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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The video of Ben Fields throwing the female student across the room.

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.