Characters in the film On The Waterfront have a wide range of definitions for traitors and whistle blowers, and their differing opinions on this topic lead to the main conflict of the film.
By the end of the film, Terry Molloy believes that a traitor is someone who acts in their own selfish interests. He thinks that a whistleblower, on the other hand, is someone who wants to benefit a majority of the people involved. Therefore, he believes that a whistleblower would be willing to risk their own lives for the sake of this majority. A traitor would never make such a sacrifice and would rather see others hurt for his sake. Based on this definition, Terry would classify himself as a whistle blower and a crusader for justice on the waterfront. It’s obvious that Terry is not standing up for the workers of the waterfront for selfish reasons, because Terry had opportunities to benefit from not testifying against Johnny Friendly. For example, he could have easily taken the job Charlie offered him in the taxi and chose to stay loyal to the mob—a choice that would undoubtedly have led to an easy life for Terry. However, Terry selflessly placed the futures of the dockworkers above his own future. Additionally, Terry proves himself to be a crusader because he is willing to risk his life for the dockworkers’ sakes. He knows that the mob will want to kill him if he testifies in court, and he does it anyhow. Johnny Friendly and the members of the mob have very different ideas about what a whistle blower is and what a traitor is. In fact, Johnny Friendly doesn’t even see a distinction between the two, because he believes that his mob’s rule should always be followed. Friendly doesn’t believe in justice or truth—if he did he wouldn’t have killed people like Joey and Doogan in the first place. Therefore, according to Friendly, anyone who is disloyal to his mob for any reason—even to restore justice or truth—is a traitor. In Friendly’s eyes, Terry is obviously a traitor, because he wants to turn the mob in to the police. However, Friendly also sees Terry’s brother Charlie as a traitor, not because he was going to testify, but because he disobeyed Friendly’s orders by not killing Terry. This opinion of Friendly’s shows us that Friendly truly felt that everyone must obey his commands or be considered disloyal.
I agree with Terry’s ideas, and I think that a whistle blower is someone who tells the truth when doing so will be good for the largest group of people. On the other hand, a traitor is someone who tells the truth (or a lie) for his own benefit or to deliberately hurt someone else. Therefore, I believe that the difference between the two really lies in the person’s motivation. For example, if a person caught someone stealing and wanted to turn him or her in to help the store and to try to make society more honest, then I think this person would be a whistle blower. However, if a person turned someone in because they would be given a reward from the police or because they wanted to see the criminal get in trouble, then I think this person would be a traitor.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Angela's Ashes: Post 3
Young Frank McCourt’s life has taken more turns for the worse in the most recent section of Angela’s Ashes. His younger twin brothers, Eugene and Oliver, die one after the other, which causes his parents a lot of grief. Frankie and his younger brother Malachy begin to attend Leamy’s National School, and his family moves twice to try to escape the memories of Eugene and Oliver that plague them. Also, Frankie’s mother gives birth to a new brother for Frankie, named Michael.
The McCourts continue to face prejudice in Ireland. Frankie is made fun of at school for being from the United States. Upon discovering that Frankie and his brother Malachy are from America, one boy asks them whether they are cowboys or gangsters. When Frankie gets in a fight with the boy, the headmaster of the school says, “You little hooligan…Is that the kind of behavior you brought from America?” (79). Then he punishes him by forcing him to say, “I’m a bad Yank” (79). Frankie is already a quiet and reserved boy who is often overshadowed by his brother, so this makes him feel even worse and decreases his confidence in school. Mr. McCourt also continues to face prejudice for being from the North of Ireland, and is turned down from job opportunities when employers hear his Northern accent. Mr. McCourt copes with this discrimination much differently from Frankie, though: instead of submitting to others’ opinions and letting others get the better of him, Mr. McCourt maintains his pride in his Northern roots. Mrs. McCourt even suggests that he disguise his accent to get a job, but Mr. McCourt refuses and “says he’ll never sink that low” (94).
Although some degree of pride can help people in the McCourts’ situation maintain their dignity, it seems that Mr. McCourt is taking his pride too far. He is so intent on not disgracing himself that he becomes unreasonable and stubborn. For example, Frankie tells the reader, “Even if Dad came he wouldn’t be much use because he never carries anything, parcels, bags, packages. If you carry such things you lose your dignity. That’s what he says” (98). His pride also hurts his family and their efforts to escape from their poverty, because he believes that the family disgraces themselves when they ask for help from charity or pick coal up from the streets. If Mr. McCourt wasn’t as opposed to getting help, their family might have a better chance of improving their very poor living situation.
Because Frankie is still a young boy, he doesn’t have that many major ethical choices to make in his life. However, one decision that Frankie had to make recently in the book came when his father was out drinking in pubs again. Mrs. McCourt had sent Frankie along with his father in an effort to prevent Mr. McCourt from spending all night drinking at the pub. Once at the pub, Mr. McCourt tells Frankie to go home, but Frankie knows that if he does as his father says, it is very likely that his father will be drinking all night long—just the situation Mrs. McCourt wanted to prevent. Frankie says that his father said, “Don’t be disobedient. Go home to your poor mother. I said, No, and he said I was a bad boy and God would be displeased” (83). Despite opposition from his father, Frankie quietly insists on doing the right thing, and finally succeeds in getting his father home early in the evening. This example shows that Frankie had a very clear sense of right and wrong and wasn’t easily influenced by others’ opinions. Even his father, who he admired a lot, couldn’t get Frankie to do what Frankie believed was the wrong thing. Also, Frankie risks making his father mad by staying in the pub, but he stays anyhow, because he knows that motivating his father to come home early from the pub will benefit the entire family. Letting Mr. McCourt stay in the pub would only benefit Mr. McCourt. Clearly, Frankie is concerned with what he can do to help his entire family, rather than just one person. This idea is also supported with countless examples of Frankie making sacrifices to help his family—he frequently runs errands for his mother, collects coal on the street so they can cook dinner, and takes care of his brothers.
