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.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Blog 8
In his article, "Making Tennessee Great Again!," Bruce Vanwyngarden remarks on the absurdity of the Oregon militia and that the methods they have undertaken to assert their points are utterly ridiculous. He does this using satire, by creating a fictional situation similar to the one of the Oregon militia, in which he takes over a state park, threatening to occupy the area until the government comes to forcibly remove him from there, and concluding that he gathered his "inspiration" from the militia themselves and what they stand for. The author's purpose is to mock the militia and the fact that their actions are completely preposterous. His audience is anyone reading the news, as he's trying to convince his audience that the militia has no basis or reason for their actions.
The Oregon militia situation is both comical and deeply disturbing. They have no real reason to be doing what they're doing, and they've taken it way too far. The whole thing is really blown out of proportion. How can they expect the government to take them seriously? It's somewhat childish in a sense. If they have a problem, they should be able to express it distinctly and maturely to the government. Having a stand-off isn't going to solve the problem. The unrest is indicative that a problem exists, but they can definitely go about a different way in terms of voicing their opinions.
The Oregon militia situation is both comical and deeply disturbing. They have no real reason to be doing what they're doing, and they've taken it way too far. The whole thing is really blown out of proportion. How can they expect the government to take them seriously? It's somewhat childish in a sense. If they have a problem, they should be able to express it distinctly and maturely to the government. Having a stand-off isn't going to solve the problem. The unrest is indicative that a problem exists, but they can definitely go about a different way in terms of voicing their opinions.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Blog 7: The Profound Emptiness of 'Resilience'
In her article, “The Profound Emptiness of ‘Resilience’,” Parul Sehgal argues that the world has failed to recognize the reframing of the meaning of the word “resilience” through over-usage and misusage. Instead, she believes that the true meaning of resilience is not just staying on the course through adversity, but questioning along the way. Sehgal constantly pushes the “thrive, not just survive” mantra throughout the article, referring to the recent wave of college protests against racism as a prime example of the true meaning of “resilience.” Sehgal focuses a lot of the article on the misusage of the term, and shows how everyone is adopting it to any situation that arises, from the UN’s “Resilience Agenda” to Justin Bieber’s comeback. She seems to lament the fact that a word that carries such power is being misshapen and almost turned into a robotic process devoid of feeling. Sehgal focuses on people’s perception of how college students react to racism and other sensitive topics on campuses. She examines both sides, one that has excoriated these students and the other that validates their reaction. Although Sehgal never really directly asserts her opinion, she subtly weaves it in at the end of the article, seeming to agree with the latter perception of the students, that them standing up to acts of racism is the way to define resilience.
I really loved this article. I thought it was so well-written and definitely enviable when trying to write an opinion piece. It was very different than most articles I encounter on the NY Times, which essentially bluntly state opinions without giving much regard to the other side. The way in which she weaves her opinion into the article is incredibly incisive. In terms of the content, I was actually really upset after reading this article. We’re so accustomed to a culture of “me,” and the fact that resilience is being adopted to any situation that an individual sees fit to apply it to is saddening. By calling attention to this, I think Sehgal is explaining an even deeper message about our society. And it ain’t a good one. I also really liked the Tumblr-esque last sentence, “Why rise from the ashes without asking why you had to burn?” I think it really summed up the purpose of the article and provides a lot of food for thought. Although I don’t agree that her definition of resilience necessarily applies to everything, this article has definitely stuck with me since I read it. Overall, a really well-written piece of writing. You go, Glen Coco-Sehgal!
Sehgal, Parul. "The Profound Emptiness of ‘Resilience’." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 5 Dec. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.
I really loved this article. I thought it was so well-written and definitely enviable when trying to write an opinion piece. It was very different than most articles I encounter on the NY Times, which essentially bluntly state opinions without giving much regard to the other side. The way in which she weaves her opinion into the article is incredibly incisive. In terms of the content, I was actually really upset after reading this article. We’re so accustomed to a culture of “me,” and the fact that resilience is being adopted to any situation that an individual sees fit to apply it to is saddening. By calling attention to this, I think Sehgal is explaining an even deeper message about our society. And it ain’t a good one. I also really liked the Tumblr-esque last sentence, “Why rise from the ashes without asking why you had to burn?” I think it really summed up the purpose of the article and provides a lot of food for thought. Although I don’t agree that her definition of resilience necessarily applies to everything, this article has definitely stuck with me since I read it. Overall, a really well-written piece of writing. You go, Glen Coco-Sehgal!
