My ultimate image of a cowboy consists of three things: a western ranch, a herd of cattle and a hat. Sure, there are more things than that, but these three images are integral in my imagination's ability to percieve cowboys. How can you be a cowboy if you aren't on a ranch? How can you succeed on a ranch without a massive herd of cattle? And, most importantly, how can you succceed as a cowboy without the perfect cowboy hat to put on your head? These things are necessary.
However, in her essay, "About Men," Elrich destroys all of our traditional ideas of cowboys by portraying the cowboy's soft, tender side, the side that needs a woman's help to get along, the side that no one expected was there. Who could have imagined that cowboys do more than lead cattle from one place to the next? Who could have imagined that cowboys really care for their animals and are really soft-hearted on the inside?
I never knew.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Blog #17
Mitch Albom raised a great question when he presented the O.J. Simpson trial as the most important American event of the past two decades- what was the most important American event of the past two decades? It's hard to imagine the O.J. Simpson trial as the most important American event of the last two decades when you juxtapose it with the fall of the Soviet Union and the break up of the Warsaw Pact, or the Persian Gulf War or the many Presidential elections of the past two decades. However impossible it may seem, I agree with Albom's assertion that the O.J. Simpson trial affected American society the most. The fall of the Soviet Union or the the Persian Gulf War may have been huge news when they occurred, but their lasting affects pale in comparision to the O.J. Simpson trial. I have tried watching traditional news sources such as CNN, Fox, or MSN before, but now I cannot. These stations brodcast such copious amounts of crap that I can no longer trust them. This is a direct result of the O.J. Trial's drastic affects on the media. How can anything else compare?
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Blog #15
Luc Sante gives three reasons for the breakdown of secrecy: the fall of the Soviet Union and the KGB, the internet, and what he calls "confessional culture." Bascially, each of these three key points have lead to the breakdown of secrecy in our society today.
The fall of the Soviet Union "opened a tremendous number of lead-lined rooms," leading to a plethora of Soviet State secrets to be revealed, so that everyone knew who was shooting at who, when they were doing this and why. This also lead to a drop in public support for government's keeping secrets from its own people. Now that there was no Cold War, there was less of a need for many state secrets.
The internet also causes many secrets to be leaked every day. Recently, there was a huge uproar when the website WikiLeak leaked thousands and thousands of government documents on the day to day activities of troops in Iraq and Afghanistand. While there were no huge secrets revealed (the American public actually knew about much of this beforehand), this huge leak in security established a disturbing precedent where anyone can leak anything on the Internet.
Confessional culture, as Sante defines it, encourages people to spill our most sacred secrets to others because they are like money burning a hole in our pockets, we have to get them off of our chests. The pressure secrets put on us can only be relieved by telling our secrets to trusted friends, or by posting it on the internet.
I don't agree with Sante's idea that the internet is the nemesis to secrecy. The internet is merely a tool everyone can used to exchange ideas and information, and, while sometimes this tool can be used badly, like the WikiLeak mass leak, the internet is a good thing. The internet is only bad if used badly, and while confessional culture can lead to many secrets being revealed on the internet, it is the people who reveal the secrets' fault.
The fall of the Soviet Union "opened a tremendous number of lead-lined rooms," leading to a plethora of Soviet State secrets to be revealed, so that everyone knew who was shooting at who, when they were doing this and why. This also lead to a drop in public support for government's keeping secrets from its own people. Now that there was no Cold War, there was less of a need for many state secrets.
The internet also causes many secrets to be leaked every day. Recently, there was a huge uproar when the website WikiLeak leaked thousands and thousands of government documents on the day to day activities of troops in Iraq and Afghanistand. While there were no huge secrets revealed (the American public actually knew about much of this beforehand), this huge leak in security established a disturbing precedent where anyone can leak anything on the Internet.
Confessional culture, as Sante defines it, encourages people to spill our most sacred secrets to others because they are like money burning a hole in our pockets, we have to get them off of our chests. The pressure secrets put on us can only be relieved by telling our secrets to trusted friends, or by posting it on the internet.
I don't agree with Sante's idea that the internet is the nemesis to secrecy. The internet is merely a tool everyone can used to exchange ideas and information, and, while sometimes this tool can be used badly, like the WikiLeak mass leak, the internet is a good thing. The internet is only bad if used badly, and while confessional culture can lead to many secrets being revealed on the internet, it is the people who reveal the secrets' fault.
Blog #13
Every once in a while, we go to the movie theaters, sit down, maybe with a bucket of popcorn, watch the movie we paid to see and walk out of the theater stunned. Some movies are good. some movies great. And some movies are so out of the ball park, so stunning you can't speak amazing. Those are the movies you remember.
