In her story, "Eleven," Sandra Cisneros states the troubles of a young girl, Rachel, beginning her path to adolescence at the start of her eleventh birthday. She uses a narrative to describe Rachel's embarrassing day at school, a metaphor involving a red sweater, and simple diction to convey the raw meaning of Rachel's emotions and show her desire to be older than eleven. Cisneros employs a very humiliating and frustrating tone in order to show how much Rachel suffers from coming of age. Her tone is really to young people who are turning eleven, but it can apply to any age, where the feeling of wanting to be older but remain young is a contradiction.
1. The girl cries because she realizes the full extent of what growing older is. She sees that growing older involves carrying the weight of all the previous ages with you. You don't just shed your previous ages and the emotions and milestones that came with them. Rachel talks about "the need to cry like if you're three," and "saying something stupid" that is a mark of ten years of age. The girl cries because this overwhelms her. She just wants to move on and be older but that's not the reality.
2. The red sweater is a story of immaturity and to show how Rachel is still tethered to her younger ages. The sweater is a sign that Rachel is still young, and no matter how much she wants to grow older, she's still just starting adolescence. It's showing the theme of how growing up has layers. You're not just eleven. You're an accumulation of all of the ages leading to eleven. It's a theme to remember always. Human beings aren't linear. We are the product of our life experiences.
3. "Eleven" makes sense in this story because you're starting a new "decade" in your life. It's typically the time of middle school and when you start to hit adolescence. It's a confusing time in life, and this is implied in the story. You want to be taken seriously as an adult, but that's not possible. It's the start of something new, but you still have the immaturity that is associated with children. It's a difficult age to deal with, and Rachel's emotions are thus conveyed accurately.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Blog: Apple and Big Brother
When Apple created its legendary product, the Macintosh, it did so with a layer of revolution. In the iconic “1984” Ad, Apple cemented itself in the computer industry as the “anti-Big Brother.” Steve Jobs himself “saw IBM as Big Brother, and wanted to position Apple as the world's last chance to escape IBM's domination of the personal computer industry.” Since then, Apple has been feeding off of this in their product line. However, recently, the issue has returned to the limelight with Apple currently being embroiled in a battle with the FBI over privacy rights, something that directly challenges their stance of not dominating. In response to not being able to open the locked iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook in the deadly mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, the FBI has ordered that Apple revise or create a different program that would allow a “back door” to bypass the passcode, which, after 10 failed attempts, erases the phone’s data. Apple has put their foot down and refused to do so, citing their privacy rights and the ramifications for the future, and this has led to an ugly legal confrontation.
I’ve been reading about this issue since it first came to light, and I’m extremely fascinated by it. Especially since it directly pertains to something we have been learning about in AP US Government, which is the battle between order and freedom. How much control does the government have over us? How many individual liberties and freedoms must citizens sacrifice in the “best interests” of the whole country? These are extremely difficult questions that do not even have a definitive answer. In this case, Apple and FBI have taken their positions. Edward Snowden, the famed NSA spy, even threw his hat into the ring, saying that the FBI was "creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around.”
While I do understand the need for the FBI to access the shooter’s iPhone, I think that fundamentally, Apple is correct in their response. Although one can argue that Apple has been dominating the industry, they have still stuck to their idea of being the “anti-Big Brother.” Customers have entrusted Apple with their privacy, and Apple is thinking of what the future could hold if they comply with FBI standards. Apple never signed an agreement to hand over their information, and they are a private business. If there is a search warrant, they do need to obey that, but they are not associated with the government. They are, in themselves, a world power, and they want to maintain that by not giving up the information. It is entirely justifiable. And if Apple says yes this time, there is no guarantee that the FBI won’t use this as a “back door” to require more information in the future. In fact, there are suspicions that this is the case.
Other companies, like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft have rallied their support for Apple. In the end, without legitimate legal cause, Apple should win. They need to put their interests above, which is understandable in a company like this. Their Constitutional rights allow them to refuse this, and I hope that the FBI internalizes this in their pursuit. Apple does not want to be Big Brother. They want to maintain their privacy. This is a matter of national security, but the FBI has a bad track record when it comes to need (think NSA), so Apple has every right to not agree. It will be interesting to see this play out on March 22, and I am eagerly anticipating the response.
