Rising seniors,
This is the place to post your entries for your summer reading anthology! I've already heard from one student who's ready to post, so I'm updating the site. Leave your posts as a comment to this one.
If you're looking for any good movies to watch over the summer, allow me to recommend (in no particular order or categorization):
The Godfather Trilogy
Better Off Dead
The Book of Eli
Lars and the Real Girl
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World
As Good as it Gets
Rain Man
Stand By Me
The Shawshank Redemption
The Joy Luck Club
82 comments:
Jesus Franco- One of the essays that I found very interesting was Sallie Tisdale’s essay “We do Abortions Here: A Nurses Story.” This essay has a central theme that has been one of the most controversial topics both in politics and among people; abortion. Furthermore, in the essay, the narrator talks about her daily routine being a nurse in an abortion clinic; mostly describing the type of patients she helps receive each day in a judgmental manner despite the fact that her vocation forces her to refrain from any judgmental behavior. The nurse really dislikes her job and the only thing she seems to look forward to is being with peers, clients, and co-workers an work, there they “laugh a lot” (Sallie 748) and she enjoys the “sudden, transient bonds [she] forge[s] with some clients.” (Sallie 738). The fact that she describes the blithe aspect of the coworkers “laughing a lot” is very ironic since normally it would be rude to laugh at a place where the death of a developing baby occurs. More than likely their flippant attitude can be the result of them being so used to such practice, that ultimately the feeling of guilt has either been ignored or they have gotten immune to it. For example, the nurse/ narrator hints that she feels guilt within most of the essay even-though she finds it hard to accept it; she rarely if ever names the fetus the baby, she rather refers the developing baby as “it, ” “the creature” (Sallie 752), and only refers to words like “newborn” (Sallie 752) when she imagines how the baby would look like almost as if having a supernatural power to predict the future of a human whose life is about to be destroyed [and she will take part of the obliteration], ultimately showing the guilt that is building upon her. On the other hand, she also seems to try to tell herself that she did the right thing in an effort to erase the feeling of guilt: she mentions the patients as too young and naïve to at least be able to care for the child; one of the patients was raped, one of them was only allowed to keep the baby if it was a male, one of them was too ignorant to know what pregnancy meant. Although she did wrong and knows it, she mentions all the hopeless circumstances involving the patients in the attempt of assuring herself that she probably saved the baby from a difficult life style and the mother from trouble in addition to educating her with “maternal benignity” (Sallie 753) on how to avoid that situation again. In conclusion, I feel that the nurse writes mostly about her struggle for the morbid feeling of guilt, and I feel that she will never really evade that feeling unless she finds a different vocation in which guilt will be non-existent.
Before I even began reading Adam Goodheart’s essay “9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane”, I expected a victim’s story of the disheartening tragedy that occurred 12 years ago. To my surprise it was not focused on what took place on 9/11 but revolved around the idea that people are always at peril. Goodheart describes how since the inventions of airplanes, skyscrapers, and other innovations, people are almost required to have an immense amount of trust and be willing to put their lives in jeopardy. It has always been important to give our trust to “experts who designed and built it, in the corporations that own and maintain it, in the armature of civilization and science” (Goodheart). As technology grows and engineers plan bigger and more massive projects our lives lay on the line but we give them undeniable trust. Although we are conscious of the possibility of danger we should not live in constant fear that would evade us from riding an elevator, fly a plane, or to look down a 20 foot building. As Goodheart describes even driving a car can be dangerous but it just requires confidence. It is interesting that we no longer pay attention to how these things are built and they are “taken for granted” (Goodheart). We are dumbfounded by the workings of new inventions and most people do not attempt learn about them. The people and systems set in place which allow cities and buildings to prosper include “electric and gas companies, sewer systems, water mains, fire departments, elevator inspectors telephone operators, trash collectors” and are all people whom we never give much thought to but we would not be able to live safe without them (Goodheart). They are “silent heroes”. Although this essay concentrates on the fact that we were already in danger before 9/11 it will never justify it. The people who were following their daily routine working in the World Trade Center, firefighters, police officers, those who were on Flight 175 and Flight 11, and everyone who was affected had relied on technology and had trust but they were failed by other defects in society.
Adriana Castillo:
After reading the anthology essay from Journals, I was quite amazed by the words and deeper analysis that Ralph Waldo Emerson had dived into. At first I did not understand some of the things that were said, like the one about a turtle’s thoughts being the turtle’s thoughts, so I had to re-read the passage. The deeper understanding of what I read stayed in my mind and actually made me want to challenge my own point of view on some of the topics that he mentioned. First off, Mary moody Emerson could have seriously become my best friend!! Although other people were disgusted by the fact that she could see deeply into anyone and how they really were is a quality that is so rare to a lot of people. She was gifted, in my opinion because I enjoy people that are actually straight forward about anything and that speak their minds out. As the essay continues, I was mesmerized by his thoughts on religion. The paragraph after he speaks of his aunt surprised me. The fact that a quiet prayer from the stranger that had entered his room without permission changed his perspective on the man shows how strongly he respects religious people. Towards the middle of the passage, he brings up the idea of love and how necessary it is for a woman. When he spoke of how the woman is wanted just because she’s a woman reminded me of how there are many women that have been abused by men and of course, have no love; everything that Emerson speaks of in order for the woman to feel welcomed and that she can be herself without having to “[flee] to the nunneries” is so true even now a days. Then when he speaks of the Natural Aristocracy, I wonder how it would be like if the world had more men of truth… more men that respected each other… would there be less violence and more peace in the world? Anyways, although this essay was composed of short paragraphs all together, there were so many details that I loved reading and that really caught my attention. It was con fusing in some of the parts because I would just pause and say “HUH?!” but overall, I really enjoyed this essay.
Suzette Martinez - Reading “We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story” made me feel very uncomfortable because I have always considered that being pro-choice was the more ‘progressive’ approach; but then again, most controversial topics make people feel uncomfortable. By my house, there is a Planned Parenthood and I often see people on the outside holding signs saying that abortion is murder. I always remind myself that everyone is entitled to having their own set of beliefs, even if I don’t agree with them, but what makes me upset is that most people pretend to be victims, and that is the issue I have with Sallie Tisdale. She pretends to be a victim and a hero at the same time; she refers to abortions as “merciful violence,” (753) and says that working in a place where they do abortions “requires a willingness to live with conflict, fearlessness, and grief” (753). It seems like she wants to come across as a hero, almost as if she were to say, ‘I’m so sad that babies are being killed and I’ve managed to cope with that and I help people in stressful situations’. If she believes that murdering fetuses is wrong, then why does she work there? While reading the essay, I felt like she made herself seems like she was doing women a favor by holding all of their burdens and performing abortions even though she is against it, and so I had trouble empathizing with her. I’m pretty sure the other women have much bigger internal conflicts than her. She made me re-think my stance on abortion, since what really got to me was that people are “able to assign a value to the fetus which can shift with changing circumstances” (751). I think it’s very unjust to think of someone as being more important than others but at the same time, I think that a woman has the right to do whatever she wishes to do with her body.
Julia Maldonado- I would like to talk about the argument conducted in the essay “The Case of Torture”. In the essay, author Michael Levin talks about how torture is seen as “impermissible” through the morals of many and although he agrees, he also produces his counterargument that torture can and should be used to save the lives of innocent victims in such cases as terrorist attacks. Early on in the argument, Levin makes the comment, “I am not advocating torture s a punishment. Punishment is addressed to deeds irrevocably past. Rather, I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils. ” (Levin 689) which made me enticed to further read what Levin had to say. I, for example, do not believe in taking violent actions to solve any problem, but I would break that moral if there were situations such as saving innocent lives from terrorist attacks. Sometimes torture is the only option, but for the right reasons. Now a days people cross the idea between torturing someone for punishment and for “preventing future evils” and there needs to be a clearer line. People should not want to use torture for punishment but to teach the terrorist and future terrorist a lesson. People get too caught up in their anger and focus on torturing someone for their wrong doings and start to neglect the idea that torturing is for putting an end to what should have never been started. At the end of the essay, Levin wraps up with the idea that “Paralysis in the face of evil is the greater danger….We had better start thinking about that” (Levin 691). This statement ties back to the idea that those who have morals against torture need to reconsider them in the time of need. Life and death situations need to be handled quickly and intelligently and living up to our morals in times like these will not save lives.
Who would have thought that thinking could be considered a hobby? I usually find myself contradicting what the majority believes, thinking that there was nothing more to it than just a contradiction but according to William Golding there are three levels of thinking: level three is the one majority of people have that relies on feelings, level two is contradicting, and level one is for those who are geniuses such as Albert Einstein. When Golding was a boy, his teachers and other adults would question why he could not think, just because he was not following the rules or expectations of the majority. Through the whole essay, he mentions three statuettes: Venus of Milo, Rodin’s Thinker, and a crouched Jaguar. For the headmaster, these statuettes represented what the majority thinks: beauty, thought and nature; However, Golding saw them in a more realistic way. For him Venus of Milo is a worried woman that does not want her towel to come off, Rodin’s Thinker due to his pose looks like a miserable man and the leopard represents the “victims last despairing cry”. These representations actually struck out to me and made more sense. When I get out of the restroom with my towel on, I indeed do not think of my beauty, I rush to my room as I am holding my towel with both hands because I am too afraid that the towel will come off and my family will become blind. Yes, I see his point of view and agree, yet this is not my own thought of the statuettes. His way of thinking is using logic rather than symbolism. As I was talking to my father about this essay, he asked me “what do you think?” and I do not know yet, because I have not thought about it. My father brought in some ideas of his own which I found very interesting and should share them out, he said that Venus of Milo could represent purity/virginity as the woman is clean or she could be a woman that can not defend herself from what a man can do to her since she has no power due to her loss of arms, and Rodin’s Thinker could be a man that has been through so much that he has been brought to his knees. Everything can have a different meaning; it is up to you to see it your own way or the way others see it as. Think of the mother from the essay “An American Childhood” who questions her daughters if they are saying their own opinion or the opinion of other. Be individual. Just think of Don Quijote de la Mancha, many can say that he was crazy, but I think that he was simply creative. Don Quijote turned his life into an adventure, despite what people thought of him. His character turned things around, such as seeing a wind mill as a giant monster. Just because the majority sees something in certain way, it does not mean that you have to see it the same way as them, just be you not them.
Thomas Nguyen: The story that enticed me the most was the one that elaborated on the premise of torture. In the story "The Case for Torture", Levin discusses contingencies in which torture would prove to be the only sane action in obtaining knowledge regarding the safety of civilians, or something of equal weight and significance. The situation Levin utilizes to justify torture as permissible only in extreme cases was that a terrorist has hidden a nuclear weapon in Manhattan. The only way to extract information from the terrorist would be through the use of excruciating pain. There is, however, a lot of controversy clouding the usage of torture. Levin responds to this by asking a rhetorical question stating that "torture is barbaric? Mass murder is even more barbaric" (Levin)? Levin's thought process is that if they don't find the location of the hidden nuclear weapon countless quantities of civilians would perish, this could be prevented only through the use of agonizing pain. Torture has stemmed from medieval times, in which the King would order his men to harm the evil doers and in light of this people perceive torture as a degenerating action that would revert us to nothing but animals and barbarians. However, the mass murder of people pose a far greater threat. Torture may be seen has lowly, but it is the key to preventing the death of millions. Torture is what will save Manhattan and prevent any future terroristic problems inflicted on America. By thwarting the terrorist’s plans through the usage of torture, it has saved lives. I, too, second Levin’s belief. Torture is a permissible action, but only in the most extreme of cases. Torture would be a viable way of gaining knowledge to further protect our nation, torture of criminals would ensure our prosperity, and torture of criminals would save lives.
As i searched for a post to respond to, i stumbled across "We do Abortions Here: a Nurses' Story" by Sallie Tisdale, controversy and the role of a woman stood out as abortions was the focus. As the essay unveiled, the conflicts brought forth by abortions were presented as this nurse expressed juxtaposing emotions that varied from happy to sad. Not only did this make the controversial aspect of abortions much clearer, but it helped give a feel of the over all experience as an unwanted pregnancy is terminated. It was described as a "disarmingly simple" process (Tisdale), yet the simplicity of the process is only a small portion of what there is to be afraid of. The pain, physically and emotionally are what truly give life to this act. Much like the job of this nurse which leaves her sometimes happy and other times sad, these women experience a roller coaster of emption for an unwanted pregnancy has ended yet the emptiness and gilt are haunting after." It requires a willingness to live with conflict, fearlessness, and grief" (Tisdale). An abortion is a decision, one that will change your life; it may bring joy and a relaxed sensation as well as loss and perhaps doubt.