Sehgal, Parul. "The Profound Emptiness of ‘Resilience’." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 5 Dec. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Last Lincoln Blog
President Abraham Lincoln, in his "Second Inaugural Address" (March 4, 1865), attempts to push the blame on the Southern states for starting the Civil War, but also tries to show how both the North and the South share the blame for continuing the war. He does this by taking a very detached stance, but appeals to pathos and religion, explaining the causes of the war (thus holding the South accountable for its actions), talking about how the war could have been prevented, and the irony of a country torn apart but still praying to one God, who is now punishing them all for the war. His purpose is essentially to remind the nation of its stupidity in starting the war, and showing them that God is not helping their war effort but rather, is punishing them for the war, in order to show how the war has reached a point of no return. His tone is rather caustic and terse, yet hopeful because his audience is the nation, and he ultimately wants the nation to achieve peace.
I thought this was an incredibly well-written speech on Lincoln's part. He hits the nail right on the head, and the apparent "shade" he's throwing to the South is spot-on. One of my favorite lines is, "It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged." Lincoln was in an incredibly tough position-it's impossible to imagine what it would be like to have an entire nation divided over an issue that could have been prevented. He knows that his First Inaugural Address didn't seem to stop the impending war, even though he references it. Instead, he invokes religion because it appears to be the one thing the nation seems to agree on. I found the fact that he twists the idea of praying to a God who is now exacting punishment an interesting method, as it is "classic Lincoln." I also liked how his message in the end was short, sweet, and to the point. He knows that long speeches aren't the way to go anymore, because no one listens. As a result, it's best to lay it all out on the field (pun intended), and the country can make its own decisions. Lincoln has his opinions, but this is a speech for the people. They need to decide the course of action that the country will take.
I thought this was an incredibly well-written speech on Lincoln's part. He hits the nail right on the head, and the apparent "shade" he's throwing to the South is spot-on. One of my favorite lines is, "It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged." Lincoln was in an incredibly tough position-it's impossible to imagine what it would be like to have an entire nation divided over an issue that could have been prevented. He knows that his First Inaugural Address didn't seem to stop the impending war, even though he references it. Instead, he invokes religion because it appears to be the one thing the nation seems to agree on. I found the fact that he twists the idea of praying to a God who is now exacting punishment an interesting method, as it is "classic Lincoln." I also liked how his message in the end was short, sweet, and to the point. He knows that long speeches aren't the way to go anymore, because no one listens. As a result, it's best to lay it all out on the field (pun intended), and the country can make its own decisions. Lincoln has his opinions, but this is a speech for the people. They need to decide the course of action that the country will take.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Blog 5: Racism-A National Discussion From Both Ends
Roxane Gay, in her Op-Ed entitled, "Where are Black Children Safe? (October 29, 2015)," examines the lives of black youth in society, and asserts that being an African-American youth in the modern world is impossible, as they face injustices and brutality every day and are held to an unfair standard. Gay develops her position by using an appeal to pathos, giving examples, such as the recent case of Ben Fields attacking a teen in a South Carolina, statistics to explain school discipline towards African-American youths, evocations of previous stories of police brutality, including Eric Garner and Walter Scott, comparisons to Michel Foucault's idea of a panopticon, and a call to action. Gay's purpose is to bring in instances of racism towards black youths in order to wake up America and reconsider their attitudes towards the African-American community. Her audience is intended to reach all across the spectrum of society, as she believes this is a national issue that warrants the entire country's attention.
Quite frankly, I was very upset with Gay's article. Although I believe and know that racism is still an issue, I think that the term is being applied to every scenario that arises. When I watched the video of Ben Fields throwing the young girl across the classroom, the first thought that crossed my mind wasn't that she was black. I was appalled that this had happened to a student, whatever their race. In my opinion, Gay, and many involved in the "Black Lives Matter" movement are looking for instances that they can label as blatant racism, ignoring whether or not the action was racially motivated or not. As a result, it is almost as if they are diluting the concept of racism, relating it to every issue before giving it much thought.