I’ve been reading about this issue since it first came to light, and I’m extremely fascinated by it. Especially since it directly pertains to something we have been learning about in AP US Government, which is the battle between order and freedom. How much control does the government have over us? How many individual liberties and freedoms must citizens sacrifice in the “best interests” of the whole country? These are extremely difficult questions that do not even have a definitive answer. In this case, Apple and FBI have taken their positions. Edward Snowden, the famed NSA spy, even threw his hat into the ring, saying that the FBI was "creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around.”
While I do understand the need for the FBI to access the shooter’s iPhone, I think that fundamentally, Apple is correct in their response. Although one can argue that Apple has been dominating the industry, they have still stuck to their idea of being the “anti-Big Brother.” Customers have entrusted Apple with their privacy, and Apple is thinking of what the future could hold if they comply with FBI standards. Apple never signed an agreement to hand over their information, and they are a private business. If there is a search warrant, they do need to obey that, but they are not associated with the government. They are, in themselves, a world power, and they want to maintain that by not giving up the information. It is entirely justifiable. And if Apple says yes this time, there is no guarantee that the FBI won’t use this as a “back door” to require more information in the future. In fact, there are suspicions that this is the case.
Other companies, like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft have rallied their support for Apple. In the end, without legitimate legal cause, Apple should win. They need to put their interests above, which is understandable in a company like this. Their Constitutional rights allow them to refuse this, and I hope that the FBI internalizes this in their pursuit. Apple does not want to be Big Brother. They want to maintain their privacy. This is a matter of national security, but the FBI has a bad track record when it comes to need (think NSA), so Apple has every right to not agree. It will be interesting to see this play out on March 22, and I am eagerly anticipating the response.
Monday, February 29, 2016
3rd Quarter Blogs: Blog #4
In his piece, "Go Carolina," David Sedaris talks about the constant need for schools to mold children into an accepted model, and the lengths they will go to in order to do so. Sedaris relates an amusing childhood anecdote, makes use of hyperbole, and employs humor throughout his writing in order to convey the important message of individuality and quirks, and the fact that they if they don't fit the perception of a "perfect child," they will try to be mended, often to the detriment of the student. His tone is self-deprecating, but very observant, and it shows the clear reflection he is having on an event that occurred in the past. His audience is really directed at everyone, but more to the educators and parents of our school systems, as he places the perspective in the hands of the child, and tries to send a message to those above him.
1. The story is really reflective of society as a whole, but it shows how children view what are supposed to be "helpful methods" as really trying to separate them and highlight their flaws. Sedaris shows this when speaks of his teacher saying, in his absence, that "David's not here today but if he were, he'd have a speech therapy session at two-thirty." Sometimes there is a disconnect between the eagerness of the school to try and help the child struggling, and how the child perceives it. Parts of growing up include trying to fit in and when you're shown that you're somehow different than everyone else, it can hurt. Sedaris speaks of desperately trying to find someone "cool" undergoing speech therapy because then he would change his mind about it, which shows that kids really just want to fit in. It's hard to navigate the world, and when you're different, it becomes even more challenging. This story is very easy to identify with, especially as a teenager because it always rings true.
2. What Sedaris writes about is not an easy topic. His message is extremely raw and difficult to internalize, and it's a problem that we have all encountered. However, by decorating his story with humor, he highlights the problem even more. He makes it understandable and also more comfortable for people to read, thus getting the message across. It's a hard topic to think about, but with humor involved, it makes it easier to read and therefore he conveys the importance of his message even more.
3. Sedaris's tone is marked by the following lines:
"The woman spoke with a heavy western North Carolina accent, which I used to discredit her authority."
"At the beginning of the school year, while we were congratulating ourselves on successfully passing for normal..."
"Whereas those around me might grow up to be lawyers or movie stars, my only option was to take a vow of silence and become a monk."
"I agreed but, because none of my speech classes ever made a difference, I still prefer to use the word chump."