Work Cited: McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
*I wanted to underline all the "Angela's Ashes" titles in this post, but blogspot wouldn't let me.
The McCourts continue to face prejudice in Ireland. Frankie is made fun of at school for being from the United States. Upon discovering that Frankie and his brother Malachy are from America, one boy asks them whether they are cowboys or gangsters. When Frankie gets in a fight with the boy, the headmaster of the school says, “You little hooligan…Is that the kind of behavior you brought from America?” (79). Then he punishes him by forcing him to say, “I’m a bad Yank” (79). Frankie is already a quiet and reserved boy who is often overshadowed by his brother, so this makes him feel even worse and decreases his confidence in school. Mr. McCourt also continues to face prejudice for being from the North of Ireland, and is turned down from job opportunities when employers hear his Northern accent. Mr. McCourt copes with this discrimination much differently from Frankie, though: instead of submitting to others’ opinions and letting others get the better of him, Mr. McCourt maintains his pride in his Northern roots. Mrs. McCourt even suggests that he disguise his accent to get a job, but Mr. McCourt refuses and “says he’ll never sink that low” (94).
Although some degree of pride can help people in the McCourts’ situation maintain their dignity, it seems that Mr. McCourt is taking his pride too far. He is so intent on not disgracing himself that he becomes unreasonable and stubborn. For example, Frankie tells the reader, “Even if Dad came he wouldn’t be much use because he never carries anything, parcels, bags, packages. If you carry such things you lose your dignity. That’s what he says” (98). His pride also hurts his family and their efforts to escape from their poverty, because he believes that the family disgraces themselves when they ask for help from charity or pick coal up from the streets. If Mr. McCourt wasn’t as opposed to getting help, their family might have a better chance of improving their very poor living situation.
Because Frankie is still a young boy, he doesn’t have that many major ethical choices to make in his life. However, one decision that Frankie had to make recently in the book came when his father was out drinking in pubs again. Mrs. McCourt had sent Frankie along with his father in an effort to prevent Mr. McCourt from spending all night drinking at the pub. Once at the pub, Mr. McCourt tells Frankie to go home, but Frankie knows that if he does as his father says, it is very likely that his father will be drinking all night long—just the situation Mrs. McCourt wanted to prevent. Frankie says that his father said, “Don’t be disobedient. Go home to your poor mother. I said, No, and he said I was a bad boy and God would be displeased” (83). Despite opposition from his father, Frankie quietly insists on doing the right thing, and finally succeeds in getting his father home early in the evening. This example shows that Frankie had a very clear sense of right and wrong and wasn’t easily influenced by others’ opinions. Even his father, who he admired a lot, couldn’t get Frankie to do what Frankie believed was the wrong thing. Also, Frankie risks making his father mad by staying in the pub, but he stays anyhow, because he knows that motivating his father to come home early from the pub will benefit the entire family. Letting Mr. McCourt stay in the pub would only benefit Mr. McCourt. Clearly, Frankie is concerned with what he can do to help his entire family, rather than just one person. This idea is also supported with countless examples of Frankie making sacrifices to help his family—he frequently runs errands for his mother, collects coal on the street so they can cook dinner, and takes care of his brothers.
Work Cited: McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
*I wanted to underline all the "Angela's Ashes" titles in this post, but blogspot wouldn't let me.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Society Vs. Family
Characters in Arthur Miller’s play All My Sons are divided into two sides: those who believe actions should benefit family, and those who believe actions should benefit society. Joe and Kate Keller belong to the former group, and base their decisions off what will help their family most. Joe in particular has a strong belief that being able to pass something on to his family justifies hurting society. He acts on this belief when he ships the cracked cylinder heads to the army: he knows that this action will hurt others in society, but he does it anyhow, because it will help his family. When he escapes punishment for this crime by blaming it on his partner, he again sacrifices society for family, because he harms someone else while upholding his own family and business. Joe sum up his belief that his family’s needs trump his society’s needs when he is desperately trying to explain to a furious Chris why he chose to ship the bad parts. Joe says, “Chris, I did it for you, it was a chance and I took it for you. I’m sixty-one years old, when would I have another chance to make something for you?” (70). Kate agrees with Joe on this issue. Additionally, she strongly believes that actions of a family affect only that family and do not matter to the rest of society, and she thus justifies valuing family over society. For example, Kate believes that Larry is still alive, and that because Larry is alive, Joe’s crime is erased and does not matter to anyone else. This is part of the reason that Kate clings so adamantly to her denial of her son’s death—Larry alive means Joe innocent to her. On the other side of the argument are Chris and Annie. Chris’s views are opposite from his father’s, because Chris is deeply ashamed that his father would ship out broken parts for his family’s sake, without regard to his impact on society. This difference between Joe and Chris causes a lot of conflict in the play, because Chris is furious with his father when he discovers Joe’s guilt, feels ashamed to benefit from the business that killed pilots, and wants Joe pay for his crime. Chris summarizes his point of view at the end of the play by telling Kate “You can be better! Once and for all there’s a universe of people outside and you’re responsible to it…” (84). This proclamation clearly shows that Chris feels that society’s needs should be prioritized above those of his family’s. Annie’s opinions are similar to Chris’s on this issue, and she was very ashamed of her father when she still thought that he was guilty. Her shame and anger at her father are so extreme that she doesn’t even write him, and this action shows her placing more importance on society’s needs than on her family bonds. When Ann says about her father, “It’s wrong to pity a man like that. Father or no father, there’s only one way to look at him. He knowingly shipped out parts that would crash an airplane” (31), her severed ties with her father are very apparent.
