Steve Martin

I am currently doing homework and listening to one of Steve Martin's albums. Maybe not the most efficient use of time, but an enjoyable one none the less. Steve Martin's humor is enigmatic is many respects - he adopts an almost stream of consciousness approach in his monologues. Some border on rambling as he muses about a particular topic and then interjects with wild yelling or a banjo solo. Martin is an extremely accomplished musician as and a proficient banjoist and has worked on multiple collaborations with hit recording artists. In many respects Martin is a polymath. What interests me is how seemingly un-structured his humor can be - I once heard in an interview that he believed that people were tired during this time period from the threat of the cold war and mutually assured destruction and were more interested in his brand of humor that was non-sequitar and on the whole very silly. I certainly recommend Martin's routine for anyone who is in the mood for something light-hearted and fun. Many of his more recent movies have been subpar (and this is being charitable) but his stand up comedy from the late 70s is pure gold.

The March of the Flag

In the March of the Flag, Beveridge argues that the United States has a duty to annex areas like Puerto Rico and Cuba so that they might be exposed to American democracy and that Americans might have additional markets to utilize. This was a question that many Americans were debating leading up to the Spanish-American War. Beveridge argued that to take Carribean nations was simply an extention of manifest destiny, much as the original colonists had branched out to envelope the entire landmass that is now the United States. I believe Joe would not be as diametrically opposed to Beveridge's opinion as he would be D'Souza. It would depend on the circumstances. I believe Joe would be more willing if the people in these countries were in favor of having democracy spread to them. However, the situation would be differant if these countries had no interest. Then the United States would simply be imposing its own value system on other countries, something that Joe explicitly comes out against believing that the United States hasn't the right at all.

America the Beautiful

In this article, D'Souza explains why he thinks America is the greatest nation on earth. This country affords people more freedom than various Islamic nations that do things like impose their own restrictions onto everyone when it comes to issues like what a woman can wear in public. D'Souza would support the fact that America sometimes goes to war to impose its own beliefs upon others because the current system is the best there is, and people should have the opportunity to experience it for themselves. Joe would take issue with this logic, he believes that a country like the United States cannot send its citizens to war without providing them with a tangible reason for it. Joe does not believe that one can fight for democracy as it is an abstract term that people define differantly. He believes that a person should be told exactly what they are getting themselves into before they go to war as he did - if he had had a more realistic picture of what he was getting himself into, his opinion about going to war would have been much differant. D'Souza would disagree with Joe on this point - D'Souza believes that American democracy is the ultimate cause to champion, whereas Joe does not believe it is an objective enough goal to ask people to give their lives for it.

Johnny Got His Gun (Part 2)

The book becomes less focused on Joe's past and more focused on his time in the hospital during the second half of the book. It also begins to focus more on his attempts to ascertain details that were previously mundane, such as telling time. What interests me about this book is the fact that it is considered as one of the most poignant and effective anti-war books of all time, and yet it doesn't mention war explicitly in the second half until near the end, much like the first half. Dalton Trumbo through Joe doesn't speak explicitly against war until near the end, but the argument is subtley presented throughout the book. This is what makes it work well. It appeals to the audience's emotions and causes us to sympathize with Joe and by extension his plight.

Johnny Got His Gun

Immediately I was struck by the book's unique prose and style. There is an almost stream of consciousness theme to the writing to the point where early on I was operating under the assumption that the different sections were not actually about the same character but disparate individuals sharing common experiences. The scenes are all very vivid. The scene where his arm is being removed in particular was extremely lifelike. I think this was the case due to the fact that it wasn't an extremely dramatic scene. In many ways it was the least chaotic sequence in this part of the book. Instead of pushing his description of the scene over the top, it was rather low key. He felt a hot pricking and peeling, and then realized his arm was gone. This description was able to be both vivid and vague; vague in that he wasn't quite aware of what was going on. This section worked so well because it didn't try extremely hard to convey the emotions it needed too, it just presented them and let the audience make up its own mind.

Gender

Through the media and American culture, I and others have been given a certain set of attributes which real men are expected to conform too. Men should be muscular, and rugged. They should never talk about their problems, and above all, real men never cry. This image has been given to us through movies, commercials and writing. The media portrays this image as being the be all and end all when it comes to being the way one is "supposed" to be. Whether this is right or wrong is ultimately irrelevant as it is how society portrays real men as being.

The Story of My Body

Throughout her life, Ortiz has measured herself and been measured by others physically on a scale pervaded by the media. When she is in Puerto Rico she is consistently praised for her good looks, to the point where the shop keeper goes out of his way to give her candy for being so pretty. When she moves to the United States however, she is judged by a different standard and is found to be lacking in terms of looks. This illustrates how different cultures define what is considered good-looking on different terms. Ortiz did not look any different when she moved to the United States than she had in Puerto Rico (at least not imediately, she obviously went through puberty and began to look different eventually) but she was judged to be far less attractive in the United States. This is epitomized by her statement at the very begining of the piece - in Puerto Rico she was considered "white", in the United States she is considered "brown".

