Death of Salesman Blog - 5.25.16

Within death of a salesman there is criticism of the basic economic system of capitalism and how that plays in part with Willy's destruction. Arthur Miller portrays several individuals like Charley as a businessman, who is definitely successful and somewhat wealthy as decent and giving to others. He's decent because he loans/donates money to the Loman family in order for them to keep their lives together. I believe that the treatment of American "business values" in this play can be viewed as both good and bad, just because from what we see on all sides of the spectrum – that being the Loman family, Charley's family, and even Howard as an individual, who I view as the worst of all "business values," even though he does fire Willy for his own good. In the grand scheme of things, I believe that Willy's failure to meet ends in a capitalist economy ultimately caused his destruction in the end, mainly because his values did not absolutely match up and coordinate with the modern "business values" in 1949.

Arthur Miller & The American Dream - 5.24.16

I believe that Arthur Miller is essentially trying to convey that the American Dream isn't all that, and is not very easily achieved by many. He is basically telling us that even though Willy was a salesman and tried his hardest, he still was not successful and had his faults. And in the end when he purposefully crashed his car into whatever it was, he was trying to get extra money from life insurance for his family because they were on the verge of being broke; which from looking at it was extremely ridiculous because even Linda, who I describe as very naive about the whole thing, didn't even try to stop him or give him help about his suicidal issues (the rubber hose nonsense as well) and always covered it up with niceness or acted like nothing was ever going on. So in the end of it all, I think that Miller was only trying to tell us that the American Dream is basically a sham unless you do it right, from looking at it there were several individuals like Charley, Bernard, and Howard (I believe that is his name) were all very successful and outgoing, which contrasted to the entire Loman family who had their mess ups but still tried and achieved some, to little, to nothing at all with the American Dream.

Death of a Salesman Blog 2 - 5.19.16

I do and do not think that Biff and Happy have realistic plans, goals and dreams. I think that these goals are somewhat farfetched, even though they are technically somewhat realistic. I do not think that Biff is going to be able to get a loan in order to get himself a ranch because he would need a job to sustain that ranch and pay off the bills that come with it. However, I do think that Happy's dreams are somewhat attainable, because he is already working his way to the top as we assume that he is already an assistant manager of a store and he strives to be manager (it may be a higher position). I think my dreams/goals/plans are similar to Happy and Biff's because I too want a path of success where I can rise through the chain of business like Happy (although not necessarily business, but potentially journalism) and hopefully be able to attain loans for necessary things like housing, like Biff. Happy describes Biff as an idealist, and I agree. An idealist is someone who basically strives for perfection and is typically naive, and out of touch with reality. I think that Biff could be described as this because Biff is someone who strives for something that is farther than what he can reach. For instance, thinking that he can get a loan for $8,000 from someone he hasn't seen in years just so he can live on a ranch.

Death of a Salesman Blog 1 - 5.18.16

What are some ways parents can disappoint their children? What are some ways children can disappoint their parents? Is there ever a time children should lie for their parents or vice versa?

There are plenty of ways that parents and children can both disappoint one another, and there are for sure moments where children should lie to their parents, or vice versa. Parents can disappoint their children by not allowing them to do certain things, like go out to parties, drive around with friends, or even something as simple as not having any money to give them to do certain activities. This has happened to me personally, but there is typically a good reason behind it, and that reason is usually to protect the innocence of the child or just flat out let them know that there is no extra money to go around for extra stuff. Children can disappoint their parents by disobeying them. Children do this by sneaking out, yelling at parents, or not following the basic rules of the household. From what I recall, I don't believe that I've ever disappointed my parents, unless it was that one minor time where I wasn't home by my curfew. I believe that parents and children should be able to lie to each other in order to protect the other's feelings, innocence, and to not make the other worry about their well-being. There is no set reason to actually lie to each other as "honesty is the best policy." However, if you think of parents as the government of the United States and children as the citizens, it is better to have them not know some stuff that goes on around the world and to cover it up, or just not reveal it at all in order to protect individuals from panic and so on.

Introduction - 5.5.16

In Margaret Drabble's The American Scholar published an excerpt with the claim that, "Our desire to conform is greater than our respect for objective facts." Drabble's statement and assertion about conformity can be validated in several ways. In simpler words, Drabble is essentially saying that human beings ignore ethics and morals just so they can conform to society and fit in. From this, we can explore the various ways that people in modern society attempt to conform, such as, bullying, peer pressure, and even cheating in school in order to make it to the top of their class.

Socratic Seminar WITD - 4.29.16

The Bundrens must endure a number of obstacles on their way to Jefferson. To what extent are the elements against them, and to what extent do they sabotage themselves?

OBSTACLES:
• The bridge.
• The river.
- The river and the bridge go part in part with one another as the bridge is basically destroyed by the river, and even if the family attempts to cross, they would be unable to because it is flooded.
• The fire.
- "soundless explosion as the whole loft of the barn takes fire at once, as though it had been stuffed with powder" (219)
• Money. (Goes in part with traveling, as they cannot afford a pack of mules)
• A way to travel. (Horse, mules)
- Anse has to sell stuff, use funds for his teeth, and use some of Cash's money in order to get mules to travel to Jefferson.
• Insanity. (Darl)
- "And I saw something Dewey Dell told me not to tell nobody" (215)

The elements are against this family because they honestly are not that smart. They sabotage themselves by making idiotic moves in order to try to cross the river, and then they all are ignorant to the fact that Addie smells and going to town for other reasons than her death is just ridiculous. Then again, they also forgot a shovel, which makes it even more evident that they were careless about playing out her death and the burial of her coffin.

In the end of it all, was Faulkner really trying to say that Anse marrying a new woman makes women seem as a replaceable object in everyday life, or was it just by incident that it came out this way?

As I Lay Dying Blog V - 4.25.16

How do you respond to the final line of the novel? Why end the novel this way?

