If nautical nonsense is something you wish....

  I know this young man who works at a restaurant as a fry cook. He works with a mean employee who hates him dearly. His boss is very cheap and barely pays him anything. He lives next door to his mean employee but also a couple houses down from his best friend, who lets just say tap dances on the fine line between idiocy and plain stupidity. Oh did I mention he lives in a pineapple under the sea? Yes you got it, Sponge bob Square pants. The funny yellow sponge that we all came to love but is watching him act as a buffoon good for the brain. Studies show that it is not. In a way, Sponge bob portrays all the wrong things in life.
   For instance in one episode labeled "Patrick Smart pants" Patrick falls off a cliff, loses the point at the top of his head, putting sponge bob in the predicament where he has to put what he thought was Patrick's original point back on his head. But little did they know, they put smart corral on his head, turning him instantly intelligent. The first thing wrong with this episode and many of the others episodes is that they portray men as idiots. That is not true what so ever. Men are capable of being very intelligent. Throughout the show Sponge bob does not like that Patrick has become smart. So right there it shows that intelligence is frowned upon.
   The role of women in this episode is that they are already intelligent and do not like it when they receive criticism from intelligent men. Sandy (the only dominant female role in the show) gets upset when Patrick, and his new found intelligence proves, proves her wrong in a math problem she was trying to solve. Now this situation can also be flipped by saying that men can be egotistic when gaining knowledge because they think they know everything. It's negative either way you look at it.
    This entire episode does no justice for the brain. It sends out all the wrong messages especially to the children. It's not right to think learning and being intelligent is a bad thing. This message mainly goes out to young males who watch the show. Also to the girls, don't think that men aren't suppose to be smart just because of what you see on this show. Men and Woman are  equal when it comes to intelligence. Everyone has an opportunity to gain knowledge. Although sponge bob is entertaining but you must take into consideration the hidden messages behind each character and their personalities.  

Greater Bridgeport Transit

   I have to admit something. I have a bad habit of seeing peoples outer appearance and then judging them but to be honest I know I am not the only one who does this. Say if you see someone that's in the same place as you but they look out of place (I'm not talking about race, I'm talking about clothing attire) and you immediately start to judge them. I do that a lot and the main place that I do it, is on the public bus going home from school. I don't say extremely negative things, I just start making random assumptions.
   I'm sitting on the bus and I see a male or female get on the bus wearing business attire or looking "fancy" as  some may say. In my head I say things like "where is your Jaguar or BMW?" Hateful right? Well this happens to me so often that sometimes I don't even notice when I do it. I automatically label those people with a lot of money and jewelry and big houses.
    I never take in to account that maybe that man is traveling back and forth from New York making close to nothing only able to afford that suit to try an impress his boss everyday and try to keep his head above water. Or maybe that woman is a single mother, raising two kids, and can't afford a car let alone her own house but lives in an apartment and only has the suit that she has because it was given to her as a Christmas gift. Or Maybe even they both lost their jobs recently and is going out everyday on the bus so they don't have to spend the little money they have on gas.
    If my mind was programmed to think this way quicker, I truly believe I would be a better person. That goes for people out there in the world like me as well. It only takes 7 seconds to pass judgement on a person the first time you see them. If people would just step back and take a deeper look at the people they are passing judgement on, they will realise that they are wrong. I know I realize that I am/was wrong. But I've made this discovery of myself and I am turning over a new leaf. When I see someone wearing business attire or even a long gown on the bus, I won't start assuming, I'll remember this blog and step back and just look for the truth.
      

