I Can Haz Phlebotomy?

I thought this most wonderful novel (an excellent choice, Ms. LaMagdeleine, if I do say so myself) presented a rather interesting collection of anti-war rhetoric. Having said that, I only somewhat agree with the book's opinion. Yes, it may be true that if no one signed up to fight wars, we wouldn't have wars, but the reality is that this is not the reality. If one nation were to militarily attack another, should they not fight back? This is a situation in which I don't think Trumbo elaborates (or even explains) the "right thing to do". Of course, if this scenario were the case, I know that most of you would fight to defend your country, because "your lives are at risk." This book made me realize that lives are not truly at risk if the nation under attack peacefully capitulates. But is this freedom? Maybe it is. Maybe the attacker is the one supporting freedom. Or their idea of it. But whatever.

Interesting

One part of the book that I found really interesting is a passage from page 121: “If the thing they (soldiers) were fighting for was important enough for them to die for then it was also important enough for them to be thinking about it in the last minutes of their lives.” I think this is a very important concept in the explanation of Bonham’s views to the reader. It shows that he is able to ask a rhetorical question to which there is only one answer.

Johnny Got His Beverage (Keep it Funky)

These two pieces (March of the Flag and Johnny Got His Gun) are related because they are essentially antithetical. March of the Flag is a great manifestation of someone who can't spell manifest destiny. Manifest Destiny was the highly imperialistic idea that it was by divine will that Americans were expected to spread their way of life across the world. Beveridge also inserted some elements of racial superiority by calling Americans "a people sprung from the most masterful blood of history...." This is evident of the late-nineteenth/early-twentieth century American notion that other countries (specifically in Latin America) are not as civilized, thus necessitating their facilitation into "the marvel of American society".
Johnny Got His Gun, however, is directly opposed to this view: the Vietman War was purposed to establish American-style democracy in Vietnam, regardless of what the people wanted. The opposition to this is the focus of the novel; if the novel's setting were in the time of Beveridge's speech, the opposition to such cultural/political imperialism would have been much more severe.

Resisting Democracy

While many may believe that democracy is a system of eternal peace and universal satisfaction, this is most certainly not the case. Resistance is necessary for a functioning democracy not to become tyrannical. If a simple majority were to decide an opinion, those in the minority could become continually oppressed. For example, if there were 100,000 people in a nation, and 60,000 of them wanted to ban yellow pants, then under a vote, yellow pants would be banned. This is not fair the the other 39,999 people (one of them has died from hepatitis B since I started writing), which constitute a rather large percentage of the nation. This is simply not fair. Those in the less advantageous position would have to fight back, rather than simply accepting their fate. This is why in America, there is not a simple majority decision for everything. It is to eliminate the total power of the majority, and so those who do not agree with them may be able to voice their opinions with equal power.

Wolfgang

Wolfson presents his argument by starting with an extensive and precise definition of marriage. This is most certainly a fair and sensible definition of marriage; one could argue that his definition is slanted, but the abstract concept of marriage is the basis of his argument, so he defines it as he sees it. This (possibly) gives the reader a warrant—that what he gives are the actual parameters for marriage—from which Wolfson will state his claims from. The very title of his piece is What is Marriage, so this first part is obviously the most important part of this excerpt. He fully explains the concept, even going as far as to distinguish it from similar concepts (such as love) and distance it from common misconceptions and stereotypes. Without clearly defining marriage, his entire argument would be useless. Towards the end, he gives numerous examples of loving couples that cannot become legally wed, and refers back to his original warrant many times. Reflecting on his legal expertise, Wolfson uses Safely v. Turner as the legal precedent under which he argues that denying marriage between homosexuals is completely absurd, both morally and legally. Wolfson has efficiently woven his rhetoric by using the threads of logic and emotion, and has visibly imprinted it with his legal credibility.

Wage Gap

A gender-related issue that I think is very important is the large wage gap between men and women. While it seems like a non-issue, this problem is very real: as of 2004, women earned just 76.5% of what men earned! This problem is not new: it has been going on for a very long time. While some may argue that "women don't work as hard" or flock to "women's jobs", consider this: according to studies, female scientists have to be twice as accomplished as male scientists in order to receive the credit. Still, some assert that the economic risk of a woman taking maternity leave is a good enough reason to pay them less. I would agree with this statement, except for the fact that this is a (rather sexist) assumption on the part of the employer. Another interesting aspect of the wage gap is the amount married people (regardless of gender) make versus unmarried. (Unmarried women earn 94.2% of what men earn.) One thing that I think these studies need to do in order to improve their credibility (as well as their accuracy) is to take into account the occupations, hours, experience and skill levels, and even the relative size/age of the organization for which they work. Taking these factors in account would present a much more realistic picture of the situation, rather than some of these possibly inflated statistics. I do believe, however, that even if the situation has indeed been hyperbolated, the wage gap is a significant problem that needs to be addressed in the near future, if not now.