     The novel of As I Lay Dying, by William Faulkner was troubling to myself as a reader at times, but there was definitely more unexpected than the end of the novel in itself. The last sentence just (most likely) shellshocked every single reader that I know of; it was so unexpected that it was in a way, almost good. You are probably wondering what the ending of the novel is… Here it is, “‘Meet Mrs. Bundren,’ he says.” (Faulkner 261) At the same time from liking the end, I feel like it was all just so sudden and thrown together. I felt that there was this journey from around page 48 to almost the end to bury Addie, but that journey turned into a journey for several other things. Like teeth, a gramophone, and an abortion. Never once did I think that Anse was going to get himself a new woman to replace Addie; although, looking back on it, I can see some subtle hints that can foreshadow this event. It was kind crazy to see that this entire family goes on a journey where they get in extreme amounts of trouble, and even at one point goes backwards. (not exactly backwards, but in the wrong direction in order to get to somewhere else) The only reason I actually liked the ending that Faulkner gave us, the readers, is because it was completely unexpected unless you are a literary guru who can see that he was foreshadowing some of it all along. Personally, I believe that William Faulkner ends this novel the way he does just to show that women only serve very little, unless it is with “household purposes” like having children, cooking, or just being a wife in general. We even see that Anse goes to get this wife before Addie is even buried. Which ultimately shows that wives and women can be replaced easily with another as apparently they add very little to someone else’s life. But in the end, we see that Addie has fulfilled her life as she had once said she would, by having children and being alive, she would be ready to die. I personally think that Faulkner did a great job writing this novel, and he does a great job by hooking the reader with his writing by ending the novel the way he did. 

Argumentation Practice - 4.22.16

Argumentation Practice: Introduction

      

      The idea of politeness and polite speech in a culture and/or community is to define the behavior of the groups that are and are not using it. Polite speech used by these groups helps create a sense of relationship between two people that possibly did not have a set relationship before. Holding a door open for an individual could represent a kind gesture and take a relationship level from being strangers to being acquaintances. Phrases that represent being polite just as the anthropologist studies can be seen in phrases like “How are you?”, “Nice to meet you,” and “Let’s get in touch.” All of these phrases represent the kindness that individuals have to one another and as previously stated, can bring forward a new relationship between two or more people. However, not only that, but being polite can shed your personality in a certain way and can give the individual a characteristic that they did not have previously.

"We knew who we were..." - 4.19.16

In your blog write a reflection about what you heard. What was the intention of those who participated in the example you heard? How is this different than a traditional interview or storytelling?

From the podcast that I listened to here, I listened to a guy named Andy Goodling who wasn't open about his sexuality until after his secret boyfriend of four years died. I feel the biggest part about this podcast is just to tell people and let them know that it's perfectly okay to be open about your life and who you are as a human being, whether or not you are different from the rest of the crowd. If you happen to like the smell of smelly cheese, then you do you. I feel his intention of his podcast was to just get the point across that it isn't worth it to keep something in about yourself that no one knows for so long, just so you don't ruin someone else's view of you, or feel that you will be put down or ashamed of who you are. As a listener, I actually really liked his interview that Goodling had with his father about the subject at hand, it felt as if it was a more personal experience by listening to their voices and the tone of their voice rather than just trying to interpret someone's emotions through the bland text on a piece of paper. 

As I Lay Dying Blog IV - 4.17.16

Addie finally speaks to us, this time from the afterlife, what insight do we get from her

narration? Focus on one revelation and connect it to another narrator’s.

     Throughout “section three” of William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying, we learn about the new troubles and struggles that await the Bundren family. Those struggles being how to get across the flooded/broken up bridge, having to get transportation to Jefferson after the wagon falls into the water along with the coffin and several other things, the coming out of how Addie had an affair with Brother Whitfield which caused Jewel to be born. Finally arriving at the town of Mottson, which obviously is not Jefferson, it’s simply just a pit stop on the way because “Dewey Dell had to deliver a package.” Anyways, that is just a summary from what I recall of section three. This section had its ups and downs, but the most interesting part of this section by far had to be Addie’s narration, and also Cora’s narration which led up to Addie’s as if trying to prepare us for what we are about to read. Through Addie’s narration we actually learn a lot… We learn about her unhappy marriage with Anse and how that all came to be. They met in Jefferson and he had lived out in the country, later on they had decided to get married. From that they had the children; they were one of the biggest issues for her as she felt she was “violated” by them and no longer had any privacy or free-time because of them, so she had resented Anse for fathering them both. After that, Addie had her third child, Jewel. From her writing she reveals that Jewel was the most loved child because he was the only one that was “truly hers” because he was fathered by another man, and that man was Whitfield. After that she had two more children, Dewey Dell, and Vardaman which she felt fixed the issue of her having Jewel and repaid the debt to Anse (even though he did not know she had an affair). To connect this to another narrator’s revelations it would most definitely have to be Cora’s narration, as her section is right before Addie’s. In her section she talks about sin and the different types of sin. One of these sins would be the fact that she had an affair with another man, and Addie did not seem to care that Cora knew or had been troubling her about it — Cora had always wanted Addie to get on her knees and pray. Addie did not want to repent because she felt that Jewel was not her punishment just as Cora did; she felt that Jewel would save her “from the water and from the fire.” (Faulkner 168) which is so far true because Jewel did actually save Addie and her coffin from the water which flooded the bridge and river. So, in conclusion, throughout Addie’s section of narration we learn several things about her — her unhappy marriage, and the affair that she had with Whitfield that caused Jewel to be born. 

As I Lay Dying Blog III - 4.12.16

     In William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying we see the two different “classes” that are portrayed throughout the novel. Those classes and separations are the townspeople, and the poor white farmers. An example of a townsperson would be Peabody, while an example of a “poor white farmer” would be the entire Bundren family. In my opinion, I do also believe that the Bundrens are included in this novel to represent some stereotype about lower class farmers and townspeople. I believe that the family is included to mainly undermine the lower class farmers; however, at the same time there may be included stereotypes. There are stereotypes like how we have learned (although it is not said word for word, we infer it) that Jewel is a child that is the product of an affair that Addie had. So, I suppose that at the same time, the stereotype of Southern women not being able to control themselves sexually contributes to undermining of Southern women. Honestly, all throughout the novel there will be stereotypes that contribute to the undermining of all groups represented in this novel. For example, Peabody is an overweight man that has to be tied up on a rope in order to get to the house of the Bundren’s before Addie dies. This I believe is just undermining most townspeople as if they are all overweight and/or out of shape. I also think that the character of Anse represents a lazy farmer, because… well, it is pretty obvious. The number one reason is because he says that if he sweats he “will die.” This is hilarious to me, because unless he has low blood sugar (possibly diabetes?) or is extremely dehydrated from any lack of water then we know for a fact that this isn’t true and that he is just representing the stereotype that poor farmers are just in fact lazy farmers. However, the only ones in the Bundren family that I believe are not lazy are Cash (because he is non-stop making the coffin, because it must be marvelous, and from his narrations we view him as a perfectionist and a hard-worker) and possibly Jewel (because he loves his mother very much and would most likely have done anything for her, and to be there for her death).  I think this portrayal of the Bundren family being “lazy” or “hard-working” represents the success and failures of the family as a whole. If you look at some of the characters you definitely know why they are poor farmers. They rely on the phrase “The Lord giveth,” which means that if God had given them something, then they would need it, and if God did not give them it, they would not need it. Just by relying off of this one phrase and religion helps show that they do not do anything for themselves, they do not believe they should invest in things unless God tells them to do so. However, the only character that I feel goes the opposite way of this phrase is Jewel, because he goes out to get his own horse, he works somewhere else and earns himself a horse that we see him use on the journey to Jefferson later on in section two. 