All of these lines contribute to the humorous and comical tone that Sedaris employs. He is trying to bolster the underlying message with humor. He's highlighting a pertinent problem, but he does so by being amusing. He conveys the difficulty of being different in a way that anyone can read and enjoy, but also think about and ponder what he's really saying.
1. The story is really reflective of society as a whole, but it shows how children view what are supposed to be "helpful methods" as really trying to separate them and highlight their flaws. Sedaris shows this when speaks of his teacher saying, in his absence, that "David's not here today but if he were, he'd have a speech therapy session at two-thirty." Sometimes there is a disconnect between the eagerness of the school to try and help the child struggling, and how the child perceives it. Parts of growing up include trying to fit in and when you're shown that you're somehow different than everyone else, it can hurt. Sedaris speaks of desperately trying to find someone "cool" undergoing speech therapy because then he would change his mind about it, which shows that kids really just want to fit in. It's hard to navigate the world, and when you're different, it becomes even more challenging. This story is very easy to identify with, especially as a teenager because it always rings true.
2. What Sedaris writes about is not an easy topic. His message is extremely raw and difficult to internalize, and it's a problem that we have all encountered. However, by decorating his story with humor, he highlights the problem even more. He makes it understandable and also more comfortable for people to read, thus getting the message across. It's a hard topic to think about, but with humor involved, it makes it easier to read and therefore he conveys the importance of his message even more.
3. Sedaris's tone is marked by the following lines:
"The woman spoke with a heavy western North Carolina accent, which I used to discredit her authority."
"At the beginning of the school year, while we were congratulating ourselves on successfully passing for normal..."
"Whereas those around me might grow up to be lawyers or movie stars, my only option was to take a vow of silence and become a monk."
"I agreed but, because none of my speech classes ever made a difference, I still prefer to use the word chump."
All of these lines contribute to the humorous and comical tone that Sedaris employs. He is trying to bolster the underlying message with humor. He's highlighting a pertinent problem, but he does so by being amusing. He conveys the difficulty of being different in a way that anyone can read and enjoy, but also think about and ponder what he's really saying.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
3rd Quarter Blogs: Blog #3
In Toni Morrison's acceptance speech for her Nobel Prize in Literature (1993), she expresses the profound impact language has had on her, and shares the power of language in the form of a fable. She uses a narrative to describe the different intricacies of language, employs connections to her own life, and asks rhetorical questions in order to convey the true effect of language to her audience. Her tone is very awe-inspired and enthralled by the opportunities that language has given her as a writer, and she hopes to pass this on. Her audience is formally, the Swedish Academy, but it really extends to far beyond that because she is really appealing to anyone because language affects us all.
1. Morrison is very grateful to language and the fact that it has given her such an outlet to express herself. She starts her speech with the very commonly used, "Once upon a time," to show the universality of language. It can bend to anyone's will, but the power is in your hand, similar to the message that the old woman tries to stress. She is also captivated by the complexities of language and the different paths one can take to use it. Overall, she is extremely inspired by what language has to offer and how it has helped her and molded her in to the writer she is today.
2. The old woman wants the children to know that the power of action lies in their hands. It's entirely their responsibility. At first they want to humiliate her, but she rises above this. The children aren't prepared to hear such an answer, in which there is vagueness and ambiguity. But this is what the woman is trying to say. Life is full of what you do with it. Your actions are what clarifies things. They want her to clear everything up for them. They think that language is the ultimate say so, but it is really their actions, and that's what the old woman wants them to realize at the end of the tale.
3. I think she is trying to convey the fact that language is crafted according to the way you create it. Language is what unites us, but also distinguishes us because we each respond to language in a different way. Word-work is the way in which we express ourselves and it sets the path for how we live. That is what Morrison is trying to convey throughout the entire speech. Language has extraordinary power and carries a great gift. It is our actions that determine what we take from it.
1. Morrison is very grateful to language and the fact that it has given her such an outlet to express herself. She starts her speech with the very commonly used, "Once upon a time," to show the universality of language. It can bend to anyone's will, but the power is in your hand, similar to the message that the old woman tries to stress. She is also captivated by the complexities of language and the different paths one can take to use it. Overall, she is extremely inspired by what language has to offer and how it has helped her and molded her in to the writer she is today.