The Fosters, A Family with no boundaries

   Lena is African American, Steph is Caucasian, Jesus and Mariana are Hispanic, Brandon, Callie, and Jude are Caucasian. This is all of the ethnicity's of a family on the new hit TV series "The Fosters" on ABC Family. Lena and Steph are two woman that are married. Brandon is Steph's son from her previous marriage. Jesus, Mariana, Jude, and Callie were adopted by Lena and Steph. Lena is a vice principle at her school in which all the kids attend. Steph is a cop.
    Now that the background story is established we can take the time to give this series a big around of applause. The producer, Jeniffer Lopez, has done a phenomenal job in spicing up what a typical family looks like. Usually you see a mother, father, and children, all of the same race. The mere fact that such a variety of races are mentioned in this family is remarkable.
    Continuing on Lena and Steph being married; this not often seen on TV since gay marriage is not accepted everywhere yet. On this TV show, there is such a flow that it seems as if it is just an average family. There is no difference. They have drama like any other family and they love each other like any other couple.
   When it comes to the female roles in this show, Lena is the girly girl. She carries herself well. She wears feminine clothes and does her makeup, just an average woman. Steph, on the other hand, rolls with the big boys. Since she is a cop she has to be tough and strong. That's also different from what the usual is portrayed of a woman.
    Being Hispanic, Jesus and Mariana speaks Spanish to each other but Steph has taken the time to learn how to speak it as well so she can communicate with them. However, Jesus and Mariana speaks English most of the time through out the show. Majority of shows only have English as the spoken language but this show incorporates more than just english.
    One negative aspect of the show is how they portray the Fostering system in general. This is mostly reflecting Callie and Jude's life story. They've been tossed around so much that they don't know what it is like to live in a real home permanently. Also at one of the temporary homes, Callie was raped but because she was in the Fostering system, the guy who raped her did not get any jail time because it was her word against his. Watching this show makes the public look at adoption and fostering in a different light and maybe even not a positive one.
     "The Fosters" has no boundaries what so ever. It is a very good television show and very well rounded. It's really rare because its not everyday that you can turn on the TV and see such a heart felt family and it makes you wish the whole world was this way, well except for the fostering system. When watching this show you have to transform your brain to a new born baby so no influences will already be there to affect the way you look at it. Trust me it is an amazing show.

What Does it mean to "OWN" something?

When I think of owning something I don’t think of tangible things. I think more along the lines of morals, memories, and values. I guess you can say I’m a bit like Jean-Paul Sartre who agrees that ownership extends beyond objects. Although you may be able to own objects, it has to be taken into account that those objects can be taken away from you. Your values, morals, and memories cannot be taken away from you figuratively speaking. These aspects are a part of who you are and your personality. Because morals, values, and memories are imbedded inside an individual, that person has complete ownership of themselves and not just objects.

Morals demonstrate ownership because it reflects what you strongly believe in and the lifestyle you choose to live. I was raised a Christian child. I attend church every week and sometimes twice in one week. When I am around my family and church members I know exactly how to act because of the morals I gained in church. It was instilled in me from birth; I mean literally from birth. I went to church for the first time the Sunday after I was born and I was born on a Friday. Now my mother always says that when a person who is raised in the church strays away and sin, they will always find their way back. I know exactly what she means by that. She means that since those morals are instilled in that person, they will return to them because they own them. Those are apart of whom that person is. They just can’t throw it away or get it stolen. This relates very similarly to values as well.

Values are more like characteristics that you really care about. For example, I value friendship. That’s mine; I made that decision to make that my value so I own it. Other people may also value friendship but I’m not those people. It’s all about individuality. It is very common for people to value love. We even have a holiday to celebrate it. Christian saint, Valentinus, valued love very much for if it wasn’t for him we would not have Valentine’s Day. While imprisoned he wrote love letters to his jailers daughter, Asterius, signing it “from your valentine”. He valued love so much that not even prison could take it away from him. He owned it and was proud. He even became a historical person for sticking to his values. Learning about Valentinus was just a memory that I had in the back of my mind from middle school. Memories are extremely important too.

Memories are strictly owned by an individual. Without memories a person could not grow because it means he has not lived. Facts show that memories began to form and can be remembered after several years as early as 14 to 18 months. All of those memories are yours to keep. No one can take them from you. Now you may have noticed in my introduction that I said “figuratively speaking”. I said this because when it comes to memories they can be lost due to an illness or tragic accident. You may fall and bump your head, wake up, and not even know who you are or you may develop Alzheimer Disease. What I am speaking about is just a typical day of a regular person with all their memories in tact.

