Classmate I am Thankful For: Jennifer Hernandez

Jennifer and I have been friends since we both first came to Whitney Young. We were both in 7th grade and neither of us knew too many people. Both of us were on bus...um actually I can't remember which bus it was, but we were on the same bus. Very quickly we became friends along with the other kids on the bus, and they were some of the first kids I knew that weren't from the other schools I went to. Going into Whitney I actually probably knew more kids than anyone else. I went to 3 different grade schools, Bell, Decatur and Edison, and around 20-25 kids from these schools were going to Whitney. But I didn't have very many classes with them, almost none in fact. This made my situation kind of awkward, because I didn't know most of the kids in my classes. But Jennifer and her friends made a nice bridge for me to make new friends. Some of my best memories and most vivid experiences from 7th grade are of that bus and all the great times we had there. One of the most clear memories I have is the time half our bus got in trouble. Like serious trouble though, as in suspension. See our bus was normal length, but it was some kind of handicapped bus so the back half had no seats. The bus didn't have enough seats for all of us, so we sat in the back. Actually we sat there even if there were enough seats, we thought we were really cool. A lot of us used to play this game where we would taunt the cars behind us. The activities were not always the most appropriate suffice to say. Eventually someone called Mr. Swanson, the then director of the Academic Center, and half of us got suspended and Saturday schools. I didn't very actively participate but it was a lot of fun to watch and talk to all the other kids. We did prank calls, yelled at kids outside with our whole bodies hanging out of windows, ate ice cream, and a bunch of other dumb stuff that really helped me move into Whitney more comfortably. Jennifer was someone that I could talk to and be friends with no matter what. I am really thankful for all the fun times we shared, they were something I looked forward to all day in 7th grade.

Macbeth: Was it worth it?

An interesting notion to say the least when discussing this is the value that we assign to human life. As soon as one begins to consider this question they automatically begin assigning value to human lives. Is one life equal to one year as king? Is someone else's one life better than another's? Macbeth evaluates this question extensively really up until he decides to kill Banquo. It's an interesting thing, human psychology on murder. After a while the killer just stops caring entirely. Sometimes they even begin to enjoy it, like their whole life revolves around it, depending on it to hang onto their remaining sanity. Macbeth portrays this right up until the end. Underneath Macbeth's facade is a slowly deteriorating mind that becomes increasingly paranoid and obsessed with murder. This is often referred to as Antisocial Personality Disorder. People who are seemingly normal on the outside, in fact often very charismatic, intelligent, and even with families, who are on the inside a mess of evil intent and madness. I learned about this condition while reading about famous 70s and 80s killer Ted Bundy. Bundy had this same disorder. For years Bundy had a secret life of murder, rape, and pathologically psychotic episodes despite in his normal life seeming like a perfectly normal man. In fact he was the least likely suspect for someone who would do these things. Bundy was a law school student, bright and engaged. He worked with politicians and was regarded by many to be a kind and compassionate individual. Crazy as it may seem he even worked as a suicide hotline operator and was described by his co-workers as empathetic and caring. Macbeth is seen in the same light. He is a cold blooded killer on the inside, but outside he seems like a model man. Someone who is just, noble, righteous and brave; all the good qualities of a Scottish aristocrat. I think when we begin to look at Macbeth's view on the worth of killing it slowly devolves from convenience to enjoyment. Bundy did the same thing. He originally killed his rape victims simply out of convenience of not having a witness, but told interviewers that he later killed for the killing itself. He had an almost cultish worship of his victims, making their murders and deaths rituals, building shrines at their bodies and returning often. He killed because he needed to, it was all he knew. Macbeth originally killed out of desire for power, but slowly devolves to killing out of sheer paranoia, eating at his sanity and driving him into insane blood lust. Because of this he no longer evaluates like we would this situation. We don't take the joy of the murder into our account of the pros. We think of the power, wealth, etc. that stands to gain. But Macbeth thinks on a different plane than that. 