Image Explosion - 4.12.16

Pages 80-81 of As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner:

I would like to write about sleep, because sleep is what I need. Right now I would consider myself "empty of sleep" just as Darl describes on page 80. Because quite honestly, what is a person without sleep? They are deprived of one of the most beautiful things in the world and without sleep we would all be tired human beings just wandering around not getting anything achieved. Sleep is honestly a beautiful thing, especially after sleeping in on a long weekend, or on summer vacation. But, the fact that Darl narrates about sleep and how it makes you what you are, and what you are not, it makes me think and wonder whether I am or not in Darl's point of view. But, who knows, I could have interpreted the sleep mumbo-jumbo completely wrong.

As I Lay Dying Blog II - 4.10.16

     The character in William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying that I would like to give a general response to today is the character of Vardaman Bundren. Just to give a brief background on Vardaman’s character, he is an eight year old child (approximately) and the son of Addie and Anse Bundren. Throughout the story and the different parts that he narrates, we learn that he is a person of symbolism. He brings out the idea of the fish to represent his mother in different ways. For instance, the fish is once alive, like his mother, and then the fish is dead, just like his mother. His character, in my opinion, is very hard to understand when trying to grasp what exactly he is saying (most of the time). I found it hard to understand the fish concept until I researched it and it was explained in a class discussion, however, that is not the only thing that I found confusing about his character. I felt that his character’s narration was also slightly unreliable because of his age and the trauma that he is going through — simply because he exaggerates things and has an anxious tone for most of all his narrations. One thing that I do like about his character though is how he does make the analogy of the fish and his mother, which after much explanation it starts to make sense and I am sure that the analogy/symbol will be used throughout the entire novel. However, of course, there are things that I do not like and just confuse me about him. I was confused about why Faulkner actually included him other than to make the fish analogy. By Faulkner including Vardaman we see the child’s life through his own eyes, and just how much anxiety he has at the time of his mother’s death. I am sure that as the story proceeds we will see more of his character and how he goes about different situations. In the future pages of this novel, I am anticipating that something happens on the family’s journey to the town of Jefferson where they will bury Addie Bundren. But, I am sure that when something does happen on this journey we as readers will see through Vardaman’s eyes and interpret his narrations with even more symbols and analogies to his mother and maybe even more family members, like possible Darl, Jewel, or even Anse. 

A Rose for Emily Blog - 4.8.16

• Who is the "we" in "A Rose for Emily"? Is the narration reliable? Why or why not? [use evidence from the text]

In William Faulkner's A Rose for Emily the narrator is a questionable subject where we really are not sure who exactly it is. As the reader, I interpret the "we" to be a narrator from the New South that is just interpreting the character of Miss Emily and the daily life that surrounds her and every one else in the town of Jefferson. I believe this for many reasons. One reason is because throughout the story, it seems that the narrator(s) (if there are multiple narrators, we are unsure) continue to talk badly about her, and very rarely even praise her character. For example the narrator says, "So the next day we all said, 'She will kill herself'; and we said it would be the best thing. When she had first begun to be seen with Homer Barron, we had said, 'She will marry him.'" (Faulkner 4) This narration makes me think that the narrator is a female, however, I could be wrong. It may be a group of people just interpreting her life, meaning it may be a mixed group of genders. Also, I do believe that the narration is reliable, because from what it seems, the character of Miss Emily was interpreted correctly. They show that she had gone crazy (murder & necrophilia), which in my personal opinion sounds like a correct description of her character because she becomes a recluse after a whole bunch of stuff happens. Like the New South "paving" its way into Jefferson and her being a "fallen monument" after she dies.  

A Rose for Emily - 4.7.16

Q: How do you feel about the ending of Faulkner’s short story? Did it surprise you, or was there evidence all along, building to the conclusion?

A: Honestly, I am not sure what I expected to be at the end of this short story. I actually expected her to die from the beginning, so I really was not surprised by the events in this story. We learn that she is growing old in her house, that her father dies, and she loses love. We also learn that she does not leave her home nor speak to anyone outside of her house... It is assumed that she does not even speak to her servant who runs her errands. The fact that she has gone through so much, like death and the loss of love, but also the fact that we are told at the beginning that the whole town had gone to her funeral, it was kind of hard to be surprised that she died from a "sickness". This sickness possibly being a metaphor for a broken heart; it being broken by Homer and her father who drove away men. So all in all, I was not surprised by the events of this story as I felt there was evidence throughout the story that led to the conclusion.


*Apparently I misinterpreted how the end happened and that it just wasn't about her death.

As I Lay Dying Gallery Crawl - 4.6.16

My reflection question: 

     " What could Faulkner's purpose of contrasting the townspeople & the poor white farmers on the base of class suggest about early Southern 20th century life?"

Personally, I believe that I can continue to support my reflection question as the question I asked was about the plot in general and how Faulkner continues to contrast the townspeople and white farmers on the basis of class, even though the contrasting is not obvious, but it is instead seen through how each narrator characterizes another one. Some people posted several questions that could be added onto my reflective question, and those questions did not even come to mind when I created my statement. For example, people asked, "Which class do you think Faulkner favors?" or "How does this shape the plot of the story and the character?" or even how race is not a present figure in the novel, even though taking place in the early 20th century south, prejudice is still present and looked at with the factor of class. I believe I can still investigate this question because now I can look for how class affects other characters and what it will come out to be in the end. As I move on through this reading I will scope out for details about how characters like Peabody, Anse, and other characters characterize one another. 

