Hello, hello.
Under this thread you should post a reaction to a second piece from the essay anthology (distinct and different than the first).
Remember that in addition to this anthology, you are expected to read one of the following:
a) Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse
b) The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis
c) Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl
For the first 1-2 weeks of school, be prepared to discuss anything from the anthology, as well as your spiritual text of choice.
Be well, read well.
LAR
34 comments:
Being a girl in this society can be extremely difficult, especially if you’re carrying another life with you. Being a mother can be a burden or a miracle upon young women aged 21 and below, because you can either embrace a new life or absolutely hate it. The feminist writer Sallie Tisdale focuses on the everyday life of a nurse who encounters young women trying to get rid of their unborn children. In the short essay “We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story”, abortion becomes a regular routine for a nurse who becomes surprisingly accustomed to this procedure. For the nurse in this short story, “the limit is allowing [her] clients to carry their own burden” because abortion is not an easy choice for any woman out there. By allowing the women to carry their own mistakes, the nurse gets to feel some sort of peace at mind because she constantly tries to distract herself from what her job truly is… producing abortions. Every day tons of young ladies accept the choice of killing another human for mostly their own benefit and go on with their lives as if nothing had happened. Sometimes abortion seems as an escape from reality and the true fears that can haunt a woman for the rest of her life, yet also as a way to avoid responsibility and the true nature of living. What’s a world without the young kids who bug you all the time? It can be extremely helpful to just think things through rather than have your whole life change with a simple process. Not everyone has the same reason for aborting, yet they’re mostly all similar. Responsibility is a huge one because young girls lack to demonstrate barely any care for themselves, much more will they care for another person feeding off of them. “These inadvertently made beings are caught in a twisting web of motive and desire” perfectly describes how each and every woman aborting feels because they are looking at the “what if’s” and the negative sides of aborting yet fail to stop themselves from it. Children are the “sweet, light promises of love an intimacy” preparing every one for what life is really like. Any one failing to accept the fact of gaining a new life should think twice about deleting it first. Children are the future and what keeps the human race moving on as oppose to stopping our lack of responsibility which in life is pertinent.
In the essay “In Search of a Room of One’s Own”, Virginia Woolf seems to be caught up in the one problem she presents at first, so much so that she does not seem to realize that she is doing absolutely nothing about it other than talking about it. Her problem that women have had a hard history and that there seems to be nothing quite significant that women have written in the past, blinds her from writing something truly significant herself. She complains about how hard women had had it in the past but refuses to see how far we women have come in present day. I don’t refuse that women have had a harsh history, but the past is in the past, and tomorrow presents a new future that only we are able to write ourselves with the present.
She starts off saying, “It was disappointing not to have brought back in the evening some important statement, some authentic fact. Women are poorer than men because of this or that.” But are we really? Or is this way of thinking hindering her from being a richer woman than men? The ladder sounds more like it because if that was true, than we would still be in the same place as we were in when women were only seen as property to men.
She continues on her rant by saying, “It would be better to draw the curtains; to shut out distractions; to light the lamp; to narrow the enquiry and to ask the historian, who records not opinions but facts,” but what is the importance of doing and knowing all of this non-sense if you are the one who can change what the historian is so tired of writing about women for the past century or so? We are women of today and leaders of tomorrow. We are the ones those historians continually write about that you keep bothering, we should give those historians something good, something different. Quit wasting time with non-sense and start anew.
“Shakespeare’s women do not seem wanting in personality and character.” But who said that we were Shakespeare’s women? Shakespeare wrote those plays a long time ago and even though they are still raved about in current times does not mean that they portray women indefinitely.
Virginia Woolf continually mentions this room that she wonders if women of the past had for themselves, but what she doesn’t do is take advantage of the abundant room women are given now to be entirely themselves. The room women of the past were not given due to society norms and expectations in multiple time eras. I’m sure that the women of the past would rather the people of the present and take advantage of the things we accomplished today than worry about what they didn’t have yesterday. And that is where I lay my case.
Abortion. Abortion is a pretty big topic that people can either agree or disagree on for hours. I see it this way, a girl can either have the abortion and live with the guilt that she technically got rid of a living person inside her, or she has the kid and live with her mistake for ever, which in most stories they grow to love that little miracle. In both situations it has always been and still is harder for the female to make the decision. In "We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse's Story" Sallie Tisdale introduces the narrator who has gotten use to the abortion procedure and now sees nothing wrong with it. she describes how "there is a numbing sameness lurking in this job" to emphasize how even though she has gotten use to the fear in clients eyes, the instruments used to do the deed, and the aftermath, she still feels sorrow for as she sees "the woman's swollen abdomen sink slowly to softness" coming to reality and recognizing what she is taking part of she "takes a breath" and continues with her daily life at that place. Not everyone has the same opinion on abortion, which is why I believe the author does not characterize the narrator as good or bad.
After reading, The Beatles" by Terry Teachout, i was completely taken away by the impact The Beatles had made on the modern music industry today. Before reading this essay, i had heard so much about the band "The Beatles" since i saw them everywhere on shirts or their famous walk on the "Abbey Road". It never occurred to me to check them out since i'm not a big fanatic over mainstream music. On the essay, a line that converted my belief about mainstream music was ," They explored the possibility of the hybrid art of the record album as an art object more successfully than any other popular musicians of their generations"(1120). This evoked the fact that the Beatles were concerned with what their music conveyed rather than receiving fame as many modern musicians crave. Other than wanting to make their art sacred, the Beatles made unique lyrics that inspired further generations within their music and this made me think that their fame was unique rather than a phenomenon. Another Line of the essay that caught my attention was when it said , “Lennon began to listen closely to the music of bib dylan…Thanks in part of dylans influence, lennon made his own similar break”(1117), showing that influences made a great impact on pieces of art, which also made me realize that the modern music we enjoy so much today was in favor of those who wanted to be so creative in the past. Now to conclude, i realized that maybe mainstream music isn't so bad, if many people like it then they obviously like it because it's just so darn good. This essay also made me realize that one should appreciate where their favorite music genre originated from because without it, your ears wouldn't be so satisfied. If you open your mind to a wide variety of music, then you could be more acceptable towards others and that I think is what will minimize the disgust for other music genres people have about. I gave the Beatles a chance and I actually liked them, I didn't like them till the point where I wanted to immediately download it into my Mp3 player, but it gave me that motivation to explore a variety genres of music because you never know what you might find.