Now the question comes to me, would I follow Macbeth's footsteps? The answer for me would unconditionally no. To be honest, I feel from a religious and moral standpoint that taking another human's life is simply wrong, and should thus be avoided at all costs. Not only that but that we would even consider this question is I believe morally bankrupt. I mentioned this during our class discussion, but as soon as you begin to evaluate from a consequentialist standpoint this question, you are immediately placing value on someone else's life. This is something we talk about in Debate on occasion. Consequentialism could be compared to Utilitarianism. We must weigh the outcomes of two options and discover which choice results in the best world. I think that a question like this needs to be denied in all circumstances. Something that asks you how many lives you would sacrifice to gain for yourself is no matter what going to be wrong, and even stopping to begin considering it makes you corrupt too. The question often complicates itself though. What if you could sacrifice one man to save 10. Or what if you could sacrifice a city to save the world. The list goes on but as the impacts get larger for others the consequentialist approach gets more difficult to ignore. This is a question I can't answer as easily as the first. But ultimately Macbeth-ish actions are wrong, and that's just it. Killing some dude's "babes" and wife is pretty messed up, and everyone can agree with that. And if you chose to go through with it anyways you're going to have to live with the guilt forever, and that, is the worst punishment of all.

No New Tale to Tell

Greed is a hard topic to talk about. Of course we can simply define greed as "desiring something you don't have", but is that completely accurate. When we apply greed to human nature and modern society it manifests itself in very different forms. Greed doesn't necessarily need to be for yourself, greed also doesn't need to be for a bad cause. Greed is a wide and far-reaching subject that is not so easily classified by the definition we are pursuing. For instance a mother sending her child to a selective enrollment school is greedy because she desires her child to be more successful than others and have advantages that others do not. By that child taking a seat in the school, it means some other child is denied that future. Greed is present in almost all human actions. Desire for pleasure, the ultimate goal in life is only attained by greed. Everyone wants to feel pleasure in their own respective way or form, and this desire is greed in essence. Greed is as natural to humans as breathing and is ultimately inevitable. Because of this greed really isn't such a bad thing after all. Greed saves people from dangerous situations, it allows people to think rationally and make good decisions, it lets us advance further as a species and has helped the human race more times than ever would be countable. There are very important events in human history that have been caused by greed, that resulted in general good. For instance, when the US entered WWII out of desire to keep its control over the Pacific it resulted in the end of the Holocaust, the destruction of the Nazi regime, creation of the United Nations, liberation of millions of people, saving the Chinese-Sino people from Japanese torture, and establishing a new world order of democracy. At the same time this greed for territory led to 2 atomic weapons being used, widespread genocide, destruction of families, property and lives. I do think there is merit to an argument that greed causes evil, but it is definitely an overstatement to say greed causes all evil. In fact, greed alleviates much evil in human lives and is an essential part of our existence.

Truth

Truth is an important concept to keep in mind while reading the story of Grendel. While I read this story and hear the discussion in class I can't help but feel that everyone gives Grendel a little too much credit. The guy is definitely lonely and confused, but you mean to tell me that his situation justifies his systematic murdering of hundreds of people, torturing humans like the hero, and his self-pitying and "I know everything" attitude really annoy me. It seems to me that the truth in the story of Grendel will never truly be known to anyone besides the dragon. The dragon is a really mysterious character, and I think in some ways represents a "God" figure or at least a deity of some kind. His attitude of world-weariness, omniscient knowledge, and unbelievable power makes me feel he is some sort of representation of a god, good or bad. He tries to teach Grendel of the truth, but he simply can't understand, and I think the minds of Grendel and the humans are doomed to misunderstand the truth as they only care about surviving and benefiting themselves. The truth is why both sides fight. Grendel fights for his "rights" so to speak. In other words he fights the humans because he despises them for rejecting him and hates their attitudes towards the world and each other. He justifies his "stupid war" with these claims and thusly justifies massive, uncontained genocides of the other species. This to me is probably the worst thing that has happened in the story, and pretty much destroys any credibility Grendel would have had otherwise. I get where he's coming from but his means do not justify his ends. The humans fight to protect themselves at least from Grendel, but they also fight their own, out of mindless desire to gain more pleasure for their own use. But if Grendel never interfered with their business in the first place they would never attack him anyways. For instance, after that run-in with Hrothgar and his men in the forest the humans never came after Grendel again. In fact, they never even came into contact with Grendel until he came over to them. And he thinks they are barbaric and evil but what would you do if a 12 foot monster carrying a dead naked body with him, roaring at the top of his lungs came over to your front door. Grendel should have thought this out before going over to them. Even more so, instead of taunting the hero at the mead hall after he discovered Grendel could speak, he should have tried to communicate and understand the "truth." In the end no side is right, and no side knows the whole truth about the other.

