Johnny Got His Gun

One of the most interesting passages in Johnny Got His Gun to me was probably the passage about Joe's realization that he can no longer tell the difference between sleep and wake. This particularly struck me because I had never thought about not being able to tell the difference between two things that to me, seemed so concrete. Joe seems particularly wise when he realizes that he has to force himself to think very hard about things until he puts himself to sleep.

I can't think if a clever title.

Johnny Got His Gun lacks one element that is so often used when talking about war, god. March Of The Flag proposes the idea that America goes to war to expand, America expands because god wants us to. The lack of god in Johnny Got His Gun isn't something that I personally would have thought about when considering war. Although Joe seems to have a great deal of revelations about his life, no mention of a religion ever comes into play.

America got their gun......?

Johnny Got His Gun shows fairly clearly the idea of war on a much more personal level. The story of Joe slowly learning about his new and bizarre disabilities is not only heartbreaking, but it reveals how individuals are effected by something that is meant to better everyone as a whole. The easy comparison between America The Beautiful and Johnny Got His Gun is the fact that Johnny never seems to fully understand why he went to war, or why anyone else did. Which is exactly what D’Souza claims is wrong with the American view on war.

Mediabastards

Recently in the media there was a story about, well, prom. There is a school in Mississippi in which a female student their wanted to bring her girlfriend. The school found out before hand and tried to fight her being able to bring another girl, but lost. The kicker to the story is, when the school realized they had to allow the two girls to go together, they organized an 'alternate prom' in which they invited nearly the entire school, this 'alternate prom' happened to be on the same night at the actual prom, in which only the two girls and some of the mentally handicapped students attended. There hasn't been any further development in the story due to the fact that the school technically didn't do anything illegal, the 'alternate prom' was organized by 'parents' and not the school,so only certain people being invited was technically not an offense that could be taken anywhere. This article wasn't so much on the idea of gender as it was on the idea of acceptance, there are without a doubt more schools that are prejudice against gay couples, the question comes in when we decide to be tolerant.

Mawige is what bwings us togethwer towday.

Wolfson begging by stating exactly what marriage means is almost essential to the piece, because of the fact tat marriage could have so many definitions, it was important for the author to state which definition of marriage he basing his argument off of. Without knowing which definition of marriage the author was referring to, the writing would end up meaning something different to every reader which would make understanding the piece or having any form of discussion about the reading. Wolfson says that marriage is 'what we use to describe a specific relationship of love and dedication to another person.' I believe that description of marriage is completely true, it doesn't limit marriage to being something religious, or something that is between only an XX and XY chromosomed couple. Wolfson's definition of marriage is an open definition that doesn't limit marriage to something particular.

Surprise, I'm straight !!

Vazquez makes a very stylistic choice to wait to disclose the fact that the two men in the story are straight. Vazques makes the reader believe that the two men are gay, by saying they are in the Castro, and then going on to describe very stereotypically 'gay, 'thin and wiry, a great dancer clad in back denim, earrings dangling from his ear.' Vazquez almost seems to sneakily attack the reader, calling them out for inevitably assuming that the two men were gay. The choice to wait to disclose that information to the reader almost sends them on a guilt trip the assumption of the men being gay, the choice does in fact make the reader think about that fact that they have made an assumption, which does help Vazquez get her point across, that everyone can be affected by assumptions.

Surprise, I'm straight !!

Gender

In the 4th grade, all public schools teach at least one of the same subject, YOU'RE BODY AND THE CHANGES AHEAD. They did this in such a way that built it up, made it a big deal and made it something scary sounding. We were going to watch a video, divided up into 2 classrooms by gender. Or parents would view the video first and then tell us what to expect, and the next day we would see it. I remember being shepherded into my math teachers class room with all the other 4th grade girls, while the boys were in the room diagonal across the hall. Me and my best friend ended up in the second row, fighting not to have to be in the front. I remember squeezing my best friends hand as if we were about to watch a scary movie, and then listening to the awful 'Just around the corner' soundtrack that went a long with a movie that is just a blur to me at this point. When the movie ended we had extra time before school got out, so we ended up discussing what we had just witnessed, and someone said...."I wonder what the boys saw...." At that moment I actually took notice of the fact that there were no boys in the class, that we had been made different, even if we were all learning something new and foreign to us.

Transending.

I don't believe that Eustace is a transcendentalist, Eustace goes out into the woods to get away from others keeping him down, not to get closer to God in some way. The transcendentalist idea is that by being out in nature with the natural things God created, one will grow closer to God. Eustace on the other hand, ventures into the woods for two main reasons, the first being the fact that well, he likes it. Eustace likes being outdoors and doing woodsy type things, and so he chooses to do it. he also does it to escape the oppression he feels from his father, neither of these represent the ideas of transcendentalism.

