Chrummboew

My one problem with Trumbo's assertion in that soldiers can only fight for a cause that is their own and not an ideal is the lack of unity within an army if all the things the soldiers are fighting for are separate. The purpose of fighting for an ideal, or at least to the higher-ups in an army, is to unite all the soldiers behind this idea. This makes these soldiers a much more cohesive unit with more drive to fight, eventually making the whole army more powerful. However, where Trumbo is right is that some people will not believe in the ideal in the first place, and this is where the situation gets tricky. Creating a draft, although sometimes necessary, causes problems in the way of camaraderie and the inner drive of soldiers, so such a practice should be avoided until circumstances call for its definite necessity.

I can't think of a good phonetic scramble for this one. I'm all worn out.

This is just a personal observation, and it relates to my personality as a reader and probably nobody else's, but I find the organization of the book to be a major pain. Once I understood that Joe was in bandages from head to foot, or lack thereof, I wanted to find out more about Joe's condition! Would he be all right? What permanent damage will he suffer? (I now know the answer to that question is a bunch) But instead, I read a bunch of flashbacks to Joe's past. His friends, his family, his enemies, and even people he barely knew intertwine in his thoughts throughout the novel, and it really bothers me because I find this part irrelevant to the knowledge I want to obtain. I don't care what message is trying to be made through these memories, but the only message I wanted to receive from the book is what happened to Joe. I know Dalton Trumbo is a greater writer than I could ever hope to be yadda yadda yadda but that aspect of the book, at least for me, was a major nuisance.

Jhahknee gaht hihss Ghuhnn

The general themes of "The March of the Flags" by Albert Beveridge and "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo are not entirely related, but there is one idea from both pieces of fighting on foreign soil for "liberty and civilization." The main goal behind America's entry into the First World War was to preserve said liberty in Europe, and the entries into both wars came about as the result of attacks on American ships, thus creating a threat to American civilization. However, Beveridge's speech takes a more positive optimistic approach to such action, while Joe Bonham takes a cynical approach to such ideals, which is perfectly reasonable seeing as he no longer had a face, arms, or legs due to the preservation of "liberty and civilization."

Uhmehrrikuh Da Byootiphull

The main connection between "America the Beautiful" and "Johnny Got His Gun" is the emphasis on a lack of understanding of Americans about why they fight in the wars each writing is related to: The former for the Iraq war and the latter for World War I. As he lies deaf, blind, dumb, and limbless in his hospital bed, Joe Bonham wonders why what happened to him was needed; why did he have to go fight. "America the Beautiful" Also questions the level of understanding of Americans of the current American war and discusses how important this is to a secure, safe and united population. Both pieces are clearly antiwar in that they question whether or not there really is any way to understand why wars are being though almost no matter what the situation is.

Reezistinss n Duhmahkruhsee

Of all the pieces of this country that keep the federal government in check, the resistance of the people is the most important, because without the resistance of individuals and groups against the government, then the government has no limits to what it can do. The main part of resistance in democracy is the voting process itself. Every citizen over 18 can resist a tyrannical maniacal leader by voting them out of office in an election and their is nothing said leader can do about this. This forces the congressmen and individuals with executive power to "act appropriately" and conduct themselves in a manner representative of the people, or at least most of the time. Without this voting privilege, the only other form of resistance is protest, and this is something the government could control with violent repression if there is no chance to vote out anyone. That is obviously an extreme case, but my point is that without the vote, America would be a dictatorial monarchy whose well-being totally depends on the competency of one permanent ruler.

Mohr Jenndurr

I don't know how incredibly recent this is, but one issue regarding sexuality this topic reminded me of was the American Idol season in which Adam Lambert was defeated by Kris Allen in the season finale. I am in no way shape or form a dedicated "Idol" fan, but I do remember there being a particular uproar over the fact that Lambert was supposedly not chosen as American Idol because he was gay. I know very little beyond this about the situation, but I think it can be taken two ways. The first would be that it's pretty sad how our society has sunk quite low in judging a person not by the quality of their singing and performing abilities, but by their sexuality. The second would be that it's pretty sad how our society has sunk quite low in creating the "sexuality card" to go along with the race card. The boy who cried racism can now also be the boy who cried sexualityism (help on that word anybody?) and this becomes incredibly problematic, as it becomes harder and harder to fire certain segments of the population because of accusations of bigotry. Do I have any idea which is true? Absolutely not. I'm no judge of singing ability, so whether or not Lambert was more talented than Allen is a question I can't answer. But the real question coming out of this is what direction has our society gone from this and what can we do about it.