Modern Grendel

I think the modern day Grendel is very subjective towards change, and usually it isn’t represented by just one person, but rather a collective, country or group. Not only this but the perspective and “sides” so to speak is very important. I think a very interesting area for this Grendel situation is the US and Western Powers or the “good guys” or “Beowulf” so to speak and then the “Grendel” figure of the Muslim Middle Eastern countries. Due to biased and misinformed observations and generalizations by our governments, media sources and age-old opinions fueled by ancient feelings of racism, anti-muslim, and a whole lot of misunderstanding the general Muslim collective there has been demonized by the West and portrayed as our “enemy.” One country specifically demonstrates this demonizing process the best; the country of Iran. For over a century Iran has been a victim of foreign powers, whether by the hands of their fellow Muslims or by some strange and distant Western colonial government. Before the 20^th century they were ruled by the Ottoman Empire. However once the great liberators of the UK and France defeated this regime it seemed that they would finally achieve freedom, right? Wrong. They simply traded one overlord for an even worse one. The UK ruled Iran without really showing much care for the people and extracted oil relentlessly to fuel their own interests. Then WWII strikes and the UK goes bankrupt, so they are forced to dismantle their magnificent empire and release most of their former colonies and territories. Iran is once again put into a false sense of freedom. Post-WWII the US is in desperate need of oil, so the leaders of the US take advantage of the disastrous political system of Iran and force in their own puppet figure to rally support and take over. They, no we, fuel this power-hungry dictator’s efforts by supplying him with weapons, money, soldiers and international recognition. This leader would become known as the “Shah” of Iran. He and his son would rule Iran until the 70’s. The US used this puppet as a tool to ruthlessly force Iranians to extract oil year in and year out for the new US leisure life style and war machines. Not only this, but the Shah maintained his power by having his soldiers (armed with US issued weapons of course) inhumanely control his citizens and enforce violent military rule. This made anger quietly brew within Iranians for decades until finally they revolted and a massive, and incredibly violent civil war broke out, followed by worse wars with Iraq and continued rioting and confusion. Eventually the people, tired of war and violence, rallied under their common banner, one that to them represented peace. The National Islamic Party won the election in Iran and turned the country into a Islamic Republic. Now not only on top of all the crimes the US has dealt to them, they also support Israel, which is an entirely separate but just as serious crime. But now that they’re no longer firmly under US hegemonic influence, they are considered a loose cannon. So the governments of the West label them terrorists and dangerous, unstable powers pursuing dangerous weapons with monstrous mindsets bent on destruction of all that is good and holy to us. Both Grendel and Iran are pictured by the “good” and “innocent” citizens of Denmark and the US as horrible monsters with no reasoning for their destructive tendencies. The truth behind their pain is forever lost though, as they are butchered by our armies and “heroes” defeating evil once again, preserving our regime of lies for a little longer. 

English III Blog Post: Me

So I guess to start off I'll tell you that I'm 15 years old, and a sophomore. I'm a Roman Catholic and of as far as I know Irish descent. I went to the Academic Center here at Whitney Young and I've so far attended this school for 4 years. Whitney Young is probably my favorite out of the 5 some schools I've attended, and I'm impressed with the variety of classes, technology, activities, and just general niceness. I'm on the Varsity Debate Team here at Whitney and am currently preparing to go to Niles West for our first tournament of the year next weekend. Last year we won the city championship, and we won the state several years ago. I guess you could say it's a sort of dream of mine to win the state championship. You see, policy debate as a competitive activity is naturally biased towards wealthier suburban communities. For instance our school, doesn't have a single full time coach! But the (arguably) best school in Illinois (and Illinois is a very tough state for debate, especially with Northwestern here) Glenbrook North  has 10 full time coaches! It would be difficult to explain the specifics of what the coaches do that make it so unfair, but I'm sure you can tell that 10 is better than none. Anyways, I also really like acting and have been in a lot of professional productions. My last one which I finished up with in July was a performance of Brighton Beach Memoirs by Neil Simon in which I played the main character Eugene. If you've read the play or seen it then you know what it's about. I personally thought it was a great and funny play that was an excellent experience. The guy who played my brother Stanley was one of the swordsmen at the Bristol Renaissance Faire which was actually, like (sorry), the coolest thing that had ever happened to me. Yeah, I really love the Renaissance Faire, which kind of makes me a little weird I guess, but I don't dress up or anything like that! Anyways, Brighton Beach went on for about 3 months then ended. I got some good reviews from the Sun Times and Tribune. Hedy Weiss even called me the "Best Eugene Ever!" It was a lot of fun. I've also worked for the Court, Theatre Wit, and starred in a movie featured at the Sundance Indie Movie festival. My favorite class right now is probably either this one, or AP World History with Ms. Boyle. Least favorite would definitely be Pre-Calculus as I'm awful at math in all forms and loath it wholly. So, I just checked my word count and I'm over 430 words now, so I'll wrap it up. I'm excited to see where our British Literature takes us, and my mom says that the books we're reading are good. Hope to have a good year I guess!