"To speak truly, few adult persons can see nature. Note Most persons do not see the sun."
These two lines really spoke to me due to the fact that as I've gotten older I feel as though the time I spend outside and the time I take to appreciate aspects of nature have been dwindling. Emerson really shows how people lose sight of what is important, one of those being nature and the outdoors in general. The second piece made me realize how few people actually stop and appreciate the things nature has done for us. The everyday fact that the sun is still shining is completely disregarded by far too many people, and Emerson is quick to point it out.

Why did Elizabeth Gilbert write this book? What does she want us to take away from Eustace. Refer to (and analyze) a specific passage in your response.

Elizabeth Gilbert seems to have written the book for a few reasons, the first being that she seems to have a bit of an attraction to Eustace, and she wants to share him and his incredible-ness with the rest of the world. Another reason being that she wants a message to be taken from the book, and that message is to change the way a person thinks. Some may think that she wants them to change their way of acting, however I think it's more realistic to believe that she knew one book wouldn't change the world, but maybe it would get some people thinking. One passage that made me myself stop and think was the passage on page 19, toward the top of the page, where Eustace is describing how modern people live their lives in boxes, living in them, sleeping in them, going to and fro in them, and finding entertainment in them. It made me wonder if living in modern society and not living in a box was entirely possible.

I'll let you know if I find out.

M or F

Tocqueville states that women in Europe are treated as women, delicate, feminine, and almost prize like. The contrast to this in America, it is seen as a crime to make a woman less than a man, to say that she is unable to do the work or jobs of a man is an insult, not just to her, but to all of America's women. Tocqueville says that American democracy is becoming 'more and more equal of man' which could be seen as the fact that we are making women equal to men, not the other way around. To say that a woman is less than a man is an insult, but to say that a man is less than a woman is laughed at, seen as impossible in the first place and therefore not necessary to be taken seriously. The difference in American and European treatment of women doesn't exactly present itself as being vastly different, however the real differences are shocking.

Writing // Polit....ing?

Based on what I know from both half, yes. I know those who write who claim they want nothing to do with politics in any way shape or form, and the same for those who closely follow and enjoy, who do little to know writing. And while the people I know aren't exactly a great measurement of ALL writers and politicians. They don't seem to connect very well, if at all. Writers only seem to get involved in politics in their writing, based on what is going on at the time they are writing or what event is happening that could involve politics. Some would argue that politicians do write, the speeches and presentations they give are written beautifully. The point would be valid, if politicians actually wrote their own speeches. Writers and politicians do not cross paths typically at all, however as far as them disagreeing, I'm unsure. I think it's more of a case by case idea.

Knowledge. Educated. Freedom. ?

A comparison between Malcolm X and Richard is not hard to make. Malcolm X taught himself to read in prison, which in and of itself is a feat. Malcolm X was able to bring the knowledge upon himself behind bars to help him leave the prison gates. Richard on the other hand finds knowledge through the way he grew up, the knowledge to know when to speak to someone and when not to, the knowledge of who to call sir and ma'am, THIS is the education that Richard has received, and this is all he has to get out of where he is, this is all he has to find his 'Freedom'.

Change!!

I believe Wright's change, or his move to the North was a positive one on his life. Wright spends the better half of the first part of the book telling stories and reliving horrible things that had been happening to him. He tells of being beaten by both his family and the whites around him, of awful jobs where he is treated poorly and desires nothing more then to fill the hunger he feels without getting punished for wanting to do so. Wright moving to the North would bring about a change in his life, and at this point it seems the best thing that he can do is to get out and move to somewhere where things would be different, not promised to be better, but different at least. And seeing as his life is so hard to live where he is staying now, a change could only be for the positive.

Subservience

I do believe that subservience is necessary to get by in every day life, it would be almost impossible to survive in modern society without conforming, even if it's just something as simple as conforming to the idea of raising your hand in class before answering a question. Deciding that you aren't going to conform to societal bounds would basically determine to you to either life as someone who was living alone in the woods, or someone who had ignored laws and ended up behind bars.
Being subservient is necessary to a point, if getting along in society is something that the individual views as important.

Coping with white people

Wright knowing that he has been in a way 'socialized' with whites too late effects him in such a way that he almost becomes self conscious. Wright seems to force himself to be hyper-aware of of things he says, does, and even just the tone of his voice around the whites in his life. Wright conditions himself to say 'sir' and 'ma'am', as well as monitoring his voice just to make sure that he doesn't come off as aggressive in any way shape or form. Wright accepts too much too late to have people see him as a functioning member of the society he lives in.

....