The Problem With Marriage

I do not support gay marriage. I do not support "straight" marriage. I simply do not support marriage. Marriage is an antiquated and outdated institution that bears little relevance in the modern world. It can have a positively detrimental affect on individuals and society as a whole.

Marriage comes to us from a much simpler time when it was used in many cultures as a bartering system. "You get the woman, I get some sheep" was the overall methodology. Some areas of the world still employ this model when it comes to marriage. In other cultures, marriage became a more sacred thing, reserved for two individuals who loved one another deeply. That was all well and good, for it was a simpler time; a time not filled with fast food, one night stands and Las Vegas. If we look at marriage today, we see a pattern that is sad in its predictability. Close to 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Some sources say more, some less. Regardless, the number is high enough to be very telling. Is the problem that divorce is too easy? Santorum would argue that it is. But, no. The problem is that marriage is an institution that has long since outlived its prime.

We all know the elderly couple who lives down the block who has been married for 60 years and are just as in love as they were when they first were married. This however, is not a common occurrence. It is the exception that proves the rule. Most couples will never last this long, and of the ones who do, how much of their marriage is based on affection, and how much of it is based on feelings of obligation? A feeling of "I made my bed, and now I've got to sleep in it". Many couples do not stay together because they love one another, they do it because they feel obligated to do so for one reason or another. Perhaps it is their children; they don't want to cause them emotional upheaval. Maybe it's pressure from their family who considers divorce tantamount to the ultimate sin. Regardless of the reason, it isn't about love. I will concede that such couples exist, but even a strong proponent of marriage will admit they are few and far between.

In his article Wolfson lists numerous homosexual couples who have been together for years and have remained devoted to one another. Couples like this have stayed together because they love one another, and have a commitment to the family they have created. Is not this a truer union than a marriage based on feelings of obligation? Granted, these feelings of obligation can be present in a situation of co-habitation, but they are not as prominent. There is no legal recourse for a person who is co-habitating to simply pack up and leave. Many do not however. Santorum argues that these sorts of situations are extremely harmful to our society - I argue just the opposite. A union based on love and trust is a stronger and more beneficial one than a union based on litigation and obligation, both to the individuals involved and society as a whole.

Homer Simpson once remarked "Marriage is like a coffin, and each child is another nail." We laugh, but there is an element of truth in these words. Marriage can ultimately prove to be a stifling experience for many, leading husbands and wives to commit distasteful acts. Ultimately some individuals will be driven to such measures regardless of the circumstances, but for many it is marriage specifically that leads them down such a path.

Am I suggesting two people should avoid entering into a relationship knowing that there is a sizable chance things will not work out? Absolutely not. I believe it is the fundamental of all human experiences to give and receive love from a partner. And on a more practical level, it is required in order for us to continue to reproduce and maintain the human race. I simply put forth that marriage is not the ideal union for two people. During the height of the Roman Empire, the penalty of death entailed being nailed to a cross and left to hang for days at a time until one starved to death. This process was known as crucifixion, and was undoubtedly one of the most cruel and unusual punishments ever devised by mankind. Capital punishment evolved from crucifixion over the centuries to beheading, to hanging, to the electric chair, and more recently lethal injection. Our most current system is obviously not perfect, but it has come a long way from crucifixion. I think given the choice, most would choose lethal injection over any of the alternatives. I do not seek to liken marriage to any of the above practices, but provide this example to illustrate the idea that marriage is an age-old tradition in need of updating.

What then is the answer? I cannot provide one readily, as I believe there are no easy answers. To do something such as abolishing marriage would ultimately do more harm than good in the foreseeable future, despite my chagrin when it comes to the entire practice. My ideal would be to do away with the concept of marriage, and replace it with civil unions providing many of the financial benefits marriage provides. I recognize this is not likely to occur in the near future, so I move on to my second, and ultimately more achievable point: any couple aught to be granted the right to enter into a civil union regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. The state is not responsible for regulating these types of situations, although in recent years people have gotten the idea that the government aught to enforce their own personal views through legislation. Such is not the case. If you are opposed to the homosexual marriage, the answer is very simple. Don't marry someone of the same gender.

A democracy is a system of government that is not based upon the whims of a fringe group. If group X hates group Y, group X does not have any legal grounds to limit the rights of group Y. This is the ideal of democracy, but the truth lies somewhere in between. I would put forth that the majority of Americans are apathetic when it comes to the idea of homosexuals being able to marry. This indicates that the group that is strongly opposed is hardly a majority. As such, how can we in good conscience limit the rights of one specific group?

Marriage is not ideal. But until a better system is devised, the right to marry should not be denied to two human beings based on which gender they find more attractive.

What is Marriage?