Unfortunately, these movies are few and far between. Often, production costs, A-list actors, and expensive directors can scuttle a marvelous movie before it can start. However, occasionally, you see a movie that is utterly amazing, and you never forget it.
I have experienced a few of these movies, but I feel that one of the ones that has affected me the most was the Spanish film, Pan's Labyrinth. The very fact that the movie is spoken in Spanish, a language I have little connection to, and little knowledge of, made me think about everything that was being said in a different light. Is this English translation actually what it means in Spanish? How are the connotations different? What are they trying to say? Instead of passively sitting back in my chair and accepting the movie as it was shown, I actively thought about the movie, even as it was playing, and challenged it.
Pan's Labyrinth was also extremely memorable for me because of its connection with death, and the different perspective on the subject it presents. The idea is that the Labyrinth is the afterlife, and this little girl is "going home" to meet her father (a demon, for some reason). I felt that this was a much more peaceful perspective than the reality presented in the stern, civil war torn Spain of the 1930's, where much of the movie takes place.
A memorable movie and a great movie are not necessarily the same thing, but they can coincide to form a marvelous movie that you will remember for years to come. Pan's Labyrinth affected me, but it may not have affected a Spanish speaker in the same theater as me, because they interacted with the movie differently. The greatness of a movie is all about perspective- what affects you the most, you remember the most. Great movies are the ones you enjoy, but truly spectacular ones are the ones you remember for years to come.
Unfortunately, these movies are few and far between. Often, production costs, A-list actors, and expensive directors can scuttle a marvelous movie before it can start. However, occasionally, you see a movie that is utterly amazing, and you never forget it.
I have experienced a few of these movies, but I feel that one of the ones that has affected me the most was the Spanish film, Pan's Labyrinth. The very fact that the movie is spoken in Spanish, a language I have little connection to, and little knowledge of, made me think about everything that was being said in a different light. Is this English translation actually what it means in Spanish? How are the connotations different? What are they trying to say? Instead of passively sitting back in my chair and accepting the movie as it was shown, I actively thought about the movie, even as it was playing, and challenged it.
Pan's Labyrinth was also extremely memorable for me because of its connection with death, and the different perspective on the subject it presents. The idea is that the Labyrinth is the afterlife, and this little girl is "going home" to meet her father (a demon, for some reason). I felt that this was a much more peaceful perspective than the reality presented in the stern, civil war torn Spain of the 1930's, where much of the movie takes place.
A memorable movie and a great movie are not necessarily the same thing, but they can coincide to form a marvelous movie that you will remember for years to come. Pan's Labyrinth affected me, but it may not have affected a Spanish speaker in the same theater as me, because they interacted with the movie differently. The greatness of a movie is all about perspective- what affects you the most, you remember the most. Great movies are the ones you enjoy, but truly spectacular ones are the ones you remember for years to come.
Blog #12
Self-Check:
1. I answered the prompt as thoroughly as possible in the time allotted.
2. I do have a clear thesis that explains what the Pink Flamingo represents when taken in view of America's society as a whole, but it seems a little rushed. I think this may be because I felt like I started writing my essay later than everyone else.
3. Yes, my essay is very unified in theme- I always stuck to what the story of the Pink Flamingo is trying to say, until the very end, when I broadened the topic.
4. In my first body paragraph, I talked about what the story of the Pink Flamingo was trying to say about American society and its faults. I made sure to stay on this topic and only write about things that were important to the topic.
5. I made sure to use as many quotations as possible (there were a huge range of possible quotations in the essay) and I made sure the quotes flowed well with the sentence structure I was trying to create. Actually, there was one time when there were so many relevant quotes, I had to trim it down to just two or three.
Reflection:
1. I felt that my body paragraphs went very well with this timed write because, by the time I reached these paragraphs, I had gotten the ball rolling, I knew what I wanted to write, and I knew how to write it. The sentences just flowed onto the paper easily.
2. My intro and conclusions suffered because I started too late and I didn't have enough time to put a huge amount of thought into them. I am worried that I may have dabbled a bit into cliche with my conclusion.
3. If I had more time, I would make sure to thoroughly vett my introduction and conclusion paragraphs, check for grammatical errors, and read through my finished essay at least once more. Basically, I would do the editing that I didn't have much time to do in class.
4. I felt that the orginazation of my essay stuck fairly well to what I had planned prior to writing my essay. This is where I really made up time, because, although I started a little slow, I knew exactly what I wanted to write and where to put it.
5. As I was writing and analyzing the structure of the text, I realized how much structure can affect the feel and flow of an essay, so I made sure to write about the structure's affect.