In my opinion, society should be prioritized over one’s family, because everybody is a member of society. Therefore, if an action benefits the entire society, it benefits the family in that society a bit, too. Society depends on people to give up personal wants or needs so that we can all live together: this is the concept of a social contract. If this idea was not obeyed, everyone would do only what benefited them and those very close to them. Though it seems that this could make people happy, in reality it would destroy everyone, because everyone’s wants would clash and harm each other. For example, if everyone obeyed like Joe Keller does in All My Sons and killed others’ sons for their own sons’ sake, nobody’s sons would survive. For this reason, I agree with Ann and Chris that society is more important than individual families, and I disagree with Joe and Kate.
Work Cited:
Miller, Arthur. All My Sons. New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1947.
*I wanted to underline all the "All My Sons" in the post but couldn't.
In my opinion, society should be prioritized over one’s family, because everybody is a member of society. Therefore, if an action benefits the entire society, it benefits the family in that society a bit, too. Society depends on people to give up personal wants or needs so that we can all live together: this is the concept of a social contract. If this idea was not obeyed, everyone would do only what benefited them and those very close to them. Though it seems that this could make people happy, in reality it would destroy everyone, because everyone’s wants would clash and harm each other. For example, if everyone obeyed like Joe Keller does in All My Sons and killed others’ sons for their own sons’ sake, nobody’s sons would survive. For this reason, I agree with Ann and Chris that society is more important than individual families, and I disagree with Joe and Kate.
Work Cited:
Miller, Arthur. All My Sons. New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1947.
*I wanted to underline all the "All My Sons" in the post but couldn't.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Angela's Ashes: Post 2
In the next section of Angela’s Ashes, Frank McCourt’s family hits rock bottom in the United States after Frank’s younger sister, Margaret, dies as an infant. This tragedy nearly drives Frank’s mother insane with grief and causes his father to rely on alcohol more than ever. It is very painful to watch Mr. McCourt revert to his old drinking habits after breaking them while his daughter was alive; his daughter’s life was like a window into the kind of man and father Mr. McCourt could be if he was motivated to stay away from alcohol and work for his family. When Margaret dies, this window is closed. I think that Mrs. McCourt mourns not only for the death of her daughter, but also for the end of the possibility of a good life for her family that disappeared with her daughter’s life.
The family then becomes dysfunctional and lives at the mercy of neighbors, who make meals and take care of the four McCourt children. The McCourt family loses a lot of pride in this period, because of the fact that they are so dependent on the goodwill of others for their survival. Mrs. Leibowitz is one neighbor who helps the McCourt family after Margaret dies. Frankie says that Mrs. Leibowitz “holds my mother in her arms. Shush, now, shush. Babies go like that. It happens, missus” (38). Although Mrs. Leibowitz is very kind to help Mrs. McCourt, having another woman in her house, cooking food for her family and changing her children’s diapers must make Mrs. McCourt feel ashamed and inept.
The McCourts’ loss of pride is only increased by Mrs. McCourt’s cousins, who send the family to Ireland to be taken care of by Mrs. McCourt’s mother. The cousins don’t even bother asking the family if they want to move to Ireland, and pack them onto the ship to Ireland like animals who have become a nuisance. With this action, the cousins made an ethical decision about the McCourt family’s fate. They know that the family is barely surviving on their own, and the cousins decide that the best solution is to send them to Ireland, instead of helping them in New York. While there is nothing wrong with this choice, I think that the way they made decision—without consulting the McCourts at all—was unethical and degrading.
Life in Ireland also treats the family harshly. Mr. McCourt still can’t find a job and the family faces prejudice. The McCourts don’t seem to belong anywhere: in the United States, they were looked down upon for being Irish, and in Ireland, they are discriminated against because they are American. Mr. McCourt in particular is unwelcome almost everywhere he goes, because he is from the infamous north of Ireland. This hinders him in finding a much needed job, because “There is no hope of a laboring man with a North of Ireland accent getting a job in Limerick” (63). This lack of belonging that the McCourts face everywhere they go dampens their morale and takes away their confidence, only exacerbating the shame that they already feel.
In addition to injecting humor into the serious topic of his childhood, Frank McCourt does a fabulous job of telling the story with the innocence that he felt as a six year old. He does not always know what is going on and he is at the mercy of his parents and their economic problems, because he can’t control their decisions or their incomes. Reading about his innocence and helplessness makes me afraid for Frankie and his future.
Work Cited:
McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
*I wanted to underline all the "Angela's Ashes" titles in this post, but blogspot wouldn't let me.
The family then becomes dysfunctional and lives at the mercy of neighbors, who make meals and take care of the four McCourt children. The McCourt family loses a lot of pride in this period, because of the fact that they are so dependent on the goodwill of others for their survival. Mrs. Leibowitz is one neighbor who helps the McCourt family after Margaret dies. Frankie says that Mrs. Leibowitz “holds my mother in her arms. Shush, now, shush. Babies go like that. It happens, missus” (38). Although Mrs. Leibowitz is very kind to help Mrs. McCourt, having another woman in her house, cooking food for her family and changing her children’s diapers must make Mrs. McCourt feel ashamed and inept.
