Linn’s Senior English Blog

I can talk about books that I haven’t read.  I talk about books that I don’t read a lot.  It’s actually something I’m quite good at.  I can talk about a lot of things I haven’t done.  Skydiving for instance.  I’ll do a quick little wikipedia search, and say something like this:  Yeah, skydiving I don’t know, I think the 1968 age requirement adendum to the laws of skydiving was a good idea because of the 265 deaths that occured in the previous year due to malfunctioning parachutes due to the fact that kids were unable to be properly secured in them.  You know that this blog post wasn’t the right link in the post that you posted.  So I actually have no idea what I am supposed to do. But here it is, a blog post!

I love how Johnathan Swift is trying to get us to put one year old babies to work.  He wants them to provide for there family, and contribute to society.  Maybe
China read this, and got the idea to force children into labor.  I like the rhetorical strategies he’s using: making an outrageous claim to prove a smaller one.  He tries to solve the problems of
Ireland by saying that they should resort to cannabilism.  It’s completely wrong and satirical.  Like saying:  “Hey, there’s a problem… what should we do?” “Hey, I know! Let’s eat people!  That will work!”  Honestly. To tell you the truth… I have no idea what he’s talking about.  I can’t focus on this much text at one time, but I really need the points so I can get an at least decent grade in the class.  You don’t have to give me the points for this if you don’t want but I’m at least trying to make it seem like I wrote this blog post.  Anyways, I think this essay is funny.  He says some funny things and whatnot.  The whole idea of cannibalism is pretty funny, and maybe that’s what he was going for.  Making an indirect claim to claim his own points.  Did that make any sense.  It might have. So… in the end, I think that this is sufficient amount of words to warrant points for this blog post.  Just give them to me.  Cannibalism is a funny thing to say, and I think that he really makes his point by being satirical in nature.

1.  I think that Hamlet didn’t kill Claudius as soon as he did because of two reasons: one, Shakespeare would not write that short of a play, he needed to extend the plot, and he had to weave in all the different characters, he wasn’t a sucker, and he knew he had the writing chops to do what he had to do… so he had hamlet wait to kill Claudius.  And two, he had to tie off some loose ends before he committed the murder, he had to tell Ophelia how he felt about her, and really make sure that he was doing the right thing.  It made Hamlet seem more human, having this inner crazy dialogue of “when should I do this” and “how”. 2. I think Hamlet pretended to go mad so less people would question him.  Nobody wants to deal with a crazy person, and I think less questions would be asked if he was entirely crazy.  I don’t think he actually was, I think that he was acting it—also because he wanted the others to think that he couldn’t fight, when in fact—he kicked ass.  Ophelia, on the other hand was young and impressionable, and therefore with Hamlet breaking her heart, and her father dying, she actually went crazy. 3. I think that the whole Hamlet loves his mother thing was part of the “crazy” aspect.  Also, there was a little Oedipus Complex there.  I think that Hamlet would rather have his mother be with him, than with Claudius because Claudius killed his father, and Hamlet was not heir to the throne.  I think that Hamlet did love Ophelia, but important things came to the foreground after his father was killed, and he found out Claudius did it, and that he was trying to kill Hamlet as well.  He didn’t have time for a girl, and yeah, maybe he went about it the wrong way, but it was for the best.  No, no it wasn’t more people died than was necessary.  At least Ophelias life could have been spared.  4. I think hamlet believes that humans should live through the “torments of society” because suicide is the easy way out.  Hamlet is a man, and men deal with their problems head on—not like bitches, and he knew this.  Therefore, suicide is the womanly way out. i.e. Ophelia drowning herself.  I think Shakespeare might have been a little sexist, it’s entirely possible and probably true.  5. Hamlets last soliloquy, the one where he finally decides to kill Claudius after sitting on it for such a long time I think ties in all of the suicide and death of the book.  Then he ends up dueling, and getting killed, but killing everyone else in the process, because he’s a bad ass.

This preparation guide for the AP synthesis essay was pretty helpful.  Had I read it before I actually took the test, I might have found it more helpful than if I just read it right now, like I actually did.  The writer spoke of reading everything carefully, and really analyzing sources—but this is all stuff that the AP student should know already.  He was just repeating the same things that teachers say all year round.  I did really enjoy the part about having a conversation with your self while taking the test.  Source X would say this, and Source Y would say this, why would they do that, and so forth.  That was probably the most important piece of information that I took out of this, because I imagine it would have been helpful, again—if I had read this before I took the AP Final.

Chesterton is a nice writer.  His writing is inviting, and immediately he builds a rapport with the audience, he makes outrageous claims about drawing on the ceiling, making humor a big aspect of his writing.  He uses some degree of slippery slope, saying that if you do not lie in bed, then this may happen…etc.  He talks about misers and burglars, a quite humorous concept it is–lying in bed to stop burglars, but he says it.  It’s like a reverse slippery slope–if you do stay in bed, then you wont get robbed, or at least, you’ll be able to prevent it.  He makes the claim that if you are a healthy person, you will get up a healthy person after lying in bed, which is good for the reader, so as the reader is a healthy person, then they will stay a healthy person after lying in bed.  He also uses analogies, talking about michelango and whatnot.