A few weeks ago, I watched "Fox News Sunday," and one of the aspects they dealt with was the recent surge in cop killings. After watching it, I further realized that the relentless propaganda war raged on police officers leads to a complete misrepresentation of defense and an avoidance of realizing the true nature of an increase in crime. The people serious in the “Black Lives Matter” movement are missing an opportunity for dialogue and bridging the gap between the two communities of the people and the police force. They have to investigate the facts that black on black crime is still extremely prevalent and is far more deadly than police misconduct. Yet, the media never fails to link instances of police misconduct into a national narrative, spurring a response without a solid basis. However, what isn’t shown are the dangers the police officers face on a daily basis because this is overshadowed by the few counts of police misconduct. For example, this year, in Philadelphia, police managed to remove 2000 guns off the streets without one shot being fired by a police officer. But, of course, no one talks about this kind of thing. The media likes to present one type of story, typically one with an emotional background, and instigates an irreparable picture. People find it easier to sympathize with the painting of the oppressed, and that is what Gay is trying to accomplish.
Yes, there are double standards for African-Americans. Yes, racism is an issue that needs to be dealt with. But it needs to come from both sides. And not everything can be deemed racist before investigating it. We don't know what the student was doing before the video began its recording. She wasn't complying with orders and was resisting a police officer. That we do know. Although this doesn't excuse Fields's actions, and he has since been fired from his job, the African-American community needs to look internally at themselves as well. The police and our defense force are looking out for our best interests. The "Black Lives Matter" movement needs to examine its current standing, and find a way to approach their interests in a way that acknowledges all sides to the story.
Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/where-are-black-children-safe.html
Quite frankly, I was very upset with Gay's article. Although I believe and know that racism is still an issue, I think that the term is being applied to every scenario that arises. When I watched the video of Ben Fields throwing the young girl across the classroom, the first thought that crossed my mind wasn't that she was black. I was appalled that this had happened to a student, whatever their race. In my opinion, Gay, and many involved in the "Black Lives Matter" movement are looking for instances that they can label as blatant racism, ignoring whether or not the action was racially motivated or not. As a result, it is almost as if they are diluting the concept of racism, relating it to every issue before giving it much thought.
A few weeks ago, I watched "Fox News Sunday," and one of the aspects they dealt with was the recent surge in cop killings. After watching it, I further realized that the relentless propaganda war raged on police officers leads to a complete misrepresentation of defense and an avoidance of realizing the true nature of an increase in crime. The people serious in the “Black Lives Matter” movement are missing an opportunity for dialogue and bridging the gap between the two communities of the people and the police force. They have to investigate the facts that black on black crime is still extremely prevalent and is far more deadly than police misconduct. Yet, the media never fails to link instances of police misconduct into a national narrative, spurring a response without a solid basis. However, what isn’t shown are the dangers the police officers face on a daily basis because this is overshadowed by the few counts of police misconduct. For example, this year, in Philadelphia, police managed to remove 2000 guns off the streets without one shot being fired by a police officer. But, of course, no one talks about this kind of thing. The media likes to present one type of story, typically one with an emotional background, and instigates an irreparable picture. People find it easier to sympathize with the painting of the oppressed, and that is what Gay is trying to accomplish.
Yes, there are double standards for African-Americans. Yes, racism is an issue that needs to be dealt with. But it needs to come from both sides. And not everything can be deemed racist before investigating it. We don't know what the student was doing before the video began its recording. She wasn't complying with orders and was resisting a police officer. That we do know. Although this doesn't excuse Fields's actions, and he has since been fired from his job, the African-American community needs to look internally at themselves as well. The police and our defense force are looking out for our best interests. The "Black Lives Matter" movement needs to examine its current standing, and find a way to approach their interests in a way that acknowledges all sides to the story.
Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/where-are-black-children-safe.html
The video of Ben Fields throwing the female student across the room.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Lincoln Blog
Abraham Lincoln, in the first passage of his speech delivered to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield in 1838, conveys the reality of citizens reaching a point of such frustration with the government that they are willing to act outside the boundaries of the law. Lincoln begins with the idea that innocent people, who are law-abiding and aware of the confines of the government, "those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded." To these citizens, the government has lost all sense of what is important and does not heed to the needs of society. As a result, what else can the people resort to? What can be expected of them to do? They have to make ends meet and need to carry on with their lives. Lincoln remarks that this spirals into action in which those that are "lawless in spirit" become "lawless in practice." There's no organization, no method of judgement, and the people become free to do what they wish. These people view the government in a negative manner, referring to it as their "deadliest bane," and wish to eradicate it.
Lincoln then presents the other perspective in society. There are those who advocate for peace and harmony, but even they have a tipping point. They see their lives being torn apart with no structure to piece it back together, and become numb to the government, instead preferring to see it changed or removed, as indicated by the "mobsters." To them, the "Government is offering no protection," and again, how much can they endure before they erupt and enact their own change? Lincoln is displaying the oft-ignored aspect of the government failing to act-how the people respond. Unfortunately, the ideas of Lincoln's speech have carried over into the present-day of 2015, where a government shutdown was narrowly averted, yet still looms in our midst.