Wolfson uses this case to illustrate that a group that is even more of a minority and less deserving of the right to marry has been granted the right to marry. He uses this particular example to point out how unfair the system is as he sees it. Prisoners, who are deemed morally unfit to function in civilized society are allowed to marry. What does this say about homosexuals when many of them (like the ones referenced in this article) behave exactly as society expects them too - with the obvious exception being that they are gay. It is therefore peculiar that decent, upright members of society are passed over when it comes to certain rights and the same rights are given to individuals who have failed at their chance to live within society. Wolfson uses this specific example for this very reason. He wants us to begin to question how ethically corect we find these circumstances. There are Americans who support gay-marriage; there are Americans who oppose gay-marriage; there are Americans who feel every perceivable point in between the two extremes. Regardless of which side we fall on, I doubt any of us support criminals. Therefore, how can a society grant certain rights to a group that we can all agree on are deserving of less rights (for our own safety) and deny rights to a group that functions in society?

It Takes a Family

In this article the metaphor of two planes is used to explain the alleged negative effects a single-parent family has upon a youth as opposed to a more traditional two-parent family. The metaphor utilized is that a two-parent family is a plane that gets where it's going most of the time; the single-parent family is more like a plane that gets where it is going some of the time, but not a lot of the time. The author alleges that given the choice, most people would choose the plane that has a higher rate of getting where it needs to go (i.e. the two-parent family). This metaphor is effective in that it plays on a fear many people have when it comes to flight - many are afraid to fly due to the perceived danger. Therefore this metaphor works well in that is plays on a more commonly held fear than had the comparison been something more obscure that less people could relate too.

The author's assertions in this section make sense upon first inspection, but when taking a closer look, several things strain the author's credibility. He alleges that single-parent homes are more likely to produce a juvenile delinquent than a two parent home. This in and off itself sounds good. I myself have known several children of single parents who behavior was lacking. This can be easily credited to the lack of a father or mother figure in their life. Alright, so far the author's argument checks out. However, when it comes to two-parent families always being better, I must take issue. Despite the fact that I have known children of single parents who were unruly and restless, I have known many children of two-parent homes that were equally unruly. In some circumstances, a mother or father can be extremely abusive, and damage a child emotionally and physically. In this scenario, it would be better to only have one parent than two when one was abusive.

The author's logic is also stretched a bit thin when we consider the fact that not all children that are products of "happy" two-parent families end up happy and healthy themselves. The unspoken assumption throughout the article is that if a family meets the condition the author has for a happy family, then the offspring of the family will be happy. This is simply not the case. Quite often a child will engage in negative behaviors whether the situation at home is a healthy one or not. While many of the author's ideas make sense, too many of them are simply simplified to black and white terms. It is apparent that the author is looking for a solution to a problem that has been plaguing our country for some time; unfortunately the answer isn't quite as simple as, "make sure all marriages are this way".

Appearances

The author's decision not to reveal that the two men who are attacked at the beginning of the article are heterosexual is a deliberate rhetorical choice that communicates a prevalent theme throughout the article. These men were not attacked because they were gay - rather they were assaulted because they were perceived to be gay - a fundamental difference. Simply due to the fact that these men did not conform to gender stereotypes labeled them as gay and open to the possibility of violence.

The issue of antigay violence becomes something much larger and closer to home for many people when they become aware of the fact that it is not just gays and lesbians who have to deal with homophobia. It quickly becomes apparent that one can be affected by homophobia whether they are gay, lesbian or straight. In the case of several of the people attacked in the article, simply dressing outside of their typical gender roles caused them to be preyed upon. In the case of the last two couples, it was simply a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The fact that homophobic violence, whether verbal or physical, is not just reserved for homosexuals reveals what a deeply ingrained problem it is. The cases in this article reveal just how deeply the hatred many people feel goes. It also allows us to see that this issue is not one that only affects a small number of people - it can affect us all.

Was Eustace Conway a Transcendentalist?

If we are using Emerson's model to prescribe a transcendentalist label - or not as the case may be - (and we most certainly would apply Emerson's train of thought it making this determination; he was himself considered the father of this line of thought) we must consider several different criteria before coming to a conclusion. Using Emerson's Nature as a referance, we can infer several of the following ideas. Eustace Conway all but forsakes his previous life at the age of 17 to live in nature (I use the term "forsakes" loosely, obviously he returned to certain aspects of this previously life, but for the purposes of this discussion, the term shall stand here). In so doing, he was able to cast off the constraints that modern American life had imposed upon him, gaining a greater sense of awareness about the natural world. These qualities seem to endow him with the transcendentalist properties that Emerson discusses in Nature. Emerson discusses that the purpose of Nature is to exist to inspire new creation, not simply "baren contemplation". This "baren contemplation" seems itself to be a phrase applicable to the modern American lifestyle. When people today survey nature, they do not recognize the beauty that is right in front of it. They pay it very little thought whatsoever, or in other words "barren contemplation". Eustace, despite all his failings, tends to recognize Nature for what it really is - or, at least moreso than most others. Eustace revels in Nature. He revers it; worships it; loves it. Not only that, but he is inspired by Nature to create as well as preverse in the case of Turtle Island. He is not content to simply view Nature complacently. One extremely telling passage from Nature is quoted below.