The McCourts’ loss of pride is only increased by Mrs. McCourt’s cousins, who send the family to Ireland to be taken care of by Mrs. McCourt’s mother. The cousins don’t even bother asking the family if they want to move to Ireland, and pack them onto the ship to Ireland like animals who have become a nuisance. With this action, the cousins made an ethical decision about the McCourt family’s fate. They know that the family is barely surviving on their own, and the cousins decide that the best solution is to send them to Ireland, instead of helping them in New York. While there is nothing wrong with this choice, I think that the way they made decision—without consulting the McCourts at all—was unethical and degrading.
Life in Ireland also treats the family harshly. Mr. McCourt still can’t find a job and the family faces prejudice. The McCourts don’t seem to belong anywhere: in the United States, they were looked down upon for being Irish, and in Ireland, they are discriminated against because they are American. Mr. McCourt in particular is unwelcome almost everywhere he goes, because he is from the infamous north of Ireland. This hinders him in finding a much needed job, because “There is no hope of a laboring man with a North of Ireland accent getting a job in Limerick” (63). This lack of belonging that the McCourts face everywhere they go dampens their morale and takes away their confidence, only exacerbating the shame that they already feel.
In addition to injecting humor into the serious topic of his childhood, Frank McCourt does a fabulous job of telling the story with the innocence that he felt as a six year old. He does not always know what is going on and he is at the mercy of his parents and their economic problems, because he can’t control their decisions or their incomes. Reading about his innocence and helplessness makes me afraid for Frankie and his future.
Work Cited:
McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
*I wanted to underline all the "Angela's Ashes" titles in this post, but blogspot wouldn't let me.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Angela's Ashes: Post 1
For my outside reading book, I am reading Angela’s Ashes, by Frank McCourt. The book is a memoir about the author’s childhood in the United States and in Ireland. Frank’s parents were Irish immigrants to New York. The beginning section that I read this week took place in New York, although his parents will soon move the family back to Ireland. Frank’s family is poor, and his father has a difficult time holding down a job, because he is an alcoholic. This leaves his mother, Angela, in a very difficult place, because she has five children to feed and no source of income. In a way, Angela has to make an ethical decision each week—should she tell the grocer that she needs to get food now, and will pay him back later, even though she does not know when she will next get money? Or should she be more honest financially but let her many young children go hungry? The tough decision makes Angela hopeless and desperate, and it also makes Frank feel sad for her. This is shown through his reaction when Frank looks “out at Mam at the kitchen table, smoking a cigarette, drinking tea, and crying. I want to get up and tell her that I’ll be a man soon and I can get a job in the place with the big gate…” (28). Coming from a four year old, this statement is very moving and shows the reader what desperate straits the family was in.
Frank’s father seems to be the polar opposite of his mother in terms of ethics—he comes home many Friday nights drunk, having spent his entire paycheck on alcohol, and he doesn’t act guilty about it when he is drunk or when he is sober. Angela is obviously unhappy with his irresponsible habits, but his children don’t hold it against him. In fact, Frank seems to like his father as much or more than he likes his mother, which just goes to show that good ethics don’t always reap popularity.
Although it would undoubtedly be easy for McCourt to sound bitter or unhappy about his underprivileged childhood as he writes his memoir, his voice doesn’t come across that way at all. On the contrary, he writes about his family’s situation with a dry sense of humor and even a touch of cynicism. This makes the book worlds more interesting than it would be if he wrote with a woeful tone. For instance, when he is giving the reader a preview of life in Ireland, he describes how everyone is constantly wet, because their houses are not leak proof and their clothes never dry. He then goes on to say that churches’ dryness, not their religion, was what motivated Irish people to be so religious: “Limerick gained a reputation for piety, but we knew it was only the rain” (12). I really enjoy reading this humorous perspective on what was actually a harsh reality.
McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
*I wanted to underline "Angela's Ashes" but blogger wouldn't let me.
Frank’s father seems to be the polar opposite of his mother in terms of ethics—he comes home many Friday nights drunk, having spent his entire paycheck on alcohol, and he doesn’t act guilty about it when he is drunk or when he is sober. Angela is obviously unhappy with his irresponsible habits, but his children don’t hold it against him. In fact, Frank seems to like his father as much or more than he likes his mother, which just goes to show that good ethics don’t always reap popularity.
Although it would undoubtedly be easy for McCourt to sound bitter or unhappy about his underprivileged childhood as he writes his memoir, his voice doesn’t come across that way at all. On the contrary, he writes about his family’s situation with a dry sense of humor and even a touch of cynicism. This makes the book worlds more interesting than it would be if he wrote with a woeful tone. For instance, when he is giving the reader a preview of life in Ireland, he describes how everyone is constantly wet, because their houses are not leak proof and their clothes never dry. He then goes on to say that churches’ dryness, not their religion, was what motivated Irish people to be so religious: “Limerick gained a reputation for piety, but we knew it was only the rain” (12). I really enjoy reading this humorous perspective on what was actually a harsh reality.
McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
*I wanted to underline "Angela's Ashes" but blogger wouldn't let me.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
“Landslide”
I took my love, I took it down
Climbed a mountain and I turned around
I saw my reflection in the snow-covered hills
Till the landslide brought me down.
Oh, mirror in the sky,
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?
Well, I’ve been afraid of changing
Cause I’ve built my life around you.
But time makes you bolder,
Children get older,
I’m getting older too.
Oh, take my love, take it down.
Climb a mountain and turn around.
If you see my reflection in the snow covered hills,
Well the landslide will bring it down.