A mere couple of weeks ago, the United States government encountered yet another debacle regarding their spending caps and cuts. After countless arguments among Republicans and Democrats about where to direct government funding, a potential government shutdown emerged, as no agreement was reached. And to add to the brouhaha, John Boehner, House Speaker, announced his resignation, a great blow to the Republican-run Congress. Although the government shutdown seemed inevitable, the Senate approved a temporary funding measure that would, quite literally, keep the government up and running past the midnight deadline. The bill would prevent a partial shutdown, similar to that which occurred in 2013, and would finance the government through December 11th, which allows for more negotiation regarding the government budget for the 2016 fiscal year.
In the wake of such events, Lincoln's words accurately foreshadow a "new normal" should the government shut down. The government's inability to agree on its spending affects everyone at large. Although they have the segment of society that still remains placid for the time being, there's only a certain amount they can absorb before they too resort to disobeying government laws. There will always be the mobsters, but the innocent will begin to rally as well. The government shutdown contains tremendous implications and repercussions, because, over history, people react the same way when faced with a negative environment. The government has a lot to consider in the next few weeks, and their actions weigh heavily on their citizens. One of the functions of government is to maintain order, but if they can't even organize themselves, how can they expect to control their citizens? This is a precarious path to perch on, and could have grave consequences, as Lincoln mentioned, if not dealt with properly.
Lincoln then presents the other perspective in society. There are those who advocate for peace and harmony, but even they have a tipping point. They see their lives being torn apart with no structure to piece it back together, and become numb to the government, instead preferring to see it changed or removed, as indicated by the "mobsters." To them, the "Government is offering no protection," and again, how much can they endure before they erupt and enact their own change? Lincoln is displaying the oft-ignored aspect of the government failing to act-how the people respond. Unfortunately, the ideas of Lincoln's speech have carried over into the present-day of 2015, where a government shutdown was narrowly averted, yet still looms in our midst.
A mere couple of weeks ago, the United States government encountered yet another debacle regarding their spending caps and cuts. After countless arguments among Republicans and Democrats about where to direct government funding, a potential government shutdown emerged, as no agreement was reached. And to add to the brouhaha, John Boehner, House Speaker, announced his resignation, a great blow to the Republican-run Congress. Although the government shutdown seemed inevitable, the Senate approved a temporary funding measure that would, quite literally, keep the government up and running past the midnight deadline. The bill would prevent a partial shutdown, similar to that which occurred in 2013, and would finance the government through December 11th, which allows for more negotiation regarding the government budget for the 2016 fiscal year.
In the wake of such events, Lincoln's words accurately foreshadow a "new normal" should the government shut down. The government's inability to agree on its spending affects everyone at large. Although they have the segment of society that still remains placid for the time being, there's only a certain amount they can absorb before they too resort to disobeying government laws. There will always be the mobsters, but the innocent will begin to rally as well. The government shutdown contains tremendous implications and repercussions, because, over history, people react the same way when faced with a negative environment. The government has a lot to consider in the next few weeks, and their actions weigh heavily on their citizens. One of the functions of government is to maintain order, but if they can't even organize themselves, how can they expect to control their citizens? This is a precarious path to perch on, and could have grave consequences, as Lincoln mentioned, if not dealt with properly.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Rhetorical Precis and Response: Nicholas Kristof
Nicholas Kristof, in his Op-Ed entitled, "Compassion for Refugees Isn't Enough (September 10, 2015)," examines the burgeoning refugee crisis and asserts that having compassion for the refugees isn't enough; the international community must repair the situation at "home" (Syria, Jordan, etc.) in order to truly attack the crisis. Kristof uses an appeal to logos, statements made by experts on Syria and the current situation, and suggestions for future action, like enacting a no-fly zone, to emphasize the crucial state of the refugee crisis and urge the implementation of a systematic manner in which to solve the displacement of almost 60 million people (note: this is a worldwide estimate, not limited to Syria). His purpose is to educate and persuade his readers into envisioning a logical approach to helping the refugees, rather than relying solely on emotion, in order to spur a different type of thinking in dealing with the crisis. His audience spans all across the spectrum, and is a plea to everyone around the world to begin the steps necessary to solve the crisis.