Every spirit builds itself a house; and beyond its house a world; and beyond its world, a heaven. Know then, that the world exists for you. For you is the phenomenon perfect. What we are, that only can we see. All that Adam had, all tha Caesar could, you have and can do. Adam called his house, heaven and earth; Caesar called his house, Rome' you perhaps call yours, a cobbler's trade, a hundred acres of ploughed land or a scholar's garret. Yet line for line and point for point, your dominion is as great as theirs, though without fine names. Build, therefore, your own world. As fast as you conform your life to the pure idea in your mind, that will unfold its great proportions.


Has not Eustace built his own world in Turtle Island? Is it not his Rome, his heaven and earth, his veritable utopia? It would certainly seem so. The criteria Emerson sets down are certainly met. By these standards, does Eustace not fit Emerson's mold? The two appear to be very much kindred spirits.

Nature

The beauty of nature reforms itself in the mind, and not for barren contemplation, but for new creation.

I found this particular part interesting due to the fact that it has meaning on several different levels. On the most literal level, we can draw comparisons to the fact that nature is always growing. This was the first meaning evident to me upon reading "The beauty of nature reforms itself..." This led me to think about how nature is always being revitalized by new seasons. Even during the winter, when many things die, this exile lasts not for long. If left to its own devices, nature is forever flourishing and multiplying, becoming successively more beautiful and numerous. On the more figurative level, taking this passage as a whole allows us to draw comparisons to Eustace Conway. Emerson describes nature as something that does just exists for people to think flippantly about, it exists so that people may draw inspiration from it to create something that is almost as beautiful and magnificent as the original nature itself. Eustace can be drawn into this particular example for very obvious reasons. From an extremely early age, he was inspired by nature. He spent all of the time he could manage immersing himself in it. During the stints when he was unable to immerse himself in it, he would dwell upon this fact. Eustace used nature as his inspiration in order to create things that were themselves of great beauty. The most notable example is Turtle Island, a 1000 acre plot of land he managed to carve out for himself in North Carolina. Drawing inspiration from the nature he loved so, Eustace created a place of great beauty, maintaining the land and building upon it. Eustace Conway is the epitome of Emerson's new creator.

The Last American Man

Elizabeth Gilbert wrote this book to pay homage to Eustace Conway’s lifestyle; a type of lifestyle that Gilbert argues once defined American manhood, but is quickly dying out. She wants us to take a long and hard look at our materialistic lifestyles, and potentially change them for the better. At the very least, she wants us to acknowledge the harmful nature of today’s pop culture. I believe that Gilbert wrote this book for very much the same reason that Eustace founded Turtle Island. Eustace was able to purchase Turtle Island bit by bit, salvaging land that would otherwise have been torn apart and turned into parking garages, strip malls, and urban sprawl. Conway sets aside this bit of land initially for the very simple reason that he loves the land and wants to preserve a piece of it, if only for himself. He quickly comes to realize the value of what he possesses, and seeks to use it to educate people about the harmfulness of their lifestyle. Gilbert’s portrait of Eustace came to exist in a manner quite similar to Turtle Island – it was cobbled together from bits and pieces she emerged with from interviews and journal entries. Her initial interest in the project itself was motivated simply by the fact that she is enamored by Eustace Conway. She finds him to be an extremely interesting figure, and well worth writing about. She comes to realize the value of what she has written and turns her attention to the potential for her work to raise awareness about the breakneck speed at which Americans find it necessary to live at all times.

“He is our mythical inner self, made flesh, which is why it’s comforting to meet him. Like seeing a bald eagle. (As long as there’s one left, we think, maybe things aren’t so bad, after all.) Of course, embodying the mythical hopes of an entire society is a pretty big job for one man, but Eustace has always been up for it. An people also sense that in him; they sense his self-assurance of being large enough to serve as a living metaphor, of being strong enough to carry all our desires on his back. So it’s safe to idolize him, which is an exciting experience in this callow, disillusioned age when it’s not sage to idolize anybody. And people get a little dizzy with that excitement, a little irrational.

In this passage Gilbert illustrates the idea that Eustace has become a symbol for us due to the fact that his very existence is comforting to us. Much like the bald eagle she mentions, if we see that birds such as those still exist, or men such as Eustace still exist, then things are not as bleak as they might appear. We therefore want to idealize Eustace in order to justify to ourselves American expansion. If a man such as Eustace can exist, then there really is no problem, is there? Gilbert writes the Last American Man for this reason. She wants to dispel the myth that just because a man like Eustace exists in today’s world, it means that things are at an acceptable place. She shows this throughout the story by revealing just how difficult Eustace’s life is, and through this she hopes to illustrate the dire condition American culture is in.