Mehrridge #5

Wolfson uses the Turner v. Safley case to tie to the idea that banning same sex marriage is ridiculous because they cannot get married while the hardest of murderers in our federal justice system are allowed to be married. This is a great strategy because it calls out the same sex marriage proponents as demonizing homosexuals as a lower class of citizen than mass murderers. With homosexuals being the last segment of the population to be denied the right to marry, Wolfson's point makes perfect sense in the context with the rest of his piece. Without Wolfson's connections being made in this piece, there would be no crystal clear connection from Turner v. Safley, but after reading the piece the connection is very clear.

Iht taykz Uh Phammlee

In his piece entitled "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good", Rick Santorum references an analogy made by a Dr. Horn to explain his views on single-parent families. Dr. Horn compares child-raising to two planes. The first plane (family with a mother and father) almost always gets you where you need to go successfully. The second plane (single-parent family) gets you where you need to go, but less often than the first plane. When reading the passage, I did not find this metaphor to be incredibly earth-shattering. Dr. Horn is only stating what Santorum already had through his use of the results of studies in a much less effective manner. In fact, I found it to be a very silly example to put in the middle of a piece so heavily relying on concrete facts and human reasoning. However, in a very shallow and useless way, I guess the point is still made that mothers and fathers as a parenting team are more effective than single parents.

Jenndurr

My grandpa makes brownies. Absolutely fantastic brownies. I would vouch for the fact that these brownies are the best brownies in all of Delaware County (I don't know how much that means). However, much of society would find it quite odd that a man would be a brownie maker, let alone a good one. However, my grandpa is very proud of his brownies and would gladly share them with anyone. What I find interesting about gender stereotypes is that in this particular case, my grandpa is totally unashamed of his actions. But I could never imagine my grandpa wearing a dress, and I am sure he would never wear one in public. I think it's funny not only to picture my grandpa in a dress, but to also view the differences between the subcategories of gender stereotypes.

Vasskezz

The purpose of Vasquez's style of writing in this piece is to enlighten the reader on the stereotypes they are making. Brian and Mickey's stories were both told in the style they were to try to lead the reader into believing that they were gay in both situations. Vasquez then told you their actual sexual orientation, creating a sense of guilt in the reader for the judgement they have just made. This then also magnifies to the readers the injustices done against the two men, which were done because of false assumptions made about the two. And finally, the most important purpose behind Vasquez's writing was showing how both homosexuals AND heterosexuals are negatively affected by the stereotypes, making a connection to ALL of the possible readers.

Duh Toekevil

In his piece, Alexis de Tocqueville states his view that Americans look at women in a totally different manner than Europeans do. He believes that in the eyes of Americans, women are on a completely different plane almost totally unrelated to the plane upon which men operate. Whether or not this could create a position of superiority de Tocqueville did not know. But he was sure that this system did not compare to Europe, where women in the society were seen as equals. The main difference, de Tocqueville believed, was in the rights of women in the different countries. In Europe, not only were women treated equally, but they also had equal rights, where as in America, women were both treated differently and given different laws. de Tocqueville then finished the piece by predicting that because of their current inferiority, women would eventually attempt to rise up and achieve equality, something that proved to be true.

Byebye Black Boy

The main realization of Richard Wright at the end of the novel is that through his writing, he has an incredible power that he can share with others. That does not necessarily mean that the audience will be receptive, but he can nonetheless express himself in a unique and powerful way. By the end of the novel Wright has gone through life noticing how the majority of people have lost hope and are pessimistic about their own lives and their future. Wright feels that this is a problem because without hope in one's life, there is no real life. This makes sense to me because a large portion of life is about striving towards your goals with confidence, and if there is no hope for the future, then there really is no future.

Layngstun Hyooz

The poem "I too" by Langston Hughes and the beginning of Chapter 17 in black Boy are very similar in that the main focus of both pieces is unity as a result of white oppression. Hughes' poem spoke frequently about how even though at the current moment there was nothing he could do about his situation, he and his black brothers and sisters would eventually be able to overcome their obstacles and eat with everyone else, no longer held back in the kitchen. Richard feels his sense of unity at a relief station while he is trying to get food. He finds that he can relate to the situations of the people in this place and that even though they are all suffering, they are at least suffering together.

Ahhpoessitt Poules?