Mid-Book Review: Fahrenheit 451

The book Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, thus far has been a surprisingly enjoyable and interesting experience, escpecially having time to discuss it with a group. The book is very short (only about 160 pages) and so we have a lot to think and discuss about with very little material often. But, I think this works to an advantage as we really get in great discussions about deeper meanings and motives in the book besides summarizing and scrambling to talk about 40 pages or so of small text.
Fahrenheit 451 is a story about a "firefighter" named Guy Montag. The book takes place in a tyrannical futuristic society where a unknown but all powerful and completely controlling and brain-washing government Books are banned, education is brief, people are violent and emotionless, and no one really seems to understand each other, their situation or the rest of the world. Montag isn't a firefighter in the sense we would think about. Instead of putting the fires out, he starts them. The firefighters burn all the dangerous and rouge books of the world, keeping peace and order and stamping out any crazy and thoughtful "ideas". Montag meets a girl named Clarisse who teaches him about the past and ideas and Montag starts asking questions about his world and life. But one day Clarisse is nowhere to be seen, and eventually Mildred, his wife, tells him that Clarisse was hit by a car. Montag is distraught and finally goes off the deep end once he is forced to let a woman housing books die in a fire he caused. He goes into a coma-like state feeling sick and torn, until his fire-chief Beatty arrives and explains to Montag the origin and role of firemen in the world. Firefighters are supposed to keep the peace and make sure everyone is happy and ignorant. Montag almost believes Beatty, but then meets a man named Faber who is an old English Professor. Faber agrees to help Montag learn about books and aid his quest in figuring out how to stop the tyrants of the world, somehow.
I really like the book, especially the way Bradbury describes the characters for you. Even though it is a strange alternate universe, the people all seem realistic and I feel strong emotions towards them. Montag feels like an angry, lost, and confused man searching for answers and help. Mildred seems like an obnoxious and ignorant fool lost in her own self-pity and world. Faber is a scared old man, desiring freedom and reading but to afraid to try. The story really develops around the characters, as there isn't much else to the book. The plot started slowly, but as soon as Beatty came to visit things picked up fast. The book picks up on some really interesting ideas and philisophical notions that make a reader stop and think for a long time. In our lit circles we always have a lot of things to talk about because the book isn't just telling a story for you to enjoy, but its forcing the reader to think and come up with his own ideas and justifications for the characters' actions, and whether or not they agree with them. All in all it's a really fantastic book and I can't wait to finish it.

Word Count: 557

NCAA Mascot Response

I'm going to start the paper stating that I don't believe the NCAA mascots have a negative connotation. However, I do understand how Native Americans could feel offended or annoyed by these portrayals of their culture, skin, etc. The same goes for Irish people, or other ethnic groups that are used as mascots.

To understand why a mascot might mean something bad or rude we have to know what mascots are made for and what they are supposed to mean/represent. Mascots are made to show a school's ideals or qualities and represent them in competition, power and influence. The schools in the NCAA have mascots to display their skill and strength in basketball and strike fear in their opponents with a strong idea or person behind their back. This means the thing characterized as the mascot is being glorified and acknowledged for its virtues. But this doesn't necessarily have to be about basketball, or sports at all. These mascots can also apply to education or art, etc. For instance the Dolphin for Whitney Young represents intelligence and academic excellence, but also the power and strength of Dolphins.