Morals, values, and memories are all crucial to individuals. They make up who that person is and best of all, that person gets to own those traits. Ownership is way more than just objects. You may own a house, car, money, or even a piece of land but all those things can be taken from you in the blink of an eye. What you always keep are your values, memories, and morals. Who can ask for more out of life? You already own so much.

SERVE THE PEOPLE BY MAO ZEDONG OUTLINE

Purpose: The purpose of Mao's speech is broken down into three key ideas. The first purpose is that Mao wants to instill in his audience's mind that the idea of death, which is suppose to be a negative, is in fact positive. The second purpose is that any efforts and actions that will occur during this revolution is morally right. The third purpose is that every citizen and party member should be pro revolution.

Audience: Committee meeting officials for the communist party

Context: Mao wrote this speech to commemorate the death of a PLA soldier named Chang Szu-teh. During the Cultural Revolution, this speech was widely read. Mao was dedicated to improving China for the better, especially in education and he achieved that goal. He also had a deep passion for the Chinese culture and its history. Mao opposed Warlords and imperialist but was pro liberalism, democratic reform ism, and Utopian socialism.

Appeals:

-First Paragraph: Pathos: makes audience feel encouraged, up lifting, using words such as battalions; dedicated;l liberation; people's interest; ranks

-Second Paragraph: Mao builds his ethos: quotes Szuma Chien; Logos: quote justifies the point Mao is trying to make

-Third Paragraph: Majority of this paragraph builds Mao's ethos: mentions Mr. Ting-Ming; also by stating the Communist party can be wrong at times and will fix those wrong doings.

-Fourth Paragraph: Pathos: makes audience feel united, dedicated, as if they have to be pro revolution; use words like common revolutionary objective; liberate; love and help each other. Logos: throws in statistics: "Today we already lead base areas with a population of 91 million"

-Fifth Paragraph: All Pathos: Mao wants to really get the committee to see his point and get them to do as he says. Use words like: This should become the rule; memorial; honor; unite all the people

Figurative Language: Mao doesn't really use various figurative language but he does use a couple metaphors.

- referring to the Communist Party and Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies as battalions

- referring to certain peoples deaths as Mount Tai or Feathers

Effectiveness: I believe the use of these metaphors was effective due to the fact that his audience already support him so he doesn't have to do much to get them to agree. Just by saying battalions, which when you think about them you think of hard, getting the job done, handy; you will only assume that his audience would agree. Same with using mountains and feathers to compare deaths, they are so contrast that it makes his overall point seem even more powerful.

Claims and Warrants:

Claim:  "All men must die, but death can vary in its significance"

Warrant: Some deaths are more valuable than others based on the cause of the persons death.

Support: Quote by Szuma Chien

Claim: "If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and criticized, because we serve the people"

Warrant: Even Mao and the Communist Party mess up and have problems

Support: Mentions Mr. Li Ting- ming giving the party advice

Claim: "From now on, when anyone in our ranks who has done some useful works dies, be he soldier or cook, we should have a funeral ceremony and a memorial meeting in his honour"

Warrant: If a person does not do good works for the greater of the community meaning support Mao and his efforts, their deaths will be irrelevent

Support: Deeming it a rule; bringing it to the actual community

General Evaluation: Mao was very selective with his audience. I'm pretty sure he knew that no one would oppose his thoughts of "unifying" China. He used a lot of pathos which was his strong point but not a lot of logos. He did have one statistic and a quote but that was about it. I also don't think he had to establish his ethos since everyone knew that he was Chairman Mao and that he was very important. As far as he speaking to his audience, he did a good job but I truely belive that if the public were his audience if would have to try a bit harder to truely get everyone on his side.

 

                

 

 



Churchill and Goebbels: Winning The War

Winston Churchill and Joseph Goebbels had very similar ideals on the concept of winning the war. They both believed that if their citizens were united, did all they could possibly do, and have faith in their leader, they would overcome the obstacles of war and bounce back stronger.