I believe that Wright was completely justified in refusing the speech. The speech was undoubtedly written for someone with more schooling then Wright, with bigger, longer words and more complex sentences then Wright could typically use. It was unfair of the principal to try and use Wright to break the black and white barrier when doing so would end up embarrassing Wright in front of the entire school. Wright not wanting to be the principals subject of de-segregation as well as not wanting to behold the embarrassment that he would endure is completely justifiable in the eyes of any student who could see themselves in a similar position.

Uncle Tom

Wright getting so upset by his uncle yelling at him is completely understandable in my opinion, Wright simply answers his uncles question about what time it is, and he is taken to be sassy, and while I myself and Wright don't seem to take it this way, Wright is threatened none the less with a beating. Wright getting so upset over this false accusation is completely understandable, seeing as it has happened once before in school and throughout his life. Wright just seems tired of being punished for things he didn't do, or things he can't control. This incident shows yet again that Wright has to fight for the small amount of justice he can find.

Writing about writing about writing..........legit

When Wright has a revelation about his writing, it seems as though he gets so excited about it merely because this is something new and exciting to him. Something that helps to release any pent up anger or anxiety Wright may have. Writing allows him to escape the world he is in, maybe just for a moment reliving the hunger that he feels toward knowledge, or something more then the life he has. Wright reading his work to the woman and realizing that it may in fact be an awful piece of literature, it was something he had made for himself, it was an escape that he had found and that he could harness and keep to himself, Wright had found an escape that he beautifully described in the end of chapter 5.

Stroke...

Richard Wright's mother having a stroke seemed to do nothing more then send him into his shell. Wrights initial reaction was fear, not understanding or comprehending the disease that has overtaken his mother. Immediately after the fear subsides, Wright reacts, trying to work and get the money needed to help save his mother. The lack of affection that seems apparent when the reader notices Wright simply being blasé about the tragedy, seeing as Wright has faced so many tragedies before. Wright's lack of emotion toward his mothers disease shows how a hard life has effected him emotionally.

Jews.

Wrights view on the Jewish shopkeeper seems to be nothing more then him taking out whatever angst and frustration on the shopkeeper as was taken out on him. Wright seems to search for differences in others to pick apart, seeing as that is what others have done to him. Wright seems to notice the shopkeeper being far more wealthy then the people he is used to being around, to Wright, this gives him the perfect reason to torment and taugnt the owner. The fact that Wright has gone through this kind of torment his entire life is almost a forshadow that he is going to take it out in some way, somewhere, and this just seems to be the start of it.

Hunger

Quite literally Richard Wright is hungry simply because well, there is nothing to eat. Searching deeper into the text however, Wright seems hungry for something more. Hungry for a better life, hungry for opportunity, hungry for learning and knowledge. Wright shows his desire for knowledge early on in the story.
One of the first incidents Wright shares with the reader is his fascination with fire, and his extreme curiosity to see what new things would look like when burned. The simple fascination with fire shows very quickly how much Wright has the desire for new information that he has to take upon himself to discover.
Wright later shows again his desire to learn when he ventures into a saloon and learns to count to 100 whilst learning new swear words and getting drinks as a reward. Although Wrights methods of learning may be a little out of the ordinary, it still shows a desire to learn.

How can you have any pudding

Gatto shows his stance on school very clearly, it's all wrong, the system is wrong, the methods are wrong, we should abolish it. I take a more mild view on the subject, not an extreme one way or another.
To me, the gaping hole in Gatto's theory is that he claims the 6 class a day for 5 days a week for 9 months a year for 12 years is an awful way to go about schooling, however he fails to give an alternative as to how education SHOULD be managed. The closest he comes is in the last sentence with "Let them manage themselves", and while that may provide some idea as to what Gatto wants, I think there is at least some required structure.
I think what really needs to be done is simply less forced and regurgitated information, and more information that seems a privilege to be learning, and facilitated discussions as opposed to studying names of characters and matching them on a quiz.

Reading (w)Riting (a)Rthmetic

In a word, yes. The 'non-academic' education University has to offer to me thus far has made me feel like I understand how the world works better, and how to get along in it. However, I wouldn't call our education completely 'non-academic', because there is such a large academic aspect to it. The real difference is the way other forms and styles of learning are brought in, especially when it comes to un-conventional subjects, such as glass blowing, golf, or Mother Theresa. It would be difficult to find these things taught in most schools, but for many students, the unconventional subjects are the most interesting to get into, and possibly take later in life for actual use.

The school does have flaws, and although I am incredibly thankful to be at the school, all to often there seems to be hypocrisy. We are encouraged to sign up for AP classes, which provide, as explained, an hour of homework a night, but at the same time we are almost guilt tripped into going to the basketball games, or to sign up for this club or that group, which in and of itself is work, time, and effort.