One of the Essays that I read and caught my attention was “We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story” by Sallie Tisdale, which had a very sensible and controversial topic. First of all, the way that this short essay starts, has a matter-of-fact tone something that in my perspective shouldn’t be taken so heartlessly. Her tone reflects the stoic women that I initially thought she was because abortion is a sensible topic in which we are ripping apart the life a human been. I initially judge her and thought, ‘why is she still working there, if it “requires a willingness to live with conflict, fearlessness and grief” (753)? She might have her own personal reasons for being there but in this case we don’t know, which just let us to assume any possible reason of hers. Further on she tells us her experiences and meetings with her patients which only makes her suffer more because it only adds on, on how in the human race we fail “to protect, to nourish our own” (748). She makes a point on how women can be so ignorant and they believe that pregnancy is a burden “a condition to be ended” (752). As a nurse she sees and hears all these tragic stories that even though she mentions how terrible she feels like when she says her “own belly flip-flops with sorrow” (747), she can’t manage to do something about it. Each time she talks about the child in the womb of a women she uses the scientific term “fetus” instead of actually saying the word “baby” or “child” which only shows how it hurts her to think that they might be killing a “child” which she tries to evade that feeling by calling it a “fetus”. Clearly this is not a happy work place for her, her only enjoyable moments are with her co-workers but other than that she feels disturb and a burden, with a procedure that she has clearly done for a long time. Society has given more weapons to human beings giving them the possibility to kill a human and even kill an unborn child. She wishes to be in “a world where this [abortion] won’t be necessary” (753) but that is not possible. The world has advance so much in technology that anything is possible, and this nurse can see the negative effect that has cause to the human race. Personally the Nurse shouldn’t be judge because of her job even though it goes against her beliefs, but like I said before she probably has her own personal reasons to go thru that pain and know these women’s experiences.
The essay that really stood out to me was "On Going Home" by Joan Didion. Didion starts off by stating that home is not where she lives with her husband and baby, but where her family is. She claims it to be "a vital although troublesome distinction" (Didion) in which her home is with her parents, siblings, aunts, and uncles in the Central Valley of California, instead of with her husband and baby in Los Angeles. Just by this statement, I get the sense that Didion really misses her family and does not like where she lives very much because she is not with them. She also mentions that her husband and her family have different ways and that her husband simply "does not understand"(Didion) the way her family is or what is important to them, or even to her. The fact that Didion's brother refers to her husband as "Joan's husband" (Didion), instead of his name, brings up the idea that her family and her husband do not know each other very well and that Didion has not been around much since getting married and moving away. Joan Didion believes marriage to be a betrayal to her family. Marriage took her away from where she was raised, who she grew up with, and it disconnected her from the relationship she had with her family. When Joan mentions the questioning in whether or not she could go home again and how irrelevant that was to children born after World War II, I believe she meant that during the times of war, leaving your home was a lot harder because you never knew if there would be a home to even go back to. Leaving family behind during that time was like risking to never see them again. Now, Joan Didion feels trapped when she is home because it is all full of her past, as well as her families past. It is filled with memories. Memories in which she wants her daughter to know about. Didion wants to give her daughter "home for her birthday" (Didion). She wants her daughter to know her family, to know her cousins, and to know the place in which she came from. Joan however knows this is impossible because of how different things became after she got married and left home herself. It seems to me that Joan feels a bit of regret leaving her family after marriage. She misses her home, she misses the memories, and she does not want her daughter to grow up so distant from her relatives, but there is not much she can do because her husband and family do not get along. I think that what stands out to me most is that from Didion's perspective, I see marriage as a mistake, as something that only distances you from your family, but growing up myself I've always took marriage as a merging of two families. I pictured marriage as a fairytale, where things only continue to get better and relationships get stronger, but this is not the case with Didion. -Mariana Olvera
One of the essays that captured my attention the most was 9.11.01: the Skyscraper and the Airplane. At first I thought that this essay would be about 9/11 and the attacks that happened on that day and instead it was about the history of the skyscraper and the airplane, and how society has grown into becoming a modern day civilization where people depend on technology, and it has become a part of life and a part of people. There is a quote in the essay that Karl Marx wrote saying “ To be modern, is to find ourselves in an environment that promises us adventure, power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world, and at the same time that threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are”. This quote rationalizes itself with so many different examples in today’s life. One being, that if it would not be for the invention of the plane, or the invention of the skyscraper then 9/11 would never have happened. Thousands of people would not have lost their lives, and the millions of United States troops would not have gone to Iraq to start a war. Yes it is nice to have the technology that our modern day society has provided us with, but as much as it helps us it also hurts us. We now have guns, which thousands of Americans have in their home. People who are in possession of a gun ideally have the power to take a life away, and no one knows if the person behind the trigger is a person of values and kind hearted, or if the person is not and has every intention in firing the weapon the moment they have an opportunity too. Humans have technology to do well, or to do harm, unfortunately some use the technology that was designed to improve our nation are using it to bring evil to the world. The essay also stated another very interesting point, even an airplane that is as simple as getting from one destination to the next, can easily be a death sentence. People put their lives in the hands of the airplane, the engineering, the pilot, to make sure they arrive safely. But there is no guarantee that one’s life secure on any piece of technology. I now see how technology has its perks, but also a dark side.
In the short story "Thinking as a Hobby" by William Golding, the author explores the concept of thought by recalling his developing relationship with it throughout his life. Golding discovers three "grades" or variations in thinkers that he believes categorizes all people. I found that his definition of grade-three thinkers is quite accurate: they are hypocritical, ignorant people. Truth be told, they don't really think at all. Unfortunately, these people compose the majority of our society. As you can probably imagine, this fact might help explain why there always seems to be more problems in this world than reasons to celebrate. However, if I'm trying to be solution-oriented, how would I even attempt to change the way people think? From personal experience, thoughts are extremely powerful but they also have the power to control you. Should we blame these grade-three people for being potentially trapped by their thoughts, however negative and corrupt these thoughts may be? I don't know, but if we judge and categorize all people as being particular "grades," I feel that's a grade-three way of thinking. Grade-two is probably where most of us "enlightened" people are. We claim to be superior to the grade-three masses, but we don't know what to do about the issues we uncover. We are content to simply point out people's faults and merely criticize the world in general. I sadly admit that I might currently be here, at least partially. Sure, I do community service, but I am really do all I can? I suppose I have to wait until I can help the world with a college education. While Golding was not overly clear about grade-one thinkers, I interpret them to be the few truly altruistic souls that actively work to improve the world. Obviously, there are many ways to do so. Therefore, grade-one, while being rare, is the most diverse group. I aspire to join this group that actually enacts positive change with their thoughts because what else are thoughts good for?
After reading “9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane” by Adam Goodheart, I was caught off guard by the whole essay. From the title I really just focused on the beginning part of the title 9/11. I automatically assumed it was going to be a heartbreaking story involving a story about the attack on the twin towers but came across a whole different story. Goodheart created connections outside 9/11 by focusing on the two objects that were somewhat overlooked. The skyscraper and the airplane were to innovations that seemed impossible years, and years ago .While reading this essay, it made me realize how much society put trust in technology and new innovations. With today’s society, work, communication, and survival are dependent on somebody else who creates that technology. As a member of a society you don’t have time to question things you use every day because everyday task demand those objects. I really enjoyed the direction Adam Good heart took the story of 9/11. He put attention on the obvious but often forgotten ideas. What he wrote about wasn’t unthinkable but it’s not something one looks into after a tragedy like 9/11. I personally haven’t deeply thought about the ideas brought on by this text and it’s kind of frightening. Nightmares are involved with things that we often dream. In order to live in this world, risks are things that people deal with but also have to keep in mind the dangers. More and more innovations are created and create greater danger in the world but also create easier and productive ways. This connection made between the skyscraper and the airplane was unique and it connected many meaningful ideas about society and the world. Adam Goodheart took my thoughts of 9/11 and created a connection to the world. I would of never expected to have read something so unusual about 9/11 and that’s what I liked about this essay.
After reading Michael Levin’s essay The Case for Torture, I found the argument that Michael Levin is attempting to dispute is quite interesting. I have thought the debate over torture’s morality in similar ways that Michael Levin described it. I also agree with him completely. Torture should be used if it is for the greater good of saving numerous lives in the process. At first I was intrigued to see in which ways he would argue that torture is essential since torture is a highly debatable and touchy subject. It is also interesting to look at the methods he chose to claim his ideas. He uses a common but effective method of asking a rhetorical question and answering it with his own personal opinion but his opinion being the more morally acceptable answer. For example he asks “Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric” (Levin 699). By asking and answering questions this way, Michael Levin effectively gets the reader to reconsider their original opinion. There are those who would read this essay and immediately read it with a close minded view, but when Michael Levin starts with this method of asking a question and answering it immediately after, he disarms the reader and gets him or her to rethink and open their mind a little more. It surely did that to me. Michael Levin also puts the readers in knotty positions to make them understand the difficulty of making the decision to torture someone. He asks the reader, “If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn’t bring yourself to [torture the terrorist]” (Levin 699). Most people never stop to think how hard it is to make those kinds of decisions. This is only a hypothetical, but it still helps get the reader to understand the complexity of the topic, which in turn makes the reader understand and possibly agree with Michael Levin’s policy about torture. Over all I agree with him, and found the way in which he explains his ideas to be extremely effective.
Monica Rodriguez:
One of the stories that caught my attention the most was "We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse's Story". This story starts off with an unpleasant and weary feeling. The narrator starts off by describing the emotions she feels before proceeding an abortion. "I prepare myself for another basin, another brief and chaffing loss" is stated as her "belly flip flops". The reader immediately is confused by the narrators thoughts and actions. She seems to be mentally preparing herself and feels nervous, yet helps with the process of the abortion. The narrator throughout the story seems to contrivers herself, as she "enjoys" her job. She seems to be surrounded by different situations and perspectives, as all of her patients are different. I believe that all the different perspectives that she comes in contact with affect her own perspective towards abortion. A time she can feel stoic and feel like she is giving out "strength" to a weak woman and another she can start imagining another world "where this wont be necessary", where abortion does not exist. Different emotions come across in her. She juxtaposes kindness and cruelty as she says "abortion is the narrowest edge between kindness and cruelty.Done as well as it can be, it is still violence-merciful violence". By her thoughts one can tell that she can at times be against what she is doing and other times she feels like she is helping. It seems to me as if she is not all the way sure about what she is doing. Comparing abortion to putting a suffering animal to death makes others see how it isn't easy for her to take away lives either. I believe that one carries different points of views for a reason and a controversial topic like abortion should not be judged. Although I do believe that one should be sure of what they think is morally right and not be in between within a controversy like this.
Adriana Diaz- i found that the essay by Michael Levin "The Case for Torture" was really intriguing. Levin makes you think of the many possibilities there are out there and different scenarios that may occur at one point or another. Asking yourself whether or not you should torture a person is always hard because for most people your reaction would be not to since it is not morally correct but when you go back and think if torturing a person that may harm thousands of people is the only way to keep the people safe the answer is yes. "millions of lives surely overweight constitutionality" (Levin 689), i totally agree with this statement because obviously saving millions of people's lives matters more than not wanting to torture that one person that might harm the rest. there are extreme cases in which all you can do is cause pain to that one person in order to keep others safe. Levin makes such good points that might change what you think completely. personally before reading this essay i would have said that torturing a person will never be the right thing to do, but as i read and saw the situations that Levin makes you think about i saw that at times torture is the only way to go. After reading this essay i agree with Levin's policy because every point he makes causes you to rethink about your opinion.
