Event 2

The movie Coach Carter was a true story about a high school basketball coach who would not let his team play unless his student-athletes performed well in the classroom. A bunch of troubled teens, all the boys wanted to do was “play ball.” However, Coach Carter shut the gym down until all of them had a passing GPA. This motivated the guys to help one another out with classes so that they could get back on the court and do what they really loved to do- play basketball. The character of Coach Carter was played by Samuel L. Jackson, but according to the “real” coach Carter, who spoke at NSU on September 16, 2008, Carter is the “real” and “better-looking” Carter. Coach Carter spoke to student-athletes of Nova Southeastern University, and mentioned the importance of staying in the classroom and putting lots of effort into schoolwork. He did so in a very humorous, but effective way. It was an inspiration to hear the true story coming from a coach who made history. From Carter’s speech, I learned the true importance of focusing on schoolwork as well as on the particular sport one is involved with. Schooling will bring one so much further in life, and one cannot just focus on playing a sport because the body will get old and weaken, but the mind can only grow sharper with age and experience.

Event 1

On Tuesday, September 2, 2008, I attended Nova Southeastern University’s Convocation, a formal welcome and a beginning to the 2008-2009 school year. It was an event of many inspirational speeches and numerous warm welcomes, located in the exuberant Miniaci Performing Arts Center. The proud president, Ray Ferrero, Jr. spoke a few words and introduced many professors and the staff of NSU. Andre Dubus, author of House of Sand and Fog, was the guest speaker. He gave a very motivational story about his father and the coincidence that had occurred, and told us about this year’s school theme “Life and Death.” His story was an anecdote of his life, a time when his father had called him but he was too busy working on a project. He didn’t have time to see his father, however his father convinced him to come visit. So Dubus left everything behind and went to see his father. He spent the evening with him and had a deep conversation about life. A few days later, his father passed away. Dubus told us how glad he was that he had left his work that day and went to see his dad. He didn’t know what had made him do so but he says that he definitely believes in a higher power. After Convocation, I was invited to dinner with Dubus, along with other Honors students, and got to meet him on a more personal level. I noticed that he was a very humorous, witty, entertaining, and light-hearted guy. The story behind his novel House of Sand and Fog was that during his early years, Dubus had a personal encounter with an Indian girl, whom he had fallen madly in love with. Her father was an interesting character, and he took the form of the main character of House of Sand and Fog, Behrani. His story was one of many life events that many people could relate to.

Racism: The reason for hate

Racism is a bomb. It destroys everything that once was alive, love, happiness, humanity, life. With racism, there can be no coexistence. We need to realize that we are all one. It is proven that two races are more alike than two people of one race. So much similarity, but one small difference. So why all the hate? Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics- in the end, we are all human. We live and we all die. We go through life’s up’s and down’s similarly. Why do some humans feel superiority over another race? History may have a big impact, but that is all it is- history. It is really not about a race, it is about a human being. There will always be both good and bad within every race, so generalizations should not be made.

Being in a mixed relationship, I have seen and experienced racism, both against my boyfriend, who is half black, and against myself, a white girl of European descent. It is truly ignorance which breeds racism. I will be the first to admit that when I started my relationship with Richard, my parents were not pleased with his skin color. They had grown up in an all-white, traditional European society. Blacks were seen as inferiors. So when I introduced Richard, my parents were not pleased. But through the past three years, I can speak for my parents and say that they regret feeling like this as they discovered all of Richard’s fabulous personality habits, and realized that he is just a human being, like themselves, like myself, and like the rest of the world. Now they think of him as their own son and love him for who he is. Without this love for all humans, one cannot truly understand who he is. I feel like I found myself in the world and learned so much about who I am, being in a mixed relationship.

Responsisbility

Responsibility. Easier said than done. Something all humans should have but many unfortunately do not obtain. Responsibility is what makes peace and order. It is what makes one mature and able to act for him/her self.
Moving to college and living on my own, I really got a sense of what “responsibility” truly means. From having to make up by myself in the morning, to having to obtain my own food and go to classes, to even having to visit various places alone to take care of my papers, financial aid, etc, I can truly say that I gained a sense of responsibility. But responsibility, in the real world, is more than just “doing things for oneself.” It really involves so much more, from the realization of who one is and how one’s actions impact others, to what one’s meaning in this world is and how one visualizes him/herself.
In the film, Return to Paradise, Sherriff gains a sense of responsibility, which is life-changing for him. It is a re-birth; it makes him a new man, and it impacts the way he views the world and the way he sees himself. At the start, Sherriff’s mind was made not to return to Malaysia to serve his time in jail in order to save his friend’s life. But after a time of very deep reflection, Sherriff decides that it was partly his fault that his friend got caught with the drugs, and decides to return to Malaysia. This, my friends, is responsibility.
Arguments in relationships and even wars start and continue because two sides lack responsibility. It is so much easier to say “I’m sorry. It was my fault. I will do anything I can to make it up,” rather than fight about it and “point fingers.” It is very sad that one or more lives may be taken because someone else lacks responsibility. Ultimately, Lewis dies because MJ is irresponsible; she lacks the concept of the seriousness of the situation and is determined to send out a juicy report without understanding that her actions may result in an innocent death. Like MJ, many people do not think about what they say or do, and sometimes just a small comment may threaten someone’s life.