Home can mean happiness, sadness, hatred, love, and many other feelings. In “On Going Home” Joan Didion is home for her daughters first birthday. Yet when she says “home” she blandly says that it is not where her husband, daughter, and she live, but where she grew up with her family. It seems to me that she feels a great clash of emotions when she is home. Joan Didion writes that she had a “normal and a happy” life as she grew up therefore we know she feels happy at home. But as she tells us more of her home and how she feels being with her family we see that she feels saddened when she has to leave. We come to realize that she resents her marriage for she states that “marriage is the classic betrayal”. I took this as her feeling as if her husband/marriage has caused herself to be distanced from her family. She also states that she and her family speak in code that her husband does not understand. He is an outcast and she beings to hate when he calls her showing her need to feel back at “home”. Towards the end of her narration, Joan Didion tells us of how she wishes to give her daughter the “home” she wants, but fears she can’t. Joan Didions narration not only identifies the crisis of identification she faces while at home, but the disintegration families face throughout the years. She narrates her idea of home and the feelings that come with that.
I find it frightening how boarding a plane could mean risking your life. Adam Goodheart's The Skyscraper and the Airplane details the various creations starting from skyscraper to the making of airplanes. Both inventions take people up high into the sky creating a risk factor that could alarm some people. The various descriptions of the origin of the word "skyscraper" shows the curiosity humanity had towards modernization. Humans have been wanting to discover something new, to experience something that has not yet been experienced. Since the beginning, we have dived deep into what could become of the future, despite the damage it could have to us in the long run. There's still a feeling of doubt when boarding a plane to this day. People become worried that their lives are in the hands of another person, a pilot to be exact. There's obviously other ways people could die, but giving another person that option becomes nerve wrecking. The curiosity people had in the early days led to the invention of flight and building skyscrapers. I've only boarded a plane once and it was a strange experience. I had a feeling that it would crash for some reason, or something might've gone wrong, but is it bad to think that way? Everyone has a conscious and mine was telling me "danger, danger, danger." After the flight landed, I felt happy I was on ground. There's just this safety about being on ground that makes me feel at ease. The whole incident on September 11, 2001 made the world different. The process of boarding a plane became extremely cautious, which is a good & bad thing for flyers. Although I don't really recall living through that moment in time, I do know that it had an impact on American life. The history of America has progressed and transformed over the years. People have made new discoveries which altered life in almost every aspect. The future is constantly changing, and we have to keep moving on with the modernization and industrialization around us.
Throughout my high school career i have learned two things: to never use violence because there is always an alternative and to never trust what you are reading. In "The case for Torture," Michael Levin constantly states his opinion throughout the whole discussion. He uses pathos to persuade the reader into thinking that violence is the only way to torture a person and cause them to surrender. he uses the example of asking "four mothers is they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their newborns back." This is considered pathos because people begin to feel sympathy for newborns because they are the definition of "innocence." This reference lets the reader know that the author is only focusing on only one perspective. Although he mentions the constitution and having the rights of people, he still does not take into acknowledge the reasons why people would commit some actions. He constantly uses examples of bombers, but he does not realize what the United States has done to some of them. The title is also a juxtaposition because a case has to do with the court deciding whether a crime is constitutional or not, yet a torture has been decided that it is not constitutional but a "barbaric" action. I want to challenge the author and ask if a crime can really be measured to determine if torture could be used? How can you know if torture could really be the answer to a problem? What if its only one person in danger? Would that change the way they handle things? I have also read "We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse's Story" and i feel like the women they talk about there also fit into this scenario. They are technically killing someone else to avoid having their life ruined, so should they be punished too? this goes back to my idea of never using violence because i feel like there is always other options and decisions that could be taken.
Being multi-cultural means having many cultures in one which does not suggest a mixture to create a bigger culture. In reading How to Tame a Wild Tongue I could not disagree more with the author’s point of view on accepting Spanglish as a progression and innovation to the Spanish language. I grew up in a family were every single one of them is a Mexican teacher that teaches in a school in Mexico, so slang was not acceptable. Chicanos have taken the native language and disrupted its beauty and purity. They have used the literal translation of things and have not only managed to make it sound improper but also make it be unprofessional, use it in a way that makes them seem uneducated, and gives a bad image of what it is to be Mexican and speak Spanish.
Chicano Spanish would be words that are used among the less privileged, those whom had minimal education and are from the rural parts of Mexico. It is not an invented language it is something that exists yet is not common because of its improperness and its bad grammatical errors. Not to mention the pronunciation sounds absurd to those whom can speak the language properly. Chicanos have taken Spanish and given it a different meaning, many times sounding improper and vulgar. Spanglish is not an accepted “language” because it is neither proper Spanish nor proper English.
In my personal opinion Chicanos are people that are culturally confused. They speak a “language” that is a mixture of two very beautiful languages when used separately. Rather than a progression it is a digression of what is proper for both languages making it harder to educate individuals, which in turn will make it that much more difficult to educate future generations because unfortunately they will grow up around the distortion of both the Spanish and English language. Which is the root of the problem in the first place, someone went around using the words improperly and never got corrected and it was spread. Parents are at fault for not correcting their children and teaching them about the wonders of learning both cultures.
Chicanos believe that they are creating a beautiful new culture, but the creation of their culture is a distortion of mine. I refuse to accept Spanglish and I refuse to let my future generations adapt to this form of language.