6. I will make sure to structure my ideas and organization before I start writing, because that helped me budget my time wisely. But I will also make sure to go back and read what I write, especially the introduction and conclusion, because I don't want to have to resort to cliche in my essays.
1. I answered the prompt as thoroughly as possible in the time allotted.
2. I do have a clear thesis that explains what the Pink Flamingo represents when taken in view of America's society as a whole, but it seems a little rushed. I think this may be because I felt like I started writing my essay later than everyone else.
3. Yes, my essay is very unified in theme- I always stuck to what the story of the Pink Flamingo is trying to say, until the very end, when I broadened the topic.
4. In my first body paragraph, I talked about what the story of the Pink Flamingo was trying to say about American society and its faults. I made sure to stay on this topic and only write about things that were important to the topic.
5. I made sure to use as many quotations as possible (there were a huge range of possible quotations in the essay) and I made sure the quotes flowed well with the sentence structure I was trying to create. Actually, there was one time when there were so many relevant quotes, I had to trim it down to just two or three.
Reflection:
1. I felt that my body paragraphs went very well with this timed write because, by the time I reached these paragraphs, I had gotten the ball rolling, I knew what I wanted to write, and I knew how to write it. The sentences just flowed onto the paper easily.
2. My intro and conclusions suffered because I started too late and I didn't have enough time to put a huge amount of thought into them. I am worried that I may have dabbled a bit into cliche with my conclusion.
3. If I had more time, I would make sure to thoroughly vett my introduction and conclusion paragraphs, check for grammatical errors, and read through my finished essay at least once more. Basically, I would do the editing that I didn't have much time to do in class.
4. I felt that the orginazation of my essay stuck fairly well to what I had planned prior to writing my essay. This is where I really made up time, because, although I started a little slow, I knew exactly what I wanted to write and where to put it.
5. As I was writing and analyzing the structure of the text, I realized how much structure can affect the feel and flow of an essay, so I made sure to write about the structure's affect.
6. I will make sure to structure my ideas and organization before I start writing, because that helped me budget my time wisely. But I will also make sure to go back and read what I write, especially the introduction and conclusion, because I don't want to have to resort to cliche in my essays.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Blog #14
The ethics that define us as a person come from many places- movies, television, our parents and peers- and help us figure out what is right and what is wrong. Even without any effort, teachers will naturally pass on many of their values and ethical beliefs on to their students. But should schools teach students ethics directly to students?
I believe that it is important to make sure students have some grasp of the ethical beliefs that span our nation, and of those of other cultures, but this idea presents a myriad of problems. Teaching ethics raises the same issue as the idea of teaching religion in public schools: not everyone has the same beliefs. How do you sort through the differences between cultures in a country that recieves millions of immigrants every year? Not all peoples within the United States are white Anglo-Americans with Protestant morals. For schools to teach ethics correctly, they would have to represent all of the cultures that reside within the United States, but this is a daunting task to say the least.
For schools to properly teach ethics in schools, they have to realize that parents teach their children more about ethics and morals than any other source. Any ethics class would have to balance this fact with the
knowledge that many students possess different levels of "ethical knowldege" when they begin this class. Also, many subjects, such as religion, and politics, that greatly affect ethical beliefs are deeply personal and cannot really be taught by a teacher. They can only be learned.
The idea of a high school ethics class is a good one, but poses many problems that schools would have to work out before adding Ethics to their cirriculum. However, the advantages to students being exposed to and learning about ethical beliefs that are common throughout the nation are great. Creating an ethics class for high school would be difficult, but is important because it could help unify our nation.
I believe that it is important to make sure students have some grasp of the ethical beliefs that span our nation, and of those of other cultures, but this idea presents a myriad of problems. Teaching ethics raises the same issue as the idea of teaching religion in public schools: not everyone has the same beliefs. How do you sort through the differences between cultures in a country that recieves millions of immigrants every year? Not all peoples within the United States are white Anglo-Americans with Protestant morals. For schools to teach ethics correctly, they would have to represent all of the cultures that reside within the United States, but this is a daunting task to say the least.
For schools to properly teach ethics in schools, they have to realize that parents teach their children more about ethics and morals than any other source. Any ethics class would have to balance this fact with the
knowledge that many students possess different levels of "ethical knowldege" when they begin this class. Also, many subjects, such as religion, and politics, that greatly affect ethical beliefs are deeply personal and cannot really be taught by a teacher. They can only be learned.