Cowboys versus Mounties

Sarah Vowell compares the American and Canadian way of life in Cowboys v. Mounties. She uses the symbol of a cowboy to represent a typical American and a mountie, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to symbolize a typical loyal, caring, and peaceful Canadian. Vowell brings up valid arguments including the issues of patriotism, coexistence, personality differences, manners, and individualism to compare the two types of peoples. Although I know very little about Canadian lifestyle, I agree with her notion that Americans are more negative when it comes to patriotism; they tend to put others down and act as the dominant force in order to make themselves look good or feel superior. According to Vowell, Canadians do not display this “swagger or hate.” I had an assistant principal in high school that was Canadian and was brought up there. I can truly say that if all Canadians are as nice, polite, patient, and understanding as he was, then Vowell’s general statement that Canadians have a more likable personality and a nicer way of life is completely true. It takes a huge incident, as for example 911, for Americans to come together and show patriotism for their country, where Canadians, according to Vowell, show love for their country in open public. Vowell also speaks about coexistence and peace based on individualism in comparing Americans and Canadians. I agree on her observation that Americans tend to be more aggressive and impulsive. After all, America is an individualistic country and people tend to chase their own goals and aspirations while not really caring much for their neighbor. After September 11th happened, America was in great determination ready to seek revenge, simply because it was the great power of America, and how could anyone disrespect America like that??!?! Instead of talking problems over, as Canadians would do, Americans act on impulse and fight instead. One last difference between the two that Vowell points out is the fairness of law that Canadians supposedly have and America is trying to reach. I admire Vowell’s views on this issue because I strongly agree. While Canada can peacefully coexist, Americans are to date still racist, hateful, and disrespectful to many minority groups. Southern states still see confederate flags in racism against the blacks. What was a part of American history has not been able to be separated from today’s society. My only concern on Vowell’s proposals is exactly how valid her statements are. Nowhere have we received information that Vowell actually experienced Canadian life and knows so much about their lifestyles.

Into the Wild

Chris McCandless leaves behind his worldly possessions in search of something deeper, more meaningful, and of a greater understanding, perhaps of himself. It comes to all of-us a moment when we just want to give up this monotonous and structured life. Days of frustration and overwhelming fixations exist, ones which we no longer want to continue, so we feel as if we could do something about it. Some do just that- quit- whether it be school, job, or, sadly enough, life itself, because they feel “pressured” by society. That is precisely what occurred to Chris. He did something about it, and his “something” was to take a journey, an “Alaskan odyssey” as he liked to call it.
With minimal food and gear, Chris set off expediting the United States. He hitchhiked through South Dakota, California, Arizona, even Mexico, and met a few people on his journey. These people remained attached to Chris, or Alex as some knew him, because Chris was kind enough to stay in touch. I sympathize with Chris on his desire to leave society behind, but I cannot comprehend why he would leave al possessions behind and literally struggle to gain a better understanding of life. His passion for nature and love of adventure sprouted from his imagination while reading novels by Jack London, such as The Call of the Wild and White Fang, both which explore nature’s wilderness and magnificence. Such splendor and a hint of curiosity presented in these novels compelled Chris to want to explore the world “out there” and what better region that desolate, freezing Alaska?
My main lack of comprehension is for the reason behind his intentions. I cannot even imagine leaving home for good and being “on my own” with clear understanding that I may not survive at all. I presume that his wonder and curiosity preceded his sense of humanity. He almost adopted an animal-like instinct which compelled him to investigate the world on his own.
The idea of the “American Dream” leads many Americans to face stress every single day. It almost feels as if people are chasing after money, stabbing each other in the back, just to get themselves ahead. But they don’t know what to do with all this money, so their kids start getting into drugs, partying, trouble, etc. Even they, themselves, get lost- fight with their spouses and get divorced, can’t sleep at night so pay for expensive drugs to calm them down. The “American Dream” has a way more negative connotation than it did in the early days of American settlement. Then people sought freedom, opportunity and happiness. Now, it’s ALL about money and bettering oneself. People have become self-centered, and this fact Chris McCandless clearly understood. That is why he escaped the suffocating limits of society.
If one focuses on bettering the world, rather than just himself, the “American Dream” can have a positive meaning. One’s idea of this achievement should not be superior to another’s since the two should be working together to benefit humanity as a whole. For instance, in my future-becoming a pharmacist, I want to share my knowledge with my community and help them, not just make lots of money. Of course this is a nice benefit, but my driving force is to keep life humane, to assist others, because that is the only way society will function without causing wars. Into the Wild set an inspirational ideal to view the world “outside the box”, almost as a whole, and to focus of the natural sources of happiness, such as a beautiful, sun-shining, breezy day full of vibrant greens of the vegetation and blue of the infinite sky, rather than stressing solely about work or school and being caught in this “structured web” of society. In summary, that is what life is all about- all the little beautiful things which sadly go unnoticed.