Torture is not only a means to end a life in the most horrifying ways, but can also be used as a means to save the lives of many. In the short story 'a case for torture', the author rationalizes the use of torture in mane specific scenarios. After reading this passage, I find my self contemplating the cases in which I would commit such actions. I cannot kill a butterfly without wincing, yet when faced with the idea that a stranger is threading the lives of my family our a loved one simply for self inflated joy or necessity, I would not hesitate to commit any action necessary to save my family. There are people in types world willing to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands simply for self fish pleasure our domination, and that idea in itself is not right. People without morals, scruples or the slightest shred of dignity, willing to risk it all for a cool name in death or demolition of those hated or different do not deserve a life, as we must respect and accept we are all one people. If one life will save ten thousand, then it may be worth the torture.
In the unbiased informative text, "The Case for Torture," gave both sides of the story when thinking about killing or torturing those who have thought of or killed anyone. That sentence was a bit confusing, but to clarify, I'll talk more about it. So, this text gives the idea that everyone one has when it comes to an individual murdering another. It's obvious that that person should be killed for what they've gone and have committed. I, personally, agree. It is unfair that that person lost their life because of their stupid decision. That person who killed that individual deserves to be punished and tortured. But, this text has given a different possibility. It is common that citizens think that torturing those murderers is against the constitution due to the violation of freedom. I also agree with that statement, but death is something anyone should play around with. People should be punished for what they did. There is another section in the text where it states that many policemen or government officials have caught individuals who are planning to commit a murder. The problem with this is that there are some individuals who are accused of murder when in reality they are innocent. This is very true. After the 9-11 terrorist attack, many people started attacking all arabians. That is something that bothers me a lot. In present day, many Americans treat arabians as if they were in lower class. They are given no respect. Personally, that's very inappropriate and very rude of individuals to do. That's not fair to those who have nothing to do with the 9-11 terrorist attack. No one should have to suffer this way because some individuals were being impulsive and committed a major crime. It's just not fair. And it bother me because it's very similar to being racist. People restrict themselves from individuals who are slightly different from them. It's something no one should experience. But, going back, it's very unfair for authorities to gather individuals just because they "think" they are planning on murdering individuals. Many innocent people are killed, and that's not okay. We need to get a better structure of what to do when accusing someone for a crime that they might now be a part of. That's my view of this topic. There are changes that need to be made because people are dying either way.
Annie Dillard is asked by her mother, "Do you consult this Everyone before you make your decisions?" This question in the final paragraph from the memoir, An American Childhood, captivates how in the real world, most humans let society determine their final decisions and control their opinions. I must admit that that this is an action that is seen everyday because it is a challenge to be an outcast, when most take a different path.It is easier to follow what the crowd says, especially as a young child. Growing up, young Annie Dillard, along with her siblings accompanied their out spoken mother and all were a witnesses of her "unstoppable force". Dillard's mother is constantly described as candid by her honest opinions and out of the ordinary actions. As a parent, she wants the best for her daughters so her actions and strong opinions reflect on the lessons she is trying to teach her three young daughters.One is to have fun in life, and she illustrates this when she takes her daughters to the Highland Park Zoo. There she pulls a prank by causing an pointless argument between a young couple. She does not try to resolve the argument she started, instead she leaves it for the couple to resolve, which also shows that the mother does not take things seriously and is more about having a good laugh. Dillard's mother has very strong opinions and is not afraid to speak up, multiple opinions from politics to home equipment. According to her, "torpid conformity was a kind of sin". Not standing up for your own opinion was a mistake and in short terms, it made you worthless to the world. Dillard's mother constantly shouts her opinion and may look crazy to her young daughters, but she does this to teach them a lesson. The lesson in which their personal and honest opinion is sacred and much more valuable than following what the crowd says. I must agree with Dillard's mother. Although it is difficult to take a stand on your own, it is much better to follow your heart and guts than to simply follow others. An example that is listed in the memoir is the Holocaust. Early 1900's, Jews and others were being persecuted in multiple parts of Europe. Genocides is a horrible and unjustifiable even, yet most of the world let many innocent people die because they were not wiling to take a stand. For a child as young as Dillard and her sisters, standing up for which president they think might win, might be difficult because they do not want to be the only ones standing up for president B when everyone else around them is routing for president A.
If you find it so hard to work at an abortion clinic, then why do you? As I was reading the “we do abortions here : a nurse’s story” essay I was so mortified by the bluntness of what they do to these women that go get abortions done but what shocked and confused me even more is why the nurse still worked there. The nurse talks about all of these procedures in a clinical way, how it’s a daily basis thing for her yet she has nightmares about it. This women herself suffers from watching other people give up the life of their children but she doesn’t quit. Instead she pours the blood of the innocent fetuses down the sink and freezes whatever won’t go down the drain. I myself am a catholic against abortion but I do comprehend that there are some situations where people really have no choice but for a person to have an abortion just because they don’t want to deal with the burned of a children is plainly wrong. It’s a sick thing when the nurse refers to abortions as getting a “manicure”. A manicure is something a person decides to get to feel better about themselves or because they need nails that look presentable for a certain occasion, I would have never thought that it could be compared to an abortion. The nurse hits a very important point in the essay when she talks about the flaw that people have in actually trusting all the different forms of contraceptives that there are because they aren’t reliable. It’s very tricky though that she states that opinion when mostly everything that is being told to teens right now is that if anything they should use condoms or get on the pill but why don’t they scare them instead with statistics as to how many actually get pregnant while using contraceptives? That could possibly lower abortion numbers.
The essay The Case of Torture discussed the points of view of the usage of torturing. Torturing is a cruel act which is continued to be preformed even in civilized societies, like the United States. Suffering from multiple terrorists’ attacks, the country makes a logical decision to keep using torture to save the innocent. It angers citizens, knowing that innocent people are in danger. It’s probably because those targets could have easily been one of them. The choice of using torture derives from people taking the situations personally. No one would want to desire death upon the innocent, so any sort of malice would make one want to balance the pain. They would approve of pain and suffering being the only way to solve the problem. It might be the only solution, but it impedes everyone of thinking for a better non-violent solution. People approve of violence because it seems to be fair. If people are being tortured without purpose by angry people, then angry people should return the pain. Torture comes from a sense of fear as well. The way people react to it does not always follow through their morals. The US is a powerful country, which is what probably makes people think that they can use any method on terrorist without penalty. In other words, they don’t have a limit. They could do anything, including the violence which goes against all morals. Torturing is not the best way to help situations, but it does help people keep calm. Everyone wants justice, especially those living in the United States. Therefore, people think it is obligatory to feel fairness in any situation. Having the personal fear of danger caused upon a terrorist makes people want torturing for the enemy. Not as punishment and not as a step to an answer their problems as they claim. Torturing is the result of fear from people and power as a strong, united country.