The idea of a high school ethics class is a good one, but poses many problems that schools would have to work out before adding Ethics to their cirriculum. However, the advantages to students being exposed to and learning about ethical beliefs that are common throughout the nation are great. Creating an ethics class for high school would be difficult, but is important because it could help unify our nation.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Blog #11
Culminating Writer's Profile:
1. My expectations about my own writing style and needs have changed since I've begun AP Language and Composition because I now feel obligated to produce higher levels of insight and thought in my writing in less time than ever before. These timed writes are difficult because I must, in a short period of time, thoroughly plan, organize and write a great essay. My writing has changed by becoming slightly simpler and more to the point compared to my previous English classes.
2. Luckily for me, I have always been a fairly strong writer. My parents exposed me to many more higher level books and magazines when I was younger than most of my peers' parents (or so I assume). This greatly increased my vocabulary and showed me many different types of sentence structures. Now, I can look at a sentence and see what is wrong with its structure and what doesn't fit. This helps me greatly in editing my essay as I write.
3. In some ways, my good vocabulary and knowledge of how to use "higher level" words has inhibited the development of my writing. Most of the time, long, flowing lyrical phrases do not suit the purposes of any writing style besides academic. AP Language has allowed me to see the importance of realizing who your audience is and framing the structure of your sentences and your word choice to reflect your audience.
Evaluating Your Writing Process:
1. If I had time to write one more draft of the Rodriguez essay, I would thoroughly edit myself and strengthen my introduction and conclusion paragraphs. I always struggle with the intro to an essay the most, but once I get the ball rolling, the sentences just flow onto the paper with ease. Also, once I reach the end of my essay, I find it difficult to conclude, although it is easier than the beginning. My main goal for a rough draft would be to strenghten these two sections the most and filter out the cliche that is bound to end up in my essays.
2. Unfortunately, due to my missing the origional timed write date due to a cross country meet, I haven't recieced a peer review on this essay.
3. Once again, I haven't revised this essay yet becuase I haven't recieved a peer review.
Evaluating Your Successes:
1. I haven't revised this essay yet.
2. I felt that the strongest part of my essay was my body paragraphs where I fully delved into Rodriguez's reasoning in writing this essay and how he used descriptive language and paragraph structure to shape his theme. Rodriguez's essay was fairly straight forward and it was easy to describe how he did this.
3. I felt that my best success in considering my audience was in my conclusion, where I broadened Rodriguez's theme from California and Mexico's relationship to everyone's relationships.
Being Honest with Self:
1. The most intimidating thing about this writing process was merely beginning. I don't have much experience with timed writes and all the hype and pressure about these essays was getting to me a little. I combatted this by thinking through the subject, Rodriguez's theme and what I wanted to say.
2. Since it is still the beginnning of the year, I wasn't extremely affected by what we've studied as I wrote this essay. However, since all of the essays we read didn't have many adverbs, or many other academic words, I refrained from overusing them.
3. I didn't really have time to think about many other essays while I was structuring and writing mine.
4. I didn't read any other student essays for this essay.
5. I see myself as a still developing, but fairly strong writier who still has a lot to learn from this class.
1. My expectations about my own writing style and needs have changed since I've begun AP Language and Composition because I now feel obligated to produce higher levels of insight and thought in my writing in less time than ever before. These timed writes are difficult because I must, in a short period of time, thoroughly plan, organize and write a great essay. My writing has changed by becoming slightly simpler and more to the point compared to my previous English classes.
2. Luckily for me, I have always been a fairly strong writer. My parents exposed me to many more higher level books and magazines when I was younger than most of my peers' parents (or so I assume). This greatly increased my vocabulary and showed me many different types of sentence structures. Now, I can look at a sentence and see what is wrong with its structure and what doesn't fit. This helps me greatly in editing my essay as I write.
3. In some ways, my good vocabulary and knowledge of how to use "higher level" words has inhibited the development of my writing. Most of the time, long, flowing lyrical phrases do not suit the purposes of any writing style besides academic. AP Language has allowed me to see the importance of realizing who your audience is and framing the structure of your sentences and your word choice to reflect your audience.
Evaluating Your Writing Process:
1. If I had time to write one more draft of the Rodriguez essay, I would thoroughly edit myself and strengthen my introduction and conclusion paragraphs. I always struggle with the intro to an essay the most, but once I get the ball rolling, the sentences just flow onto the paper with ease. Also, once I reach the end of my essay, I find it difficult to conclude, although it is easier than the beginning. My main goal for a rough draft would be to strenghten these two sections the most and filter out the cliche that is bound to end up in my essays.
2. Unfortunately, due to my missing the origional timed write date due to a cross country meet, I haven't recieced a peer review on this essay.
3. Once again, I haven't revised this essay yet becuase I haven't recieved a peer review.
Evaluating Your Successes:
1. I haven't revised this essay yet.
2. I felt that the strongest part of my essay was my body paragraphs where I fully delved into Rodriguez's reasoning in writing this essay and how he used descriptive language and paragraph structure to shape his theme. Rodriguez's essay was fairly straight forward and it was easy to describe how he did this.