There are so many things to think about in the essay An American Childhood by Annie Dillard, so I will proceed to list those things or ideas or whatever you wish to call them. First, I noticed the author skipped around to certain moments in her life in which her mother did or said something interesting while also adding commentary about her behavior. At first, I wasn’t too quite fond of the way the author went from story to story about her mother, but as I kept reading, I wanted to know more about her eclectic mother( also, I thought capitalizing M in “mother” was odd; I am used to seeing capitalization in regular nouns such as God or any other deities). As she switches from story to story, the whole essay surprisingly flows. The second thing I would like to bring up about the structure of the essay is the ending; Dillard did not directly state her point until the very last sentence of the essay. I really liked how the whole essay was building up to that one point which didn’t take more than a sentence. Her point, “if our classmates came to cruelty…we were expected to take… a stand,” (Dillard 137) serves to highlight the huge impact her mother’s unorthodox way of living impacted her and her sisters’ lives. Third, I wanted to bring up the line “what do you do with a crazy person who is having so much fun?” (Dillard 135). To me, her mother did not seem crazy; she was simply someone who had “fun” differently than anyone else. She was an intelligent someone who took things to a different limit that a lot of people did not take. Because she was different, she was automatically labeled her as “crazy,” which I think was absurd. Why must people who think outside the box or have an open mind be told they are “crazy” or weird? These thoughts bring me to my next point: the father. He is not mentioned a lot in the essay, and the times he is he seems to be rather bothered by her mother’s actions. If he is bothered by her at times, it makes me wonder what made the author’s mother marry him. She enjoys people who challenge her and understand her personality, but the father does not seem to be that way; he seems rather simply. There are more ideas in my head, but I think that’s enough for now.
Ana Reyna- When I read the title of the essay “9.11.01: The Skyscraper an the Airplane” I was intrigued because I enjoy talking about and hearing about 9/11. Although, it was talking about how modern style has a big role in the effects of 9/11, and the different meanings of the word “skyscrapers”. Therefore, Adam Goodheart made the essay questionable towards society in creating and making technology a dependable source to every single human being. I truly believe as technology advances among the years, people become more reliable to machines and computers. But using technology is a great responsibility to use because we decide to use it for the good or for the bad. Adam Goodheart believes that people can “surrender control and voluntarily place themselves in harm’s way in contemporary society”(307). This evokes how people decide to choose their paths as innovations continue to develop because it is a big risk for people to take their modern lives responsible. Which leads to the point that the airplanes were a big role for the destruction of the twin towers on September 9, 2001. Technology is exposed in a negative way rather then using it for the benefits of our living because as we depend more on it we never know if it will be beneficial for us.
Diego C. - It is a sad truth, that in this era, most men may feel pressured to look strong physically, put others down and lie to compete for glory. And these men may seem to be the real "men." And I vehemently agree with Henry D. Thoreau, whose first line on the "Natural Aristocracy [1849]" that rejects the truth above by calling it a "vulgar error to suppose" so [Thoreau]. And the question is: Which is a better man? One who lives by his word, or a liar who competes in this game? Both have their ups and downs, but a liar, a fake man is bound to betray, whereas the man with truth shall never betray, and therefore remain as a true friend. He will be "incapable of a lie" and have a "devotion to truth." Society is in need of selfless leaders, ones who seek to make this world a better place. Instead, what do we get? Greedy politicians. Men without manhood. Those greedy “leaders” get any small opportunity to lie, and to betray for a little extra cash, and for popularity. They would do anything just to protect their own skin. But a real man would do no such thing. Rather, he will “say what he means…courteously.” By doing so, he is able to avoid trust issues. He is able to avoid conflict and his people will put their trust in him. Whenever he is “spit” on, “nothing could induce him to spit upon you.” And that is a leader who demonstrates peace, and the ability to not confront the opposition with aggression, rather with common sense. Only a wise man, a genuine man would not spit back. This is the kind of man society needs: truthful, courteous, and loyal. He may have the physical strength, but he must have strength in heart.
Jesus Diaz- In the essay Thinking is a Hobby Golding discusses three archetypes of thinkers in the world that we currently live in. The first of the three types of thinkers are the third grade thinkers that consumes the masses with making them think that thought is nothing more than a feeling and how you should feel about a topic. Now Golding does not blame theses type of thinkers but rather provides why they would all think like this rather than think diverse from one another. Golding compares grade three thinkers to a herd of cows that have strength in numbers and because of this it is safer to let the cows live a life without true thought then to offend them about the clear contradictions that they have come up with. Now the second archetype of thought that Golding goes threw is grade two thinkers who can clearly see the contradictions that grade three thinkers make and will outwardly criticize them. Grade two thinkers will challenge anything that grade three thinkers think that is considered a “fact” and will try to prove them wrong in order to show that they have not really thought but was simply told what to think. Now it is easy for the grade two thinkers to criticize but to convince others without insulting others seems to become a hard task for grade two thinkers. The grade two thinkers will see the main problem but will have no idea on what the solution for this problem is and what do with it. But for the final archetype of thought finding the problem is not the solution but to find the solution that the problem asked for is the challenge that grade one thinkers seem to follow. When the solution is finally reveled then the grade one thinker will see it and will ask themselves “why is that?” and find the solution to the many problems that grade two thinkers seem to find. I seem to set myself in the grade two categories of thinkers because I have recently challenged my family’s religion. When I read what Golding was saying about how grade two thinkers seem to find problems and not solve them I found myself seeking a reason as to why I challenged my previous all mighty God and am now going through some internal reasoning as to why I have.
“Thinking as a Hobby” did not turn out anything like I had thought it would be. I presumed it to be an instruction manual on how to enhance the vital skill of thought. Whilst using his personal experience as a child, the symbol of innocence and ignorance to the outside world, William Golding comes to the conclusion that thought is more of an impulse, a prejudice, a belief without hard evidence which he called grade-three thinking. He uses the criticism of society in order to explain what grade-three thinking is. For example, he compared it to the honesty of a politician’s intentions. This caught my attention, not that it was the only thing that caught my attention. He criticizes society in many ways, mostly analogy. Also, he uses rhetorical questions which do bring a great amount of thought. At first, I’m a grade-three thinker not questioning his questions with the question “why?” because as I read I find him more credible. I do not think him arrogant for classifying himself as a grade-one thinker for he has proven himself through his pacifist, ant-government, anti-industrial, anti-ignorance beliefs that he is, in fact, a grade-one thinker. He seems go up a grade every stage of the human life. When he is a child, he is a grade-one thinker, not questioning, just believing. When he is a teenager, he is a grade-two thinker, pointing out what’s wrong with society without ever doing something about the contradictions. I would classify myself a grade-two thinker, for I do see the contradictions in others’ beliefs, but I do not seek to do anything about it. I seem to fit right into his spectrum. When he is an adult, in college at Oxford, he is a grade-one thinker. Throughout the essay he brings up three symbols which he calls the whole of life. They are Venus of Milo which is “Love”, the Thinker which is an “image of pure thought”, and the leopard which is “Nature”. The rearranging of these objects very much shows how he thinks of the levels of thinking. Nature, the leopard, is ready to pounce on the back of the Thinker. “Thinking as a Hobby” is brilliant, for I read through almost like a toddler getting its first bite of sugar and wanting more so that the toddler begins to eat spoon-fulls of the stuff.
Ali Gasban- As I neared the middle of the essay anthology one essay caught my attention like no other as the title evoked a sense of curiosity the essay being "The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin. At first glance after reading a few sentences it just seemed that Mr. Levin only wanted to proclaim his overall beliefs on the necessity of torture as a means of keeping a nation safe and more importantly as an effective means of correcting a criminal. To shorten it I felt that the essay was lacking and it was only written to draw attention to himself but after reading the essay a few more times a thought occurred, Mr. Levin is not trying to convert anyone to his beliefs on torture but rather he wants us to think. By fully analyzing the aspect of torture as an actual means of protection by intimidation one understands that society no matter how sophisticated we may seem through our extensive growth in technology we are still barbaric and while the majority view murder as a monstrosity, torture is by no means any better " Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric"(Levin 689). We cannot act that it is not something that cannot be constituted as horrendous but as society continues to deteriorate we must also follow and be prepared to fight back on those who are gradually killing the world.
Anacelia Ramirez:
My initial reaction to having to read essays rather than made up stories was not one of enthusiasm. I thought they were going to be boring a put me to sleep as soon as I started reading. How to Tame a Wild Tongue by Gloria Anzaldua captured and withheld my attention from the moment I started reading. It was easy to tell that it would be a tale of mixing culture and its effect on a life, but it was relatable for me. Anzaluda goes into detail about how Spanglish isn’t just a way to speak Spanish and English at the same level of laziness; Spanglish is a way a life, a culture to Chicanos. It’s a way to identify one’s self in a place where one doesn’t have a distinct place because they are neither Mexican nor American. Chicanos created their own way of speaking, Anzaluda goes on to say, because in truth, they are their own type of people. They are the only ones who get reprimanded on all sides for speaking their mother tongue or incorrectly speaking this foreign, but common language called English. This essay appeals to me mostly because she speaks in an educated manner of a language that is looked down upon. Anzaluda sheds light an aspect of her life that has always been a source of shame and defends what she knows to be her culture. Where most others would say “This is me and my culture. Deal with it or leave,” Anzaluda says, “This my culture. This is where I come from, and this is why I come from a place such as this.” She eloquently describes the differences between a multitude of Spanish dialects in America and how they differ from one another and standard Spanish. Anzaluda’s writing includes Spanish phrases to mirror her everyday language, and the culture she is in the midst of explaining. I find her story to be very enticing, and I truly appreciate her style- I feel a strong connection to her writing.
The essay 9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane by Adam Goodheart caught my attention because I am really interested in the events of 9/11 and all the controversy surrounding it- whether it was set up by the government or not, and all the other conspiracy theories. The opening quote before the essay says: "And as the smart ship grew, in stature grace and hue, in shadowy silent distance grew the iceberg too". I thought that this quote really made sense with what the essay was about because the quote describes a ship that is about to hit an iceberg, and in 9/11 planes hit skyscrapers. Then, the first sentence of the essay itself says "Before the fire, before the ash, before the bodies tumbling solitary through space, one thin skin of metal and glass met another", which gives a really interesting visual, and made me want to continue reading the essay. Goodheart uses a lot of imagery to describe the events of 9/11, talking about the build and physical appearance of the airplane and by describing the skyscrapers. I really enjoy how imagery was used throughout the passage because it really shows how 9/11 happened (even though I already know what happened and have seen pictures and videos haha) but still, the imagery made the whole passage better. I also really liked how the passage talked about 9/11 as being an event that really changed daily American lives because it's true. For me, though.. life went on after 9/11 but for so many people, their whole world became different. Judging from the title, I thought that this essay was going to be about someone's sad story about how they lost someone they loved to this tragedy, but the essay was even better than I expected and it was really an interesting read.
Mayra Torres:
Although it was the first essay, I did not choose to blog about "On Going Home" solely because it was the first thing I read. This essay really stuck out to me for a reason that I can recognize. It was not the fact that I can directly connect to the narrator, Joan, but I feel that in some sort of way I do connect to Joan's situation of being distant from home. Joan seems to focus heavily on the value of her family and how the connection with her "home" is not the same ever since she got married. Typically, when one grows older and marries the love of their life, that individual usually feels content that he/she is starting a new life with someone he/she truely cares about. Although this is the case, Joan seems to me emotionally and physically detached from her family, and she seems to blame this on her marriage. Although I am not married or do not plan on getting married for a while, I can relate to her in a way that sometimes in life there are things that can seperate individuals from those close to them. My parents divorce has impacted my life, and I cannot help to think of the days when my parents were together. Ultimately, Joan and I share the same connection of reminiscing a happier time. I loved this essay because it was not a typical story that has a happy ever after, but rather a realistic ending that many people in today's society face.
Gema Luna:
I was immediately absorbed when I read the title "We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse's Story". I have always had my own opinions about abortion, but I had never thought of how a nurse or a doctor saw abortion. In reality, it had never even crossed my mind. I found it intriguing how the nurse says she doesn't even consider ethics when doing her job because they are too "busy". Yet I think all the cases and different situations she has to deal with are mind-blowing. Reading how the doctor crushes the fetus is crushed was horrifying to me, it made my stomach churn in disgust. It overwhelmed me. Overall this essay was really interesting to me and seeing it from a nurse's point of view was really stunning and surprising.
