediousness, making you want it to end, thus effectively reflecting what one would want of the very life hes describing IN that sentence. i thought this was also meant to be a relatively humorous piece.</p>
<p>3- i disagreed with the web blogs etcetc promoting democratic ideals. i basically said a web blog (and the variations thereof>> radio show, magazine etc) where you can block dissenting opinions from being posted/printed/broadcasted etc ( like how you can delete comments from a blog, or magazines only post the "letters to the editor" they want to in their magazine --even tho some may be critiques they can pick poorly written critques/the ones they want to) so it actually undermines the ideals because it hinders public discourse giving some individuals virtual soapboxes where theyre unassailable which is dangerous etcetc. i gave examples of some cool things. </p>
<p>i think there was a lot you could say about all of them personally. not really clear right or wrong (to a point :) ) answers to any of them.</p>