Wright's Final Analysis

Wright comes to the conclusion by the end of the story that everyone is suffering, similarly to how he himself suffered. The whites too are suffering, albeit in a different way. Wright comes to realize this for the first time at the end of the novel. His experience throughout the story has been colored by the indecencies he has had to put up with. Whites however are suffering too, in a different, but very real way. Wright's dreams of being a writer do not seem to be going anywhere in these last pages for the simple fact that he does not feel he has an audience to write too. He tosses the figurative spark out at the end to try and determine whether his writing will have an audience at all.

Wright Leaves the South

The change Wright begins at the end of part one is ultimately good change in my opinion. For one thing, he has taken his fate into his own hands, or at least as much as an African-American could do in the Jim Crow South. Whether or not the North will prove more hospitable is something we have yet to discover, but regardless, Wright had a goal and was able to make it happen for himself through hard work. In the past, Wright could only dream about going north - no amount of hard work could get him enough money in order to move. Wright's horizons are also being broadened by all the books he is reading. This is leading him in new directions in terms of his thought processes. He began to realize near the end of part 1 that he could no longer stay in the South, his outlook was changing enough to the point where the whites would begin to take notice, and react with hostility towards him. In this vein, it is good that Wright is able to leave the poisonous environment he is privy too. As I mentioned earlier, we are not yet certain if Chicago will be better, worse, or the same as Memphis has been, but one thing we can be reasonably certain of was that Memphis was growing more and more unsafe for Wright and his family, and thus, it was certainly time to move on.

Wright and Subservience

I believe that a degree of subservience is required to exist in civilized society. There is something to be said for the fact that a degree of conformity is required to fit into a community. We have an understanding in our society that it is unacceptable to commit acts such as murder or theft. For individuals who feel the urge to commit such crimes, they must either resist such urges or be removed from the society itself. There is the expectation that students and staff of UHS will not spread hateful speech towards other people. For members of the community who are not able to comply with these standards, they are asked to remove themselves. This sort of conformity is necessary, and desirable. Chris McCandless is an applicable example. He felt himself above societal norms, and ultimately paid for it with his life. Therefore, subservience to a degree is required. However, Wright himself has to deal with a level of expected conformity that is far beyond what we have to experience today.

Catie Young

Catie Young is a youthful individual. I decided to write this blog on my own, to pay homage to her as an individual. She is, if nothing else, individual. This is evidenced by the fact, that she is but one person, and this is what is defined as an individual. So thus, she is one - an individual, that is. Her youthful nature is compounded by the fact that her last name is Young, a word which means youthful, or, not old. In fact, it is the polar opposite of old. Yes. She is actually only 3 days old. She was engineered inside a cow fetus, which makes her the first cow-human hybrid. One thing that must be noted, is that Catie Young has many interests. These interests are varied, and include many things. For one thing, she is in a band known as CYBJ - I forget what this stands for. It is a Christian rock group that specializes in Judeo-Christian Theological Geology.

Quotes by Catie Young: "What is a beach cumber? Is it a cucumber you eat on the beach?"

*Catie tries to spell* "sk djj kksleidksls,.ssls"

Wright and the White World

Wright comments that he began coping with the white world too late. He is completely unaccustomed to how he is supposed to act when in the company of white people. His family members and friends have gotten used to how they are expected to act in these situations, but Wright has not been exposed to these situations until he was almost 17 years.Wright is far too free-thinking and questioning to ever truly fit into the Jim Crow south - it is not enough for him to simply accept his lot in life.

Wright and the SPEAAAACHHH

I believe that Wright is justified in his refusal to use the speech the principal gives him due to the fact that they asked him to write his own speech originally. Wright acknowledged that the principal's speech is better written, but it is the sentiment behind the act that he simply cannot get behind. He sees it as yet another instance where the education system is seeking to hinder him rather than help him. He is being asked to conform to what the south sees a black person being. This particular incident typifies problems Wright has had throughout his life: balancing out his hatred of conforming to his need to eat and make money. Wright tries desperately in this chapter to break himself of the habit of questioning these types of things, but he is unable to succeed.

Wright's Reaction to his Uncle Tom

Wright reacts extremely angrily to his Uncle Tom for a number of reasons. For one thing, he cannot even begin to fathom the reason that his Uncle Tom is so angry after he asks Wright the time. Wright cannot understand what solicits the reaction he receives from his Uncle, but he does consider his Uncle's reaction completely unjustified. He is angered by the fact that his uncle has just emerged in his life - he has lived in the house a mere two days or so, and then he has taken it upon himself to begin disciplining Wright for minor infractions. Wright accepted his mother's beatings because he by and large respected his mother and recognized that for most of his beatings, he deserved it. He was angered by his Aunt Aggie's beating feeling that his behavior did not warrant such treatment. However his aunt had lived with him for at least some amount of time before she started attacking him. His Uncle however had barely lived with him before he began punishing him for perceived wrongs. This did not sit well with Wright's sense of right and wrong.