Eduardo Cabrera-I actually found the first essay quite interesting as it brought up many ideas of home and what it means to people. What first stood out to me from Joan Didion’s “On Going home” were the first couple of sentences. The narrator takes the time to explain that her definition of home is where her “family is” and it seems strange that she does not consider the place where her daughter and husband live home. What I am thinking is that she finds comfort in her past and her originally family which she grew up with. The narrator is troubled with identity issues. Her husband does not like her being with her family to much because it changes her. I believe she returns because she likes to be changed. She misses her past and years to return to her original home, but is stuck with the responsibility of a husband and daughter. Personally I don’t blame the narrator for acting in such a way. I myself feel more comfortable when I am in my own home than when I am in any other place, even though they are family. A connection and bond is created between a person and their roots. No matter what happens in one’s life that may steer them away from where they originally came from, the past will always follow. Whether one chooses to embrace that past or not is up to the individual. Lastly I would like to include that your home will always be open to you. No matter if you think you have “betrayed” your family you will be accepted with open arms much like it happens with the narrator. She calls marriage “the classic betrayal” to her family, yet every time she returns to her family they accept her. It kind of reminds me of the story The Prodigal Son where a father accepts his son though he has foolishly spent his part of the inheritance which was split between two sons.No matter how bad one messes up, your family will receive you with open arms.
Zuri Vargas- I decided to read “On Going Home” because it was the first one and I thought it was quite interesting how the narrator seems assuring about where she wants to live her life and who she wants to have. She starts off saying how she does not feel like home is where she lives but rather feels at home where she grew up. I feel like home is where you belong and the narrator might not seem like she belongs at her house because it’s not where she feels at ease. She explains how when she is around her family she becomes one of them and turns into this different person that her husband doesn’t like or even understands. She mentions how “Marriage is the classic betrayal” and in this case I do think her marriage isn’t where she wants it to be because she puts a façade for him and changes the way she is just so that he is able to understand her and like her. Towards the end I get the feeling that the narrator doesn’t have that much money to be spending. She mentions how they have “a bottle of champagne saved from another party” which could either mean not a lot of people went or they are just not in the situation to be spending more money. Continuing on she begins to say how she wishes she could offer her baby daughter a better life and give her more than what she can but she can’t. I feel like the narrator has problems accepting the past and moving on into the present. I think she just doesn’t want a story to repeat with her daughter and have her daughter wishing she had more.
Ana Reyna-When I read the title “from Journals” it seemed dull but as I read over the essay I was interested on how deep Ralph Waldo Emerson kept his conversations, which lead me to thinking on how evil is influenced in writings. For example, the Fugitive Slave Law, that was an unpleasant document to create “by people who could read and write” (109). It is very disturbing to realize on how hypocrite people are. Because they pretend to make a positive change in there country but they were aiming towards the black race. Back then they were against blacks and the situation worsen, as they were set free since the Civil War; however, whites were angry that they were free and it did not stop them to mistreat the blacks. I agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson when he says, “People do not deserve to have good writing” (108). Because they use it for evil and bad to harm a certain race back then or in today’s date they use it for sending bad messages, which can to a rebellion. But at the end, I have realized that some laws are agreeable but some are unacceptable by looking back in the early years how a small piece of paper with some signatures can have more power than a human being’s rights. And I also, like when he says, “afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide” (106). This evokes how ironic this statement is because the early years all the people were very religious and we imagine religious people as prudes but they did not seem like prudes when they were the ones who were harming the blacks. They had no respect and a religious should always help does who are in harms ways. This essay was an eye opening on how we should use our writings and the way we choose to serve God for the good.
In the passage “The Beatles Now”, the author, Terry Teachout explains the popularity and originality of “The Beatles” during the 1960 and even in modern time; they created a culture for people in a way that they can express themselves freely without insecurities. The Beatles were the first rock-and-roll musicians whom also preferred recording their music rather than performing it live. This makes you understand that they were more focused on their music rather than their fans or popularity. They created a massive impact on people that they are still heard and remembered after about fifty years. They have been remembered for so many years because their music was made as a unity. Lennon-McCartney songs were then “performed and repeated by other artists” (Teachout 2) which makes music as a disease going around to different artist. Even though Lennon and McCartney wrote clichés, their music was still heard and loved because they also had their unique lyrics and tunes. Originality is very important in an artist because it’s a way to be remembered and known within the crowd. Another artist that was a great influence was Bob Dylan due to his “self-consciously poetic lyrics” (Teachout 3) which changes the perspective of The Beatles into writing more rhythmic lyrics rather common lyrics about love. The Beatles became even more famous due to the lyrics of Lennon and McCartney but it seems that the Beatles were famous because of both of them. The passage doesn’t really include George Harrison and Ringo Starr. The passage implies that once the Beatles got separated it was difficult because in order to be successful they needed to be a group. They struggled because even though they were famous, they were known as a group. They will always be remembered due to their variety in genres of pop, rock-and-roll, country, and rhythm-and-blues; they attracted many people then and now.
Suzette Martinez - In the beginning, the essay “9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane” has a dramatic tone when describing how the airplane crashed into the skyscraper. It then turns slightly eerie when the author states that this event was “fatal fated; perhaps even long foreseen,” to insinuate that people saw this tragedy coming, but did nothing. However, the essay is not about what happened on September 11, 2001, but rather about the people’s perspective of modernism. Although technology has many positive aspects, author Adam Goodheart decided to focus on the negative implications of technology. In his essay, Goodheart decided to include the E.M. Forster’s short story where he depicts the earth as being “drably uniform” and the only way humans seem to realize something was wrong was when “an air-ship… crashed downwards,” just like in 9/11. Goodheart tries insinuates that there is something wrong in the way in which we live, and that we ourselves cause harm to one another because of our need to be modern. Although we might not like to think of ourselves as animals, we technically are. Humans no longer think of us as primitive, but rather as intelligent creatures who have accomplished a lot. For example, our ability to produce quality steel is what allowed us to build large skyscrapers; humans thought they were raised “not by God but by its citizens”. That shows the very individualistic mentality of people nowadays. Instead of thinking how we are all in this together, many people would choose to be different. I believe that Goodheart is showing that the reason as to why humans are not as connected to each other as before is because of all the developments in technology. With all the skyscrapers, people forgot how vulnerable we really are and became a bit more self-centered. It also seems that as time progresses, people get farther and farther apart; for example, with the invention of the internet many people would rather choose to send emails than to go out and meet new people. Goodheart is saying that technology’s advancements were short lived as humans sought to progress quickly, rather than to take some time to appreciate all of mankind’s accomplishments.
Jesus Franco- While reading Henry David Thoreau’s short passage, “Where I Lived, And What I Lived For,” I had one of those odd connections one can get with author’s writing. The reason for such a connection was because similar to him, I also got a chance to flee (although temporarily) the urban commotions of a modern city (Houston) and live closer to the natural world (the rural area of Nicaragua). Thus, and as stated earlier, by reading this passage while in Nicaragua I obtained a more meaningful and deeper sense of this author’s distaste with society’s modernism and got to better understand his romanticism of the “simplicity” (1169) yet effectiveness of the untamed world of nature, and got a chance to analyze and ponder his odd yet interesting ideas. Moving on towards the passage, the narrator seems to be enveloped with the idea of closing all senses from society and secluding himself deep into the Northern forest. He rushes his migration to the forest despite the fact that his “house was not finished for winter, but was merely a defense against the rain” (1164). By rushing his accommodation on the wild extremities of the woods one can clearly see that he must have had a negative experience within the urban society’s demands such as crowded living and hard labor. As a matter of fact, he constantly exemplifies nature by using praise-like diction when describing it, but on the other hand, he always keeps degrading strenuous physical labor by referring to the average human as “awake enough for physical labor” (1168) and he further on recalls the Greek allusion “Still we live meanly like ants; though the fable tells us that we were long ago changed into men” (1169). Thus, in both the references presented, he insults those whose vocation is difficult and merely for their survival in the ever demanding society by not being wise enough to know that they are not “ants” who have to follow each other around for the benefit of a hierarchy and like a human, choose their own way of life. He must have been a laborer like those he called insects but evidently awakened from the drowsiness and escaped into his own world. Furthermore, the narrator then excludes himself from the drowsy/unwise society and almost incessantly refers to historical, Christian, and Greek allusions in his attempt to exhibit his wisdom. In showing his wisdom he tries to prove the fact that the only escape from an “ant’s” life filled with tedious routine and difficult vocations would be wisdom. So wise is he, that unlike others who require the post office for family news and entertainment provided by newspapers, he claims that “[he] could do easily without a post-office” (1170). Ultimately, his mind-set encouraged him to metaphorically step away from the “rails” which society has to rebuild and follow, in which “it rides upon [them]” (1169). Metaphorically speaking, that rail forces them to repeat a cycle where they will be buried in those rails they built and others will be buried on top of those rails; literally not moving anywhere. He felt freed and felt he had a purpose of telling others about freedom.
Upon reading Joan Didion’s “On Going Home”, I had a few different reactions while reading it. Initially I was simply confused by the text. I could not tell where the author was attempting to prove, what her purpose of the essay was. It bewildered me so much that I in fact skipped it to return to this text later. But after reading it a second time, I was able to see what the other was doing. Quite frankly, at first I thought Didion was rambling randomly about different observations that she had about her family, but afterwards I saw that she really did have a purpose to her observations. Initially Didion begins to show how bifurcated her life is. She has a life at home with her husband and a life at “home” with her family. Repeatedly she emphasizes the differences between her two lives showing how much she notices the differences. She explains them as being in “their ways” verses her “husband’s ways”. She is openly accepting how she is living a double life. She uses this idea of “ways” to introduce how different her two lives are. Interesting enough even though she knows about and admits to having these two different life styles, she still keeps them a secret. I believe she explains this when she says her brother and her speak in code around her husband to refer to the things she misses from her childhood. If she is so openly accepting that she has these two life styles, than I cannot see why she would not just admit that she wants to keep them secret. Didion explains these two lives to show her final idea that she is unhappy, and pities anyone else who is born into this family because they will be forced to live this double life. This is why at the end she explains all the things she wishes to give the baby and how she wishes to help the baby even though she doesn’t see herself capable of truly aiding the child.
One of the essays that I found very intriguing was “from Journals” by Ralph Waldo Emerson. I thought the essay made the reader analyze the way we think and the way we go about things in life. I enjoy reading peoples thoughts about their perspective in any kind of situation. In “from Journals,” Emerson looked at an idea differently then what we are accustomed to. We are often too busy to stop and think about the real purpose and reasons behind the things we do and are told to do. There is no questioning in certain task that are a part of everyday life because they have been done for so long. Emerson started of with text that really caught my interest. The text about education where it read, “The things taught in colleges and schools are not an education, but means of education.” The extension of education made me think. Education is set to be run a certain way by the government but what makes that the “right way”. I like to question and get answers to things that aren’t being questioned enough. There is so much more to things that people don’t realize exist. Research and opportunity is there especially as technology grows. The more technology the more resources are available for people to investigate and accomplish what they want. There is a lot hidden behind everything in the world, like our food, education, media, etc. Reading this essay it really made me think about the reason why I do things. There Continuing on his essay, Emerson ends each paragraph with a year in brackets. The mention of a date at the end of the paragraph adds credibility to what Emerson is saying. His thoughts penetrate the surface of ideas and explore more that feeds his curiosity. His writing got me thinking about the things I do and why I do them. The government controls a lot of what we do and they don’t express enough information to us, and this essay just made my mind think further.
For my second post I will write about the story “An American Childhood” by Annie Dillard. The story begins when the narrator talks about her mother repeating the phrase “Terwilliger bunts one”. At first I understood that she had never heard that phrase before so I didn’t blame her for saying it a few times. But when it got to the point where she would even recite it “whenever someone used a French phrase, or a Latin one” I thought she took this little far. Moving on, I thought it was unique how the mother would tell them random things including to “spell poinsettia” to remind her daughters that they did not know it all. Also, I may be wrong, but I don’t think many mothers invent their own products, so that is something I thought was interesting. One specific invention that astonished me was the “Lendalarm” one. That takes a person who doesn’t have shame to give a book or something (along with an alarm), and when it rings it’s like saying “time’s up now return it”. But I completely understand and agree that we need to remind others to give our stuff back. I’m surprised the narrator didn’t show her feelings towards her mother’s actions. She just gave detailed examples of the things her mother did without providing her own personal commentary. Putting myself in her shoes I think I would have been a little bothered by her actions, probably because my mom is very distinct form the narrator’s mom, and because my mother raised me in a different way. However I know the mother behaved this way for a reason. I do not mean to view her mother in a negative way, just different because every parent runs their own house as they please.