2. The old woman wants the children to know that the power of action lies in their hands. It's entirely their responsibility. At first they want to humiliate her, but she rises above this. The children aren't prepared to hear such an answer, in which there is vagueness and ambiguity. But this is what the woman is trying to say. Life is full of what you do with it. Your actions are what clarifies things. They want her to clear everything up for them. They think that language is the ultimate say so, but it is really their actions, and that's what the old woman wants them to realize at the end of the tale.
3. I think she is trying to convey the fact that language is crafted according to the way you create it. Language is what unites us, but also distinguishes us because we each respond to language in a different way. Word-work is the way in which we express ourselves and it sets the path for how we live. That is what Morrison is trying to convey throughout the entire speech. Language has extraordinary power and carries a great gift. It is our actions that determine what we take from it.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
The Importance of Getting History Right
History has always been a sensitive topic, especially to us, the Jewish people. On the one hand, our history is filled with the complexities and tales of how a nation so small could endure past any other civilization. We are instructed to thrive off of our history. However, on the other hand, we are confronted with the slanderous and libelous episodes of our Jewish history in which nations spread lies and attempted to destroy the Jewish people. Therefore, getting history right is a very personal topic for me and relates extremely well. History is something universal, something that unites the world, and a misrepresentation of history leads to disastrous consequences. The recording of history is fundamentally biased, but it is pertinent to ensure that it is as accurate as possible in order to provide for the past, present, and future. History has extraordinary power to shift perceptions, and it must be used as a tool, not as something detrimental.
One of the most blatant misrepresentations of history is during the time of the Holocaust. Hitler built his regime with one lie after another about the Jews, citing stereotypes and fabricating stories to reverse perceptions Germans had of the Jews, turning their relationship into one of animosity. The Germans submitted to what was occurring, and from there the Holocaust began and wrecked its destruction. Once history is recorded, it becomes fact, whether it is true or not. Therefore, the Germans believed they were reacting to facts. Little did they know or care to know that what Hitler was saying was completely and utterly false.
Even earlier than the Holocaust was the Dreyfus Affair, in which Alfred Dreyfus, a respected and honored general in the French army, was accused of espionage. After publicly degrading him and sending him off to exile, one prominent writer, Emile Zola, wrote a fiery letter to the President of the Republic, entitled, “J’Accuse,” in which he quite literally accused several court martials for forging evidence and convicting an innocent man. History was changed once again.
In today’s day and age, social media has taken the platform for recording history. However, especially in the realm of Israel, history is skewed. Israel is seen as the “oppressor state” who took away the land from the Palestinians in 1948 and continues to do so. Headlines scream of different “attacks” that Israel commits against Palestinians, and the cruelties the Palestinians suffer under Israel’s “rule.” This isn’t fact at all, but people believe it, and it becomes even more dangerous.
People believe what they are told. We see it manifested everywhere. Society is constructed by history, perspectives are molded by it. Therefore, it is extremely important to get history right. People need to know the facts, even if it is shameful. History happened and we cannot change the events, so we should not change the recording of it. If we don’t know our true history then aren’t we doomed to repeat it?
One of the most blatant misrepresentations of history is during the time of the Holocaust. Hitler built his regime with one lie after another about the Jews, citing stereotypes and fabricating stories to reverse perceptions Germans had of the Jews, turning their relationship into one of animosity. The Germans submitted to what was occurring, and from there the Holocaust began and wrecked its destruction. Once history is recorded, it becomes fact, whether it is true or not. Therefore, the Germans believed they were reacting to facts. Little did they know or care to know that what Hitler was saying was completely and utterly false.
Even earlier than the Holocaust was the Dreyfus Affair, in which Alfred Dreyfus, a respected and honored general in the French army, was accused of espionage. After publicly degrading him and sending him off to exile, one prominent writer, Emile Zola, wrote a fiery letter to the President of the Republic, entitled, “J’Accuse,” in which he quite literally accused several court martials for forging evidence and convicting an innocent man. History was changed once again.