As I Lay Dying Blog I - 4.4.16

     In William Faulkner’s novel, As I Lay Dying, there are many different narrators throughout the entire book. Some narrating more than others, some being more reliable than others, and some there to just add value to the plot and what exactly is going on throughout the novel. As a reader, I sometimes like the way that Faulkner lays out his novel with different narrators. However, there is one narrator in particular that has been more prominent over the other narrators. That person would be Darl, who is one of the Bundren children and according to Cora is one of the most caring and loving to his mother, Addie, who dies in the first part of the reading. However, while discussing as a class he (most likely) was not the most caring of his mother, because, in fact, he called his mother by her first name and Jewel had been there for Addie more often and defended her with some sort of sanity. Although, that does not matter too much at the moment. What really does matter though is the fact that Darl’s narrations are sometimes a mix between third-person limited and third-person omniscient. It seems that Darl can communicate with other characters and see what they are seeing without actually being with them, around them, or even with literally communicating with them. I quite honestly believe he is one of the more reliable characters in this novel, even though I do not believe anyone can actually be reliable since they all have their own biases and views. Compared to other characters though, I feel like the incorporation of multiple narrators makes the novel more reliable as a whole as we are seeing it from everyone’s eyes instead of it being from a single person.

     Compared to other narrators like Nick in The Great Gatsby or Huck Finn in Huck Finn, I believe that Darl’s narrations compare differently. Even though in The Great Gatsby we grasp a glimpse about Jay Gatsby and his life, and also the lives of other wealthy people… I believe that these narrations differ because of how everything is laid out and portrayed. Nick had a longer amount of time to put everything into detail and describe events and stories, while Darl’s narrations were snippets of his everyday life and descriptions of what is going on around him. In the end though, I do believe Darl may possibly be more reliable than the other characters like Vardaman, Cora, or Peabody. That is because they all are different from one another. Vardaman is only an eight year old and he views things from a different perspective, he can tend to exaggerate what is going on around him. Cora could be less reliable because of her religious views, and Peabody less reliable because of how he is a townsman and a doctor. The townspeople and people from the country are different as seen when the Bundren family criticizes them, including Peabody who is a doctor who came out to see Addie Bundren on a short notice. So all in all, depending on how the reader views the different narrations and how Faulkner lays out his novel, the reliability may change from person to person. But one thing is for certain, I would trust Darl’s words over someone like Anse, Vardaman, or Cora. 

As I Lay Dying Free Write - 4.4.16

William Faulkner's novel, As I Lay Dying, was honestly kind of weird to me as a reader. I am not entirely sure of the purpose to this writing or who/what the intended audience is. The dialect and dialogue throughout the first part that we read could be confusing at times, but it could also be very easy to read. Sometimes while reading I'd have to go back and make sure I actually read something correctly because the sentence structure was really weird. I am also very confused on why Addie Bundren died at the beginning instead of the end, because usually an author will kill off a character towards the end or at the climax of a novel. So, maybe Faulkner is setting her death at the beginning in order to build something off of it, but I am not even sure what he would want to make off of the death. The narration throughout the novel was kind of nice, but also kind of weird because at times I would actually forget who was saying what and I'd have to turn back a few pages and see who was talking about the death, or what was going on. Since we didn't get last names and whatnot towards the beginning of the book for every character, I was confused on who was in what family. That being the Tulls or the Bundrens or even possibly another family that I don't even know about. The novel itself was weird to me, and it could be because I don't know what it is about in the first place, other than to show her death and possibly some outcomes that come from her death and the things leading up to it.

Pre-Seminar Response - 3.24.16

Well, there was this quote that was on the screen today... And honestly, I didn't really know what to say. But what I'm gathering is that for all the humans that have lived, some do not grant mercy to those who come after them and so on. I believe he is also trying to say that people generally have their love/likeliness strengthen for those who generally take pity, like poor people or people who have had wrong done to them, and so on. I would like to talk about the word pity as well. It stands out to me and I feel it is a word that could help describe the two murder characters in the novel. Throughout the book I had an on and off sense of sympathy for them. After learning of Perry's violent and horrible childhood I had pity for him because he was most likely not in the right mind when he committed those murders. I had also felt sympathy for Dick, mostly because he was given capital punishment for essentially just being by Perry's side when the murders of the Clutter family happened. But, these men do not deserve pity, they deserve to be treated the way they are even though they may or may not be in the right minds.

The New "In Cold Blood" - 3.23.16

     Truman Capote’s non-fiction novel, In Cold Blood, is under quite the controversy for the question of, “Was it fully true?” There are several reasons for the credibility of Capote’s writing to be criticized because it was in fact journalistic, but also because Harold Nye (an investigator and/or KBI agent) had notes and documents that contradicted some of what Capote wrote about in his non-fiction novel. Obviously, journalism is not always truthful, it can be exaggerated from the truth, or it can be understated. Either way, it helps add an element to the story that was not there previously — which, in turn, helps gather more interest to the story and grab reader’s attentions. Nye’s son, Ronald Nye, claims that his father had rejected Capote’s novel and the movie. He had thrown the book at the wall after page 115, and had also walked out on the move, which shows just how much he disliked how the case was portrayed. Nye, as all investigators would, had notes about the investigation. Within these notes there was information about the “jailhouse snitch” also known as, Floyd Wells. In the novel, Capote describes it as detective Alvin Dewey had immediately acting on the tip… However, in Nye’s notes it shows that it actually took five days for Dewey to act on the tip and attempt to locate them. If they had done it earlier, the two murderers would most likely not have been able to make it out of Kansas and into Florida. The only reason that it took Dewey and his team (unless he acted alone, I assume he did not though) so long to locate the two murderers is because he thought it was just a “red herring” and that the real murderer(s) actually knew the Clutter family and had something against them. So, the real problem is plain and simple. How much was overstated and understated in Capote’s novel? Does it affect how we view the case in general? Because personally, while reading the novel I felt a sort of sympathy for Perry and Dick. At first I felt sympathy for Perry because he had such a horrible childhood and mentally unstable past. In the end I had felt bad for Dick because he honestly did not murder anyone in the Clutter family according to he and Perry’s confessions. So all in all, I do believe that the critics of In Cold Blood are justified with their problems about In Cold Blood because in a case like this if the truth is not evident enough or truthful how can we as a reader be able to make similar judgements to those that the jury and the judge made during the cases for Hickock and Smith.