The short story that made the largest impression on me was “We Do Abortions Here; A Nurse’s Story”, by Sallie Tisdale. Tisdale brings up one of the most controversial topics in politics, abortion. She manifests this theme in the narrative of a nurse that works in an abortion clinic. The story starts out with the nurse recalling the type of people she meets daily in the abortion clinic and the nurse’s inevitable judgment of those people, despite the professional demands of her job. The nurse is immersed in a setting that is incessantly being overwhelmed with death, however she is able to “laugh a lot here” (Tisdale 748) with her friends and professional peers. The paradoxical action of the nurse laughing at a location where abortions take place serve to portray her has flippant. Her light hearted personality at her job could be a way to distance herself from her patients, and by distancing herself she would be less prone to judging the people. Furthermore, the nurse has been so accustomed to seeing numerous amounts of abortions take place that she has grown immune to the side effect of her job, guilt. The nurse has seen abortions take place so often that the only emotion she gets is from her banter with her peers, and not from her patients. The nurse feels this way because she defines abortion as “a measure of our failure to protect, to nourish our own” (Tisdale 748). The countless numbers of patients that come in daily are seen to the nurse as the epitome of her own personal definition. She is about to rationalize all of the abortions and sum it up into one definition. The word that stuck out to me was “failure”. The failure of them being responsible, the failure of them being parents, and the failure of them preserving their own kin.
The essay that was appealing to me was 9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane. At first, when I began reading I considered it would be about what happened on that one September day, but as I kept reading I realized it was more about how technologically advanced this world has become and the effects of those advancements. Adam Goodheart says that on September eleventh "two man-made behemoths joined in a fatal kiss," (Goodheart) meaning both skyscraper and airplane collided and people died. Goodheart must have portrayed the collision with the word kiss because kissing is something that people usually do in life. It is something normal to us, just how planes and tall buildings are normal now as well. When someone kisses another, they do not think about death and usually when we step onto a plane or into a building that we have been on, or in, before, we do not think anything bad will occur, until it does. Of course, nowadays people also have to be careful with diseases, etc. so kissing can become fatal at some point, but the main point that I believe Goodheart is getting to with his essay is that we are naive. We think all this technology will make life easier, when in reality it makes life extremely more dangerous. We put trust into all the things mankind has made. We trust that it will all keep us safe, away from harm, and that we will live to see the next day, every day. When we step into a building, we trust that it will not collapse. When on a plane, we trust that it will not plunge back down to the ground. We trust all the things we should not, because those things can let us down. No matter how sturdy something may seem, there will always be a possibility of it being destroyed in some way and taking our lives with it. -Mariana Olvera
After re-reading the essay "9.11.01 The Skyscraper and the Airplane" on a flight to Manchester, New Hampshire, I am struck by a particular line's accuracy: "Each [fragile container] a honeycomb that traps us side by side with strangers" (Goodheart). Not only are we, as passengers, unable to control our fate as we rise and, hopefully stay, above the ground, but it is also extremely accurate to say we are complete "strangers" to one another. I have no idea who these old men engaged in conversation are across the aisle from me, and I can't even see the people in front of and behind me. We are strangers not only while on board an aircraft: this paradox of being physically close to someone yet being emotionally distant extends in other areas of life as well. How many people can you say really know you? Do they know your innermost hopes and fears? In short, who can speak to your soul? If you're fortunate, you'll be able to name a few people. If you're even more fortunate, you'll be able to list even more people. Personally, the list is rather short. Now, you might be thinking, "Why should I tell everyone my life story and secrets?" Because that is life. Life is meant to be enjoyed with others. Events become more memorable, simple, and worthy of living, when you have someone with you. The sad fact that we are not all achieving strong, healthy relationships with friends and family is the most important observation to make in the modern world. Great feats of engineering, such as the ones that led to the creation of airplanes and spaceships, are meaningless, if we have unknowingly lost our humanity in the process. Needless to say, technological innovations in healthcare are almost always positive. However, when you think about it, with the exception of accidents and genetic anomalies, if our food system was organic and pure, people would need medical assistance a lot less than they do now. The causes of obesity, type-2 diabetes, hypertension, and other food-caused diseases can be traced back to the corporations that manufacture rather than grow food. "Innovative" confined animal feeding operations, genetically modified organisms with foreign DNA, and contaminated food outbreaks have been the methods and results of corporations. In conclusion, what is the point of developing all of this technology, unless we also look inward and improve upon ourselves as well. Surely, the current state of the world is not the best our compassionate and collective conscience can form?
After I finished reading reading Henry David Thoreau's passage titled “Where I Lived, And What I Lived For,” I could not help but feel a sense of optimism and happiness as I realized that there were many people who seemed to fully grasp the beauty and purity of nature. As we continue to spread through land and ultimately take over pieces of nature to ultimately create another city that is filled with pollution, cars, technology and the unappreciative population that does not seem to realize how easy they have life I have realized that nature is what defines everyone but many seem to divert their attention to the new fad in city life. So much so that everyone seems to act like robots or as Henry Thoreau would put it “Still we live meanly like ants; though the fable tells us that we were long ago changed into men” (1169) and as he goes on to degrade human society I cannot help but fully connect to his mindset as well. Instead of fully understanding the simplicity of nature and escaping to it like Henry Thoreau many continue to live in a world that creates a detailed plan for everyday life and does not allow people to think and learn for themselves. Thus creating my belief that humans are to afraid to leave such lifestyle and search for the simplicity because they believe that living a life of simplicity only presents them as lazy of idiotic however it is such simplicity that will likely result in a growth of education and learning from life and becoming wiser in the long run instead of living a life that is like a conveyer belt only taking us from point a to point b and never letting us discover point c that could ultimately create a new challenge to overcome and grow from.
When I first read Joan Didion's "On Going Home", I was so confused. She described "home" as being with her family where, not in the place where her husband and daughter live. I understood that she was a little troubled with the differences between the two, but then she goes on to talk about how her husband felt "uneasy" in her family's home because of the way she would behave. I saw that she was trying to give us a little view of the way her husband feels, that he didn't want to be around his wife's family because they made her behave differently. Then, I found her home-life to be really confusing. She feels at home with her family but describes the life with her family as "dusty", which to me meant that not everything is clear and there are things that do need work. I got the sense that the author is not really clear or does not really know how exactly she feels about her family and especially her home. She wants to please her family, so she tries to revert to their ways instead of her husband's, and she wants to please him too, but behaving like her family leaves him left out. She's kind of trapped between her husband and her family. I was confused when I first read it though because she seemed to be saying good things about her family, but then she goes around and says that her family doesn't accept her husband, who refer to him as "Joan's husband" instead of his actual name. I felt like family is something that was really important to her and she wanted her daughter to be able to interact with her family which is why she did not want to stop the visits, but visiting was difficult for her because it divided her and her husband. What I got from this essay was that it seemed to be about the importance of extended family when it comes to children. The author really wanted to have that complete family experience but found it really hard to build one relationship between her daughter and her family while potentially harming the relationship between her and her husband.
The topic of abortion is very controversial; most people don’t like to talk about it because everyone just ends up in a fight. In the short story We do abortions here, talks about the a nurses experience in an abortion clinic. The Nurse never picked a side, whether she is for or against, which is how it should be she is a nurse and she has to try her best not to judge the patient. I love children, I would love to have two of my own in fact, but not everyone feels that way. The thing that this story made me realize is that there is no right or wrong in an abortion, the choice is simply the woman’s. Who in this world has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do? There are different examples of consultations of abortions in this story, like the girl that was raped a man took advantage of her and got her pregnant. Do we have the right to tell her she is wrong to have an abortion when she is just a teenager and has not even begun her own life yet? The answer is No, the only thing people can do is respect the decision of the mother, and you don’t have to agree with it. Abortions are not just done by “girls who were stupid enough to get pregnant”, birth control fails sometimes, men leave there wives, girls are not done with their education, victims are raped, and the list goes on with examples. People of this generation do not wait till marriage to have sex, this is nothing new. Obviously abstinence is key, but that is not likely with all the crazy hormonal teenagers running around. Boys, have no say or are allowed to contradict a woman’s decision unless it is your child that they are aborting, they are not the ones who carry the child, they are not the ones who have to go through the pain of the abortion, or the emotional side effects after the procedure, and they can choose to stay or leave. Bottom line do not judge a pregnant woman/girl whether they decide to continue with the pregnancy, or not. It isn’t you so don’t worry about it.
Many may ask "How cruel or crazy can this woman be for doing that horrible job?". And the truth of the matter is that she is not what people may perceive her as. It is rare to hear from someone that works in this kind of job... but just like anyone else, she too is human. I am no one to judge or questions someone's decisions or actions... and that is part of the reason for why I was so open-minded about reading this essay. It of course fills my heart with sorrow that someone would have the mind and strength to abort a child, but then again, there is always a story and a reason for why they choose to do so. I agree with much of what the narrator explains when talking about the women that choose to get abortions. For example when she states, "Women have abortions because they are too old, and too young, too poor, and too rich, too stupid, and too smart" (Tisdale 752). Exactly right. The women that are too old won't be in good health conditions to care for the child. The young won't even know what to do with the child. The poor will not provide for the child. The rich won't have the time for the child. The stupid will be just like the young or even worse. And the smart were actually dumb enough to get pregnant and want to ruin their future. I also feel sympathy for her when she says "We who do abortions are marked by some, as impure" (Tisdale 751). In reality, no one has the right to call anyone as impure or as something else just because they do something that many others are against. This reminded me of the quotes from a song that sort of state that it's funny how America the Brave hides from shame. Abortions are all over the world of course, but us as a nation are so quick to judge on everything. Even her as a nurse wishes that she didn't have the job she has. In the end she marked me as a woman that wishes for something that she knows she cannot have. A world where no such things as an abortion could exist.
I do not see how English is more “cultured” than any other language. Sure it may be the U.S.’s official language, but why should the use of other languages be restricted out of home? It is sad to hear how the U.S. ripped people out of their cultures. Like the essay by Gloria Anzaldua, How to Tame a Wild Tongue says, “I am my language.” Ripping the language, the culture of a person is the same as destroying his/her identity, which this essay speaks quite a lot about. What makes up our dear “America” is the great diversity. With it comes the vast differences in backgrounds. I believe that that is what makes up “American culture,” yet in the story America destroys it. It is indignant to hit a student, especially in its early childhood era for simply letting a few words out in Spanish. It may have been an accident, yet America punishes so harshly. Fortunately, this was the past. However, there may be instances where injustices occur. This one probably does not happen as much as it used to, but it may exist somewhere in the U.S., “If you want to be American, speak American. If you don’t like it, go back to Mexico where you belong.” It is just wrong.
“Wild tongue can’t be tamed, they can only be cut out.” Perhaps the only way to rid of who one really is is by literally cutting their tongue off. There is so much pride present. The narrator seems to vehemently believe that any other person will never give in to injustice and leave their identity behind. The narrator calls this a “language of rebellion.” The people shall stand by the language and rebel against rule of leaving behind the Spanish language. And this sounds like a revolution, a movement that has been taking place with those people who have high pride in who they are. I am fascinated.
-Diego
Anacelia Ramirez: I found a peculiar interest in 9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane. Upon reading the title I immediately thought that it would be a somber tale of how Adam Goodheart and his family suffered from the tragic events of that fateful day. I was surprised to find, however, that it was more of a background on how the skyscraper and airplane have effected us in city and every day life and also how they played a role in past times. It was interesting to see that both man made objects were created in the midwest, and the idea that we put our lives in the hands of faceless, nameless people every time we step foot on a plane or ride the elevator to the 23rd floor of an office building. I had never thought of it in that way. The majority of people who use airplanes frequently and work from a skyscraper don't put much thought into the fact that they are trusting the very people who built the building and airplane they are putting to use to have done a stand up job. They are trusting them to keep their life safe. In pointing all this out, I don't think that Goodheart meant to say that it could have happened at anytime on any day, but rather he is attempting to demonstrate to the reader that this was a unique accident. This tragedy, that more than likely won't be remembered past my generation, was life changing for so many people, but it was something that happened because people planned to make it happen. The people responsible for creating the aircraft and designing the World Trade Centers didn't fail the mass of people who use their products. Everyone was faced that day with an issue that was new and had never been dealt with before, and that's what I believe that Goodheart is attempting to explain through his essay.