3. I felt that my best success in considering my audience was in my conclusion, where I broadened Rodriguez's theme from California and Mexico's relationship to everyone's relationships.
Being Honest with Self:
1. The most intimidating thing about this writing process was merely beginning. I don't have much experience with timed writes and all the hype and pressure about these essays was getting to me a little. I combatted this by thinking through the subject, Rodriguez's theme and what I wanted to say.
2. Since it is still the beginnning of the year, I wasn't extremely affected by what we've studied as I wrote this essay. However, since all of the essays we read didn't have many adverbs, or many other academic words, I refrained from overusing them.
3. I didn't really have time to think about many other essays while I was structuring and writing mine.
4. I didn't read any other student essays for this essay.
5. I see myself as a still developing, but fairly strong writier who still has a lot to learn from this class.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Blog # 8
I remember exactly where I was and what I was thinking when the word "corpulent" was spoken to me. My sister, embroiled in the turmoil of junior year, and attempting to understand her English lesson by teaching me, described the denotation and connotation of the word so clearly I remember each vividly to this day: "Corpulent means fat, but not just fat. It means extremely obese, corrupt and evil, even. I mean, the root of the word is corpse." I immediately imagined a corrupt 19th Century British judge, fat from overindulgence in himself, skin pasty white, and a smile that showed his erection was not from lust towards women- it was for himself. I imagined something you might see Sweeney Todd murdering, in revenge, in the classic macabre musical. In effect, I imagined the demon of gluttony.
Corpulent isn't just fat- it is the extreme of fat, beyond obese or swollen. Corpulent doesn't only describe your weight, it describes your personality, your trustworthiness, and your self-indulgence. The ultimate power of the connotation of the word "corpulent" is that it describes a whole person completely, while still only commenting on one trait.
Corpulent isn't just fat- it is the extreme of fat, beyond obese or swollen. Corpulent doesn't only describe your weight, it describes your personality, your trustworthiness, and your self-indulgence. The ultimate power of the connotation of the word "corpulent" is that it describes a whole person completely, while still only commenting on one trait.
Blog #10
Walking through the halls at school, you can see them out there. They are the social pariahs of the hallways, with their nose stuck in a book, or with their headphones in their ears. They are the type of people who rush home after school with nothing to do. They are-in effect- nobodies.
But what exactly causes these lonely outcasts to appear so lonesome? The social structure of our school can have some effect- anyone not participating in a sport or club is an outlier- but anyone can find at least one friend, or meet one acquaintance in the course of a year. The real reason is because these "nobodies", "outliers" and "paraiahs," as I have labeled them, know they are different. They are the extreme introverts that realize the supreme knowledge a good book can bring. They are the self-declared outcasts who relish seeing others steal their lime light. They are the people who thrive in the shadows and back corners of the room, observing, without judgment, the trials and tribulations of extroverted life.
Armed with this knowledge, and choosing to ignore the ignorant extroverts, these "nobodies" realize that being a nobody isn't such a bad thing. If any extrovert who tries to pull them from their sanctuary of self-reliance can't deal with a cold shoulder, it isn't the nobody's fault- everyone else simply doesn't understand. It isn't our fault, as extroverts, that we don't understand. We just don't know what it's like to be a nobody because it's not who we are. It's who they are.
But what exactly causes these lonely outcasts to appear so lonesome? The social structure of our school can have some effect- anyone not participating in a sport or club is an outlier- but anyone can find at least one friend, or meet one acquaintance in the course of a year. The real reason is because these "nobodies", "outliers" and "paraiahs," as I have labeled them, know they are different. They are the extreme introverts that realize the supreme knowledge a good book can bring. They are the self-declared outcasts who relish seeing others steal their lime light. They are the people who thrive in the shadows and back corners of the room, observing, without judgment, the trials and tribulations of extroverted life.
Armed with this knowledge, and choosing to ignore the ignorant extroverts, these "nobodies" realize that being a nobody isn't such a bad thing. If any extrovert who tries to pull them from their sanctuary of self-reliance can't deal with a cold shoulder, it isn't the nobody's fault- everyone else simply doesn't understand. It isn't our fault, as extroverts, that we don't understand. We just don't know what it's like to be a nobody because it's not who we are. It's who they are.
Blog #9
Tuesdays with Morrie truly touched me- I can see why many people cry after reading Mitch Albom's memoir of Morries life, and, while I did not, the moral of the story struck a chord in my heart. The story of Albom's abandonment of Morrie's ideals after college for the sake of money, and his gradual epiphany at the hands of Morrie's lessons showed me that living life fully does not consist of only I, it consists of we. Without many different types of we's- groups of loved ones, friends, family or colleagues- life has no meaning.