Wright's First Written Piece

Wright feels gratification at showing the piece he wrote to a female neighbor simply because he is reveling in the thrill of having produced something. He says that he feels as though this was the first time in his life he had actually created something that was entirely his. Even though it was - in his opinion - not particularly well written, the thrill of having written it at all was enough to excite him. Wright acknowledges that his neighbor was most likely bewildered at hearing him read it - his story was lacking in all but atmosphere and tragic occurrences. This small portion of the story is an important piece of foreshadowing. We can be fairly certain that Wright will take up writing again in the future as he does write Black Boy, among many others. Wright's ability to create something all his own is an important milestone for him. He feels stifled living in his Grandmother's house, with his zealot of an Aunt. Reading and writing helps to provide Wright with an outlet with which he can healthily let out his pent up frustrations.

Wright's Mother's Paralysis

When Wright's mother suffers from a stroke, Wright's entire outlook is changed. For one thing, he begins to feel less and less like a child. He no longer wishes to play with the other children and do childlike things that he wished to do only a short time before. In many ways it makes Wright more cynical. He becomes much less likely to accept charity from others, even when he needs it. He accepts food from his neighbors only grudgingly, feeling bad imposing upon their hospitality. He describes how his mother's paralysis would color his outlook substantially later on when it came to the decisions he made, especially when it came to matters of race. How exactly this will come into play is something we have yet to discover, although I am fairly certain Wright's own judgement on the subject is accurate as the entire book is a retrospective. 

Wright's Dislike of Jews

Wright and other black children at this time disliked Jews due to the fact that they were the recipients of an extreme amount of hatred and prejudice from white people. Taunting and mocking Jews was an easy way for the children to release their frustration for the way they were treated by white people. They could not easily repay the white people in kind for their prejudice due to the fact that white's were the power group. Wright and others in his situation live in a state of perpetual fear of white people and thus they cannot treat the whites as they themselves are treated. Instead they mock Jews, whom they do not fear will lynch them. This affords Wright and the other children a feeling of power they do not usually enjoy. Several of Wright's experiences predispose him to such action. For instance, his mother remained frustratingly opaque in her descriptions about race relations, in an attempt to protect Wright from the harsh realities of race conflicts. While this is something Wright has taken for granted, he begins to question the motives of white people who perpetuate violence and he wonders about his own place in the grand scheme of things. Wright is woefully ignorant about race relations, and thus he could not be expected to understand that what he was doing was wrong.

Why is Wright Hungry?

Wright is hungry because he doesn't have any food. But aside from that, Wright is emotionally hungry for several reasons. For one thing, he lacks a father figure, and this causes him to be "hungry" as it were. He ends up seeking out the companionship of people in the saloon due to the fact that he lacks adult companionship in the form of a father figure. The people in the saloon are hardly good role models, but Wright latches on to them due to the fact that his mother is gone most of the time, and his father is notably absent from his life. In addition to this, Wright is hungry for knowledge. He is originally apprehensive about going to school, and once there he is intimidated by the knowledge possessed by his peers. In spite of this, or maybe even because of it, Wright ends up going home excited at the end of the day, relishing the prospect of gaining so much new knowledge. An example of Wright's thirst for knowledge can be found when the man comes to replenish the family's coal supplies. The man ends up teaching Wright to count, and Wright is ecstatic with his new knowledge. He revels in his knew ability to count things, and it serves to broaden Wright's outlook about the world in which he lives.

The Futility of School

Gatto argues that school is an exercise in futility due to its repetitiveness and tendency to breed complacency in students rather than free-thought. I agree with many of the points Gatto raises, however in the interest of playing devils advocate, I shall endeavor to present a varying point of view on this topic: is it necessarily a bad thing that the majority of our population is not thinking for themselves? The obvious is answer is, "yes, of course it's a bad thing" but if we are to look at this more closely, we come to the realization that things are never so black and white. The majority of people never engage in free thought, relying on institutions such as school to direct them in the right direction. This may not be the most desirable outcome, but it may be necessary. Take for example, the French Revolution. Arguably the majority of people engaged in free-thinking, and what ensued was an extremely bloody conflict. This is quite likely due to the fact that with the majority of the populace thinking and acting, no one could come to a consensus when it came to what form the country should take. Ideally, everyone would be able to think as they wished, but we have seen that the results of this can often be disastrous. I see no immediate solution to this problem, but it is obviously not as simple as "we need to teach everyone to think for themselves". Another point to mention is related to consumerism. It is important to note that consumerism is needed in order to maintain an industrial nation. Consumerism is not wholly black and white, and we must bear that for all it's evils when taken in extreme circumstances, it is still necessary.