Santorum

The Shocker (Look at mah eyyyebaawwwwlz!!!!)

In Vásquez's essay, she attempts to surprise the reader by letting the reader know that Brian and Mickey are straight after she tells the story. It most certainly surprised me. When I was reading the two stories, I thought, "This is just another typical story about gay-bashers." When I found out they were straight, I said to myself, "Carmen, you tricky little fiend, you!" She most certainly got me, and if I had to guess, she "got" most of her readers. She eventually discloses it so that the reader feels somewhat shocked, or maybe even betrayed by his or her own assumptions. That Brian and Mickey aren't gay lets the reader know that homophobic violence affects heterosexuals as well; this may not be big news for some of her readers, but it is the way in which it directly affects non-gay people as well that is truly shocking. It is not to say that people that are not gay wouldn't care about these issues if it had no possibility of directly affecting them, but this revelation could make those that already care even more concerned about the situation of homosexuality in America, thus it is directed toward those already sympathetic with her cause.

BOY (They call me Vivaldi in the hood)

Throughout my life, I have definitely been taught about gender in ways similar to the authors. I especially identify with Kincaid. Thankfully, I didn't believe everything that came out of my mother's big fat mouth.

"You're the man, so you need to support your family." Even if I have a brain tumor?
"Always give a woman your seat." So I should also give up my seat because I'm black, right?
"Never hit a woman." Even if she has a knife pointed at me?
"You should always pay for the date." Even if she ordered a $29 salad?
"Do these things and you'll become a wonderful person." So I'm guessing you didn't do these things? [Zing.]

I've never really done things if I didn't know why I should do them, and she never really explained the reasons for these things fully.

"It's what the man is supposed to do." Why?

So basically, after a while (quite a while) I realized that she's just bitter, and now I make fun of her for it. As we discussed in class, these are all social conventions (and inventions), so I take what I like and ignore the ones that bother me (or piss me off).

Eustace: Closer to Crustacean or Mustache?

Eustace. Eustace Conway. Eustace Robinson Conway IV of South Carolina, Dear Eldest Brother of Judson, Martha, and Walton Conway.

But is he a transcendentalist?

Yes.

Or is he?

Maybe.

In some respects, he most certainly embodies the ideals set forth by Emerson.
(Not finished, but maybe I can still get a little bit of credit. . .)

Tell Me Lies

[15 March 2010]
"Artists use lies to tell the truth. Politicians use them to cover it up."

Stay tuned for more. . .

[16 March 2010]

. . . And we're back!

I mostly agree with Wright's assertion that politicians and artists are on opposite sides of the spectrum. For one, politicians are (mostly) concerned with constructing a logical argument that will appeal to the greatest number of people. Artists are more concerned with expressing what they themselves want to hear; this shows the clearly opposing polarities of artists and politicians. In Wright's world, the painters of the John Reed Club are more concerned with their cartoons, which actually scared away their desired audience (including Wright's mother). The "Wrighters" (couldn't resist) are trying to use their writing to convince people of their cause in a less harsh manner. It seems as if the artists in the book don't fit in well with the rest of the John Reed Club; this is what truly manifests their differences.

They are similar, however, in that artists and politicians both paint pictures, tell stories, and attempt to use their work to bring you to a fantasy world that really doesn't exist.

P. 266-267

In this passage, Wright comes to realize that his view of the world has been tainted by his Southern experiences, so much that this is the only world he truly knows. He also understands why other blacks respond to racism in the ways that they do; it is because "his [blacks] total life was conditioned by their [whites] attitude." He also explain that by loading "the empty part of the ship of my personality with fantasies of ambition to keep it from toppling over into the sea of senselessness," he was able to avoid the self-defeating and self-hating mindsets of others. (Wonderful metaphor!) But, he also notes, that he sometimes despised his very own mind because "I [Wright] would hate myself for allowing my mind to dwell upon the unattainable." This signifies that he still feels trapped; no matter what he is able to do to free himself of oppression, it results in despising something about himself. This could be viewed as almost sympathizing to the emotions of the "black man [that] grew in turn to hate himself that which others hated in him", who Wright explains is a person who also tries to hide this self-hate, which leads to "a war with himself", consequently limiting many possibilities for either personal progress or resistance to racism.

The Wright Changes?