Anyone can indulge in self worship through drugs, sex, or alcohol, then die a lonely meaningless death, but truly living for yourself through everyone around you begets a truly different type of happiness. Rather than the momentary happiness of drug abuse or the climax of sex, living for yourself through others brings meaning to your life by allowing you to help everyone around you to the fullest extent possible. Morrie Schwartz succeeded in doing this. The end of his life overflowed with love, joy and affection from others because of the love, joy and affection gave throughout his life. His loved ones just succeeded in returning the favor before Morrie died.
I learned a lot from Tuesdays with Morrie. I learned that you should cherish the everyday things in life. I learned I want a teacher like Morrie someday. But most of all, I learned that you should be kind and love all of the people around you, and tell them how much appreciate them before it is too late.
Anyone can indulge in self worship through drugs, sex, or alcohol, then die a lonely meaningless death, but truly living for yourself through everyone around you begets a truly different type of happiness. Rather than the momentary happiness of drug abuse or the climax of sex, living for yourself through others brings meaning to your life by allowing you to help everyone around you to the fullest extent possible. Morrie Schwartz succeeded in doing this. The end of his life overflowed with love, joy and affection from others because of the love, joy and affection gave throughout his life. His loved ones just succeeded in returning the favor before Morrie died.
I learned a lot from Tuesdays with Morrie. I learned that you should cherish the everyday things in life. I learned I want a teacher like Morrie someday. But most of all, I learned that you should be kind and love all of the people around you, and tell them how much appreciate them before it is too late.
Blog #7
No one has everything they need. Everyone has needs they need fufilled. Poor people need money, and rich people need meaning in life. Some needs are a little more immediate than others, but the point is that everyone needs something. No one is complete and whole by themselves, or surrounded by material possessions. Scott F. Fitzgerald reveals this concept to the readers of his book, The Great Gatsby, by writing about the rich, spoiled gentry of pre-Depression 1920's America in New York City. This was the golden age of Republican ideals- money was in the hands of a few, select, extremely rich families, and the rest of the population lived under the soles of their feet. Jay Gatsby, an extremely rich man who earned his money through illicit sales of bootleg alcohol, shows the contradiction of these ideals and real life- he has all he would ever need in life to be "happy," but he is not because he doesn't have the love and companionship of the woman of his dreams. Juxtapose Gatsby to any poor person married to someone they love wholeheartedly, and you would see the poor person is happier, despite economic difficulties. The real argument of The Great Gatsby is that money and material possesions don't make us happy, love does.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Blog Number 6
Many people believe that being smart is a blessing, but I know it is a curse. Being the only one to raise your hand, you think it's strange. Earning a one hundred percent on a test, you know you're different. Realizing you are the one people come to for help, and you're sure: you are smart. Many people look up to you because of your smartness, many people hate you for it, but, most importantly, many people fear you.
Being intellegent and being smart are two similar, yet extremely distinct things. On the one hand, if you are intellegent, you are trusted by your friends as a foundation for help, but if you are smart, you are a foundation for everyone. Intellegence is natural, you are able to grasp concepts or ideas and remember formulas easier, but smart is branded upon you. Once you are smart, there is no turning back, and the trouble is it's completely out of your control.
All my life, I have been the smart kid. I have higher test scores, greater knowledge of literature and history than most of my peers, but I also have the burden of maintaining all of these things. If my scores slip, my parents are troubled, and my peers are suprised. If I answer wrong in class, teachers frown and think for a second before moving on, and I simmer inside, wishing it would never happen again. The pressure is great, and the rewards are few. I have many more enemies and rivals than the average person: every other "smart" person is a threat. We're the type of arrogant, proud people who are willing to fight for the honor of valedictorian until death, because it is what is expected of us, and there are no holds barred.
This existence, in reality, is meaningless. Intellegence is the thing to be prasied- smart is just the ability to do well on tests. But tests don't really mean anything. How quickly you are able to figure out what 1+2 equals, or how well you write an essay isn't a proper gauge of your innate intellegence, because intellegence is a life long endeavor. Smart is permanent, yet superfluous. I didn't choose to be this way, my peers branded me as smart, and I have remained so ever since, unable to stray from that path.
Being intellegent and being smart are two similar, yet extremely distinct things. On the one hand, if you are intellegent, you are trusted by your friends as a foundation for help, but if you are smart, you are a foundation for everyone. Intellegence is natural, you are able to grasp concepts or ideas and remember formulas easier, but smart is branded upon you. Once you are smart, there is no turning back, and the trouble is it's completely out of your control.