In Cold Blood Part IV - 3.20.16

     In Part IV, of Truman Capote’s non-fiction novel, In Cold Blood, we learn more about the case involving Dick Hickock and Perry Smith. As we learned in the previous chapter, each murderer had their own confession, both had contrasted one another. Dick’s confession had included that he did not kill any of the Clutter family, and that Perry had in fact killed the entire family. While Perry’s confession was that they had taken equal parts in it. However, we come to learn in part four that Perry had in fact killed all member’s of the family. Now, in the later part of chapter four we learn more about the other death row inmates like George York, James Latham, Lowell Lee Andrews, and the two character’s that we have been learning about and following throughout the book. I believe that Capote introduces the characters to show the parallels and differences between each one of them — why they were there, their purpose, and so on. Andrews was probably used to show a parallel to Dick as Andrews himself showed no remorse for his actions (which happened to be killing his own family and framing it as if someone else did it, very psychopath like, in my opinion) and also because Dick had showed no remorse for his actions in the earlier chapters… Maybe because he did not actually do much about the murders, but he was still there and could have done something to prevent the four deaths that occurred that evening. The two newer men that are introduced are Latham and York, who were put into death row because they had gone on a multi-state killing spree because they believed that the world was essentially against them. I feel like these two characters were introduced as well because I also think that Perry and Dick had thought the world was against them… Mainly because they were both in accidents and had rough lives for various reasons. Honestly, I do not really respond to these characters like I do to Perry and Dick, mostly because I do not know them as well, and have a better liking for them. With these character’s I feel mostly bad for Dick, even though I used to not. I used to feel bad for Perry because of how he was treated by Dick and so on. Dick had not killed anyone in the Clutter family, according to his confession and the changed confession by Perry which shows essentially just how wrongly treated he was by the court system. So, in the end of In Cold Blood, I view the characters of Dick and Perry not as equals, but both as criminals of course for they both partake in the act of murder in some degree. I view them differently because Perry had killed four people in a matter of minutes and merely almost got away with it, and also because Dick was being thrown into Death Row for basically just being a witness to the crimes — however, he had also planned them. All in all, I view the ending of this book to be quite depressing yet uplifting at the same time… Capote uses a great job in the end showing parallels and contrasting the Death Row characters and using the cats in town square as a great metaphor to Dick and Perry always being on the move and (typically) scrapping for food.

In Cold Blood Part III - 3.13.15

     In Truman Capote’s non-fiction novel, In Cold Blood, we as readers learn about the horrifying murder of the Clutter family in Holcomb, Kansas. After reading part three, which is named, The Answer, we learn about really what went on inside the Clutter home on November 15, 1959 and the journey that Dick and Perry had up until they were arrested. This journey consisting of going from places like Miami, Kansas City, and Las Vegas. Their last destination on this journey was in Las Vegas; where they finally confessed about the murder of the family. Dick’s confession was, “Hickock said, ‘Perry Smith killed the Clutters.’ He lifted his head, and slowly straightened up in the chair, like a fighter staggering to his feet. ‘It was Perry. I couldn't stop him. He killed them all.’” (Capote 145) What I could get out of Dick’s confession was that he wanted to get away with the least amount of punishment possible, he was going to put his life before Perry’s. However, Perry’s confession was a lot more detailed and showed the team effort of the murders and how it began with just robbing the Clutter family to murdering all four of them. Perry describes the murders as if he is the better of the two, because he did not want to murder the family, but leave them alive. He also talked about how Dick can not control his sexual desire, and he was worried that he would end up harassing Nancy, the “All American Girl”. My reactions to these confessions (emphasizing that there were two [even though Perry’s was most likely the realistic and actual one] that somewhat matched up and supported one another) would have to be in complete shock. I was shocked that Dick and Perry succumbed to violence. The situation could have been totally avoided, from Perry’s confession we see that he was reluctant to kill the family and just wanted to leave the house and not have anything to do with what was happening.

     All in all, the confession makes me dislike the two characters even more… Dick more than Perry, though. At first I was intrigued to learn how it all went down, but when it all came down to logistics I was terrified for the family, and could not imagine the horrors that happened with this murder that occurred in the peaceful town of Holcomb. 

Boston Photographs - 3.8.16

The photographs at the center of controversy in Boston. When is it not appropriate to publish photographs, especially photos that are not of explicit content? Perhaps that begs the question, what is explicit content in photography?


Just by looking at these photographs there really isn't much "explicit" content; there's only the morbidity of them because of the falling woman and child in a burning building. Personally, I believe it's inappropriate to publish photos that aren't explicit when it may contain sensitive material, or if it is just flat out unfitting for the article section. Then again, I believe that explicit content is when there is sensitive material, like nudity, death, and so on, but explicit content is rarely published in magazines and newspapers. The only question that I have for the photographer is why he didn't publish a photograph of the fire itself, and photographed a falling child and woman in a fire. Obviously the photographer is trying too show the severity of the fire (maybe, I'm unsure) and how fires are dangerous and can kill people. As I wrote about in my capstone paper, photojournalism is capturing a story through pictures, which can tell the viewer just what really went on and the extremes that may carry with it.

In Cold Blood Part II - 3.6.16

In Truman Capote’s “non-fiction novel”, In Cold Blood, the two characters of Perry Smith and Dick Hitchcock are presented as the two who murdered the Clutter family. Capote distinguishes the characters two very different ways. Within part two the reader learns a lot more about who Perry really is, we learn a lot about his life, where he came from, and what his life is all about. Meanwhile, the reader does not learn much about Dick’s life. The only thing that I, as a reader, can grasp about Dick is that he is careless about others (obviously, because he is a criminal) and cannot keep still in one place at a time, but also with that not planning ahead for the future — i.e. when he and Perry went to Mexico and had to sell their car and then go to California, which was all unplanned… Basically because the mechanic was only payed two dollars per hour. So, the character Perry is given more background information as we get information about his father and more information about his mother, siblings and his motorcycle accident. So even though both Perry and Dick have committed the same crime, that being murder, I do not view them as equals in the crime that they committed. For example, ""Know what I think?" said Perry. "I think there must be something wrong with us. To do what we did."'" (Capote 67) Within this quote it can be seen that Perry has remorse for what he has done while from the narrator’s point of view it seems that Dick is “annoyed as hell” from what Perry said. With one character showing remorse and the other not it makes me as a reader feel more connected to Perry and less to Dick, and frankly, it makes me feel that Dick is just a psychopath with no motive whatsoever for doing what he did — even though I’m still not sure why he did it and if the answer to that question will be revealed later on. So, in conclusion, Perry and Dick have been distinguished as two different characters and Capote distinguishes the difference between them as one showing remorse for the family’s deaths and even though they commit the same crime, the extensive knowledge provided about Perry’s life makes the reader feel more connected to who Perry is and possibly the partial motives for him committing crimes after he and his father had a falling out.