However being compared to an animal or an object could be very offensive and means that you and your culture are basically nothing more than animals, no matter how noble. Anyone would find being called a beast offensive and is certainly not acceptable in modern society. For instance no one would ever say the "albinos" or "whites" if they wanted to represent a team with skills of a stereotypical white person. Obviously not the entire white race would have these qualities or be accurately represented by this, but it is comparable to the way Native Americans are portrayed. Also many of the names used to describe the Native Americans are very offensive. For instance the Washington Redskins have a very rude name. "Redskin" is a stereotype of Native Americans for having red-colored skin, which would certainly be offensive to them. It could be comparable to all Asians being stereotyped as "Yellow".

Ultimately however, I think mascots are not all that important in modern day. No one really cares about how scary or powerful a mascot is anymore, and it is mostly for fun. The majority of the populace really doesn't even think about the teams being called Native American names, and it is relatively unimportant. I think it would just be very time consuming and costful to completely change the branding of a franchise.

Word Count: 414

Raisin In the Sun-Great Gatsby: Comparison of American Dream

The American Dream aspects that are displayed among the characters of "Great Gatsby" are mostly reflected in corresponding characters in "A Raisin in the Sun". The characters of course come from very different social and economic backgrounds, but they often have very similar principles and dreams. The most prominent example of this correlation are the similarities between Gatsby and Walter. Another is the similarity  between Daisy and Ruth. A less strong, but still present example is the common goals of Beneatha and Ms. Wilson. Gatsby and Walter share the desire to become wealthy, Gatsby seeks it to make Daisy fall in love with him and to achieve luxurious and fantastic lifestyle after his relatively deprived childhood. Walter also had a poor childhood, made worse by the fact that he grew up as a black child during the Great Depression, and was subject to racism and poverty. Walter desires wealth simply to be rich and own lots of fancy and opulent items. Walter doesn't seem to have a really important motive besides simply amassing wealth to become like "a rich white man".

While I don't have exact quotes I can remember a part in "A Raisin in the Sun" where Walter was speaking to Travis about his dreams. He tells Travis that he can do anything he wants and that Walter will help him achieve anything. Walter basically goes on a rant of all the amazing and luxurious things he will own and get once he gets rich. I don't remember the exact words, but it was a really resounding quote to me, because it seemed to me that Walter was sort of deluded and crazy with his obsession over wealth. It seemed as though Walter expected he was going to get rich, without really seeing reality or having a plan. Once he became rich it would solve all his problems magically. I felt the same way about Gatsby's dreams of wealth and love. Gatsby seeks wealth as a means to impress and woo over Daisy, to make her think he is a stunning gentleman. Gatsby chases Daisy for his whole life, living a delusional life believing he can get her no matter what, as long as he is wealthy. The insane dreams of Gatsby and Walter are very similar, as they both pursue impossible dreams.

Another important example is the comparison between Ruth and Daisy. Both are wives to troubled men and upset with how their marriages have turned out. The women seek love and a "happy family" but find that their convoluted family life often draws them away from their husbands. Ruth wants to care for Travis and her new baby. Most of all she wants Walter to return to normal and love her again, to restore their broken love. Meanwhile, Daisy seeks the true love of Tom and wants him to leave the Ms. Wilson and actually care about her for who she is. In desperate efforts to get the love both women do things that upset their husbands and it leads to conflicts about the actions of both groups. It seems the dream of both Daisy and Ruth is to be loved, and love, and to raise their families the right way. They seem to feel like their children are being hurt and are in danger because of their father's bad actions. Like Daisy's daughter who is shunned by Tom, and Travis being fooled and hurt by Walter's promises.

Ultimately the Dreams of the characters in both stories are paralleled between similar characters with similar characteristics. Despite their different backgrounds, it seems that people often have the same dreams and ideas, like everyone seeks the same goals.

Word Count: 612

Community Interview Project Reflection

Over the course of doing this project I think we have learned a lot of things and gained great skills. It was interesting to go around my neighborhood and learn things about its denizens that I never knew. The common patterns and ideas presented by the members of my community is very interesting and makes me wonder if all areas are like this. I look forward to the other presentations for this, to compare my findings with others, and perhaps get a broader view on the city as a whole. We could see the similarities between the whole city. I was not really that surprised to hear a lot of the things about my community. It is a heavily education and residential based area, with not much major business or industry, and limited workplaces. There are some small mostly family owned or small commercial stores, excluding the few plazas with major stores. I think my community is special and unique because of the great schools in my neighborhood (not as great as Whitney Young of course) and the very family and education oriented lifestyle most of the residents live. It was a great experience learning about my neighborhood and will be to learn about others as well.