John Downe tries to convince his wife by outlining all of the brilliant things about america that he is so excited about.   He talks about the incredibleness of walking down the side of the road, and just collecting apples to make cider with.  Nobody hassled him, nobody told them that they were the queens apples, and nobody killed him for it.  The thing that I think was the most persuading thing he said was talking about all the other emmigrants that were in America at the time.  “There were over 1000 emmigrants that cam over the day after I landed… and there is plenty of room yet.”  He’s letting her know that just because there are 1000 different people just like there is still plenty of room for two more special people.  They would not be alone in America, everybody was there for eacother, and harmony was created by all.

Affirmative Action:

In the early days of America, people were segregated.  Up until the 1960’s, this was a major problem in the United States.  And now, with affirmative action, the government is “apologizing” to the minorities of America by assuring them jobs, and place in colleges–which is absolutely wrong.  It’s not fair to punish those who had nothing to do with the segregation for something that happened.  It’s not fair that those who may be less capable than others to acquire a position solely based on their race.  This is most outwardly shown in the college placement system–I was rejected from two different colleges.  One of which an asian friend of mine got into, and I am way more qualified than he.  It’s not fair to punish those who are not racist, and never were to begin with.

 In the early days of America, people were segregated.  Up until the 1960’s, this was a major problem in the United States.  And now, with affirmative action, the government is “apologizing” to the minorities of America by assuring them jobs, and place in colleges–which is necessary.  Racist people are still around, people that will not hire you because of your race, and because of your skin color, or even religion.  And that is why affirmative action is something that needs to be kept around for at least 20 more years.  The people that allow you to get into college, are the ones that are racist, the old-timers, the people that were affected in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s.  Who picketed against segregation, and applauded when the KKK burned crosses.  And until those people die–Affirmative Action needs to stick around.

I like the aspect of Kennans argument that the criminal underworld has certain rankings of power, some more powerful than the government.  If I were to write this essay, I would go the route of talking about some gangs in the middle east, maybe you’ve heard of them?  Al Quada.  They basically run the middle east, and I would consider them a gang.  I would talk about how in American society, gangs are very powerfully controlled by the police system, and officers around the country.  Sure, gangs are a problem in America, but not to the extent that the gangs in the middle east are.  I would talk about that for a while, and then I might move on to talk about crime in Chicago in the 20’s with the popular gangsters that basically controlled the government there.  It’s no secret that Chicago is the most politically corrupt city in America, but I’m glad that it’s not to the extent of gangs in more poorly controlled parts of the world.

Please choose and read 2 of the critics and in your own blog post, reflect on the rhetorical purpose, strategies, and effectiveness of the movie. Also refer to the two critics you read (link them!) and explain whether you agree or disagree with what they have to say.

The first review I read was by a lady named Lisa Shwarzbaum, her review was short, succinct, and to the point. It wasn’t terribly in-depth, she basically just said that the movie was good, and telling, and a few plot points. She has a strong vocabulary, which aids her position. The sentence that really made me enjoy the review was this: “Yet in his 80s, with commanding access to facts and dates, the old technocrat once reviled for hawkishness and arrogance speaks with an affecting plainness, one man going eyeball-to-eyeball with the media age.” The phrases ‘commanding access to facts and dates,’ and ‘once reviled for hawkishness and arrogance’ really speak to me. Her review isn’t extremely effective, but I enjoyed it. I do agree with her review. Almost every word of it, she points out that even though he is in his 80’s, he speaks with such poise and dignity, that it’s like he is still in his prime.

The next review I read was by a man named Mick LaSalle, from the San Fransisco chronicle. His review was considerably longer than the previous review, but he seems to be more of a straight up review writer. He uses metaphors, and has a really catchy lead that hooks the reader. Both of these reviews have to give a backstory of Robert McNamara in order to help the reader fully understand what the movie was about, and the weight that it holds. LaSalle calls Vietnam, “McNamara’s War,” and paints a nice picture of who he was.

I enjoyed both reviews.

This guy is an amazing photographer, and the stories behind all of his pictures are incredible.  To have that much of an iron hand when shooting, I cannot even imagine.  The picture that really stands out to me is the one of the 19-year-old girl and the baby falling off of the house.  To be able to shoot that… is crazy.  I don’t know if I could do what he does, and therefore I am able to respect this man’s work.  This guy’s pictures have a very unique voice–a voice that says “I’ve been somewhere,” and it’s really cool that he has all of the snapshots of one of Americas most violent times.  The article has a nice tone that’s both entertaining, and telling.  The way the author describes what the photographer was going through while he was taking the pictures put a nice spin on the article.