Mayra Torres- In today's society, there are various topics that are widely controversial. In the essay "We Do Abortions Here- A Nurses Story", one of the top controversial topics, abortion, is being discussed. I find this essay rough but yet true. When I first began reading the essay, I quickly noted that one of the opinions that was being emphasized was the fact that those who have abortions are the women of young age, young ladies such as I. Today, many women are defensive towards stereotypical statements that suggest that women would not go to college or be successful because of unplanned pregnancies. Although this is sad, in some cases, this is the truth. In the essay, it is apparent that the nurse dislikes her job, but yet has a bittersweet feeling towards the abortions being done. She is aware that for some women, an abortion is the only getaway for a woman to live a life without worries. Reading this essay, I also got the feeling that the narrator was trying to suggest that women who have abortions take advantage of the opportunity. More than once, the narrator makes the statement that there is women who are going to get an abortion "for the fourth time". Ultimately, I get the sense the the narrator is writing to describe her job and to show that abortion are not so thrilling. it is obvious that she is against abortion but likes her job solely for socializing. With this, one can see a juxtaposition between life and death. The narrator goes to work to kill life while she goes and enjoys those who are living. I found this real interesting while reading the story. Ultimately, I feel that abortion is not the best answer for accidents, but yet an excuse to erase a mark that is written in pen.
The short story that I read was “9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane” by Adam Goodheart. Goodheart starts his story in a very vivid and tragic description of the earth, like if it were the end of the world. He makes it seem as if the world, were no longer pure and innocent but instead a place where destruction can happen in any moment. He starts writing about how we “grafted together out” the skyscraper and the airplane “of preexisting elements, fragments of our walking lives and our own imaginations”. Goodheart makes the situation sound as if the human race had intentionally committed suicide. Now, that is a bit exaggerated coming from my part but even then he sure sounds as if he abhors what mankind has created and done to annihilate the pureness of the world. Humans have pursue this idea of modernizing and making the world a better place with the use of technology, forcing people to become used to that idea. Regular people can’t simply reject what society has placed in from of them; they simply have to accept it. Goodheart mentions that no matter how innovated and advance items can get we sure are risking our lives and “we must summon up the will to trust-not so much in the metal armature beneath us as in the faceless experts who designed and built it”. Each time we ride a plane the benefit that gives us is faster transportation, but the drawbacks of it is that we must entrust our lives on those that fly the plane and manufacture it, placing our life in the line because anything wrong can happen. Initially when I read the title I thought that the author would have written about the 9/11 incident, but now I understand that his real message was how technology and the idea of modernizing the world lead to the tragedy and the death of many lives on 9/11 but also that too much ambition to become the best would ultimately lead to our own downfall or work against us. The world is full of mysteries with technology, but even if we can’t stop them from being more created we must simply learn to trust them when they whisper, “Trust me”.
Being one of the longest essays, I left “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” by Gloria Anzaldua last, also, because of it’s rare name I thought it would be hard to understand and would need lots of time to read it; however, it turned out easy to read due to the slight connection I have with this author. Being a Spanish speaker, I know how hard it is to acknowledge that you are different from the people surrounding you because of the difference in speech. I came to the U.S for 7th grade and did not know any English; however, I had lots of support coming from my family and teachers to learn the language fast unlike Anzaldua whom was told “If you want to be American, speak American. ‘If you don’t like it, go back to Mexico where you belong”. True, at first some people tried to discourage me but I kept on trying to learn English.
Although I feel somehow connected to this essay, at the same time I disagree with it. I have never liked the idea of Spanglish, even though I catch myself speaking it once in a while. I understand that some people struggle a lot to communicate and have the need to speak Spanglish, but instead of keeping Spanglish as their speech they should keep on trying to learn proper Spanish and proper English: One of my favorite phrases as I was learning English was “How do you say ____ in English?” because I refused to plug in a combination of Spanish and English, I find the act to be offensive to both languages so I would rather put my pride down and ask for help. Languages evolve, true, but I personally think Spanglish is just laziness. I truly understand that people use it when they are learning English, but do not get used to it and get stuck with it. Every time I mistakenly speak Spanglish, my mother looks at me with a face of ‘I taught you better than this’ and I understand why, this is why I try to keep my education high so that I can get rid of it.
Something else that struck out to me from this essay is when the author says that people call each other Mexican just to refer to each other as Spanish-speakers. No no no, I now have learned to respect Mexicans but do NOT call me Mexican because I feel offended. Just because I speak Spanish, it does not mean that I am Mexican. Spanish does not equal Mexican so for all people that call me that quit it and ask me where I’m from or simply call me Hispanic. No offense to Mexicans, your food is delicious by the way.
My advice is, if you speak Spanglish; try to get rid of it as fast as possible because I doubt that it will do you any good in life. I would rather hire the person that speaks two languages fluently than to hire the person that does not even know how to differentiate two languages.
Jesus Diaz- The idea that one language is more diverse or superior to others is a completely absurd idea. The human race has lived this long and has advanced in this world solely because of communication with each other. Without the power to talk to each other or to send idea’s from one person to another by communication then this race would have failed. Even advancing into the future with computers everywhere in the world today each computer still has to be able to communicate to other computers and a computer language was invented to allow these devices to talk with each other. Each race or species of something has to have a way to communicate with each other and that language can identify who is who. Now as a child born in America but is Mexican English was my first language and I have trouble speaking Spanish. But during my generation this has become common among Chicano s and because of this a new language was born to identify this new culture, Spanglish. This new language was born because it was both easy to communicate with English speakers and Spanish speakers because you use both languages in this new way to communicate. But even so in America few believe that if you are in countries were the population is American then you must speak English. But because there are so many minorities that live in America now shouldn’t we speak their language? No because the new minorities are still in power and people of color are still being oppressed to not to speak our language. We must live sometimes in a place that punishes people for speaking other languages other than English. “Who is to say that robbing a people of its language is less violent than war?” (Ray Gwyn Smith) This quote is the embodiment of what is happing to the Chicano culture. I know some of my friends from per-school were frowned on because they spoke Spanish and because things like this happens so often Spanglish was born to keep our original language in tact while still moving to another language that was forced on to some people.
Eduardo Cabrera- The second essay which I wish to write about is called “We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story” by Sallie Tisdale. I have read short stories centralizing abortions before in the past, but this one caught my eye. This essay utilizes a different point of view. Instead of being about the mother, father, family member, or child to be, this essay focuses on the nurse who has the duty to perform and assist on abortions. In the controversial topic of abortion, when people are in heated arguments they tend to forget that the nurses also have feelings on the topic, so they are just blatantly left out of the picture. The narrator in the story has a different stance than most people do on abortion. Many like to think that you are either pro-life or pro-choice, but there is an in between which is where this particular nurse lies on the spectrum. The narrator brings up many points which can either sway the reader to either side, but never bluntly takes a side. I believe this essay was not created in order to persuade the reader to one side or another, but to let them use their best judgment to decide for themselves. Looking at the time which when this particular piece of literature was published (October 1990) the reasoning behind why an author would publish this begins to make more sense. In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that abortions were legal as a result from the Roe vs. Wade. It was a very controversial ruling, and many people didn’t know what to think of it. Instead of hearing the first argument and sticking to that side, Tisdale’s reasoning behind why this essay was written was to inform the public. People often make decisions without being well educated from them and just side with family members, friends, or anyone else that they are comfortable with because it is just easier to do than actually attempting to learn about the topic. It is true that Tisdale does attempt to use pathos in the essay, but she leaves it up to the reader to make the final verdict.
When I first read “On Going Home” by Joan Didion, I was confused on what the narrator was trying to say; I wasn’t sure what her view on the past was nor why she felt the way she did about “home.” I read it a second time more carefully, and I understood the narrator to be very clung to the past. She wanted things to be the way they used to be, which is why she felt home was where her family was. But what I found interesting was that she stated “I do not mean the house in Los Angeles where my husband and I and the baby live, but the place where my family is” (Didion 9); her words made it seem like her husband and baby where not part of her family, which makes me think she does not love them as much as her relatives, for they took her away from what she calls home. I find it difficult to understand why she married someone who and didn’t understand her and took her away from family in the first place. Being married means starting a new home, and instead she just felt detached form her old home. I also found that it was as if she was dealing with her new family instead of enjoying her new life. Personally, I think she would not have this problem if she would have married the right guy. Or perhaps she would have always found herself feeling different with her family than with her husband and baby because of how strong her nostalgia was.
When I was younger I used to go on about how no woman should ever have an abortion. “It’s cruel and it should be considered murder” I would say. I would have been able to argue it for days but I began to realize that that’s not entirely true at all. It’s necessary to understand people’s different situations and their beliefs. I consider myself someone who believes woman should definitely have a choice. The short story “We Do Abortions Here: A Nurses’ Story” depicts the varying reasons a woman might have an abortion. The story is interesting especially coming from the perspective of someone from inside an abortion clinic. The narrator seems to think of abortions as routine and ordinary which I think is something that caught all our attention. How can someone think so little about something that is so controversial and such a big act? There were times when the narrator was annoyed and even proud. The narrator questioned whether her capability of doing her job was wrong and then thought she owed a “promise” to these women. My favorite line of this short story was “no reason for sex but to make babies” because that cannot be a bigger truth. The only reason that humans are supposed to have sex is to make babies. That’s nature and “biology”. The “promise” that the narrator was referring to was the possibility to avoid that sex is to make babies. People have sex because oh there’s birth control, there are condoms, and there are abortions. It avoids responsibility. It might be that humans are selfish. I don’t think that we’ll ever live in a world without abortions. It’s the sad truth. We, humans, believe we have just found something else that is more easy and efficient that will allow us to continue being dominant. I would never judge someone who would want an abortions and I would not judge someone who is against abortions. I believe people should accept that women should be granted the choice.
Alexis Castillo- After finishing reading the short story “Where I lived, and what I lived for”, I didn’t think it was going to be about the importance of nature to man. Henry starts out explaining where he is living and explains why. He had lived in a boat and had stayed in a ten before but now it was time to finally settle. But his “house was not finished” (1164), but that all showed the amount of love he had for nature, he wasn’t going to let an unfinished house prevent him from staying there. The amount of visual imagery he uses to describe his surroundings makes the reader get more intrigued as all the images he describes are jaw dropping. There is nowhere else where “the morning wind forever blows, the poem of creation uninterrupted, but few are the ears that hear it” (1165). The tranquility is never stopped because it’s so far away from the disquietude of the noisy city. He then starts to come down on mankind for not doing anything and just letting everything pass by. No one likes to face problems and that’s why we might sometimes take the easy way so He thinks humans have live and are living the easy way and that is why they are “sleepers”. Letting the “train” go over wouldn’t make much sense but there is still people who would let that happen. After all these years living like “ants” humans will continue to do the same thing as they are accustomed to it. There is always a first time to try something and he has gone that way, and he isn’t running into anything because he lives in a way where there can be a “lower heaven” (1166). And he is tired of things so therefore he has moved away from them.That’s why he wishes everyone to try nature once.
Julia Maldonado- “Home is where the heart is” and “There’s no place like home” are particular sayings people like to quote in order to portray their home as joyful and loving. Although this may be true for some families, Joan Didion points out in her essay “On Going Home” that not every family can get along and live up to the “homey” atmosphere everyone believes families should and/or want to have. Didion, throughout her essay, explains vaguely but in examples on how she has two homes but considers only one to be her true home which is the one with her husband and daughter. Now when she talks about her home with her family, we the readers were given the impression that when she returns to visit her family she is uncomfortable and unhappy, but I believe she once had a content home and close relationship with her own family until she got married. On her second to last page, Didion briefly states “Marriage is the classic betrayal” (Didion10) which made me hypothesize that her getting married tore her apart from her family and eroded their relationship to what it is now, corrupted. The word “betrayal” alone adds the idea that Didion had to isolate herself from her family and could no longer do what they wanted her to do because she was now committed to a man who had different values that did not cooperate with her family’s values. Didion had to basically pick a side and I think she consciously and at the same time unconsciously chose to live how her husband wanted. I think now that Didion has grown up and realized, by observing the way her family acts around her because they do not accept her husband, that she does not want her daughter in the far future to have to pick a side-her parents home or her home with her husband-and would want to be fully content with both sides that she would want to join the two and not have to change who she was when she hung around particular people. I fully understand Didion’s argument and agree that having a “home” is not as realistic as many people wish it to be and once we leave the home we grew up with, beliefs and values may change and that can only make the home weaker.