All my life, I have been the smart kid. I have higher test scores, greater knowledge of literature and history than most of my peers, but I also have the burden of maintaining all of these things. If my scores slip, my parents are troubled, and my peers are suprised. If I answer wrong in class, teachers frown and think for a second before moving on, and I simmer inside, wishing it would never happen again. The pressure is great, and the rewards are few. I have many more enemies and rivals than the average person: every other "smart" person is a threat. We're the type of arrogant, proud people who are willing to fight for the honor of valedictorian until death, because it is what is expected of us, and there are no holds barred.
This existence, in reality, is meaningless. Intellegence is the thing to be prasied- smart is just the ability to do well on tests. But tests don't really mean anything. How quickly you are able to figure out what 1+2 equals, or how well you write an essay isn't a proper gauge of your innate intellegence, because intellegence is a life long endeavor. Smart is permanent, yet superfluous. I didn't choose to be this way, my peers branded me as smart, and I have remained so ever since, unable to stray from that path.
Blog Number 3
Human history has tended to be biased towards Eurasian soceity for thousands of years, and, lately, Western Eurasian societies, or those of Europe. Why could this be? Were the people of other continents inferior to their White counterparts,as racist, Eugenicists of the Imperial Age often claimed? Or was it a deeper, less racially based reason? These are some of the questions Jared Diamond attempts to answer in his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Diamond uses the intense power of statistical analysis and an overwhelming abundance of evidence to support his claim that Eurasian societies grew into promincence because they possesed Guns, Germs and Steel, while other cultures did not. The preface outlines what his four sections of the book pertain to: the account of the Diaspora out of Africa (an inferred analysis based on archaeological findings) and the eventual Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire in 1531, the rise of food production around the world, how food production affected societies, and finally, the history of the people of seperate continents themselves. All throughout these four sections, Diamond cites archaeological, linguistic, and other historical sources, to support his idea.
This book has a deep meaning attached to it, because it accurately explains why history turned out the way it did. Everyone has wondered at one time or other why did the Europeans "find" the New World, and not the other way around? Diamond uses his great knowledge of different peoples of the world, and their history, to prove that it wasn't inadequacy in the indigenous peoples of a given area that caused them to obtain guns, germs, and steel, and that geography had the biggest impact on the history of the world. It is a great read for anyone interested in analyzing why history turned out the way it did, but I reccomend it to all.
Diamond uses the intense power of statistical analysis and an overwhelming abundance of evidence to support his claim that Eurasian societies grew into promincence because they possesed Guns, Germs and Steel, while other cultures did not. The preface outlines what his four sections of the book pertain to: the account of the Diaspora out of Africa (an inferred analysis based on archaeological findings) and the eventual Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire in 1531, the rise of food production around the world, how food production affected societies, and finally, the history of the people of seperate continents themselves. All throughout these four sections, Diamond cites archaeological, linguistic, and other historical sources, to support his idea.
This book has a deep meaning attached to it, because it accurately explains why history turned out the way it did. Everyone has wondered at one time or other why did the Europeans "find" the New World, and not the other way around? Diamond uses his great knowledge of different peoples of the world, and their history, to prove that it wasn't inadequacy in the indigenous peoples of a given area that caused them to obtain guns, germs, and steel, and that geography had the biggest impact on the history of the world. It is a great read for anyone interested in analyzing why history turned out the way it did, but I reccomend it to all.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Blog Number 5
"The Box Man" dealt with the difference between choosing to live alone, and being forced to live alone, but I think it also had a great deal to do with choices. The Box Man chose to live a life of solitude, while the lonely women in the story were abandoned. This dichotomy of decision making has a lot to do with our lives today- do we take control of our lives and make decisions, or do we let others make potentially disastrous life changing decisions for us? Every day poses new questions that we all must make decisions on: what do I eat for lunch today? Do I eat lunch today? Should I talk to him/her? However, some decisions are more important than others, such as: what classes should I take this year? What college is right for me? Should I have sex? Many of these questions are superfluous or less important- your mother might pack your lunch for you- but many issues are much too important to leave to your parents. Finding the right college is one of the most important decisions of a teenager's life, and it's not a decision someone can easily make for you. Many decisions throughout life are like this, where we must decide. We can't always fall back on our parents for help, because they won't always be there. Basically, "The Box Man" essay is attempting to tell us to make our own decisions to the best of our ability.