In Cold Blood Part I - 3.1.16

Throughout the nonfiction novel of “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote the reader may suspectively believe that it is a fiction novel being described as non-fiction for the quality of writing that it is in. The reader knows the fate and outcome of the characters in the book through messages like, “Then, touching the brim of his cap, he headed for home and the day's work, unaware that it would be his last.” (Capote 8) or how the boy's, Dick and Perry, had been going around shopping for tools and services that would be beneficial for them. By reading more and more of the novel, the reader begins to foreshadow what exactly the fate of the characters are. Will Mr. Clutter’s death be ironic because of his perfect health? Who knows, that is to be decided and foreshadowed by the reader while they’re reading throughout part one. Capote helps build suspense in ways that the reader doesn’t really notice are there. He uses imagery to describe locations, people, and whatnot. He also uses setting, which is Holcomb, Kansas, and cities near and far of that location. By using both of these skills, Capote is giving the reader background knowledge about characters like Mr. Clutter, Dick, Perry, and so on.  "There's him. Her. The kid and the girl. And maybe the other two. But it's Saturday. They might have guests. Let's count on eight, or even twelve. The only sure thing is everyone of them has got to go." (Capote 24) This quote shows a subtle reference from Dick and Perry about how they will go about doing what they are going to do… That being murder a family. There is yet another way that Capote goes about building suspense that I did not realize up until now, and that is providing two different narrators (one for the Clutter family, and one for Dick and Perry). Two different narrations helps show the reader who is mainly involved throughout this book and later show how it will all go down. On one end it shows the daily life of how the Clutter family lives, their upbringings, and family life; however, the other end provides a look at the criminal life of Dick and Perry. On page 15 it even talks about how one of them had been on parole, which may also let the reader know that this character may be included to show that later on he will play a larger role in what is to happen.

Death of Mr. Abe - 2.28.16

“The Secession war? Nay, let me call it the Union war. Though whatever call’d, it is

even yet too near us—too vast and too closely overshadowing—its branches unform’d

yet, (but certain,) shooting too far into the future—and the most indicative and mightiest

of them yet ungrown.” (3) 

- The part of text show above stands out to me because Walt Whitman disagrees that the Civil War should be called by the name “Secession War.” even though that is a great name to describe it as, because the war is technically caused by the secession of several states over the disagreement of abolition and the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. He instead wants to call it the “Union War.” He could be calling it by this name just to describe how the Civil War is a fight for justice of certain individuals and to make the country a union once again. Whitman’s purpose with this piece of text is to show two common names the Civil War was called by, but not only that. He used this piece of text to show that the war was overshadowing other issues and was something that would unravel into something larger than what is expected. To elaborate on that, an issue that would unravel later on (like a lot later) in the 1900’s is the fact that white women have less right’s as a group than the black community, but on the other side of things they weren’t as heavily discriminated. Honestly, I think Whitman included this small piece of text because he wanted to show people that a war can be differently interpreted by many, but in war it overshadows many other issues that are going on — like women’s rights — and then even later on the assassination of Abraham Lincoln because of the support that he had for the black community.

Reflection - 2.24.16

To begin, I researched the civil right of same-sex marriage. Some have come to believe that same-sex marriage is unlawful and question whether or not it is indeed a "civil right." The research that I conducted enhanced my views on the topic because I noticed that those who are supporting or directly affected by the fight have been discriminated against for so long, and all that they were fighting for was to be granted the right to marry someone. It made me realize that not all of those have it easy in life and are discriminated for who they are on a daily basis, whether it's in their place of work, at home, or on the street. Issues like these that are related to civil rights are so controversial because it simply means that a set group of individuals are not able to do something like another group is, or even be granted equality as a certain individual would be. I attempted to address controversy by talking about the counterpoints that are like the Bible and the basic definition of what marriage is as defined by many things - including the Bible.

A Single Story - 2.12.16

In Chimamanda Adiche's Ted Talk, A Single Story, she shows that for every country there is typically a single story about it. In other words a stereotype or common prejudice that the country or continent (in this case) is defined by. For example, she talks about how she had lived in the United States for a while and the media portrayed the Mexican country as a country where the citizens cross the border, get arrested at the border, and things like that. However, when she travelled to the country of Mexico and visited the city of Guadalupe she learned that in fact those stereotypes were completely opposite of what she expected. People had been laughing, smoking, and happy. She had felt ashamed of her thoughts because the thoughts were wrong and only of a single story. What a "Single Story" really means is just how a something is pictured or imagined to be. She shows that America does not have just a single story, but that there are many, because of American literature there are many views to the American life.

TNJC Blog 5 - 2.11.16

     In Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow,  she brings up prominent African Americans like President Obama for several reasons. In chapter 6, she has a subsection named,  “Obama — the Promise and the Peril”. The subsection starts out with some prior information and the first paragraph ends with a rhetorical question (I believe is the correct word), one that the reader will be able to answer by the end of the section. The next paragraph goes on with an anecdote about President Obama in his early years, about how he used to inhale marijuana and how those bad decisions could have led him into a whole different part of life that is completely opposite of where he is now. That life would be of a “junkie” or a “pothead”. She uses the president as a prime example just to show possibly ethos because typically the president is a trusted figure, but she goes on to give points of why we should view him otherwise. These points being with his choice of Vice President, Joe Biden, and his choice of Rahm Emanuel who are both strident drug warriors, or in other words, against drug users. I suppose that she includes these facts because she wants to make it known that Obama went off his campaign trail to make it look like he isn’t “soft” on crime, so he could be better liked int he political world. She also then brings up towards the end of her subsection how many black people choose to ignore the racial issues during his presidency to ensure that he gets a smooth sailing and looks good as a presidential figure. All of these points that she makes that are prominent with President Obama help contribute to her argument by showing that some are negligent to the fact that some will just sit back and wait for changes to be made, rather than making it themselves and using other ways to get things to happen — whether it is through Vice Presidents, or sparking up old laws. She also shows that with the President’s anecdote that if he had still used drugs throughout the end of his teenage years he would be in a much different place than he is now, since the “Drug War” would have found him somewhere and somehow. So, in conclusion, Alexander brings up points in order to advance her point that there are still issues to mass incarceration and the Drug War that need to be fixed, but some just sit back while there is a colored man in office and ignore the racial issues in order to just let the President have a smooth sail through office.