Richard's statement that artists and politicians stand on opposite poles is a reasonable one from his position, because he is in a way an artist and he has had poor experiences throughout his life with politicians. However, both politicians and artists have the roots of their professions in attempting to convey some sort of message. Politicians communicate this message through speech. Artists communicate through their work. In both cases, the more each profession's message is accepted and supported, the more successful a career the artist or politician will have. Also, as in every profession, there are those that make artists and politicians look good, and those that make them look very very bad. Once again, Wright's argument makes complete sense within the context of his life, but with a broader and less biased view of, the relationship between artists and politicians comes across very differently.

Mahlkum EX

Malcolm X took up reading while in prison because he was mightily struggling with finding a way to better express himself. However, Malcolm gained much more from the experience. He learned all about the history of America, and because he saw slanted bias in the passages he read, he realized the oppression of history the white race was pushing. Thus he developed his radical views about race relations which led him to be the incredible reformer he was with such a great impact on the American Civil Rights movement, and to eventually be a martyr for the cause. Richard Wright learned to read under similarly poor circumstances but found it important for a different reason; the escape from the terrible reality around him and a hope for something more.

The Wright Choice?

Richard Wright made the correct decision at the end of Part 1 to move without question when you look at the abundance or lack-thereof of opportunity up North compared to his current location. Richard's talents in communication and his aspirations to become a writer fall upon deaf ears everywhere around him in the Jim Crow south, and even if he had received support from his family, in such a racially segregated area, there was really no hope for Richard's success. Richard really needed a fresh start, and the only way for this to come about was for him to move North again. Had he not, he very well could have become like his father and his friends: complacent with their below average lives and both unwilling and unable to work their way up to a higher class level. By moving, Richard once and for all removed himself from those shadows and became his own man.

Iz Suhbsurrvyanse Nessecairy Four Lihveeng?

Like just about everything else on Planet Earth, subservience can be a good thing to grow up with at a moderate level. Every individual needs to be taught to a certain degree that it is important to have respect for people in a position more prominent than one's own, no matter how terrible that person may be. If one is taught to be subservient to a greater degree than necessary, that can be very dangerous, because it teaches the child to stay in said subservient role and not to have aspirations for an improved social or economic position. However, if there is no subservience taught at all from a young age, the benefits of living without it are really a flip of the coin. Some of the most powerful people in the world are where they are today because they refused to be subservient and do what they were told. They fought against establishment and won. But there are of course those who do not fare so well in fighting this establishment, such as many African Americans in the Jim Crow south. The system was so slanted against them that there was really no hope of success, and many of the people who refused to be subservient blacks to dominant whites lost their lives for it.

Koapeeng width the Wight Wurld

In Chapters 10 and 11, Richard realizes that throughout the majority of his early life, he not only did not "cope" with the white world around him in rural Mississippi. This was mostly because of his lack of exposure to much of the white world in his family and friends and the area surrounding his various homes. All he can see is a number of related blacks struggling to find their place in society and to remove themselves from poverty. Richard is unable to understand why these people are unable to succeed because he does not yet understand the situation he is in due to his race. As he grows older, he comes to then realize the prejudices against him and the discrimination he is going to face in his future. This has a special effect upon Richard, who is attempting to acheive something farther than most black people in his region ever imagined, to become a writer.

Haytread uhv jooz

Throughout the early part of his life, Richard had the idea of hating the Jewish people engrained into his mind, and stated that it was his "cultural heritage" to do so. The primary reason for the harboring of this disdain is the hardcore Christianity of all of his relatives. In the Bible, Jesus was killed on the cross by Jews, and so Richard's Christian relatives view Jews as the killers of Christ. Richard mentions that this belief was bread from childhood, which an interesting parallel to the prejudices held against him. Most white southern Americans at the time had been taught since birth about black people being inferior and lesser, and so the society as a whole continued to hold that belief for quite some time. This only further proves that prejudice is a cyclical belief of a whole society that gets passed down by generation, no matter how little substance there is to the beliefs.

Juhstickifayshun of Rehsitayshun

Being a conformist who tends to not ruffle feathers, I would definitely not behaved in the manner that Richard did. However, his actions were totally justified. Richard realized that it wasn't fair to him and all his fellow African-Americans to be forced to act in a different manner when white people were in the area, or in this case, the audience. The principal has every right to behave in the manner that he did as well, because being the principal of a high school means identifying potential problems and trying to prevent them from happening. This was just an unfortunate circumstance where no outcome was going to please everyone. Had I been in the position, I would have decided that it was important to pick and choose my battles, and that my valedictorian speech was a secondary issue that didn't speak to me.