Churchill and Goebbels felt very strongly about a nation’s unity. If all the citizens were not of one accord then everything would fall apart. This means that everything that Churchill has to say and everything that Goebbels has to say is correct and all the citizens should just accept it (sarcasm). Goebbels believe that the Germans gathered in such a great mass to “display” their “unity” and “unanimity” as well as “strong will to overcome the difficulties” they “faced in the fourth year of the war.” In Goebbels eyes, if they were not on the same page about war, they would not get far and basically lose the war as well as all human civilization. Churchill believes that his nation should just “go forward together with” their “united strength.” If some citizens were weaker than others, meaning not progressing towards the war, then they would not be in unity and Churchill’s war efforts would crumble. That is why Churchill and Goebbels want everyone to be unified because then there will be a nice flow through the country and also no problems on top of an already brutal war.

Goebbels and Churchill also felt passionately about everyone pulling their own weight. This meaning that everyone does everything they possibly can to contribute to the war efforts. Goebbels is notorious for this kind of thinking. Churchill knows that they are in “one of the greatest battles in history” so therefore he knows that “many preparations have to be made here at home.” This is a great strategy to use on a big crowd of people who you want to follow you. Churchill makes them feel like it is their obligation to participate in the war efforts since it is such a drastic war. Goebbels does a fantastic job at this strategy as well. The only difference is that he actually adds action to force people to get involved in the war. Goebbels understands “what an example German soldier have set in this great age! And what an obligation it puts on us all, particularly the entire German homeland!” so he closed down bars and night clubs, “countless luxury stores”, and makes people “work until the work is done”. Basically he cuts off all happiness for the German citizens so that they had no choice but to participate in the war effort.

Goebbels and Churchill also wanted their citizens to have faith in them. Goebbels let his people know that “the leadership’s measures are in full agreement with the desires of the German people at home and at the front.” That makes the citizens rely on him more and trust him. The same goes with Churchill; he lets his citizens know that he takes “up his task with buoyancy and hope” and that he feels “sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men.” This makes the citizens feel as if he really know what he is speaking about and that if they do work hard they will win. He gained their trust and they gave him their safety.

Machiavelli and Thoreau on: What A Man Should Be

     Machiavelli and Thoreau had similar ideas about how a man should act and present himself. Machiavelli believed that a man should be well balanced, meaning that he should have all the good characteristics of a human being as well as the bad characteristics. Thoreau believed that a man should have his own mind and think for himself. Machiavelli had many beliefs about how a man should act such as being feared over being loved. Thoreau and Machiavelli’s ideals about what a man should be may be questionable but are also accurate.

      Thoreau goes to state that “A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away”, but leave that office to his dust at least” Pg 278. What Thoreau means by this is that a man should not be used as a puppet for the benefit of the Government. He should have knowledge and conscience to think of his own words and actions. I believe that if Machiavelli were to read this he would agree because he states in his writing that some men are “feeble and effeminate, another fierce and spirited” pg 458. Fierceness goes with speaking up for yourself and not being afraid to say what you feel.

       Thoreau and Machiavelli have a strong opinion of being passive. They both do not like it at all. They believe a man should do whatever it takes to get what he needs done. When it comes to wrong doings, Thoreau believes “If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law pg 284. What Thoreau is saying is that if a law you have to follow is hurting other people, then by all means, don’t follow it. Machiavelli is saying the same thing but with a different situation. Machiavelli says that, “Thus a prudent prince cannot and should not keep his word when to do so would go against his interest, or when the reasons that made him pledge it no longer apply” pg 463” Basically Machiavelli is saying that a man can break his promises if they are no longer in best interest or are no longer needed.

       Machiavelli and Thoreau are very similar in ideals, not saying that they don’t have their contradictions with each other but they still have a lot in common. They are both passionate and strong about the topics they discuss in their writings and although the topics may be questionable, their responses are very close to accurate.