Report of the Massachusetts Board of Education Reaction

I value my non-Academic education at University because - due to the fact that there is a fairly strong focus on non-academic matters - I tend to learn more in academic areas as well. This statement may seem paradoxical at first glance, but it truly is not. Coming from almost 10 years of public school education, I have seen first hand the various approaches to education, and can vouch for the fact that this system works the best, at least for me. The linear academic focus one finds at public school is ultimately detrimental to a students academic growth. I never felt any kind of connection to the classes I was in, even in the subjects I liked. As such, I never applied myself in any manner, a decision which has had repercussions for me to this day - although in retrospect I do not see how I could have done anything any differently. The focus at UHS is much different, there is a much greater emphasis placed on non-academic functions. I feel I have gotten to know teachers here far better in my two and a half years than I did in 6 years at the Westfield school system. As such, I am much more inclined to apply myself in classes, and I have pushed myself in other areas as well, some of which include joining a school sport, auditioning for plays, and pursueing community service. All of these are things that I never felt comfortable attempting in my old environment, simply because the focus was so narrow, that any deviation was seen as incorrect. But not allowing any variation from the norm, we are ultimately hurting students, and limiting their academic and personal growth.

Rhetoric Presentations

First of all, a big hand for all of us: we identified some kickass rhetoric.

Now that we've savored that moment, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. I enjoyed all of the presentations. They were all quite thoughtful, and there were interesting things brought to the table that I had never even considered. I particularly enjoyed how cdobbs went for something different and demonstrated how people themselves can be conduits for rhetoric, something I myself was not even considering while pursueing this project. I must admit that I was looking at mostly architectural examples. This was a breach from the norm and it was refreshing. It led us down an entirely new avenue of thought. Are not each and every one of us walking examples of rhetoric in some form or another? Are we ourselves moving advertisements for various companies and sets of beliefs? A rather cold and calculated viewpoint I grant you, but not a totally inacurate one.

Framing Class

Kendall argues that the media fuels an existent problem in our society. It is my belief that this problem is one that has existed for a long time, certainly in American society, and perhaps other cultures as well, although I can't speak to that. Unfortunately however, the problem has gotten worse in recent years as the outpouring of new media outlets has provided us with a particular image of the upper class. They make us believe that wealth is something to be aspired to at the exclusion of all else. I do believe that having this goal as one of many is not in and of itself bad. However, I can still vividly recall numerous career days at my old schools where when asked what they wanted to do when they grow older, many a child would reply "I want to become wealthy". The idea has become so ingrained in the American psyche that people often associate this trait with Americans, something which has been positive and derogatory effects upon us as a nation and a people. On the one hand, it inspires people to aspire to a circumstance better than their own. On the negative side, it causes the media to portray the lower class as "lazy" or "incompetent" for their failure to climb the social ladder - despite the fact that such a climb is quite often just one wrung out of reach for the less fortunate.

Rhetoric on the Town

I took several pictures this weekend which I believe evidenced rhetoric. The first two pictures I shot were of similar but juxtaposing images of signs. The first was a welcome sign for the city of Carmel. The sign imitated gold filament with flowery designs and long oval-like lines. To counterpoint this is a welcome sign from the city of Westfield. This sign is much simpler, feauturing only a green diamond with writing on the inside. There is nothing 3D, as with the Carmel sign. It is made of metal, instead of wood. These signs subtley convey to you meaning as to what each city is about, and ironically, they are located a mere twenty feet from one another on the same north-south road. The Carmel sign conveys the image of high-class affluence, stating in bold gold lettering "WELCOME TO CARMEL". You can gage imediately the caliber of the city you are entering, or at least you can gage what they intend you to believe is the caliber of the city. The Westfield sign features more details in writing, and is aesthetically simpler. It informs you that the town was founded in 1834 and features the slogan "Old Town Charm, New City Style". This is meant to convey that Westfield is a city with a history. When you choose Westfield, you are choosing a place that has proven itself over time, and has, in many ways, more personality than Carmel. Or so we are lead to believe. Whether the truth lies along these lines for either city is hard for us to say, but each sign conveys a message as the stationary welcome beacon to their respective stations, and each would like us to believe in the messages they put across.

Under the Sign of Mickey Mouse & Co.

Gitlin makes the argument that the majority of the worlds media and entertainment can be loosely defined as "American". I think this is a valid point overall. American culture has become something of a standard around the world. This was no more evident to me than when I went on tour with the Indianapolis Children's Choir to China and we stopped in to a McDonald's one day (I refrained from partaking, I found the idea of visiting a foreign country and stopping in to an American chain as rather distasteful). Stores and products like McDonald's enjoy exposure the world over, which supports Gitlin's claim. One point he brought up, and something I had never really considered before, was the fact that the United States serves as something of a giant market survey when it comes to new products. The cultural make-up of America is so highly varied, that if a product is able to succeed in the United States, and if it resonates with various ethnic groups, that tends to be a strong indicator of how the product will do worldwide. Virtually nowhere else in the world does such a culture of variance exist in one nation, and this provides entrepreneurs with the ultimate test in terms of whether or not a product could succeed outside America. Another interesting point Gitlin brought up was the fact that so many people emulate American entertainment and American products is due to the fact that they sell. Stephen Spielberg's directing techniques bear fruit - he is able to convince droves of people to see a movie he has directed simply by having directed it. McDonald's will be able to sell food almost anywhere it goes, it has a versatility in its offerings that appeals to a cross section of people. Given the fact that entrepreneurs are presented with comparable American products which succeed and are popular, why would one chose not to emulate them in an attempt to recreate their success? The world of business is a cut-throat one; starting a business for many is hard enough in its own right. When people are presented with a model that works and is profitable, they would be fiscally remiss to not incorporate at least some portion of the American equivalent in their own model. The problem is that this deters people from being truly innovative, and breeds something akin to complacency when it comes to thinking of new products and ideas. One point of contention I will raise with the article was with Gitlin's description of English as "grammatically simple". English is anything but grammatically simple. It has a far higher number of irregular verbs than most of it's Latinate and Germanic counterparts, to name just one criteria it fails in terms of being "grammatically simple". Perhaps Gitlin meant that English was grammatically simple in comparison to languages like Chinese, which feature their own pictographic symbols for individuals words, resulting in hundreds of thousands of different symbols that must be learned. In these terms, I suppose English is much less complex. However, Gitlin does not elaborate on this point whatsoever, expecting us to take it at face value. Other than this, I thought many of the points that he made were interesting, and worth further thought.

Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt

Kilbourne argues that it is dangerous to depict men and women as sex objects due to the fact that it dehumanizes them, and when you view someone as less than human, it is much easier to victimize them. We would be extremely unlikely to injure someone who we saw as an equal, someone we respected and felt empathy for. A prominent historical example can be found with Nazi Germany. The Nazi regime portrayed the Jews as subhuman; this was the only way they could justify the slaughter of millions of Jews to themselves. To admit that Jews were equal to them in their humanity would have introduced doubt into the scenario, and made it impossible for the Nazis to do what they did. Kilbourne views the objectification of women as more troubling than that of men due to the fact that our culture is already highly stilted towards mysoginism even without the latest trends towards objectifying women. I agree with Kilbourne's assertion. Trends in advertising to objectify women tend to be more troubling than the male equivilant in advertising - however, in a sense these ads can be as damaging for men as they are for women. They try and convince men that they need to be dominant at all times, and that to "score" with a woman, they should treat her poorly. In this sense, men are victimized by these advertisements as well. Obviously this is not the same circumstance as it is with women - the objectification of women is much more immediately concering. However, in the end, such mentalities are unhealthy for everyone; men and women alike.

Superbowl Ads

Each year, there has been a perceptible dip in the quality of super bowl advertisements, and this year was no exception. Most of the advertisements I saw were non sequiter, and virtually impossible to gain any sense of. Budweiser built an entire ad campaign based off of their ad tagline "Drinkability" as well as the antics of a horse that manages to get up to all sorts of hi jinx, which relates to beer somehow? In a revelation on par with when we discovered Darth Vader was Luke's father, we finally discover what this "Drinkability" business is all about. "Budweiser has drinkability" a bro chirps in the ad, "it's easy to drink!". Well that was certainly... expected. Regardless, enough about alcohol. There were plenty of other non-beer related ads that caught my eye. Such as a pepsi advertisement that was really quite smashing. It featured Bob Dylan's "Forever Young" being performed by him, as well as a more contemporary artist. The song was dubbed over images of 60s nostalgia: hippies, flower power and the like. These are contrasted with more modern images of youth today doing what they do best - being youthful. The ad ends with the tagline "Each generation refreshes the world". Well isn't that profound. Unfortunately for pepsi, I don't see how this relates to pepsi at all. Am I required to drink a soft drink to refresh the world? If my changing the world is contingent on drinking a pepsi, I think I'll prefer to let the world be. I've never really cared for pepsi. At half time we were treated to a delight, three dimensional advertising! What struck me about these ads was the fact that the ads themselves had virtually no substance whatsoever, aside from the fact that they were in 3D. One featured lizards dancing and trippy visual effects. Aside from the obvious fact that they were in 3D, these ads were even worse than the worst of the other superbowl ads. It was a sad commentary on where advertisements in general are heading if this becomes the norm.

The Bias of Language

This article brought up points that we discussed at the very outset of AP English. Chief among these points was the idea that language is an extremely individual thing. One person may utilize certain words to mean something, but another person may use the same words in a different context. Specifically we looked at the "blue" chair; but what is blue exactly? What one person defines as blue may appear as more of a teal to another person. It is entirely subjective. The article brings up this point with the example of the three people who go to dinner. If the three of them were to write two paragraphs about their experience, it is highly unlikely that you would see the same words and phrases or the same impressions. What they wrote would be very different, despite the fact that they had all been attending the same dinner. These are all discussions that fit in nicely with our original discussions at the beginning of the year - however, The Bias of Language ventures into largely uncharted territory for us when it begins to discuss the bias of pictures. The article challenges the common assertion that while a picture may be worth a thousand words, a word can easily be worth a thousand pictures as well. Without words to ground a picture, there is absolutely no context. It is impossible to display abstract ideas with a picture, you can only create a sampling of the whole. That is why it is vital to use both pictures and words to communicate ones meaning, for pictures alone are unable to communicate ideas that words are.