Michael Levin talks about torture and how countries and people take it as the key to getting what they want which the end result is never good but worse due to the actions that were taken to do what people think that torturing someone can lead to fixing problems. This is put in the essay “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin who adds on to his thoughts on torture and includes examples to add on towards what if and the that throughout the process if torture was the option what would it lead ….. His answer towards all end up being that instead of changing for the better it creates the situation to becoming worse. He includes though that “there are situations in which is not merely permissible but morally mandatory” to show torture becomes the answer even though when it truly is not needed. towards Levin’s argument on torture are that it’s just an act that creates even more issues to occur, my opinion would also be towards Levin’s thought since it can be helpful from times we here about getting info but the possible out comes that he placed could occur and lead to torture being nothing more but a death. Levin evidence are the examples he creates on situations that could occur and might end up happening. One example he puts “if you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn’t bring yourself to apply the electrodes?” which gives off the point that the end result with torturing will not always come out great as one wants. The use of torture at the point of view of people depending on reason might go with it but the end result will not help, along with torture is pain that can kill one and end a life. The results of torture shouldn't be use because it can never help on towards saving all lives or fixing something that one has done.
There seems to be a lot of controversy when it comes to Guantanamo Bay. The idea of torturing potentially innocent people is frightening to Americans, who thrive on the notion of freedom and due process. How is it that a country who upholds these ideals as truths contradict itself by implementing detention camps like Guantanamo Bay? These are all questions I stumbled upon while reading "A Case for Torture."
However, I do confess that I do find torture to be a tool America uses in order to protect the greater good. Any threat posed on the American people is taken with extreme and exaggerated caution due to incidents such as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing.
In cases such as these, it is vital not only to the government for criminal records, but for the public in order to reach closure and prevent future incidents. Although torture is not at all morally right, the U.S. government has recognized that those who pose threats towards a country as big and powerful as the U.S. will often take vows of silence, ensuring no useful information is released.
Growing up, our parents teach us that "violence is never the answer." However our government states otherwise. Wars are often initiated due to contradicting opinions or the inability to compromise. If going to war and defending your country is fine to do, why would torturing a terrorist be deemed wrong? Isn't it the same thing just on a much smaller scale? As humans, we see individual torture are inhumane and wrong. But a war, where thousands of people are killed, is perfectly acceptable due to fighting for a cause.
Torture is inhumane, and it is wrong. However, how else are we supposed to get the answers needed to protect the lives of innocent citizens, people who help keep American nourished? You torture one life, and possibly save the lives of a thousand people.
I tried my best to withhold judgment when reading Sallie Tisdale’s “We do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story”. I say this because I am a strong believer and advocate of the pro-life sect in the anti-abortion movement. Sometimes I find it difficult to create my own arguments when defending my position because for me, the delicate subject of abortion has been something frowned upon by my entire family and religion. Thus, I have not really considered abortion an option, or a choice. To me, and to many, how is it possible to argue against something so much opposed to your own values? Very easily one can fall into the traps of prejudice and insularity.
While reading the essay, I found it difficult to avoid noticing parallels between the authors opinion and my very own. In fact, I was surprised by Tisdale’s comments such as the way she described her patients and work. From her descriptions, I gather an image of ignorance and immaturity from her patients, which deals a great surprise to me. I would dare say that the nurse, does not really value the opinion or motive behind her patients desire to abort. I would even say that at times she is disgusted by the women standing before her.
She is no feminist. The author is a very practical realist. It is not in her interest to see that her clients are exercising their power of choice, but rather take that choice from them. She, I will venture say, is capable of completing her job because she is aware that some women are ill prepared to be mothers. They are girls as she calls them.
I’m not sure she even agrees with the procedure. Her closing statement could leave the reader with the thought that Tisdale does not agree with the ethics of her work. She would much rather live in a world where abortions aren’t necessary. She calls it the dirty work. People will hate her, criticize her, and judge her for the work she does, but someone has to do it. Very few people have what it takes to see hundreds of women go through the procedure of abortion. I’m not sure if I can call the author a strong woman. Perhaps, the reality is much simpler. There comes a point where one is desensitized from the image of blood and the crying agonies of would-be mothers.
To put in “absolute trust” into everything and anything that is around the world, the things that bring us safety and the ones that bring us danger. In the essay “9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane” by Adam Goodheart, this trust that one has to put in can either result in something good or bad. Putting this trust into things that can help us like skyscrapers and planes could be good for one self, with them being useful in a world where everything is connected. The planes that take businessmen and women around the world for work, and the skyscrapers one sees while driving down 45 passing Downtown Houston which are filled with people working on making more business. Although there is always the other end of the situation at hand with all the dangers that come with planes and skyscrapers with the constant fear that one has that something might fail, the slim chance that one is at the place and time where something goes wrong. With planes going down to structures around the country failing to do their job, there will be that concern that “What if?” question going through one’s mind. Now after 9.11 there will be that constant fear in ones heart and mind that something like that might happen again, but we also have to put our trust into what the government says and hope that nothing will go wrong. With that “fatal kiss” that no one expected, there is only that hope that a situation like that won’t affect the country again, but with that trust is the doubt that comes into play with what we have to believe. The future that can bring both destruction and creation to the world, the one that we have to trust yet doubt, the one that we have to believe will lead us to a “better tomorrow” is hopefully the one that develops and shapes the world into one that is more safe rather than dangerous to the society in it.