If you see my reflection in the snow-covered hills,
Well maybe the landslide will bring it down.
The lyrics of this song tell of someone reflecting on their life thus far, and deciding how to proceed in the future. The narrator is looking back on how they have lived, and at the same time wondering about how to continue in their life. Because of this, I think that the narrator is at a crossroads in their life. The reflective and thoughtful nature of the song is clearest in the lines “Climbed a mountain and I turned around/ I saw my reflection in the snow-covered hills” The narrator has obviously accomplished something big in their life, and is looking back on it and processing it. Then, the line “Till the landslide brought me down” shows the narrator moving on in their life, away from their past. I also think the lines “Can the child within my heart rise above? / Can I sail through the changing ocean tides? / Can I handle the seasons of my life?” show the narrator pondering how to continue in life. The future clearly holds questions that the narrator has been searching for answers to, but the questions can’t be answered easily and simply.
This song brings back a lot of memories for me, because it is a song that is sung at my summer camp. All the girls in the oldest section of camp who will not come back to camp again sing “Landslide” together for the rest of the camp at the end of the summer, I think it is a very appropriate time to sing “Landslide.” This is because most of us have come to camp together for four or five years, and have met friends at camp who we see every summer. After out last year at camp, we often don’t know when we will see each other again, and whether we will ever come back to camp again. This may sound melodramatic, but camp and friends from camp are really special, because of their unique place in one’s childhood and quest for independence. So when we sing this song, we are reflecting on everything we’ve done together at camp. At the same time, we are wondering whether we will come back to camp for a longer trip and how we will bring camp and the things we have learned there into our lives back at home.
This idea of looking to the past and the future in one’s life also connects to our topic of journeys and the books The Iliad, The Odyssey, and Siddhartha in English class. In all three of these books and in the song “Landslide,” the main character is on a journey of some sort, and takes time to contemplate their life and their future.
Fleetwood Mac. “Landslide.” Fleetwood Mac. Rhino/ Wea, 1975.
*I wanted to underling the second "Fleetwood Mac" (the name of the album of the song), but blogger wouldn't let me.
I took my love, I took it down
Climbed a mountain and I turned around
I saw my reflection in the snow-covered hills
Till the landslide brought me down.
Oh, mirror in the sky,
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?
Well, I’ve been afraid of changing
Cause I’ve built my life around you.
But time makes you bolder,
Children get older,
I’m getting older too.
Oh, take my love, take it down.
Climb a mountain and turn around.
If you see my reflection in the snow covered hills,
Well the landslide will bring it down.
If you see my reflection in the snow-covered hills,
Well maybe the landslide will bring it down.
The lyrics of this song tell of someone reflecting on their life thus far, and deciding how to proceed in the future. The narrator is looking back on how they have lived, and at the same time wondering about how to continue in their life. Because of this, I think that the narrator is at a crossroads in their life. The reflective and thoughtful nature of the song is clearest in the lines “Climbed a mountain and I turned around/ I saw my reflection in the snow-covered hills” The narrator has obviously accomplished something big in their life, and is looking back on it and processing it. Then, the line “Till the landslide brought me down” shows the narrator moving on in their life, away from their past. I also think the lines “Can the child within my heart rise above? / Can I sail through the changing ocean tides? / Can I handle the seasons of my life?” show the narrator pondering how to continue in life. The future clearly holds questions that the narrator has been searching for answers to, but the questions can’t be answered easily and simply.
This song brings back a lot of memories for me, because it is a song that is sung at my summer camp. All the girls in the oldest section of camp who will not come back to camp again sing “Landslide” together for the rest of the camp at the end of the summer, I think it is a very appropriate time to sing “Landslide.” This is because most of us have come to camp together for four or five years, and have met friends at camp who we see every summer. After out last year at camp, we often don’t know when we will see each other again, and whether we will ever come back to camp again. This may sound melodramatic, but camp and friends from camp are really special, because of their unique place in one’s childhood and quest for independence. So when we sing this song, we are reflecting on everything we’ve done together at camp. At the same time, we are wondering whether we will come back to camp for a longer trip and how we will bring camp and the things we have learned there into our lives back at home.
This idea of looking to the past and the future in one’s life also connects to our topic of journeys and the books The Iliad, The Odyssey, and Siddhartha in English class. In all three of these books and in the song “Landslide,” the main character is on a journey of some sort, and takes time to contemplate their life and their future.
Fleetwood Mac. “Landslide.” Fleetwood Mac. Rhino/ Wea, 1975.
*I wanted to underling the second "Fleetwood Mac" (the name of the album of the song), but blogger wouldn't let me.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Photography in Different Places
The exhibition catalog from a photography exhibition called The View From Here offered an interesting analysis both of the exhibition and of the photos in the exhibition. The View From Here was an exhibition that featured recently taken photos from both the Midwest region of the United States and from Central Europe, specifically Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. The author of the essay in the exhibition catalog acknowledges that these two areas are quite different, but points out that photographs taken from the two regions focus on the place that the photo was taken and make statements regarding that place. The essay says “…each artist shows something about his or her world that the viewer would not have known, and likely not have seen before” (14). The author also stresses the importance of place in a photograph, because photos are so strongly linked to where they were taken. I agree that the location of a photograph is very important in deducing a photo’s meaning—knowing where something was taken almost always puts it in context for viewers and helps them understand the photographer’s message. Also, many photographs make statements about their settings, and when this is the case, the photo enhances a viewer’s knowledge of the photo’s subject. From personal experience, I know that looking at photos with a message about a place can do much more than let you know what something looks like physically—it can tell you about the culture, social issues, and people of an area.