In today’s day and age, social media has taken the platform for recording history. However, especially in the realm of Israel, history is skewed. Israel is seen as the “oppressor state” who took away the land from the Palestinians in 1948 and continues to do so. Headlines scream of different “attacks” that Israel commits against Palestinians, and the cruelties the Palestinians suffer under Israel’s “rule.” This isn’t fact at all, but people believe it, and it becomes even more dangerous.
People believe what they are told. We see it manifested everywhere. Society is constructed by history, perspectives are molded by it. Therefore, it is extremely important to get history right. People need to know the facts, even if it is shameful. History happened and we cannot change the events, so we should not change the recording of it. If we don’t know our true history then aren’t we doomed to repeat it?
Saturday, February 13, 2016
3rd Quarter Blogs: Blog #2
In her piece, Vietnam Veterans Memorial (1982), Maya Lin attempts to unify the fallen in the Vietnam War and solidify their memory into stone in order to commemorate and honor those that were lost. She uses black stone as her primary building material, therefore creating a strong, enduring backdrop, etches the names of all 52,000 service members that fell in the war, thus building a cohesive unit, and slopes the memorial downwards, so that people can see themselves in the stone as they read the names and implying a sense of continuity. Her tone is of honor and reverence for those who died in the service of our country, and her purpose is to try to have the people connect to these names, perhaps even see pieces of themselves within the memorial. Her audience is the entire world because anyone has access to the memorial, and she tries to convey the importance of creating an everlasting memory of those we lost, and not let them fade into obscurity.
1. I visited the Vietnam Memorial before I even knew anything about it. However, the first thing I remember is being awestruck and horrified by the sheer number of names. It immediately got me thinking about these fallen service members, which I assume was a large part of Lin's purpose, and I started to envision their lives. I would take a random name off the wall and try to imagine what kind of life they led. I also couldn't help but notice my reflection in the stone and I saw my duty to carry on the lives of those that have fallen. It isn't enough to simply have a memorial and continue onwards. Rather, memory is a continuing thing and we can't let these names just become names. The fact that it slopes downwards also contributes to this feeling because it seems like the memorial doesn't end, which also shows that you can't just forget about the memorial once seeing it. We have a responsibility to carry the people engraved in the memorial with us. I also think that having the names carved in the stone also humanizes it because we identify with people. It's not just blank, it has life in it. In fact, it has 52,000 lives etched in it.
2. This memorial sends several messages. The first is the destructive nature of war. The memorial is very difficult to miss, and since it stands out, it shows the power of war in harming and destroying lives. The artist is definitely anti-war and adding all the names to the memorial makes this even more real because it shows that war took 52,000 souls away. The artist has tremendous reverence towards the fallen, especially since middle initials are included, which shows an incredible attention to detail. The viewers are supposed to feel something after seeing this memorial, particularly after seeing themselves in the stone as one with the names. It implies that subsequent generations must honor their memory and ensure that nothing like this happens again.
1. I visited the Vietnam Memorial before I even knew anything about it. However, the first thing I remember is being awestruck and horrified by the sheer number of names. It immediately got me thinking about these fallen service members, which I assume was a large part of Lin's purpose, and I started to envision their lives. I would take a random name off the wall and try to imagine what kind of life they led. I also couldn't help but notice my reflection in the stone and I saw my duty to carry on the lives of those that have fallen. It isn't enough to simply have a memorial and continue onwards. Rather, memory is a continuing thing and we can't let these names just become names. The fact that it slopes downwards also contributes to this feeling because it seems like the memorial doesn't end, which also shows that you can't just forget about the memorial once seeing it. We have a responsibility to carry the people engraved in the memorial with us. I also think that having the names carved in the stone also humanizes it because we identify with people. It's not just blank, it has life in it. In fact, it has 52,000 lives etched in it.