Home seems to be taken a new meaning with each passing generation that comes along. In the short story by “On Going Home” Joan Didion talks about how when people grow older they tend to reminisce on childhood. No longer having the option of reliving their childhood the mom realizes that with her new child. Growing up for most kids would mean protection from outside events until you become old enough to take care of yourself. That is how home is viewed, as a safe haven, but as you become older you have to take on responsibility for others, that’s when you lost. There are lots of events that occur like a “young girl on crystal” or having difficulties with like growing to accustom to partners family members. Challenges that you are not prepared for makes you realize something. Challenges make you realize that hanging out with others can be considered to have a home like feeling or looking back on childhood memories that brought you great joy or giving the child a birthday party in which you remember as a year full of memories. It is an old custom that seems to be forgotten with each passing generation as more people are focusing on other issues politics, careers, or other things. All of these are not as important as society makes it out to believe as more value is received from making you feel at home, being happy rather than doing want we are told. As the author describes it there is an “emotional charge” that we associate with home. As we miss the life of protection and innocence, we are happy that we’ve had those experiences in our lives. Although great we seems to have great grief in our hearts as there is a part we’re we must change to become like those before us and take on a more mature role in our lives. No longer having the luxury of acting as dumb as we want needing to move on from what we acted as. Home is place where we can be ourselves and feel comfortable with whatever we do.
Abortion is extremely controversial in the world we live in today. We have people who think that killing an unborn baby is absolutely wrong and against God whereas others might thing it is the woman's choice and body and she is able to do whatever she wants with them. In Sallie Tisdale's essay "We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse's Story", we get an inside scoop on what really goes on in abortion clinics. Tisdale depicts why she does what she does as well as the procedures that she sees every day. The females who walk in her clinic are both the same and different in a way. They're the same in the way that they fear the procedure as well as the questions that they ask the nurse. As Tisdale describes, an abortion is a great amount of pain that the girl goes through. It's scary to think of a giant tube going inside you to kill a baby that has been growing inside you for quite some time. Tisdale loves her job because she feels a connection; she feels as though she has a strength that these ladies need in order to get through their decision. Although she has nightmares of all the gory blood and the scarring humming of the machine as it sucks the fetus out of its womb, but in the end, she needs to be the one to be stronger than her client. They feed off of her strength, and for that she shows up for work every day. Being a woman is hard; they have to strive to he perfect and give their husbands what they desire. It's hard not being able to birth and raise your baby the way that every mother wants to. It then turns into the decision of the baby's happiness and needs. Not everyone is fit to be a mother. Some girls that go in are terrified teenage girls who've made mistakes and still in high school. They don't know how to raise a baby; they're simply too young. We have to think of it as having another person inside of you and how their life would be once they are born and growing. In some instances, some might say it is okay for a girl to have an abortion if she is unable to take care of the baby or if she was raped. Others might not be so open; they might believe that they are killing another human, even if it is not fully one yet. Her inside perspective is extremely controversial, but she has her beliefs and her reasons for working at a place that some may not think is right. As for me, I am still standing in the middle as to whether abortion should be illegal or not. Honestly, it's all up to what the woman wants and what she wants for the baby.
I have been a fan of The Beatles for quite a few years now. As Terry Treachout mentioned in his essay "The Beatles Now", it is true that their music often transcends the boundaries of time. It certainly did so for me. However, I disagree with some of his points. Like any other band, The Beatles struggled to make a name. They did not spontaneously become respected for their music as Treachout implies. Like many others, The Beatles relied on an image of clean cut boys to make it. They did not wear matching suits for fun.
However they eventually did reach the point where their music was respected for its content. This is especially true for their later albums where their material began to leave what Treachout calls the "lyrically naive" styles of the time. While what first attracted me to this band where the feel good love songs, the later albums filled with thought provoking lyrics were not hard to enjoy. I feel the same appreciation that Treachout shows in his comment on their "high quality" lyrics. While he scolds others for emphasizing too much on the lives of the artists instead of the art, I do feel that it must be mentioned. Neglecting their personal life is to neglect the cause for the advancement of their art. The change in their writing style was vastly influenced by the people and substances around them. By mentioning these facets of their lives, a better understanding of the evolution of The Beatles music can come about.
Ultimately, Treachout's essay was illuminating in the way that it made me aware of some of the stereotypes about The Beatles. Reading about a subject you enjoy teaches you something new. The studied opinion of a writer always helps to find a new perspective on both the good and bad aspects of the things you find interesting.
While I began to read "How to Tame a Wild Tongue", I immediately pictured my late great grandfather. I recalled his stories of, similar to the author, Gloria Anzaldua, getting swat with rulers and paddles for speaking Spanish in an all English speaking school . How despite the older he grew, he would always talk about remembering the sting of the wooden ruler on the back of his hands. They say that those who speak more than one language, tend to resort back to their first as they approach the endings of their life, and for my great grandfather, it was true. He understood everything that we spoke to him in english, but no matter what he would always respond in spanish because it was in fact his first language. Anzaldua's upbringing is the opposite of what I expected. She explains how her own family wanted to rid her of her accent where as I was expecting it to be the other way around. One thing I have grown to admire is the amount of pride people show in where they come from, and what culture they live by. This piece of writing shines a light on the pressure those non english speakers have to live through, which I have come to seen still exists. Society almost looks down on those who cannot speak English one hundred percent fluently. In fact, the part of the piece that uses the term "cultural traitor" is something I can definitely see happening. Those who are not "american", whatever that may mean, are accused of being too foreign to be taken seriously where as if you don't project and take pride in your roots or original culture, you are accused of being a traitor. There really is no winning. There is a scene in one of my favorite childhood movies, Selena, where Selena's father is talking about how difficult it is to be a Mexican American. You can never completely satisfy both sides, and you never should have to. As I read this article and think about the struggle it is to "control one's tongue", it does not just mean speaking a language, it means trying to control one's overall culture which I feel is impossible. One should never have to change the way they express their culture in order to satisfy those around them. One's culture makes them who they are, and unique, there is no secret formula to perfecting it because kit cannot apply to every single person in the world.