One artist in the exhibition whose work I found particularly interesting was Paul Shambroom. His photos in the exhibition were taken of town meetings in the rural towns of the Midwest United States. In taking these photographs, Shambroom wanted to explore how these small towns are governed. Shambroom, who is quoted in the essay, says, “Seating arrangements, clothing and body language all provide clues to local cultural traits and political dynamics” (21). Before I read this quote and gained a deeper understanding of the meaning of his photographs, I found his photos interesting to look at because they revealed a rural world that I had never experienced. The people in the photos are sitting around meeting tables, either discussing amongst themselves or staring into the camera, and I thought it was fascinating to compare their varied expressions, postures and mannerisms. After reading Shambroom’s quote, however, I began thinking about which people in the photos had the power to rule their towns, and which were less powerful. Perhaps the people who sat up straight, visibly gesticulated their ideas with their hands, and engaged in conversation were the citizens who made the town’s decisions, while those who slouched and stared into space were the people who followed the lead of others in regard to their town’s decisions.
I was glad to have read the essay in The View From Here’s exhibition catalog, because it made me think more about how photographs can reflect and show a location to viewers. Also, the insights on the photos in the exhibition really helped me understand the meaning of the photos and the messages that the artists wanted to convey. These insights helped convince me that photographers really do take photos with a statement in mind, and not just to show a scene to someone else.
Work Cited:
Evans, Catherine. “Being Here.” The View From Here. Ed. Robert Stearns. Minneapolis: Arts Midwest, 2002. 14-23.
*I wanted to underline "The View From Here" in my post and my citation, but blogger wouldn't let me. Also, I wanted to indent the second line of my citation, but blogger wouldn't let me do that either.
One artist in the exhibition whose work I found particularly interesting was Paul Shambroom. His photos in the exhibition were taken of town meetings in the rural towns of the Midwest United States. In taking these photographs, Shambroom wanted to explore how these small towns are governed. Shambroom, who is quoted in the essay, says, “Seating arrangements, clothing and body language all provide clues to local cultural traits and political dynamics” (21). Before I read this quote and gained a deeper understanding of the meaning of his photographs, I found his photos interesting to look at because they revealed a rural world that I had never experienced. The people in the photos are sitting around meeting tables, either discussing amongst themselves or staring into the camera, and I thought it was fascinating to compare their varied expressions, postures and mannerisms. After reading Shambroom’s quote, however, I began thinking about which people in the photos had the power to rule their towns, and which were less powerful. Perhaps the people who sat up straight, visibly gesticulated their ideas with their hands, and engaged in conversation were the citizens who made the town’s decisions, while those who slouched and stared into space were the people who followed the lead of others in regard to their town’s decisions.
I was glad to have read the essay in The View From Here’s exhibition catalog, because it made me think more about how photographs can reflect and show a location to viewers. Also, the insights on the photos in the exhibition really helped me understand the meaning of the photos and the messages that the artists wanted to convey. These insights helped convince me that photographers really do take photos with a statement in mind, and not just to show a scene to someone else.
Work Cited:
Evans, Catherine. “Being Here.” The View From Here. Ed. Robert Stearns. Minneapolis: Arts Midwest, 2002. 14-23.
*I wanted to underline "The View From Here" in my post and my citation, but blogger wouldn't let me. Also, I wanted to indent the second line of my citation, but blogger wouldn't let me do that either.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Palin's Questionable Practices
An investigation surrounding the firing of Walt Monegan, the public safety commissioner in
Palin’s administration kept a close watch on Wooten; phone calls and meetings on the topic of Wooten were very frequent. According to Palin’s sister and Wooten’s ex-wife, Wooten intimidated his ex-wife and threatened his former father in law and former sister in law (Palin). However, even after Wooten was given a suspension for these charges, the investigations about him continued far beyond the conclusion of his punishment. “In all, the commissioner and his aides were contacted about Mr. Wooten three dozen times over 19 months by the governor, her husband and seven administration officials, interviews and documents show” (1). Monegan recalled getting many calls from Palin, her aides, and even her husband on the topic, and said, “I hung up wondering how long I could keep my job if I tick off my boss’s husband” (2). Wooten is still a trooper in
The issue surrounding Palin’s influence in Monegan’s firing is very complicated, but I believe that it boils down to a few truths about the vice presidential candidate. The first reality is that making Palin his running mate was a poor choice for McCain. Disregarding any questions about her merit as a vice president, McCain chose to involve a legislative investigation in his campaign when he chose Palin for his vice presidential candidate. If McCain unconsciously brought this problem into his campaign, then I believe it is obvious that he didn’t do the necessary research and background checks before choosing a vice president. On the other hand, if McCain was aware of the problem involving Sarah Palin when he chose her as his running mate, then he clearly was not concerned with his vice president’s record or method of conducting business, and he picked her simply to gain media attention.
The second problem that Palin’s investigation brings up is the problem of how the Alaskan governor conducts herself in office. I believe that bringing personal matters, such as family divorces, into one’s work is inappropriate and a poor way of doing business. Furthermore, it is unacceptable when these personal matters target one person, such as Wooten, and involve taking a private grudge out on him in a public and job-threatening way. If Palin is a politician who rules by threatening her enemies, preventing her enemies from talking about their disagreements with her, and potentially causing her enemies to lose their jobs, then I believe she is the last politician we need in the White House.
Work Cited:
Kovaleski, Serge F. “Palins Repeatedly Pressed Case Against Trooper.” New York Times 10 Oct 2008: A1.