In the short story "We do abortions here: a nurse's story" by Sallie Tisdale, we see abortions from the perspective of a women who sees abortions as a process of a daily routine. I for a fact think that this would never be a choice that i would make in my life because it doesn't go with what i believe in. Yes, women should have a choice and i would like to say that i wouldn't judge them if they made the decision to get rid of the fetus but it is a natural thing in us humans and we all do it whether we like it or not. i am not saying that i would be constantly judging them but a thought like "how could she do that?" would come through my mind once in a while. I feel like we try to avoid responsibilities because we have so many things that are said to prevent pregnancy but women should keep in mind that these things don't always work and that there is a possibility that they could could end up pregnant. "Done as well as it can be, it is still violence" says the nurse and i totally agree because i feel that getting an abortion is in some form a murder. Whether the baby is inside you or out here it is still a human being, and yes i know that there are certain situations in which getting an abortion seems like the best thing but it never will be. "No reason to have sex but to make babies" says the nurse, and it is so true. we were made to reproduce and have babies not to kill them. the only reason for sex is to have babies. abortions are a very controversial thing and i don't think that we all could ever agree with whether its right or wrong. Abortion will be something that we will always have our society.
Florencia Rangel
In the short story "9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane", I learned how humans lives are dependent on civilization and science. As humans we have learned how to build work places using several methods tracing back to the Romans. In addition we have also built planes to quicken the time of travel. These inventions have helped us live our daily lives in a work place. Little do we know that every time we get on to a plane we are surrendering our lives to the work of engineers, pilots, and corporations. Adam Goodheart mentions, "In this setting, the smallest acts take on ritual significance: the pantomimed instructions of flight attendants, the dimming of lights, the serving food." it was not until I read this story that I fully understood what was going on. Sitting on a 7 hour flight I was given drinks ,food ,blankets , pillows, and even toothbrushes so that I would feel comfortable about being on a plane. This story was quite interesting to me because it talks about all the structures of skyscrapers, airplanes and the tragedy that occurred on September 11th. Most of our lives revolve around civilization and science. Business people, parents, and kids all trust the work of others in their every day lives.
In the short story " Where I Live, and What I Lived For" by Henry David Thoreau, really made me think about what life is and what it is about. The narrator lived in a home that was not fully structured yet and as the I kept reading I was pretty sure that it never would be. The narrator has isolated himself from any civilization and dedicated his life to living along the side of nature. Every day he wakes up and it is a new start and lives. The narrator mentions " I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential factors of live". This quotation explains his motive for waking up every day and living along the side of nature instead of car motors, buildings, and so on. Through out the story he mentions that what keeps humans going in a society is questioning "why" to everything. Due to this action he believes it is just an unnecessary hobby because it distracts us from the beauty nature offers. He mentions the true harmony of birds and the necessary qualities a human would need to live. The story was very interesting because it brought forward a new way in viewing things in life and not taking everything in life for granted.
Many of the essays in the packet seemed to have a similar tone to it. The authors seemed to have been praising a sort of idea from each of the essays. In the essay "9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane, by Adam Goodheart, it seemed that he was describing this tall, magnificent, monsturous structure, being the skyscraper, as invincible and hard to overcome. He goes on and on about how the idea of the skyscraper took years to invent and took developing to make it what it is now that we see. It is then described in a sort of shocking tone how this invention that took so long to construct could vanish in mere seconds when the "metal and glass met another", describing it as a fatal kiss.Although the essay was cut off, the very specific detail and vivid imagery shows how this tower could be as strong as it seens to be, but in reality a weak man-made structure easy to destroy. It also makes me remember if a video that I saw last uear in Mr. Simmons's class, where the people, desperate to get out if the collapsing building, jumped out to their certain death's. The video made me feel sick and sad that I still remember the video. This story also makes me reflect upon the time period this took place. I was in Kindergarten when everyone's parent, and ecen the teacher, where panicking about what was going on that day. Although this incident did not happen near our area, many people where directly affected by the events going on that day. I, of course, did not care about the situation and what was going on around me, until I came to an age where I could undeestand about the situation. And reading this essay makes me think even more about how something that everyone believes is safe can be destroyed within a blink of an eye.
One of the essays that I found very interesting was "The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin. Up until reading this passage, I never thought of torture as a possible solution. Torture is an extreme measure of punishment, so who would've thought that it could come in handy at one point? The scenarios that Levin described are not situations we all come across in our every day lives, but they are legitimate situations we could all experience at any point in our lives. Levin clarifies his argument by stating that he is "advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils." In situations like the one with the terrorist or a kidnapper, a last resort for acquiring a solution, could be a possibility. I personally understand and would agree with him, because I would rather punish someone who was willing to go and commit some sort of atrocity than be responsible for an innocent person's life. I don't think that by doing this one would become as evil as them, because it's being done for the good of someone else. The terrorist or kidnapper had already put himself in danger, because there are consequences to everything and I believe no bad deed goes unpunished. I also thought it was really interesting when he said, "Americans would be angered to learn that Roosevelt could have had Hitler killed" but didn't because of his moral values. I for one do think that in this case, torturing one evil man would have been a much reasonable approach than allowing him to be the cause of so many Jews. Although killing or torturing is a terrible thing, it is more unjustifiable for someone to want to cause pain or suffering to people for no reason, than punishing a remorseless, cold-hearted psycho.
Another essay that I found very interesting was "We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse's Story" by Sallie Tisdale. Reading the story from the point of view of someone who goes through the procedure themselves made it even more heartbreaking. I have never been able to decide fully whether I am for or against abortion, because it is such a touchy subject. Reading this though, made me feel even more uneasy on the topic. Sallie Tisdale described the situations she has encountered very clearly, leaving disturbingly painful images in my mind. In most cases, women only have abortions because they absolutely have to. Killing a tiny human being is not an easy thing to live with in your conscience. She explains her limit as being able to allow her clients to "carry their own burden, shoulder the responsibility themselves." The nurse does not just follow the procedure. She is part of a tragedy. There are millions of different cases associated with deciding to have an abortion, and they are all difficult to deal for a woman, especially when you go through millions of them. Sallie Tisdale does a really good job of expressing all the emotions that come with abortions, not only for her, but for the woman as well. Feeling powerless and vulnerable is something no one likes having to go through, but this nurse saw it in every single one of her patients. Abortions are not easy. I do think though that up to a certain extent they are a sad and unfortunate necessity, because why bring a child into the world that will live in misery or whatever the case may be for him/her and the mother. It may seem selfish to just get rid of the child and not have to deal a burden, but we never know the reasoning behind the pregnancy. We are not in that woman's shoes, so who are we to judge? Yeah, killing an innocent baby is a terrible thing, but there are a millions reasons behind deciding to have an abortion.
Zuri Vargas- I decided to read "We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse's Story" by Sallie Tisdale because of the fact that I am against it. After reading this it just made me go against it even more. I thought the first sentence of this passage was interesting, “We do abortions here; that is all we do”. I felt like that really set the tone for what was to come next but it did not and I didn’t really expect what Sallie Tisdale wrote. The way the narrator says that first lines show what they have to do. I feel like as a nurse they have to do as the patient wants and they are not able to give their opinion as much. Regardless if she thinks if it is right or wrong she is not able to speak out about it because it is not about her and it is not her job to do so. I honestly think that the person giving the abortion is just as bad as the person who wants to get the abortion. I know some people might disagree, which is why I like talking about it. I really like listening to the points people have to give as to why abortion is okay, but as of right now I just do not think it is right. I think that the narrator really does not love her job but she makes it about her patients and what they want. She does not make a big deal about it either she mentions how they “laugh a lot” and it just isn’t something to be expected. I loved the line that says “I am learning to recognize the shadows that cross the faces of the women I hold”. I feel like she’s really sincere and makes the women feel as calm as possible. Even though I am against this It was really interesting to read because of the visual imagery and an insight to how it actually is.
Upon reading "9.11.01 The Skyscraper and the Airplane", I realized that this essay was not what I had in mind. Just by reading the title, I was misled to believe that this would be a compelling and maybe even heart breaking story on the events that took place on 9/11. The title was merely an example of what happens when we entrust our lives to technology. Despite the tragedy of that year, we continue to put our faith in machinery and their creators knowing that something can go wrong at any moment yet we are willing to take that risk. Adam Goodheart talks about humans questioning the safety of the machinery we use on a daily basis and how as "animals" we would prefer to "stick close to solid ground" (Goodheart 304) instead of exploring all of our other possibilities. He then makes the counterargument that as more advanced beings, this is where we differentiate from all other animals because we are willing to take risk and explore new possibilities that have a chance of failing at any given moment. Goodheart then begins to explore the origin of the word “skyscraper” and what it seems to symbolize with humans. The word first appeared as the name of a horse and gradually led up to becoming what it is now, a tall building with many stories; Goodheart not only described the factual meaning of the word, but also the symbolical meaning. His idea revolved around us as human beings having goals and aspirations and using the word “skyscraper” in context with what we wanted to be achieved in our lifetime. By breaking down the word skyscraper, we see that it would mean an object that grazes the sky. Looking at this symbolically, it is noted that this is what many want to achieve with their life, to be able to reach up as far as possible and make it so high up that you are nearly touching the clouds, but many fear even the thought of this. Humans fear that if we do not succeed on the first try that we will be failures forever, it takes a courageous and a daring approach to be able to actually take charge of your own life and do what you need to do in order to be successful. Many have been trained to think that if they fall, there is no getting back up and so they dig an even deeper ditch for themselves to lie in but the truth is that if you find yourself in a ditch, it is easier to climb back out right when you have fallen before the ditch begins to deepen. Those who are successful are those who are willing to risk it all and put their full faith in everything. That is why we as humans put our trust into machinery and the makers rather than sticking to the ground because we know that if they succeed, then so do we.
The second essay I would like to talk about is “We do abortions here: a nurse’s story”. This is one of the essays that I really felt strongly about just because I don’t think I would ever be able to go through with either an abortion or making one happen. I began by putting myself into the nurse’s shoes and seeing her point of view on the subject. For me, she was emotionally detached from both the fetus and the patient because that is what she had to do in order to be able to go through with the abortion. Tisdale talks about asking the patient personal questions meanwhile the doctor is operating on the woman which makes me realize that she did have sympathy for her patients. Maybe this made her feel better about helping out with the abortion because once she heard their life story; she would realize that having a baby was not the best option for the woman. Once she began talking about the fourteen year old girl who was very curious about it all, I changed my perspective on the nurse. First seeing her as sort of villain, I began to see her as more of a hero. She took this job in order to help those women who would not go through with the abortion if it wasn’t for her words, she gave them peace and stability when no one else could and this is why she continued doing this job. It was not because she wanted to see unborn fetuses lying on a cold sheet of metal, but because she wanted to relieve those women who weren’t ready to be mothers. She wanted to let them know that they had a second chance of living their life to a full potential rather than ending up regretting their choices. Tisdale decides to avoid the subject of ethics in her essay because she knows that she may not be able to justify how it is morally correct to take away a life, but she can justify how it is correct to give those women a second chance to get their life in order and become great someday.
One of the stories the stories that caught my attention was the one about abortion. I guess everybody has their different opinions about this. My opinion is that no matter what happens or the way that you got pregnant you should not abort you baby. You might not decide to keep it that’s fine by me. You can give it up for adoption, but never end an innocent life, they had nothing to do with what might have happened. Being the type of nurse that takes care of abortions is a hard job. Well at least for me it would be. Having to kill a baby might be the hardest job ever. Everybody has their different opinions in this specific topic. Some people might say it’s fine to get rid of a baby. It depends on what the mother believes. I think that the fact that the mothers in the hospital asking for their babies condition before they proceed with the process; shows that they might actually care a little. Maybe they were pressured to do something they did not want. They might be forced to do it, but you never know.