The Poem - 2.9.16

Laughing. The action that expresses happiness, or joy. First thing that comes to mind are my friends and family. Just thinking about laughter makes me want to recall previous memories where I or someone else had said a joke. It makes me want to just sit down with my friends and recall how hilarious something was at one point, even if it is no longer funny.

Writing Intro - 2.9.16

Describe the purpose of chapter five. How does syntax play a role in establishing the purpose? How does it compare & contrast with other sections of the book?

The purpose of chapter five is to essentially summarize what The New Jim Crow is all about. She focuses on different aspects throughout the chapter through subheadings which end up showing the reader what the purpose of the book really is: to raise awareness about problems in the court system, how there are historical parallels, and how people of color and/or minorities are affected by the drug war and everything else. The syntax of chapter five plays a role by giving a broad topic, and then breaking it down into subtopics, which she does not do as much in other chapters of the book. These subtopics explain, but also compare and contrast the issues that the real Jim Crow has and the ones that she believes are a part of the "New Jim Crow". All of her paragraphs throughout her book contain statistics, explanations, and opinions regarding how the New Jim Crow is what it is today. In her chapter five, under the subtopics of "The Limits of an Analogy" and "Mapping Parallels" she uses bold text in order to introduce a new topic that she is going to explain, she does not do this with other parts of the book.

TNJC Blog 4 - 2.8.16

     In Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow, she includes a section that references interactions between police officers and civilians. For example, she includes the statement that, “a wallet could be mistaken for a gun” (84) This is obviously a problem that should be fixed, but it is not irrational to say the least. The stereotype that people of color that live in a “ghetto” neighborhood are typically armed and or dangerous is sad to say the least, but is still a problem. A police officer has to act quickly and must save themselves from any harm to benefit others around them, so shooting on sight seems like the best plan possible. But, is there a way to fix this? Possibly. I am not extremely educated on the topic of “police shootings” (not sure of the exact name, this one just came to my head) or topics that are related to it, but I will try to propose an argument in order for how we could reduce tragedies like the ones that have happened to Tamir Rice, and various other victims. 

     In order to obtain more information on the Tamir Rice case, I googled it and found a CNN article about it. To be quite honest with you, I do not blame the officer to shoot him as he was carrying an item that looked like a gun, however, it was a gun that only dispensed pellets. But, on the contrary, with Alexander’s point that when a wallet could be mistaken for a gun the subject should be apprehended accordingly. We, as society, can reduce these tragedies by simply complying with police officers… It is not that difficult. It may be a little bit ignorant of me to say just to comply with police officers, but still it is a way to reduce the tragedy as a whole. If you feel uncomfortable complying with an officer for any reason whatsoever then you deserve to be apprehended, it’s a win or lose situation. You either harm yourself or your save yourself. Before reaching into your pocket, car console, or any other compartment tell the officer what you are doing first so he knows and can be ready. If you aren't telling the officer what you’re doing then he will just assume suspicion and get ready for whatever is about to happen. To conclude this post, I would just like to say that I am not sure if I answered the prompt correctly or not, but I just believe if you are with an officer, being questioned, or any other situation you should just comply, use your fourth amendment right if necessary, you can say no to an unwarranted search. 

Aria - 2.4.16

Personally, I do believe that this argumentative writing was somewhat valid and effective. Rodriguez spoke about the intimacy of language and how the bilingual education proposal in congress could potentially devalue the meaning of family language, or a language just spoken around the house. It could be seen as a very credible argument, however, I'm not quite sure what the opposing view could be that he could bring up in a counterargument. It's possible that the counterargument is reassuring the public or anyone affected by bilingual education that it would be beneficial if it were to become law. That is one of the only reasons that I see for a possibility of the argument not being valid, which summed up is just not addressing the counterargument. I do believe that the argument he is making is effective. He uses plenty of pathos throughout his writing by using a personal perspective and anecdotes about his life, and with subtle intermissions about explaining his current life and whatnot. It differs between a regular argumentative paper just by it having more of a personal aspect, but also for it not including all of the known criteria to a basic argumentative piece.

TNJC Blog 3 - 1.31.16

     There are numerous myths about the criminal justice system that Michelle Alexander addresses in her book The New Jim Crow. The one myth that stood out to me the most was how people of color commit more drug crimes than white people do. This myth is completely stereotypical and she proves it to be untrue with plenty of statistics. She claims that, “Whites tend to sell to whites; blacks to blacks.” (Alexander 61) She goes on to give a quote from someone in the National Drug Control Policy stating that generally if your child has purchased drugs it is from someone in their own race. There is also another side myth to the idea that people of color commit more drug crimes — that myth is the notion that “most illegal drug use and sales happen in the ghetto.” (61) Which is proven as “fiction” because, yes, drug trafficking does happen there, but it also does happens everywhere else in America. Alexander addresses these myths with statistics and factual reasoning. For example, she gives the statistic that “1 in every 14 black men were behind bars in 2006, compared with 1 in 106 white men.” This statistic specifically doesn’t show the ratio of black to white committing drug crimes, but the racial bias of how black people commit more drug crimes over white people. She gives another statistic on page 60 stating, “white students use cocaine at seven times the rate of black students, use crack cocaine at eight times the rate of black students, and use heroin at seven times the rate of black students.” Honestly, as a reader, I did not expect this at all, I most certainly felt it would be the other way around due to how I was brought up and how other things are presented on the news. Alexander has dispelled these myths with the usage of statistics, and since statistics can generally not be denied they have reasonably backed up the denial of the myth that people of color commit more drug related crimes than white people do. It is just that people of color are targeted more often than white people are on a daily basis.

TNJC Blog 2 - 1.26.16

     During chapter two of Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow she brings up various issues that occur due to the War on Drugs. From the many issues that she discusses, including the issues of the Fourth Amendment, the one that stood out the most to me was the issue of mandatory minimum sentencing. Throughout the section “Time Served” she brings up multiple cases of the absurd minimum sentences. For example, Alexander states, “In fact, fifty years to life was the actual sentence given to Leandro Andrade, whose sentence for stealing videotapes was upheld by the Supreme Court.” (Alexander 57) Which is entirely absurd, from my personal opinion, and to make things even more ridiculous… The only thing that he had done was steal three golf clubs from a pro shop and stealing children’s video tapes from a Kmart store. Obviously enough though, Andrade did commit a crime, and no crime should go unpunished. Although, fifty years to life is definitely an extreme sentence for a crime like this. Alexander also compares a murderer’s sentence, and Andrade will serve a longer term which is shattering to think about, as the majority of his life is going to spent in prison. Just by comparing the crime of murder, and the crime of stealing should be an obvious representation of mandatory minimum sentencing. How could someone who killed another human earn less time than someone who only stole a few items, twice? 