I definitely agree with many of the points that Kristof makes. Especially with the release of the picture of Aylan Kurdi, people, particularly those in America, have become more alert to the refugee crisis. FOX News reported America as having been "sleeping" in regards to the refugee crisis up until they saw the picture, and only know have they truly realized the gravity of the situation. However, it's easy to have an emotional response without stopping to think about the implications of such a crisis. The refugee situation is devastating, yet it is not realistic to transport them all to the West. Kristof mentions that the international community needs to focus more on fixing the grassroots issue, which, quite frankly, has been ignored for a number of years already. The problem is just growing and growing, and until it knocks on their door (literally), countries have not paid much attention to the dangerously terrifying situation in Syria. The refugees cannot stay in the West for eternity; there's simply not enough room to take them all in. But at the same time, if we don't do anything about it, we're facing a gloomy future. We have an entire generation among us that is uneducated and impoverished, and without doing anything about it, we run the risk of developing a generation involved with terrorism. The world perches on a steep slope, and it can only skirt around the issue so much before the ramifications start to settle in, and the global community finds itself in an even more twisted situation it cannot wriggle itself out of.
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/opinion/nicholas-kristof-compassion-for-refugees-isnt-enough.html
I definitely agree with many of the points that Kristof makes. Especially with the release of the picture of Aylan Kurdi, people, particularly those in America, have become more alert to the refugee crisis. FOX News reported America as having been "sleeping" in regards to the refugee crisis up until they saw the picture, and only know have they truly realized the gravity of the situation. However, it's easy to have an emotional response without stopping to think about the implications of such a crisis. The refugee situation is devastating, yet it is not realistic to transport them all to the West. Kristof mentions that the international community needs to focus more on fixing the grassroots issue, which, quite frankly, has been ignored for a number of years already. The problem is just growing and growing, and until it knocks on their door (literally), countries have not paid much attention to the dangerously terrifying situation in Syria. The refugees cannot stay in the West for eternity; there's simply not enough room to take them all in. But at the same time, if we don't do anything about it, we're facing a gloomy future. We have an entire generation among us that is uneducated and impoverished, and without doing anything about it, we run the risk of developing a generation involved with terrorism. The world perches on a steep slope, and it can only skirt around the issue so much before the ramifications start to settle in, and the global community finds itself in an even more twisted situation it cannot wriggle itself out of.
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/opinion/nicholas-kristof-compassion-for-refugees-isnt-enough.html
Blog 4: Mac vs. PC-Rhetorical Analysis
Apple, in their ad entitled, “iLife (2006),” claims that owning a Mac computer increases a consumer’s options in terms of programs, and that using these programs creates a more enjoyable and organized computer experience. Apple supports this by using conversation to point out that, opposed to using an iPod with just a PC, Macs deliver a number of other applications, including iMovie, iPhoto, and iWeb, and also uses logical arguments to contrast a Mac with a PC, including the fact that the PC’s only thrilling feature is a calculator. Apple’s purpose is to excite consumers about the options a Mac offers, in order to persuade them to buy a Mac. Apple speaks to all consumers across the spectrum, including both prospective Mac owners and current PC owners, to get all sides to switch to a Mac.
Link to video: https://youtu.be/DZSBWbnmGrE?t=30s
Link to video: https://youtu.be/DZSBWbnmGrE?t=30s
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Rhetorical Precis: "Lessons from the Virginia Shooting"
Nicholas Kristof, in his Op-Ed entitled, "Lessons from the Virginia Shooting (August 28, 2015)," uses the recent shooting in Virginia to assert the necessity of modeling and regulating gun control, as the lack of these laws leads to more shootings and gun violence. He uses compelling and emotionally loaded statistics, lessons from other approaches to solve issues, such as car safety, a realistic outlook, and suggestions for future change to"wake up America" and emphasize the importance of gun control, and the steps America needs to take to ensure the safety of its citizens. His purpose is to sear the critical nature of gun control into his readers, in order to have them become advocates for change. His audience is catered more towards the segments of society that have the ability to embark on concrete paths to further his ideas and goals for a safer America, and tries to inform them of the ramifications of leaving the problem as it is now.