Link to Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us/10trooper.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Child Abandonment in Nebraska
In Nebraska, a law has been passed that gives parents of children up to age 19 the right to abandon their children at a hospital without risk of prosecution. Originally, this law was intended to prevent unwanted infants from being abandoned, and many other states have laws with similar intentions. However, the Nebraska law is broader and includes children of all ages, and this has led to a serious problem: many parents are abusing the law by abandoning their older children and teens. Reasons for these abandonments are varied, but in many cases, the teens have gotten out of their parents’ control. In other situations, the parents do not have the financial resources to support their children, or do not feel that they can provide an adequate home for their children. Jim Jenkins, a parent whose son was a difficult teenager to handle, says, “I can see some parents getting overwhelmed and deciding that giving up the child is the best thing” (1). Experts say that there are many programs in Nebraska designed to help parents in these circumstances; for example, counseling programs and welfare can aid such families. But parents quoted in the article reply that these programs are often difficult to find or too expensive, and therefore do not meet their needs and fix their children’s issues in time. Judy Lopez, a caretaker for her two young grandchildren, attests to this, saying, “Help is out there, but people have to know how to find it” (2).
I think that this article shows our society’s need for improved public assistance programs. The fact that parents feel so helpless and hopeless that they go to the extreme length of abandoning their children is a disgrace to our society. Clearly, more affordable and accessible programs must be established to come to these people’s aid. The longer families with such drastic problems wait for help, the more children are neglected and uncared for. In many cases, these kids probably feel unloved and unwanted, and a childhood with these feelings could easily lead to poor performance in school and an adulthood of joblessness, homeless, and crime. Many families and our society as a whole would benefit from giving all children the care and love that they need.
Work Cited:
Eckholm, Erik. “Parents Give Up Youths Under Law Meant for Babies”. New York Times 2 October 2008: A21.
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/03omaha.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&em
Homer, the Sexist
In The Odyssey, Homer shows his true colors: he treats his female characters with sexism. Homer shows women such as Athena as characters with the sole purpose of helping men. At first glance, Athena seems like a dominant character whose gender doesn’t detract from her influence in The Odyssey. She uses her power to disguise Odysseus as a beggar, to inform Telemachus of how to safely travel home to Ithaca and avoid the suitors and to help Odysseus and Telemachus conquer and kill the suitors. However, a closer inspection of Athena reveals that all of her power is used to assist men in the story. Athena doesn’t benefit personally from aiding Odysseus or Telemachus, and she acts as a servant to their needs. Therefore, Homer’s portrayal of Athena detracts, rather than adds, to the rights of women in The Odyssey. Other females who exist only to help males in The Odyssey are Circe and Calypso. Their roles as Odysseus’ lovers are benefit Odysseus as much as themselves. Odysseus’ use of Circe and Calypso as lovers during his journey show that women were willing go to great lengths to please men. Furthermore, Odysseus’ infidelity to his true wife, Penelope, demonstrates an unfair double standard: Odysseus is permitted to have affairs with other women while he is away, but Penelope must deny the suitors and wait loyally for Odysseus back in Ithaca. Homer obviously viewed women such as Athena, Calypso, Circe, and Penelope as servants to the more important men in The Odyssey.
In The Odyssey, Homer occasionally shows that women are not even good enough to aid men. When Athena helps Telemachus visit Menelaus and Nestor to ask for news of Odysseus, she takes the form of Mentor, a male friend of Odysseus’. The fact that Athena morphed from her natural female state to a male in order to help another male sends the message that females aren’t capable of helping males, traveling, or giving advice. These ideas are hideously sexist, and show that Homer, though perhaps telling the truth of the time that he lived in, was not at all a forward thinking feminist.
Additionally, many women in The Odyssey were dependent on men, another sign of Homer’s sexism. Penelope, of course, illustrates this dependence best. When Odysseus does not return from war, Penelope can barely carry on with her life due to her extreme grief for her husband. She spends much time crying for him, and mourns his absence incessantly. If the tables were turned and Penelope was the one missing from home, Odysseus would undoubtedly have the backbone to carry on with his life in a normal way, unlike Penelope. Therefore, if Homer were not sexist in The Odyssey, he would show Penelope active in her life and perhaps even filling in for Odysseus by ruling Ithaca. This is far from what happens. The helpful purpose of women, the fact that women sometimes took the form of men to help men, and the strong dependence of women upon men in The Odyssey show that Homer was truly a sexist.
In The Odyssey, Homer occasionally shows that women are not even good enough to aid men. When Athena helps Telemachus visit Menelaus and Nestor to ask for news of Odysseus, she takes the form of Mentor, a male friend of Odysseus’. The fact that Athena morphed from her natural female state to a male in order to help another male sends the message that females aren’t capable of helping males, traveling, or giving advice. These ideas are hideously sexist, and show that Homer, though perhaps telling the truth of the time that he lived in, was not at all a forward thinking feminist.