It seems that the changes that Wright is making towards the end of his stay in Memphis are most definitely for the better. He seems to be finding his place in his world; some could say that he doesn't want his place to be the place that other blacks (such as his father and Shorty) have taken. His goal is to become a writer, which is something he knows not a lot of others are trying to do. He also knows that the only way to achieve his goal is to move to the North; the extremity of oppression in the South would not allow him to come anywhere close to becoming a professional writer. He also wants to quench his thirst for knowledge and his hunger for understanding of the world; in the South, his physical hunger often kept him from being able to do certain things, such as work at the postal office, and his lack of sufficient education hindered not only his writing, but some of his understanding of the business world. I hope that he is able to do much better in the North; judging by the fact that this is actually a book he wrote, I can assume he did much better.

SUBSERVIENCE SUBSERVIENCE

Yes, subservience is a necessary part of living. It is the degree to which it is applied that can be potentially useful or dangerous. Take Richard Wright's situation, for example. When he was in Jackson, his lack of subservience caused him to be attacked by his family members and coworkers, ridiculed in his school and church communities, and shut out from the hierarchical society of the time. While these may all seem like negative results, you can't judge a blog by it's background. To Wright, these are the consequences of attaining his own special freedom—the freedom to not be subservient. His direct denial of subservience to his family can be contrasted with his indirect lack of subservience to white racism. He actively and verbally defies his family's religion, ethics, and relations. With whites, however, he contains an inner rebellion against their suppression, and only actively denies subservience when he is required to actively participate in it. The few times he submits his freedom for personal gain, he feels as if he has betrayed his own runaway freedom by going back to his cultural master. This all changes in Memphis, however; because the intensity of the hatred against his race seem to lessen there (with the exception of the fight with Harrison), he feels he can be just a little more subservient without betraying himself; this allows him to be treated better by the whites, and also gives him a feeling that he is beginning to find a place in society. It is his varying subservience that allows him to feel an inner freedom from the chaos that surrounds him, or give it up for an external freedom.

In our situation, subservience is still necessary, and the variations of intensity are also necessary. They are not, however, in any way similar to the subjugation that Wright had to endure. When I go to school, I must abide by the rules. While this is most definitely a curtailment of my personal freedom, I realize that I am essentially trading freedom for security, because without a successful atmosphere, I would not be able to learn as well, thus impairing the security of my future. I may feel, at times, that some rules do not secure my or anyone else's learning, so it is a possibility that I, Kwame Everson Newton (hereby referred to as "blogger"), may have, knowingly or unknowingly, in whole or part, broken some rules and/or violated some reglations in the past. While some may argue that this lack of subordination is uncalled for, I believe that it is the price to pay for a small amount of freedom. Subservience to parents is also necessary; for example, if I want to go to Azerbaijan next weekend, I might have to take out the SALT PEANUTS. I may feel that this is completely unnecessary, but I must temporarily submit my freedom to be able to achieve my goals. If I don't, not only will I not be able to go to a most likely radioactive country, but I also will be punished. This is not nearly as extreme as Wright's fight, but it is a very similar concept. If I believe one of their rules or orders to be morally wrong, however, I would not follow them because they would be directly counteractive to my goals. Subservience to an employer or customer is much more rigid. If I work for Bob, and Bob tells me to write a paper on the history of indoor cabbage, I'm most likely going to write that paper, no matter how rediculous it sounds. I may think it is completely unnecessary, but I would need the job in order to be able to financially support myself, assuming I have no other options available. If he tells me how to write the first paragraph, however, not only would I be extremely pissed off, but I would also defy his orders, because I feel that the paper should by my work alone. He may not like it, but the work would be completed and I would still be hired. The importance of having a job dictates the degree to which one will be subservient.

I believe that subservience is completely necessary for all human beings because we all have to live together, and the easiest way to do so peacefully is to compromise, but the degree to which it is employed must vary based on personal beliefs, current situation, and the possible outcomes of non-subservience. Too much can create a spinless puppet, but too little can create arrogance.

Valedictorian

As the subplot about Richard's valedictorian speech started to unfold, I instantly knew what was going to happen: he was going to deliver his own speech, which would spur some kind of conflict. The end result, however, was most certainly not expected. In retrospect, however, it makes sense; he had been conditioned to blatantly defy conflicts that he himself created. While some may not agree, I think that his flight is analogous to defending himself from Uncle Tom with the razor blades, or other similar situations. It is him allowing a situation to escalate to the point where the only way out is to take extreme measures. When he decides to say his own speech, he is, in a way, trying to fight for justice, but he is also trying to “fight the power”. Although one could say that he should have learned that this would never work when he was much younger, he was fighting a justifiable fight for freedom, even though it was inevitably a losing fight.