     The media should be talking about the issue of mandatory minimum sentencing because I do not think that many people realize just how bad this issue is. Today’s media consists of senseless and unimportant things like the man Donald Trump, who is a completely different story. Stories on celebrities having children, being pregnant, or how they dressed to the Golden Globe Awards is only shown to keep the viewer’s attention, but is not necessary or useful. Honestly, I would say that the majority of the population does not know about the issue of minimum sentencing or topics relating to jail and other related issues. It is most definitely important to know about all of the issues that she presents, this is just the the one issue that stood out to me the most. 

Try to Vote - 1.26.16

This activity shows the significance of one vote by showing that many people are determined to vote someone/something into office/law that would improve their everyday lives and well-being. If one vote is lost, then potentially even more are lost with it, causing the one side or another to benefit from lost votes. I believe that so many were willing to put themselves in harms way to vote because some people are so dedicated to a cause that they are willing to die for it, they are willing to get damaged in fighting for a better world for everyone else -- including them. If I was faced with the same challenges I would have kept putting my one foot forward; I would (most likely) not stop working towards it until I got what I and everyone else wanted. A cause is a cause and if you're willing to fight for it then it'll become noticed by many others.

TNJC Blog 1 - 1.24.16

Prompt #1 -

     Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow provides a standpoint on a new “racial caste system” where blacks are incarcerated more often than white people. This standpoint she at first disagreed with and thought was rubbish, but she grew to believe that it was in fact accurate. The mass incarceration idea that is talked about provides a sense of “social control” keeping a social caste system that is a, “well-disguised system of racialized social control that is strikingly similar to Jim Crow.” (Alexander 7) She goes on to support this claim by talking about the past social controls such as slavery and Jim Crow. In the first paragraph she makes a point that I have been dwelling on while reading through the beginning of the book. She says that Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because, “he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon and is currently on parole.” (Alexander 5) Now my question to her would be, why exactly is he on parole? Why is he labeled as a felon? From my stance, he must have done something against the law in order to get himself in that position. So, personally, I do not see a problem with anything that she is saying. After typing these few sentences I went to search for background knowledge about the topic of “Jarvious Cotton” and found a news article about the case that he was in. It tells the reader that he was “charged with killing the son of a prominent white baker.” I could see where Alexander was coming from, she could be saying that the court was racially bias in deciding if a colored man had killed a caucasian man’s son, which is entirely possible. She also makes the point that “we use our criminal justice system to label people of color ‘criminals’..” (Alexander 6) She does make a very well point about this, that we do in fact have a lot of colored people going to jail for various reasons, including for the “drug war”. To counter this claim, I would have to go along the lines of that colored people, as well as minorities commit more crimes than caucasians. Why? I honestly have no idea. It is a stereotype that they do commit more crimes, but it is true. If the community wanted to not be blamed with this stereotype then they should not commit the crimes.

     In conclusion, I do not agree with he point that Michelle Alexander is making about the New Jim Crow as of yet. She still has yet to convince me that the criminal justice system is taking place as the New Jim Crow. It may be wrong of me to make the accusation that more colored people commit crimes over white people, but I feel as if that is what I have come to believe as true. 

Breaking it Down - 1.21.16

In paragraph 26, Thoreau distinguishes different types of taxes. Why? He continues by stating: “I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man or a musket to shoot one with,--the dollar is innocent,--but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance.” Apply his position to today--what might our tax dollars go to today that would cause a similar reflection and response?

• Poll taxes
• He talked about poll taxes b/c he had not payed them in years. (six to be exact)
• tax dollars today go to things around the state and whatnot, like roads and schools (sometimes)
• tax dollars go to things like social security, medicare -- stuff to help out individuals who are in need, but the money also goes to pay for politicians and government officials/workers.
• julia makes a good point about taxes going towards various war items.

On Civil Disobedience - 1.20.16

"There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man," according to Thoreau (paragraph 10). Do you agree with his assertion? Write a response about someone you regard as virtuous according to Thoreau's characterization. Refer specifically to Thoreau's text in your response. 

I do agree with Thoreau's assertion that there are "ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man," partly because he is saying that one out of every ninety-nine people are virtuous in themselves, and the other 98 people are going to be people who give on occasions like charity or donations. Someone who I regard as virtuous would be my own mother, as she is loving and giving. However, she is also "hesitates.. regrets.. and petitions." (Thoreau 1020) She has always been honest with me on many topics, but she also petitions (or fights against decisions) with my father, and various other people, even if the decisions are just going to my grandparents house for a holiday dinner. The way that Thoreau says that an honest man and patriot will do nothing in earnest and with effect. Personally, I believe that this means that they will not just sit around and do something that needs to be done, but do something that ultimately has to be done and have that effect other things. I can connect that statement with my own mother as she has never just sat around waiting for something to be done, she is always on her feet and making sure that it gets done and will effect other things happen.

Argumentative Prompt - 1.8.16

IDEAS

• write about how gender equality is still not up to equals in every state, including the federal government (if I'm not mistaken)
• put in details about the rich doing tax benefiting stuff (charities, donations, whatnot) in order for their taxes to be lower. Basically going against his statement that the rich are not privileged.
• write about how religions are treated unfairly, referring to muslims and how they are directly corresponded with terrorism.
• write about sexual equality and how some states, and people, find it unacceptable for "LGBT" to buy from their businesses, which is typically seen in throughout Texas and Indiana (I could be mistaken.)
• Although the government has started to adequately treat the above stated some people/businesses/states still do not go up to par with treating them equally and with any notion of respect

Blog Assignment - 1.6.16

1. Coleridge's attitude towards the uneducated man could be seen as derogatory, as if those who are uneducated do not contribute to society or receive from it.

2. Coleridge's choice of word-choice, details, and sentence structure help reveal his attitude towards the uneducated man by using compound sentences through semicolon to further his point on uneducated and how they have no sense of imagination or voluntary appreciation.. As seen in the following quote, "... processes and results of imagination, the great part of which have no place in the consciousness of uneducated man...".

3. Rewrite the following sentence to change the tone into contempt for academic elitism: "The best part of human language, properly called, is derived from reflection on the acts of the mind itself."
Rewritten: One of the worst parts of human language, which is how man reflects on the acts in the mind itself.