What Kristof wrote about in his article was not new. For decades there have been variations of this piece, simply suited to meet a different situation. However, this does not detract from the importance of his message. The fact that Kristof even needed to write this article in the first place is an indication of how rampant the problem of gun control is. Kristof is not advocating a new approach but is trying to rouse America into truly doing something about an issue that threatens us every minute. Therefore, his article is one in a long line of advocates for gun regulation. But, it is the underlying concepts that are trying to contribute to action being done to stop the dangerous use of guns. Kristof is attempting to have America do something about the problem, and is desperately trying to not let it fester. It is my hope that he, along with others that came before him, will be successful in the very near future.
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/lessons-from-the-murders-of-tv-journalists-in-the-virginia-shooting.html?_r=1
What Kristof wrote about in his article was not new. For decades there have been variations of this piece, simply suited to meet a different situation. However, this does not detract from the importance of his message. The fact that Kristof even needed to write this article in the first place is an indication of how rampant the problem of gun control is. Kristof is not advocating a new approach but is trying to rouse America into truly doing something about an issue that threatens us every minute. Therefore, his article is one in a long line of advocates for gun regulation. But, it is the underlying concepts that are trying to contribute to action being done to stop the dangerous use of guns. Kristof is attempting to have America do something about the problem, and is desperately trying to not let it fester. It is my hope that he, along with others that came before him, will be successful in the very near future.
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/lessons-from-the-murders-of-tv-journalists-in-the-virginia-shooting.html?_r=1
Monday, August 24, 2015
Is Cecil Our Real Issue?
To me, although the killing of Cecil the Lion is tragic, the response that has followed has only increased the fact that issues that truly matter are the ones being avoided. Yes, there should be respect displayed towards protected animals, and yes, Palmer should have inquired more into the hunt before embarking on it, but that does not justify the outlandish brouhaha that has ensued. There are numerous other world crises occurring at the moment, ranging from the human refugee situation to the use of violence against a people, and little to nothing has been done to solve them. The UN has failed to pass a resolution concerning the situation in Syria, but it took them a mere number of hours to publicly denounce and condemn the killing by introducing a resolution preventing “illegal wildlife trafficking and poaching.” Since when has animal trafficking taken precedence over human trafficking? I have no intent to belittle the importance of animal life, but it is ironic, even bordering on the edge of hypocritical, that the international community has taken such a stance. In fact, most of us have some form of animal incorporated in our daily lives, whether in the form of shoes, food, or just about anything else. It may sound morbid, but in order to make an argument, the loudest supporters should have a basis in what they are trying to convey. One can’t expect to be taken seriously if they partake in that which they rally against.
This situation is more of a wake-up call for the world than it is justice for Cecil. It is important, in fact imperative, to care for the animals. But when that is substituted for eschewing the responsibility of solving real-world crises, the problem will always remain at large. It is our duty and the duty of our leaders to ensure that first and foremost, basic human rights are restored and people can once again feel safe in their world before moving on to the animals. Cecil is but one lion in thousands. Although he is treasured, the world cannot focus on one individual, or in this case, animal. We are ignoring the real issues, and if this wasn’t apparent enough already, Cecil the lion has amplified it further, making it crystal clear that the avoidance is right in front of our eyes. The world cannot continue like this. Imagine if all the protesters who were defacing Palmer’s office and are on the hunt for his head channeled their collective spirit into a human rights protest for Syria or North Korea, or the threat that Iran poses. We could make so much more progress than what is being done now. I think that the incident with Cecil the lion begs us to question the following: what truly matters to us as both a global community and a species, and how do we go about fighting that which we place as our highest priority, and then, after that, pursue action to make this a reality.
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/us/walter-palmer-whereabouts/
This situation is more of a wake-up call for the world than it is justice for Cecil. It is important, in fact imperative, to care for the animals. But when that is substituted for eschewing the responsibility of solving real-world crises, the problem will always remain at large. It is our duty and the duty of our leaders to ensure that first and foremost, basic human rights are restored and people can once again feel safe in their world before moving on to the animals. Cecil is but one lion in thousands. Although he is treasured, the world cannot focus on one individual, or in this case, animal. We are ignoring the real issues, and if this wasn’t apparent enough already, Cecil the lion has amplified it further, making it crystal clear that the avoidance is right in front of our eyes. The world cannot continue like this. Imagine if all the protesters who were defacing Palmer’s office and are on the hunt for his head channeled their collective spirit into a human rights protest for Syria or North Korea, or the threat that Iran poses. We could make so much more progress than what is being done now. I think that the incident with Cecil the lion begs us to question the following: what truly matters to us as both a global community and a species, and how do we go about fighting that which we place as our highest priority, and then, after that, pursue action to make this a reality.
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/us/walter-palmer-whereabouts/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)