Reading Test # 2

Blog # 1
John Ridley’s blog “How Bad is ‘Uppity’?” expresses the author’s obvious anger and irritation due to the use of the intended word “uppity” by Rove, Westmoreland, and Goddard to describe the perceived “arrogant” attitude of Barack Obama and Ron Allen. The author simply assumes that Rove was calling Obama “uppity” when actually using the word “arrogant”. The implications of “uppity” lead to the racist tensions as used in “uppity nigger”, a part of a phrase. The colored author finds the use of the word “uppity” offensive when used to describe the egotistical Barack Obama. The culpable name-caller only meant to refer to Obama’s personality, not to start any tensions. By “decoding” Rove’s word choice, the author proposes something different. And when Ridley states “And sometimes eggplant just means eggplant”, he should leave it at that. Rove says “arrogant” and he means “arrogant” not necessarily “uppity”. I see where Ridley may have been upset had Rove actually spoken the word “uppity”, but because he did not, let’s just leave it there. Ridley does have valid points in describing the use of that word by others, who it seems like, actually used that word to describe Obama and Allen. But then again, a word is just a word. “Uppity” was originally used by blacks to speak of other blacks who they felt to be too self-assertive (www.dictionary.reference.com). Now-a-days, uppity is defined as “affecting attitude of inflated self-esteem; haughty; snobbish; rebelliously self-assertive”. What language was used once should not be incorporated into the means of language used today. Times have changed. The American Civil War was and will always exist in history; this does not mean that the situation from then is the same today. Thus, anybody can be labeled “uppity”. It should not be offensive or significant UNLESS the person uses the “N” word with it, in a case which is unacceptable! The author is lastly a bit valiant and snobbish by saying that the word “cracker” also exists in the dictionary. That word has direct connotations with the white race, while “uppity” does not.
Analytically and thoughtfully speaking, the author presents a clear point of view and a purposeful objection- he is aggravated by the use of the word “uppity” to describe haughty and in this case, colored people. The problem is stated and direct information is provided, in the form of event details, names, etc. His conclusion is made based on his opinion, although nothing is resolved. Assumptions are stated but somewhat biased. For instance, Ridley assumes that Rove meant to call Obama “uppity” when he said “arrogant”. Thus the consequences in revenge by calling the other people “crackers”, in the end, may just leave more room for tension and argument. The author’s thinking does meet some intellectual standards, however. The point is clear and his thoughts are relevant to the issue at hand. His logic is based on his own opinion and is therefore biased. Likewise, there is breadth to his blog- he incorporates the other point of view opposing his. His presumptions are not completely fair; in the end, he finds revenge by writing that the word “cracker” exists and can be used to refer to the people who utilized the word “uppity” when referring to a colored person. This is unfair because “uppity” does not necessarily mean “black, arrogant person”, where when used in slang, “cracker“ means “a poor white person living in some rural parts of the southeastern U.S.” Thus race is important in one but not the other.


Blog # 2
Mary MacElveen discusses her view on Sarah Palin’s refusal to face the media during the Republican campaign. MacElveen opens up the discussion with a very bold and daring statement, which I find quite hilarious and true: “given these past eight years of failed leadership, it is understandable (why she does not want to come out).” The author assesses that “we the people” have a right to know what’s going on and to know WHO we are voting for and what those candidates stand for. How will we vote for someone whose ideas are not publically known? The answer is: we won’t. So why is the Republican party still running? MacElveen points out that Palin might even get to the president’s seat herself, since McCain is aged, and to be quite honest, that scares me. The author postulates that Palin is “cramming” for her debate with the Democratic vice-president choice, Biden; perhaps that is why she is avoiding the media now. Oh but don’t worry Sarah, they WILL get you. There is no way a candidate can stay out of the limelight. It is pointed out by the author of this blog that anyone can express an opinion but to enforce it one must have reasons and answers to “why?” or “how?” this idea will be carried through. Biden questions what one can talk about when he or she “cannot explain the last eight years of failure.” Republicans do not see the campaign as being about issues. MacElveen obviously disagress as do I. Campaigning is ALL about issues concerning the everyday lives of Americans and how these issues are to be solved by the candidates.
The author of this blog is apparently frustrated by Palin’s lack of appearance on TV, her point of view clearly expressed as opposing the Republican decision. The purpose is obvious as well; she wants to express her ideas and feelings on this subject. The question at issue is very current- the presidential debates have begun, only about a month and a half until official voting, and Palin’s views are still secret, not known by the people of America because of her refusal to appear on TV. The author‘s thinking has a great extent of clarity and relevance. However, we cannot know for sure if her statements are accurate and precise, because her blog lacks breadth; only her point of view is expressed on this subject. Perhaps if her blog included Palin’s view on why she was avoiding the media, the blog would be fairer.