Uncle Tom's Cabbage

Richard was angry at Uncle Tom (was this a deliberately ironic name, or was that his real name?) for two reasons. For one, his uncle became extremely angry at Richard because of the way Tom was notified of his uncle's death. Richard did not mean to alarm him in such an abrupt manner, and his uncle thought that he was being an jerk on purpose. I thought that banning Wright from the funeral was a little harsh, though. I think that the rest of the family allowed Tom to do so because they don't really like him, and maybe even had superstitious thoughts about his "unholy" presence at his grandfather's funeral. Because Richard didn't really like his grandfather (he didn't really dislike him, either; he recognized the reasons why his grandfather was the way he was), he wasn't exactly insulted that he wasn't invited to the funeral, but realized that his family's intent was to hurt him. He was also angry at Uncle Tom because Richard was going to be beaten for a mistaken case of "being sassy".

On a deeper level, Richard does not like Uncle Tom because he tries to "teach him a lesson" for something that he didn't do, and his Uncle had never really helped out his family or raised him, so Richard feels that he has no right to do such things. Richard is able to realize that family is not always signified by biological links, but by social and emotional bonding, two things which Uncle Tom and Richard definitely do not share. When his uncle tries to discipline him, it is an intrusion into his family, and Richard is essentially defending his own family from an outsider.

Richard Feels Gratified

In the second-to-last sentence of chapter four, Wright writes that "Her inability to grasp what I had done or was trying to do somehow gratified me." This explicitly answers the question; he is gratified (and perceivebly amused) by the fact that his imaginative and creative writing was able to baffle the intellectual ability of those much older than him. He likes the fact that he is able to create a work of art that intrigues people; it shows him that he is very intelligent for his age.

Richard's Pain

When Richard Wright's mother suffers a paralytic stroke, she becomes unable to support herself and Richard. He assumed that she would get better. When she suffers the second stroke, he realizes that he is on is own and he has to find a way to somehow support himself.

Jew Must Be Kidding Me. . .

Richard feels that it is his cultural heritage to hate the Jews for many reasons. For one, blacks were second-rate citizens in America, so he feels that this can be compensated by putting down another group of people. This was probably not a conscious decision; it was something he learned by observing other blacks in his community. Another reason for his prejudice is the fact that many Christians blamed the Jews for Jesus's death, which led to their being labeled as "Christ-killers". Again, he was most likely taught this through observation, but he probably also heard others talking about the subject. I believe that if he were explicitly told these things by people such as his mother, or especially his grandmother, he might have disbelieved them.

Hungry Hungry Hobos

Richard is hungry because his father, Nathan Wright, has left the family to be with a 'nother woman. This has left them with very little money. This isn't the only hunger he has to endure, though. He is hungry for knowledge about the world, and why it is the way it is. He doesn't fully understand the reasons why the relations between whites and blacks are the way they are, but he has no way of satisfying his hunger. He demonstrates his hunger for knowledge by learning to count to 100 when the deliveryman teaches him how.

Necessarius

I somewhat agree with the idea that school is unnecessary. Presently, many public (and even some private) schools do exactly as the author describes: they stifle individuality and personal achievement and advancement in favor of generalized education. Years ago, someone who thought they were really smart came up with the idea for standardized testing as a way to see if schools are succeeding or not. This, of course, led to many a curricula being designed according to standardized tests, rather than actual usefulness. I have heard stories of this being very detrimental to a student's academic career, especially from an early age. My mom, being a substitute teacher, has experienced this firsthand. One day, when she was assigned to a 2nd grade special education class, she came across a student who seemed to stand out from all of the others. The other teacher in the room said that he was placed in the class because he performed poorly on standardized tests. The teacher also said that the student never talks. Later that day, my mother carried on a conversation with him. The regular teacher was shocked because he believed that because the student failed a test, the student must have severe mental disabilities. He obviously never talked because the other students were so different from him. This is a very good example of how standardizing such an important process can have negative effects on a student. The concept of schooling itself, however, should not be abandoned, because it is a great way to instruct someone how to learn. In my case, I feel as if I am taught to cater to my learning style, as are my classmates, rather than just treated as a way to reach a standardized goal based purely on sameness.

Education

I believe that the education that I am receiving is, for the better, much different than how it used to be in America. Before, as we discussed in class, it was very rigid, and students were taught to perform very specific and basic tasks. To be honest, this would have bored me in a very extreme way. Now, I am free to pursue my own desires by taking specific classes that interest me, such as AP English, band, or biochem. Many people around the world (and in the past) don't have this opportunity, so I consider myself lucky.