Blog Number Four
The Box Man and the two women in "The Box Man," are very different, but in ways are ironically similar, because all of them are alone. Similarly, today's major political parties, the Republicans, and the Democrats, are ironically similar. No true Republican or Democrat would admit it, but political parties have many things in common: they scower the political landscape for votes, they promise change in elections and dissent later, they preach about "mama bears" and "family values," but then ignore their own familes to achieve political success. Bascially, all politicians, Republican, Democrat, or Independant are hypocrites. The constant need for voter approval often overrides the values in the politician's mind and causes them to act "out of character." You can see this hypocricy clearly displayed with both Republicans and democrats on two seperate occasions. First off, in 2009, when the 2nd Amendment was coming under fire (no pun intended), Republican politicians ranted and raved about the intent of the Founders, and the sanctity of the Constitution, claiming the Constitution should not be changed. Now, as Republicans are coining terms, like anchor babies, and seething over illegal immigration, these same politicians are, once again, ranting and raving about the intent of the Founders, and the Constitution, but this time they are preaching a different story. This time around, they intend to amend their supposedly sacred constitution for the "good of America." The irony is blinding. However, Democrats are not the best at keeping their word either. When President Barack Obama was elected, he promised to pull the troops out of Iraq, and the understanding was the removal would be quick and expedient. Now, over a year and a half later, the last combat troops are being pulled out of Iraq-the withdrawal was not the definition of quick and expedient. This is not the type of thing American voters agree to when they step inside voting booths and cast their vote (if they do at all). Republican or democrat, all politicians are hypocrites.
Blog Number 2: My Non-Fiction Literary History
This is an attempt to list all of the different nonfiction books, magazines and other things I've read throughout the years. Here goes:
-The New York Times
-Huffington Post (News Articles)
-CNN.com
-the Vacaville Reporter
-the Sacramento Bee
-the San Francisco Chronicle
-Times Magazine
-Atlas of World History (and its various sub books on the different time periods of history)
-Eyewitness Books (various throughout my elementary school experience)
-The Tyrants, by Clive Foss (This is an excellent book on tyrants of the 20th century. If anyone wants to borrow my tattered copy, just ask.)
-The Peloponnesian War, by Donald Kagan
-The Landmark Herodotus, The Histories, edited by Robert B. Strassler
-The World Almanac, 2008 edition
-And, last but not least, Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond
This list is incomplete, because it is impossible to list all of the countless hours of shows from the History Channel, History-International, The Science Channel, The Military Channel, and other great networks.
The Peloponnesian War, by Donald Kagan is a wonderful book that I happened to buy on a whim in a used book store in Boston over the summer. Kagan is a world renown historian of Greek history, a teacher of history at Yale, and a classic scholar, but he doesn't write for scholars in this book. He wrote about the first Western world war so that all peoples, no matter your education in the English language, can understand and partake of this wonderful, rich history. There are plenty of maps to reference, so, by the end of reading this book, you obtain a marvelous knowledge of Greek geography, but you also get a feel for the people of ancient Greek societies. You understand the reasons behind the Peloponnesian War besides the Megarid Embargo, and realize it was really the struggle between oligarchy and democracy in the ancient world. It is a great, easy read that anyone interested in Ancient Greek history should read.
-The New York Times
-Huffington Post (News Articles)
-CNN.com
-the Vacaville Reporter
-the Sacramento Bee
-the San Francisco Chronicle
-Times Magazine
-Atlas of World History (and its various sub books on the different time periods of history)
-Eyewitness Books (various throughout my elementary school experience)
-The Tyrants, by Clive Foss (This is an excellent book on tyrants of the 20th century. If anyone wants to borrow my tattered copy, just ask.)
-The Peloponnesian War, by Donald Kagan
-The Landmark Herodotus, The Histories, edited by Robert B. Strassler
-The World Almanac, 2008 edition
-And, last but not least, Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond
This list is incomplete, because it is impossible to list all of the countless hours of shows from the History Channel, History-International, The Science Channel, The Military Channel, and other great networks.
The Peloponnesian War, by Donald Kagan is a wonderful book that I happened to buy on a whim in a used book store in Boston over the summer. Kagan is a world renown historian of Greek history, a teacher of history at Yale, and a classic scholar, but he doesn't write for scholars in this book. He wrote about the first Western world war so that all peoples, no matter your education in the English language, can understand and partake of this wonderful, rich history. There are plenty of maps to reference, so, by the end of reading this book, you obtain a marvelous knowledge of Greek geography, but you also get a feel for the people of ancient Greek societies. You understand the reasons behind the Peloponnesian War besides the Megarid Embargo, and realize it was really the struggle between oligarchy and democracy in the ancient world. It is a great, easy read that anyone interested in Ancient Greek history should read.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Here I Am
Describing yourself is hard, but here I go. I love history, some sciences and a good book. Learning in different, unusual ways is my life, but people think I'm a know-it-all, and arrogant. I would describe myself as merely confident, albiet sometimes overly so. I know I'm a nerd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)