What will have a greater impact, the death of a single tree or the death of a whole forest? Take the pain and suffering from a single human and try to compare it to a thousand human beings. No matter how "important" that person is, their pain and suffering will not compare to that of a thousand people. It is necessary to do take action and to protect the United State citizens. It is important to take necessary measures, such as torture to help prevent a huge massive loss. Putting a terrorist's life at stake, justifies the protection of those that are endangered due to the terrorist. Torture is a necessary measure to take to help prevent future situations in which citizens lives are at stake, as explained in "The Case of Torture" by Michael Levin.
Technology will always evolve into new forms, and it will continue to gain our trust as it makes everyday things easier for us. As humans, we fall in love with things that facilitate things for us because of efficiency and convenience. Although skyscrapers don’t fit in our pockets like our phones, it’s a type of innovation that has helped us populate cities by thousands and thousands. We trust tall, enormous buildings with our lives just like we trust our phones with personal information. We believe that the chances of something going wrong are negligible since it’s rare to be “betrayed” by innovations. It’s impossible to not depend on a type of modern innovation in this generation because the majority of things have been developed on a technological basis. We go through our daily lives without thinking of what could go wrong every time we buy something through our phones or when we send an important email. It isn’t until a drastic event takes place when we realize that we shouldn’t trust every new invention that is created by people that we’ve never met. The actual event of an airplane crashing into a skyscraper was inevitable because of the tallness of those buildings. We cant expect that a type of innovation will never bring some type of disaster. That would be like driving since the age of 12 and thinking you’ll never be in a car wreck even if it’s a small one. Being scared of new innovations that are used every day would place any person at a disadvantage in this technological advanced world. A CEO would never be able to be the head of a company if he is to afraid to even set foot in his own company skyscraper. It would make other employees feel unsafe, and work in the company would never get done. At this point of the century, any fear of innovations, like airplanes, has to be overcome or at least ignored or else it will hinder any person from reaching ultimate success.
As I read On Going Home, I come to realize what exactly it wants to portray as an essay. And, what I see most blatantly is the disappointment that is growing up, having your own life and changing your perspective on formerly loved objects and people. The speaker in this essay speaks of going home and not seeing the comfort that most people tend to see which is very different than most others would ever comment on. She speaks that her family members have changed and that her husband’s family members don’t really match with him. And, it’s funny because they use such heavy burdens on a family with issues such as mental stability or criminal records. Clearly, if anyone’s family was riddled with these detrimental issues, they would clearly feel less attached. They seem to feel as if that link between them and their family was broken when they all grew up and changed completely. Similarly, they relate it to objects that used to have pure meaning to them, that now seem to be meaningless.
She also comments on how others are young while they seem to grow up, especially with the girl in the competition. She seems very distant from her, besides from being a stranger, because of the fact that she’ll never really be able to connect to her with something that she saw valuable. And, this comments on the whole age gap and the trouble of not seeing a connection with anything. Clearly, she’s portraying that some people grow up not just in age but in perspective besides the wisdom. Some people tend to distance themselves from everything that used to be and that is now. As if, they don’t have anything to relate to because they themselves call upon it to feel different.
Then, the ending catches my attention because I’ve heard this before. I’ve heard that adults always can feel bad for children because they see their ignorance as just temporary. The speaker wants to tell her, but she doesn’t because she will let her enjoy the childhood she has. And, it’s quite somber to think this way because it’s pessimism to an extreme. They think that this child will become them, which isn’t true. For me, it’s a bit more over how much control you have over yourself. I can easily see why the speaker thinks this way, but the mind ultimately is under your control. It may be hard to believe, but people can chose their emotions, maybe sometimes less apparently. But, people have the choice to act on their own, and I don’t believe the speaker really understands that.
In contemporary America, the month-and-day combination of September 11th carries an inherent stigma behind it, a stigma that will be eternally bonded to the nightmarish events of that horrific day. I think it is indisputable that the manner in which September 11th has single handedly altered the internal systems of our country and sparked an unfortunate and harrowing new era in American history is beyond incredible. However, the true motives and definite reasons for the events of September 11th remain a nebulous mystery, faded behind a wide array of different descriptions and theories that only plummet the truth further into the unknown. Despite this, I particularly enjoyed Adam Goodheart’s perspective on this day in his essay “9.11.01: The Skyscraper and the Airplane.” Through a complex analysis of this histories of skyscrapers and airplanes, I was intrigued by the manner in which Goodheart spun the idea of 9-11 from the destruction of peace and the moral of a nation caused by the collision of the two man-mind technologies, the airplane and the skyscraper, to how we as humans embark on these same dangers, willingly, and almost out of necessity.
I frequently notice and believe that we as humans are naive to the potential destruction set before us daily, simply because of our own somewhat ignorant trust and belief that because something like the crash of an airplane or the collapsing of a skyscraper are improbable translates to such occurrences being impossible. Just as Goodheart claims, we truly do live in a world where the possible destruction of everything we as humans care for could be right before us. While we enjoy to blame one group of people or another for the tragedies of 9-11, we often forgot that the ultimate criminals, no matter who they are or their beliefs are humans utilizing human inventions to bring forth destruction to more humans. It is truly frightening to consider the destructive power of human ingenuity, coupled with human ignorance and the dangers that we trek through throughout our lives, even in simple activities such as riding up an elevator to the 40th floor of a skyscraper, or flying from Houston to to New York to play a game of football. This truly makes me consider the idea Goodheart proposes of what it means to be modern, as I can see it in my own life. The thrill of danger, the hunger for adventure. We as humans really do relish in these types of activities sometimes for the nominal remuneration of simply saying we are “living in the moment,” living in the modern world where we could all experience our very own personal 9-11’s, our own destruction by our own hands and minds.