Interview Questions

1. Did you graduate from high school?
2. What did you do after High school, college or a job or something else?
3. Did you think you would pursue the career you had/have?
4. How does your career compare to your parents?
5. Do you own a car, or did you?
6. When did you get this car, or if you didn't, when did you most want one or come closest?
7. What kind of house do you live in, what kinds have you had in the past?
8. What house did/do you desire?
9. Do you feel more "free" than your parents or people from your home country if your family are recent immigrants?
10. Are you happy with your life?

Project Proposal

For my project I will investigate the American Dreams of the people, of wide variety/diversity, in my neighborhood. I will interview my parents, a small bussiness owner, and a friendly neighbor. These people vary in ages from very old, to middle adulthood, and also vary in ethnicity and social class. I will then anaylyze the information gained from the interviews and prepare them in a powerpoint presentation for the class.

American Dream Article

The article I read was from Marketplace.org and is called "The New American Dream: An Immigrant's Story". This article is about one immigrant named Nathalie Cortas and her expectations of America and dreams. Nathalie grew up in Venezuela and attempted to get an education there. However, due to Venezuela's impoverished condition, she moved to Florida in an effort to learn more and become successful. She has had issues staying here in the US and says she fears being deported because she can't find work to get a visa. Nathalie prefers the US a million times to Venezuela and says she would do anything besides go back.
I think this article gets at the base of what is changing in American immigration and the "Dream" new immigrants to the United States have. Over the last 50 years the US has been moving from being a large, industrial factory-style economy, to a more knowledge and specialist based society. Most people go to college now for 2 or often 4 years, if not more. In 1950, much less people went to college and the primary reason people came to the US is because they believed there was a lot of cheap, good land and good decent jobs (which didn't require a college education, or often even a high school diploma) were abundant. Today, I think more people are migrating for education and their future generations education. Nathalie's story reflects this for me. I see her as an individual seeking a better life and a higher education, then thinking about the job. When she came she immediately went to college and avoided getting a real job. When she did need a job, there were none to be had. In modern America, education and colleges are a lot easier to achieve than they used to be, and jobs are much harder now due to not only the current economic situation, but also the change in economic ideas, knowledge vs industrial. The modern "American Dream" is more about education than it is about jobs now.

Word Count: 339

Favorite Movie Villain

So, my favorite movie villain is pretty well known, and you probably know him. I like Severus Snape a lot, from the movie series Harry Potter. Snape isn't exactly a villain, but more of an antihero. I read the Harry Potter series through til' the end, and even watched the last film at midnight release, so I'm pretty well versed in the antics of Snape. Throughout the series Snape sticks to the shadows, always appearing at the right times, somehow either saving the day, or ruining everything. Snape seems to throughout the series have inner turmoil and conflicts with himself. I think he often is torn between helping Harry Potter and the "good guys", and his old past of being a "death eater" as a servant to the evil Lord Voldemort. There are often flashbacks throughout the series, especially the 6th movie, of Snape's painful past with Harry's parents and Voldemort. I think he is often motivated by a feeling of revenge and anger towards Harry's father and Harry himself. But at other times he feels the loyalty and justice that he owes to Dumbledore the headmaster, Harry's mother (whom he had a love interest in) and Hogwarts. Because of his shady past, and often persecution, I think many of the characters, including Harry, hate Snape and see him as trouble and danger. But despite this anger and bitterness people show towards Snape he still is a person, and makes choices throughout the story. Ultimately he dies by the hands of his own master Voldemort, but he tries to make things right. Despite  Snape's many wrongs and misdoings he tries to do what he sees as right. Moving on to Snape's actual character, which I love. Snape is a menacing, snide and rude character who always has a stinging remark about Harry and his friends and constantly punishes Harry for seemingly no reason. The way he regards the Gryffindors is comical and very tongue and cheek. his character really makes me laugh, but also deeply interests me in the deeper story behind his past and inner combat.

Word Count: 347