I have a love-hate relationship with University, more love then hate, but none the less it can be a bittersweet feeling walking through the rhetorically designed doors every day.

Presentations

The presentations today were really interesting to me, a few that particularly caught my eye were Katie Griffins', Kwames', and Alyxs'. The picture Katie showed of the gardening store that cleverly used a sign shaped as a shovel was not only something I hadn't seen before, but also something that would have drawn my eye as well when I was younger. The fact that Katie admittedly said she was drawn into the store based on the creativeness of the sign made it more relatable, as well as more credible. Kwames' presentation about the box of Wheaties also interested me, I had never noticed how dramatic they seem to make a box of cereal, or why for that matter. Alyxs' presentation of the Holister models was something that I had semi-thought about, but never in depth. I would always notice the signs and roll my eyes at the blatant sexuality (and obnoxious aroma) of the store. But why they were using that concept to sell their product hadn't crossed my mind.

the happiest place on earth?

The point that Gitlin is trying to make seems to me that we mask America, and for a while we did it very well. Earlier in Americas history, we were seen as this super power nation, that could do, make, or solve anything. We showed people an 'American Dream' as well as amazing products, only able to be made by these mythical American workers. Although Gitlin's artical confused me a bit, from what I took of it he claimed all of this came to betray us. People realized that we were not in fact this invincible nation. So when the mask we wore fell off, people came to see America in a much much darker light.

Jordan McKinney Living.

While Martha Stewart and Julia Child alike may have been influential in their time, it's difficult to find an equal comparison. Sticking with the idea of the quaint cooking show host, Rachel Ray, the cute, young, bubbly host who has followed in the footsteps of Martha Stewart, with not only a show but a slot on the Today show and quite a few books, comes to mind. However, when it comes to more general life improvement, like how Martha Stewart rose to the top, more well known names come to mind, such as Oprah. Oprah has influenced people across America for as long as I can remember. I've heard Oprah described as 'the best friend, who is also a therapist, who loves to give you presents.' All of which are very accurate. Oprah is not only relatable to viewers, but she also offers minor consoling and is quick to adorn the audience with new cars. Much like Martha Stewart, Oprah has her own show, as well as O Magazine.
Oprah and Martha Stewart may be vastly different breeds of influential, but there is no denying the power they hold over so many in America.

This is......AMERICAN IDOL

I watched this past Tuesdays American Idol
The very first advertisement started with 'American Idol is brought to you by....' and then proceed to go into the commercial for the company. The company happened to be AT&T, they played a commercial about their 3g network and the ability to multi-task. After that was a Ford commercial, a movie ad, a Coke ad, Milkbone, another Ford commercial, a plea for mosquito nets in Africa, to help prevent the spread of Malaria, simply by texting NET to a number.
One thing that I did see as odd was the Coca-Cola and Milkbone commercials, while they were both subliminal advertisements for the product, the blatant message was that buying Coke helps send 'Americas most promising students' to college, and that purchasing Milkbone helps give aid-dogs to those who need it. The companies showed their compassion, and while it may have been a back-handed way to get people to buy their product, it wasn't something I had noticed a great deal of during most commercials.
The second round of commercials started off with a very touching commercial of both very good (mom coming hom from war and hugging her son) and very bad (a couple crying by their what was once a house after an earthquake.) things, ending with, we're there for you, no matter what. An ad for an insurance company. There was yet ANOTHER example of advertisements pulling on the heartstrings. This wasn't something I had noticed before.....

News....Pictures....Blogging....

The language of the news plays a large impact on how the viewer comes to understand the story that it forms. As we talked about language in the begging of the year, and how it is practically impossible to live a life without having a language of some sort, this becomes incredibly relivent when the news is taken under consideration. The way a newscaster chooses to tell a story plays into how the viewer will come to see that story from then on.
The question comes in when so many stories are told in such a short time, can our language really tell a story to the best of it's ability? And even if it cannot, can the aid of picture and video help to tell the tale? Languages importance will never cease to exist, however it may prove impossible to accurately describe an event with the use of just our language....

The News.

I frequently watch 'The Today Show' whilst getting ready for school in the morning, and majority of the time I'm unaware as to the overdose of subliminal tools being used to generate mine, as well as others opinion on the subject. However, while watching this morning, I was more aware of the normally unnoticed aspects of the broadcast.
Half of this mornings newscast was concerning the State Of The Union that occurred the night before, the tone of the message was serious, but not to the point of seeming urgent or threatening.
There were a great deal of biases throughout the program, but it seemed as though majority of them were from either far left or far right political figures. Although I myself didn't notice any overbearing opinions from the newscasters themselves, however I don't doubt that they were there.
Overall the news was generally appealing to all audiences, with both stories on a national level, as well as those more local.