2. This memorial sends several messages. The first is the destructive nature of war. The memorial is very difficult to miss, and since it stands out, it shows the power of war in harming and destroying lives. The artist is definitely anti-war and adding all the names to the memorial makes this even more real because it shows that war took 52,000 souls away. The artist has tremendous reverence towards the fallen, especially since middle initials are included, which shows an incredible attention to detail. The viewers are supposed to feel something after seeing this memorial, particularly after seeing themselves in the stone as one with the names. It implies that subsequent generations must honor their memory and ensure that nothing like this happens again.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
3rd Quarter Blogs: Blog #1
In her piece, "Living Like Weasels," Annie Dillard uses the carefree life of a weasel to suggest that humans are bound by restrictions and it it would be in our best interests to break free of this stronghold and live a limitation-free life, preferably in nature. Dillard uses descriptive language to describe the mundane, almost "paycheck to paycheck" life the weasel lives, recounts an anecdote of her encounter with a weasel, applies personal connections and comparisons to the life of a weasel, and ultimately decides that a weasel's life of only focusing on the moment at hand and letting yourself float by is an enviable way to live. Her tone is quite longing and her purpose is to try to get her audience into thinking about their own lives in order to perhaps envision them differently. Her audience is really all humans because we are all enslaved by one thing or another, and she wants them to consider their lives and what holds them back from living a more carefree life.
1. The essay is divided into sections to showcase the progression of her thoughts. She first merely describes a weasel, and is almost detached by it, simply stating facts. Then, the second part depicts the beginning of the encounter with the weasel, but she is more focused on the nature surrounding her, something she was known to do. The third portion really focuses on the enchantment she feels from seeing the weasel, and the fourth describes her personal connection. Parts five and six are almost like reflections and her final conclusion on the topic. As the numbers continue, her thoughts become more elucidated, so that by the end, she has reached a certain conclusion. I think it adds to her argument by showing how she arrived at her ideas.
2. This line reminded me of the Gettysburg Address because of the apparent use of antithesis. I think that what Dillard is trying to convey through this is that the weasel lives such a carefree life that contradictions don't exist in his world. He's open to anything, and therefore there is no point of contention, no pull towards one side or another. He simply lives in the middle and allows life to take him where he floats to. Dillard yearns for this because the contrasts she presents (e.g. time and death) are all limitations we face as humans, and that's what she wants to break apart from. Once we aren't restricted by them, we can accept things as they come.
4. "I think it would be well, and proper, and obedient, and fire, to grasp your one necessity and not let it go, to dangle from it limp wherever it takes you. Then even death, where you're going no matter how you live, cannot you part." I think that this summarizes the tone because it depicts her yearning for the life of a weasel. She wants to almost float through life, allowing it to move her in any direction. Dillard was fascinated by the natural world and she somehow wants to become part of it because there are no cares. And because there are no cares, death isn't as significant of an event as it is to humans because there's no breaking apart from something, no feeling of being snatched away from something you held on to. Dillard yearns for this, and the tone is one of longing.
1. The essay is divided into sections to showcase the progression of her thoughts. She first merely describes a weasel, and is almost detached by it, simply stating facts. Then, the second part depicts the beginning of the encounter with the weasel, but she is more focused on the nature surrounding her, something she was known to do. The third portion really focuses on the enchantment she feels from seeing the weasel, and the fourth describes her personal connection. Parts five and six are almost like reflections and her final conclusion on the topic. As the numbers continue, her thoughts become more elucidated, so that by the end, she has reached a certain conclusion. I think it adds to her argument by showing how she arrived at her ideas.
2. This line reminded me of the Gettysburg Address because of the apparent use of antithesis. I think that what Dillard is trying to convey through this is that the weasel lives such a carefree life that contradictions don't exist in his world. He's open to anything, and therefore there is no point of contention, no pull towards one side or another. He simply lives in the middle and allows life to take him where he floats to. Dillard yearns for this because the contrasts she presents (e.g. time and death) are all limitations we face as humans, and that's what she wants to break apart from. Once we aren't restricted by them, we can accept things as they come.
4. "I think it would be well, and proper, and obedient, and fire, to grasp your one necessity and not let it go, to dangle from it limp wherever it takes you. Then even death, where you're going no matter how you live, cannot you part." I think that this summarizes the tone because it depicts her yearning for the life of a weasel. She wants to almost float through life, allowing it to move her in any direction. Dillard was fascinated by the natural world and she somehow wants to become part of it because there are no cares. And because there are no cares, death isn't as significant of an event as it is to humans because there's no breaking apart from something, no feeling of being snatched away from something you held on to. Dillard yearns for this, and the tone is one of longing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)