Additionally, many women in The Odyssey were dependent on men, another sign of Homer’s sexism. Penelope, of course, illustrates this dependence best. When Odysseus does not return from war, Penelope can barely carry on with her life due to her extreme grief for her husband. She spends much time crying for him, and mourns his absence incessantly. If the tables were turned and Penelope was the one missing from home, Odysseus would undoubtedly have the backbone to carry on with his life in a normal way, unlike Penelope. Therefore, if Homer were not sexist in The Odyssey, he would show Penelope active in her life and perhaps even filling in for Odysseus by ruling Ithaca. This is far from what happens. The helpful purpose of women, the fact that women sometimes took the form of men to help men, and the strong dependence of women upon men in The Odyssey show that Homer was truly a sexist.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
A Second Look at Texting
A seemingly harmless method of communication—text messaging—is bringing unusually unpleasant side effects with it, according to the article “As Text Messages Fly, Danger Lurks” in the New York Times. The article offers a number of arguments against texting, ranging from the dangers that it poses to those who text and drive at the same time to the assertion by Paul Saffo, a technology trend forecaster in Silicon Valley, that texting removes 10 I.Q. points. The article’s in-depth research on a growing issue that is not frequently addressed make it definitely worth your time to read. A recent event that the article points to as evidence of texting’s dangers is a deadly commuter rail accident in California in which texting by the train engineer is being examined as a possible cause of the crash. This particular crash killed 25 people and injured 130 others, and many other incidents involving texting have also led to deaths.
Despite the dire consequences of texting, the form of communication is growing very rapidly, and is popular with many people. In the article, people who frequently use text messages attest to the directness and convenience of texting as two of its positive aspects. When texting someone, formalities of typical phone conversations are forgone, and getting an immediate answer can be easier than with traditional phone calls. Perhaps these reasons contribute to the fact that, according to a consumer research company called Nielson Mobile, Americans now send or receive more text messages than they do phone calls. At any rate, the dangers associated with texting do not seem to be hindering the growth of its use.
In my opinion, texting is acceptable in moderation, if not in excess. I agree that texting can be a convenient way to communicate with someone, and that it works better in some situations than calling. I’m also confident that in moderation, texting won’t significantly affect my I.Q. level. However, I would never consider texting while driving or even walking down a busy street, due to the distraction and danger that it creates. I think that many people do not realize how distracted they are when they are texting someone. It is easy to forget that being in an area with cars or other moving vehicles requires a certain level of alertness, and texting can destroy that alertness faster than many people know. Maybe if people were aware that they are placing the lives of themselves and those around them in danger when they text and drive, they would prioritize their focus on the road around them above their focus on the anecdote that they are texting.
One question that I had as I read this article was what the difference in the level of distraction between texting and talking on a cell phone while driving is. I would hypothesize that texting while driving has a more damaging effect on one’s driving, because most people have to take their eyes off the road for a longer amount of time to write a text message than they do to dial a number. However, the amount of media attention devoted to talking on a cell phone while driving seems just as great if not greater than the attention towards texting while driving. As the popularity of texting continues to increase, I’m sure that the media attention surrounding it will follow suit.
Aside from the dangers of texting, I think the form of communication has other problems. Texting seems to take priority above interacting with people actually around you too many times. I am always shocked when I see people hanging out together, yet focused on their cell phone buttons and texting those not around them, instead of talking with each other. I can understand that occasionally it is necessary to text someone and risk ignoring the people around you. But just as people wouldn’t make social calls while hanging out with friends, I think it is rather rude to consistently text others instead of talking to the people around you.
Work Cited:
Steinhauer, Jennifer and Laura M. Holson. “As Text Messages Fly, Danger Lurks.” New York Times 19 September 2008: A1.
Despite the dire consequences of texting, the form of communication is growing very rapidly, and is popular with many people. In the article, people who frequently use text messages attest to the directness and convenience of texting as two of its positive aspects. When texting someone, formalities of typical phone conversations are forgone, and getting an immediate answer can be easier than with traditional phone calls. Perhaps these reasons contribute to the fact that, according to a consumer research company called Nielson Mobile, Americans now send or receive more text messages than they do phone calls. At any rate, the dangers associated with texting do not seem to be hindering the growth of its use.
In my opinion, texting is acceptable in moderation, if not in excess. I agree that texting can be a convenient way to communicate with someone, and that it works better in some situations than calling. I’m also confident that in moderation, texting won’t significantly affect my I.Q. level. However, I would never consider texting while driving or even walking down a busy street, due to the distraction and danger that it creates. I think that many people do not realize how distracted they are when they are texting someone. It is easy to forget that being in an area with cars or other moving vehicles requires a certain level of alertness, and texting can destroy that alertness faster than many people know. Maybe if people were aware that they are placing the lives of themselves and those around them in danger when they text and drive, they would prioritize their focus on the road around them above their focus on the anecdote that they are texting.
One question that I had as I read this article was what the difference in the level of distraction between texting and talking on a cell phone while driving is. I would hypothesize that texting while driving has a more damaging effect on one’s driving, because most people have to take their eyes off the road for a longer amount of time to write a text message than they do to dial a number. However, the amount of media attention devoted to talking on a cell phone while driving seems just as great if not greater than the attention towards texting while driving. As the popularity of texting continues to increase, I’m sure that the media attention surrounding it will follow suit.
Aside from the dangers of texting, I think the form of communication has other problems. Texting seems to take priority above interacting with people actually around you too many times. I am always shocked when I see people hanging out together, yet focused on their cell phone buttons and texting those not around them, instead of talking with each other. I can understand that occasionally it is necessary to text someone and risk ignoring the people around you. But just as people wouldn’t make social calls while hanging out with friends, I think it is rather rude to consistently text others instead of talking to the people around you.
Work Cited:
Steinhauer, Jennifer and Laura M. Holson. “As Text Messages Fly, Danger Lurks.” New York Times 19 September 2008: A1.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Welcome
At long last, I have a blog. I never thought the day would come. Here you will find my thoughts and comments on my Enriched Language Arts outside reading. I hope that you find my ideas worthwhile to read, and that they provoke responses from you, as well. I'm excited to read others' blogs and I hope that we all learn a lot from the activity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)