The topic of abortion is very controversial. Some religions do not approve abortion because is killing a life which is against God, and others say it is the decision of the woman who is pregnant to terminate a life or not. In my opinion, I believe that abortion is wrong because it is a life that is being taken away. In the essay “We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story” by Sallie Tisdale portrays what goes on inside abortion clinics. As one suspects abortion clinics are filled with terrified women who are mostly young. Through the quote “Doesn’t it hatch out of an egg there?” depicts the naivete of the young women who go to a clinic to get an abortion. Tisdale states that every woman who walks into the clinic is the same but different as well. They are similar through the fear and nervousness they go through, but differ in the reasons why they are getting the abortion. Some women get the abortion because they made a mistake and do not want a child, while others were raped and are unable to support the child. In my opinion, I believe that abortion is not the answer to these women’s problems or challenges in life. If they are unable to support the child, they should just have the child and give it up for adoption, which is a lot better than killing a life. It is not the small embryo’s fault that it was brought into the world; it was the mistake women and men make. If they were to abort the embryo, they would live in regret, most likely not at that moment, but in the future they will remember of that child they could have had, but decided to kill. Abortion is not something that is simply done and you are finished with it. It will be stuck in your memories for the rest of your life, and just like how the Tisdale has nightmares, so will the women who abort a beautiful creation. Although this is what I believe, the women who hold the baby inside their womb make the ultimate decision.
I grew up in Mexico, so coming here to the US and encountering Spanglish was both shocking and uncomfortable. Personally, I don’t see Spanglish as a branch of the Spanish language at all. Rather, I think of it as a distorted version of Spanish.
The first Spanish I was taught was the professional and neutral Mexican Spanish; so when I went head to head with a Spanglish speaker for the first time it was irritating. I still remember telling my elementary art teacher that the proper way to say look in Spanish was mira when interrupted by a girl that spoke Spanglish. Confidently, she chimed in, “Na-aa. You say ira”. As calmly as I could I replied and told her, “Ira means anger.”, then stressing the m I told her, “Mira means look.” Thinking I was completely wrong, she turned to another girl and asked her how look was “properly” said in Spanish. The other girl replied ira. I was speechless. How could these girls not understand that their Spanish was wrong?! Inside my head I was thinking “Homegurl, how you gonna argue against someone from the Mother Land?!” I kept trying to make them understand that the proper way to say look in Spanish was mira and that ira meant wrath, but they did not understand. Finally, I exploded and yelled “PIN**** BABOSAS SE DICE MIRA!!! Pregúntenle a Mr. Linares!” I was sent to the office for unruly behavior. But I couldn’t help myself. They had committed and indelible grammar sin against Spanish and I had to reprimand them for it.
This scene and many other cases where I’ve had to correct Spanglish speakers have been imprinted on my memory and often I have found myself thinking and over analyzing how the infamous Spanglish came to be. And I have found a reason. In its essence Spanglish is just bad Spanish intertwined with English and mixed with laziness and/or negligence to correct one’s grammar and vocabulary. Unlike what author Gloria Anzaldua claims, Spanglish is not beautiful and it is certainly not something to be proud of. She also claims that Spanglish “…is the result of the pressure on Spanish speakers to adapt to English.” (Anzaldua 527) With all due respect to her and to other Spanglish speakers, it’s not. I have noted from Spanish-speaking family friends, neighbors, cousins, aunts and uncles, my paternal grandfather, my parents and I included that even though we also felt the pressure to learn English we did not start speaking Spanglish. Sure, the younger generation has lost the Mexican accent when speaking English, but our Spanish has stayed unaffected by the “pressure” to learn English, except for the occasional borrowed word that can’t be translated. Maybe our —and by our I’m referring to myself and the people that I know and I’m putting as an example— Spanish was left intact by the “pressure” of learning English because our parents glared at us when we replied to them in English, cut us off mid sentence to instruct us on how to properly say something in Spanish, traumatized us with their rants in Spanish forcing us to catch up and understand unless we wanted them to "dust our behinds", and warned us not to speak in English to them and our intimate circle of family and friends unless we wanted other people to talk badly about their parenting and thus bring disgrace upon the family.[S/N: Yes I was being sarcastic and yes did exaggerate... but just a little bit.]
Sure, Spanglish may retain some archaic words or contain dialect from various regions of the Spanish-speaking world, but as long as it contains bad grammar and chewed up English mixed in it cannot be considered or even referred to as Spanish.
Throughout reading this essay, I noticed it was a jumble of thoughts. I looked back on the title and noticed it was a journal; the journal of Ralph Waldo Emerson. This essay is composed of entries, ranging from a paragraph to just a sentence from 1828 to 1867. I found it extremely interesting the words that he would write. For example, he wrote “The things taught in colleges and schools are not education, but the means of education. [1831]”; in his journal he constantly writes thought provoking sentences or paragraphs. I had to reread some parts because I did not understand some of his entries. It seemed to me he just wrote random thoughts about life in his journal everyday he learned something new. However, he wrote it in a way that has a story or provokes the reader to think a bit about what he said. Through his journal entries the reader can see his points of view about his life and the world around him; his thoughts give that entry. One of my favorite entries is one where he says “A man must have aunt and cousins…must saunter and sleep and be inferior and silly. [1838]”; I took it as a man must have his family, responsibilities and his flaws. That is how I think individuals should be, because nobody is perfect. It was amusing reading his entries because each one drastically changed every day. Every day he had something new to say; almost like a moral saying after a story. Each of his entries is unique and says much about life. That is the reason why I think it is so thought provoking because we as readers think on what he says and may or may not agree with what he wrote. It is more interesting how there is so much to ponder about because each paragraph or sentence varies, therefore they are different lessons to learn.
Torture in the eyes of many people now a day in society as a cruel and inhumane process that goes against the constitution and should not be enforced not allowed to occur anywhere. However Michael Levin challenges this thought through “The Case for Torture”, by saying that there are situations where thinking of torture as inhumane is inhumane in itself, that there are times where one life is not enough to our way the lives of millions. Levin puts many different scenarios on the table where you would have to say that torture on one person sounds reasonable when it comes to that person’s life or a city’s population. Levin also says something that quite picked my interest when he asked 4 different mothers that if a terrorist had kidnapped their newborn baby form the hospital and asked if they approved of using torture to get their babies back. They all agreed to it and even said that they would want to do it themselves. I was not very surprised about their response but by their readiness to do it, the image of a mother is a care taker a protector to see these people, these mothers ready to torture another life which another mother nurtured. I am by no means being biased as to whether or not I think torture is right or wrong because I wouldn’t really know how I would react under these circumstances in reality. Another thing that Levin said was that he sees torture as “an acceptable measure for preventing future evils.” He challenges the modern conception of torture as it being an immoral and inhumane method to get information, to a reasonable action under certain circumstances where many more than just one life is at stake. He puts it as torture “is justifiably administered only to those known to hold innocent lives in their hands.”