The anthology about thinking being declared as a hobby had me somewhat confused. it started out as a boy by the beginning and at the end was as if it was looking back at his childhood. Meaning that he grew up as the student went on. It talks about three degrees of thinking it had me a little confused. he was at the second stage I believe. He also talks about his teachers who always asked him if he thought. His teacher was a little creepy because he would stare at the girls that passed by. It also mentions something about sex but I did not really understand that. Ruth is the girl he likes but at one moment they were separated because of their religious beliefs. That has to suck. It’s not fair to be separated for something like that. I believe that things like that shouldn’t separate you. It should make you stronger. He also says that thinking could be dangerous. I don’t know how that would work. Maybe thinking about negative things.He also said that his teacher was drinking that is negative. He might be bad influence for him.
The essay "In Search of a Room of One's Own" by Virginia Woolf described how women in the sixteenth century were not allowed to get an education compared to Shakespeare, who was a man, and was able to become one of the best writers in history. Women have always been portrayed as weaker than men, whether it was physically or emotionally; men did not expect anything great from women and always condescended them in any way possible. "Women were just expected to marry at a very young age to who ever their parents chose for them. They did not have a choice and if they refused to get married they would get beaten. More over, Virginia Woolf explains how Shakespeare was characterized as a genius and how it was said that "woman [could not]write the plays of Shakespeare" (Woolf 1077), but she had a way different perspective on this. Woolf makes up a fake Shakespeare sister to demonstrate how if she had the same gift as her brother, she wouldn't have had the chance to develop it like her brother did. The sister wouldn't be able to put it in practice because she was a woman and could not get an education, even if she really wanted. She would be hopeless, laughed at, and "have gone crazed, shot herself, or ended her days in some lonely cottage"(Woolf 1079) because "all the conditions of her life, all her own instincts, [would] be hostile to the state of mind which is needed to set free whatever is in the brain" (Woolf 1080). If the sister was permitted to get an education, she would have been a genius like Shakespeare, but she was never able to find "a room of one's own". Women didn't have a place I the society, which didn't allow them to find their own place to think and become who they wish to be. Women were always brought down. They were "In search of a room of One's Own" where they can grow and become someone important.
An essay that really caught my attention was that of "Always Living in Spanish" by Marjorie Agosin. Which I can relate to because I was raised in the Spanish language. I enjoy writing in Spanish because it reminds me of my childhood and now that I'm older I have to translate for my parents so that they can feel accepted as well. Marjorie was born in Chile but then had to move to the United Sates due to violence in her country. In Chile, she would name the stars but in the United States "where [she] has lived since [she] was a young girl, the solitude of exile [made her] feel that so little is [hers]" (Agosin 532) which evokes a sense of rejection. She felt out of place because she was so used to her land, where she was born and was so familiar to every single aspect of it. Marjorie had to adapt to this new world where she felt it would never feel like hers. Learning the language was difficult and she did not want to forget Chile so she "became one who had to live and speak in translation" (Marjorie 533). She utilized the writing in Spanish to still feel connected to who she truly was and get a sense of belonging. When one of her poems was translated into English, that is when she truly understood and she didn’t have to explain herself. Although she was a woman, she demonstrated how she had become important because man “didn’t really see woman” (Agosin). Women weren’t recognized as much but language played a big role in making both men and women equal and even though I was difficult to accomplish, she expresses that it was in fact worth it.
The essay that also caught my attention was " How To Tame a Wild Tongue". This short essay made me feel a bit upset at first. Coming from a Mexican family I felt as if they were talking to one of my family members like they were to the main character, as they told her " If you dont like it go back to Mexico where you belong". I personally didnt think that was right to say and I dont think that you need to be born and raised on the country youre living in, in order to be treated equally. This essay being mainly about the different culture that hispanics have from the ones that live in the U.S and also the different accents caught my attention. I dont think trying to take away somebody's accent is right.( "their purpose trying to get rid of our accents"). I believe that as long as they are speaking the language in which you can understand when communicating, the way it sounds or comes out shouldnt matter. I also enjoyed how the narrator went deep into the difference between a Mexican and a Chicano. They both have different ways of speaking but towards the end come from the same branch. The different topics talked about in this essay such as Mexican cultural foods and music made me really connect and realize where I also come from.
A essay that I also enjoyed was "We Do Abortions Here" by Sallie Tisdale. It's commencement was very interesting, "We do abortions here; that is all we do". She seems to have a big disconnect to the actual consequences of an abortion. It seems like she does not understand that each abortion is the death of an actual person that could be. She sees that baby, the "elfin thorax" and the "pencilline ribs". She SEES the aftermath up close and personal and it seems like she is negating the fetus a life, a meaning. I understand that her job is one of monotony and repetition, but STILL. It is a baby that she is holding in a basin, bloody and dismembered. It is someone's daughter, someone's niece, sister, cousin, granddaughter. She sees them end. She still is not moved to quit her profession. I am not advocating for the pro-life activists. I understand that some women are not mentally or physically or financially prepared to bring a child into the world. I understand that but when a woman sees this day in and day out and still does not react emotionally, I question whether she even has feelings. I know that she is probably used to it and as such, learned how to not feel, but shouldn't it make your maternal instincts come out? Even if it wasn't your child to begin with? I believe that the real enjoyment in the reading came from analyzing and breaking down what the nurse is saying in her thoughts about the fourteen year old girl and her request to see the baby, or the women who giggle hysterically. I would never think this way about abortions but it is a fresh take on what abortions is and is not. It is a death of a baby or fetus or whatever you decide to call it, but it is not a cause to mourn for the rest of your life. I guess that all I'm asking is that she have some kind of emotion in her thoughts.
Although many of the short stories followed the same format, the one that stuck out the most to me was Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Journals. In this passage instead of telling the audience of some story that has a secret metaphorical treasure, Emerson shows a number of his idea’s ranging from Religion to the roles of women through his quotations in this passage. One of the ideas that I had trouble comprehending was the invisible bond that he felt after he saw a man say a “long earnest prayer”. I couldn’t even fathom how you could forge such a strong connection with just seeing someone pray. This thought perturbed my mind all the way to Turkey and still it had not escaped my mind after two weeks of staying with my host family. Although this bemused state of mind changed once my host brother invited me to go to mosque with him. As I saw him pray for one hour something changed in the atmosphere of the mosque, something that I myself cannot explain. For some reason as I saw him pray I felt a deeper understanding as well as bond growing between us. Although Emerson may not have meant this literally, perhaps he was trying to convey not only the beauty of religion but also the beauty of society as well. Usually when people see the world they will most likely point out the negative things, however instead Emerson is trying to point out the good that people do in society, even if it is just an earnest simple prayer. Although he does point out the beauty in society, he as well has a unique view on the darkness of society as well. He states how people who can “read and write”, the leaders of this country, made the slave laws legal, and it is this type of thinking that makes him see the “death” of society approaching. I enjoy his style of contradiction as he not only contrasts the ideas of beauty and detrition of society, but the idea of education and morals. I’m not certain that Emerson truly thought of the world like the way I described it; however like he said I enjoy reading about a person “who likes to see a fine barn as well as a good tragedy”.
Another one of the anthology essays that caught my attention was “On Going Home” by Joan Didion. I believe that the essay is tying to communicate that it is important to realize the importance of family. No matter what the case may be between your family and your spouse, it is important to keep strong ties between the two. Family is a very important part of life therefore we must make time out of our busy schedules to visit family. I find it very strange how Joan and her husband are from two completely different worlds; worlds that will never be shared with one another. Joan is most happy when she is with her family and it’s apparent because she can just act like herself. I believe that Joan will one day find herself unhappy because she will never be able to feel at “home” while she is living under the same roof as her husband. I think it’s foolish how on their own daughters birthday they cant just celebrate as one big happy family. Tensions like this will one day drive a wedge between the two. They will probably end up divorcing one another because they wont be able to live happily with one another, and they may also make their own daughter unhappy. A child should have a childhood filled with happy memories, not memories filled with gaps and holes of their parents missing out on special days. Although, Joan wishes that she can give her daughter a real “home” filled with love and one big happy family she unfortunately cant do that so, she settles for a xylophone, a sunny dress, and a funny story.
One of the anthology essays that really stood out to me was “9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane”. Although, this essay didn’t have an ending it really got me thinking about today’s modern world. The story begins with metaphorical diction that describes exactly what happened on the day of September 11, 2001 by describing the tragic terrorist attack as a “kiss” that was bound to occur. I truly believe that Thomas Hardy feels no sympathy for what happened on this date. Hardy believes that what happened on this date was no one else’s fault but our own because we put all of our trust in technology. As I read and re-read his argument, I was shocked with what he had to say. The “modern world” that I’ve always known and loved is not as beautiful as I’ve thought it to be. We trust the modern world so much because we have faith that the “odds are good”. When in reality we should be quite afraid of what the modern world could eventually do to us. Our dependence on technology has become quite normal to us. If technology were to ever fail us, what would we do? Trusting the modern world is like living life blindsided. We are blind to all the tragedies that could potentially happen to us at any second. Because we as humans have no other choice but to live with the world that we have created we must take a leap up faith and surrender ourselves. This means that the deaths of those that died at 9/11 had already surrendered their lives the second that they decided to walk into the World Trade Center because in that second they trusted the modern world with their life. They trusted the architecture of the building not to come crashing down, but instead another technological advancement of the modern world misguided them and failed them.
Elizabeth Umanzor- In the essay "We Do Abortion's Here" by Sallie Tisdale, the story is very different. I have never seen an actual story about what it is actually like to be working in an abortion clinic. What is even more intriguing is the fact that the nurse obviously supports abortion since she's working there; however, the way she describes her job is very gory in my opinion. It is rare to see or know about what truly goes on while murdering a baby. The nurse seems to be very care free, but she does take her job seriously, but she thinks about her patients first since that is her job. I thought it was very controversial when she stated, "it is a sweet brutality." The statement is an oxymoron and it shows how abortions truly are, they're painful at times, it is sweet for the women who finally are relieved after not having a child, but it is a brutality because a human life has been cut very short from the mother's womb. The way the nurse describes the way the doctor performs the abortion is almost as if he's just cleaning up a piece of trash. He "vacuums" out what the woman has inside her uterus and just like that... the baby is gone and the woman is no longer pregnant. What really made me frustrated is the fact that the nurse even confessed "sometimes I lie a little" about the actual size and age of the baby, they're medical workers and are supposed to give patients the actual information, even though I don't agree with abortion, it is also wrong to give a patient the wrong information just to get money out of them and kill a human life. In conclusion this story was very interesting because it is rare to hear about the other side of the abortion topic, it is rare to actually know about someone who works there and tells what actually happens in those clinics.
Elizabeth Umanzor- In the essay "How To Tame A Wild Tongue" by Gloria Anzaldua, I felt like I could relate to the say in a comical way, even though I have learned proper English and I speak proper English in front of teachers and peers... At home my mom does not speak proper English and says words like in the story "watchar... [and]... parkiar." My mom has influenced me to use those words, but mostly because they sounds funny, she has even made up her own words for the dog's leash, "lichi." On a more serious note, I actually believe that having an accent is something you should be proud of, in a society full of people who were born here in America, it is what distinguishes people from other countries to have an accent. Of course it isn't great if your accent is so thick that no one can understand you; however, if the accent is fine and you can understand that person... it is fine to have an accent. I also think it is a shame that some people who have parents from out of the country, that they don't know their native country's language. It is embarrassing to say that your parents are from some country, but you don't know that language. I also believe that jobs should not force people to know perfect English, because most people don't even use perfect English. On a lighter note to finish off, I thought it was pretty comical when she stated "agringadas" which basically means you have now been colonized by the white race and it has taken over you, you are basically now a white person. It's not a bad thing to be white person, but in the Hispanic community it is frowned upon if you embrace another culture that is not yours, even Korean or White or Indian, etc. I also agree that it is a shame if you embrace another culture that is not yours, it's okay to be interested in it, but to not lose yourself in it.
Post a Comment