30 Minutes of Fame [Previously Unreleased]

The following is from my archive of unfinished blogs. Feel free to comment.

I watched the sitcom The Office. It was an episode in which there was a somewhat substantiated (they had received many calls from management that day) rumor that the Scranton Branch of Dunder Mifflin was going to be shut down, and the boss, Michael Scott, decided to take everyone's mind off the ordeal by playing a Southern-style murder mystery game. This seemed to really speak to the many people that have been affected by the recent economic downturn. The

Rawr, Splash, and One Tablespoon Pickling Spices (Did Your Sweet, Sweet Music Pleasure the Camel, or Did It Have a Heart Attack?)

I think that it is dangerous to depict men and women as sex objects for a variety of reasons. According to Kilbourne, it can lead not only to gender stereotyping—
—which can cause suppression or overexpression of certain traits and/or behaviors, depending on the environment surrounding the person, but also to negative actions taken against others based on corrupted view of what people "should be doing". It's major cause for concern, however, is sexual victimization, especially in regards to women. The objectification leads to peoples' well-being and feelings being generally ignored, which can lead to worse things, such as sexual assault or rape. The objectification of women is much more dangerous than men, mainly because it is much less common for a woman to rape a man than the other way around (barring unreported cases). If someone is viewed as an object, then the "user" can use it any way he or she sees fit.

I Like Big Blogs (and I Cannot Lie)

Well, to be perfectly honest, all information on a particular subject is biased, because one must choose what information to omit from an event. It is impossible to list every single detail about something for the simple reason that there are millions of things happening as I type; to focus on the subatomic level would be extreme but necessary for this type of detail. That being said, the bias in media is simply because its purpose is to present as much information as possible in a short amount of time without presenting unnecessary information; that one has to decide what information is unnecessary is a source of bias.

I'm Baaaaaaaaaaack!!!!

I watched Diane Sawyer, and I noticed many things:

State of the Union - This was before the speech actually took place, and it was about 10 minutes of different politicians, political analysts and speechwriters-turned-political analysts either predicting or explaining to Diane Sawyer what the president was going to, needed to, or should say in his speech. To be honest, it's really just a way to fill time. Don't get me wrong; I think that this kind of conversation is rather interesting and thought-provoking, but can't they wait to compare the speech to their expectations AFTER it's already been spoken?

AIG - This wasn't really a main section of the program, but it basically consisted of clips of congress members grilling (and eventually saucing) Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury for the uninformed) in a voracious, and in my opinion, necessary manner. They were accusing him of caring more about large banks, such as Goldman Sachs, instead of fighting for the benefit of taxpayers. He denied

iPad - iPod, iPad, yada yada yada. . . To be perfectly honest, this is nothing new. As a whole, technology is getting either bigger (wider screens on MacBook Pros) or smaller (MacBook Air—who buys those things anymore, anyway?); the iPad is just getting back to the middle ground. And because I know that it's going to be more expensive than enriched uranium-235 (trust me, I know), I think that it's potential for accessibility will vanish into thin air.

Toyota - Toyota covered up some craptacular parts (probably made by their west-door neighbors), and 20 people have died because of it. Dealers are lying about the recall in order to sell their cars. People who have the recalled cars don't want to drive them and can't sell them. When contacted, a salesman's supervisor said that the salesman didn't lie, but that he hadn't been briefed yet. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. (Actually, it was 1:22 in the morning, but that's irrelevant. But Japan's across the international date line, so blah.) I love when news-narrators use sarcasm—after saying an false statement in a tone of ridicule, they make a short pause, and then point out the absurdity. Too bad the Toyota dealer didn't think to use a very effective rhetorical strategy called "backing up lies with more lies."

Grenade Launcher - I thought it was interesting that the investigator (Chris Cuomo) pointed out the 164,000 entries in a Google search for "grenade launchers for sale"; in reality, not all of those results are actually selling grenade launchers. It's not that he was lacking common sense, but it seemed that he deliberately attempted to mislead and alarm the audience. After contacting an internet seller of grenade launchers, Cuomo asked the seller about the restrictiveness of grenade launcher sales. He quoted her saying "We've never had an order not go through." I'm guessing the investigator hopes that his audience will not analyze whether or not the seller is lying just to make a sale, as is a common "business" practice of those with less-than-standard ethics. Obviously, this section was just an attempt at manipulating the unwitting viewer into advocating stricter firearms legislation. Scare tactics may work on your mother, Mr. Cuomo, but they don't scare me.