Its interesting how many different perspectives people have of the word "Home". For me its where I am most comfortable and at ease with myself. At the moment that place is my home, because I am surrounded by people that love and care about me. Being surrounded by those type of people makes me feel safe and comfortable. For some people "Home" is where they have created a family. I asked my mother if what she is living in is her home or her childhood house? I am not sure if my mother said that the house she is living in right now was her home just to not make me feel bad but that was her answer. I do not know the feeling of having a family but my mother described it as a sweet beginning.In the essay home is the house that she lived in her childhood because of her memory's. Every item that still remained in her home connected her to a specific memory in her childhood.
After I finished reading Michael Levin's story I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly and questioning myself and what I believed in.I used to think that I didn't want criminals to get hurt by human means but by time and pure agony.This story sparked something in me and has opened my eyes to new solutions and precautions with criminals.I think Levin's whole point of writing this short story was to open our eyes to new perspectives and to make us reflect on our moral standing.Many people now a days think that torture is inhumane and to a minimal extent I would agree but if thousands of lives could be spared on the small price of one suffering I would pick that choice every time without thinking about it.Torture seems to be the most non violent way of saving lives from terrorists and the most shunned. Levin asked us that if we were the ones who caught the terrorists if we would feel comfortable with ourselves knowing that many other people died because we weren't brave enough to torture them as a means to ensure the citizens safety and I know that I wouldn't be able live with myself because I would keep thinking of all of the lives that could have been spared if I had just chosen to make them suffer. Over all I think that Levin explained his opinion on torture very well and persuaded me to think about more trivial things.
“Abortion is so routine that one expects it to be like a manicure: quick, cheap, and painless.” Sallie Tisdale’s essay, We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story highlights the daily responsibilities and hardships that are bestowed upon nurses working at abortion clinics. Tisdale explains that she finds joy in her job primarily because it enables her to be a rock for them women making such difficult decisions. Although she finds happiness in being an individual whom can make an impact in the lives of women, she is somewhat aggravated by the fact that getting an abortion has become such a casualty. Women expect to get an abortion and assume that it is the solution to a single problem. I completely agree with Tisdale. Being a sixteen year old girl living in America in 2014, I acknowledge that times are much more different than they were when my mom or grandmother got pregnant. Resources to attempt to avoid pregnancy or to abort a child are much more prevalent throughout the country and more accessible to girls and women who do not desire to have a child. I personally have a friend and his girlfriend got pregnant at seventeen years old. She claims to be a devout Christian girl who is pro-life but went behind her boyfriend’s back and aborted their child. Following her abortion, she experienced severe depression. She was oblivious to the consequences of getting an abortion prior to deciding to get one. I cannot envision the burdens that abortion nurses experience, much less the women who decide to get abortions. At the end of the day, I believe that people should question if the fetus that is being aborted has the right to live. An unborn child does not have the opportunity to advocate for himself or herself. I am positive that someone will reply with “but doesn’t the mother have a choice? It’s her body. What if she was raped?” I see where people desperately attempt to go with the rape justification but are all of the women who seek out abortions rape victims? According to Operation Rescue, less than 1% of the 1.21 million abortions that are performed every year are a result of rape/incest and approximately 37% of abortions are performed because women are not ready to accept responsibility for a child/do not want their lives to change. Consider that.
When one thinks of going home, they usually think of relaxation and peace not dishonor or frustration. I know that a family will never agree on one thing but that shouldn't determine the amount of times one see each other. When one gets married, it gets a bit more hard. It’s not just your actions and pet-peeves that you have to take in consideration, you have to remember about your partner. Families might not get adjusted quickly through this process but its something that one should strive for in order to have a better
traveled down south to visit her family. The main problem with Joan was that at a young age, she knew that she wanted to discover what other places had to offer. With her return, came a bunch of old memories hidden in the back of her brain in order to ignore her reality of life. She went to visit her baby cousin, who she constantly compares to her self. She doesn’t want to promise that she will always be there for her because she knows that she isn’t able to commit to that. She didn’t want to be the old lady that just said awkward stories in order to entertain the younger children, but she had to realize that she was going to be that old lady.One tends to want to better them-self's and realize that there are certain individuals that will keep you back from doing what you want. In Joan perspective, it was her birth family. The old customs that they seem to still follow did not seem to help Joan to live her “modern” lifestyle in the city.
In Mr.Anderson’s classroom last year, we were discussing a city that had not been able to prosper ever since one person came in to the city.We were told to decide if we wanted to allow that person to stay in the city or tell them to leave.After everyone had decided on their answer, we split up into what we picked. Over half the students wanted to kick the person out.He then proceeded on to telling us who the person was.The person was an orphan that lived on the streets and had no where to go. We were able to decide if we wanted him to leave or stay. The about 90% of the individuals who wanted him to leave moved to the stay group. I preferred to have one person suffer than to have a whole city suffer. In the essay,” The Case For Torture”, Michael Levin makes an arguement on to why he believes in torture being an “acceptable measure for preventing future evils”. The story I provided above shows how in order to save people, you have to risk putting another person’s life in danger. Although it seems barbaric to say that torture is good, we have to understand on to how we can manage to make torture a succesfule way of making sure we are being provided correct information without killing the criminal while trying to torture them. A main issue that might arise could be a person’s moral beliefs. One individual may not care about having to torture another person but another individual cannot even lay their hands on any other person because they feel guilty of having gone against their moral beliefs.
Post a Comment