In her New Yorker cover illustration, Ana Juan implies that the events of 9/11 may have destroyed the towers and taken lives, but their memories continue to live on. Juan does this through a simple illustration- the New York skyline at the top, with the now missing towers reflected in the water. Her purpose is to create an image that will speak to people in order to commemorate the tragedy of 9/11. The illustrator creates a somber mood with her cover, beckoning the readers to open the pages of the magazine and remember the event that forever changed our country.
2. I was only three years old when 9/11 happened. I don't remember anything about that day. I probably didn't think twice about the fact that my mother picked me up from school early, or that she remained glued to the television, waiting for more news as she was forced to confront the unthinkable. The New York I know is the one at the top of the illustration, above the water. Juan's cover is simple, yet effective. She helps someone like me visualize what was once there- two towers that people walked by every day and likely paid little attention to. How crazy that they now represent a post-9/11 world in which we no longer feel the same sense of security. A more subtle statement is the fact that, in the cover, New York is still up and running. The lights are on, the city is intact. It serves as a reminder of how successfully, although slowly, we have recovered from something that shook up our world so intensely.
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Apple vs the government
The fight over unlocking the San Bernandino shooter's iPhone seems a little ridiculous at first. Just unlock it, right? What's the big deal?
In an age where the debate over privacy and safety is at the forefront of people's mind, (think Snowden and the NSA) this is a huge deal. In their 1984 commercial, Apple presents themselves as the antidote to "Big Brother" IBM. They're progressive, revolutionary. They will bring down IBM and its ruthless control over the computer industry. Their computers will forever change what it means to be a computer.
Apple has always seen itself as a revolutionary company. They constantly challenge the way people view technology. This remains true today. In a way, the FBI and the U.S. government has inched closer and closer to being the new "Big Brother." This is certainly the image projected in the case of Apple vs. the government. Apple is the rebel, the defender of democracy. It will fight to uphold our right to privacy.
The ramifications of Apple creating new software to unlock this iPhone are far-reaching. There is much concern over what it would mean for future cases. If Apple were to follow the government's orders, it could open up a can of worms. What if this software got into the wrong hands? What would this mean for the masses?
Apple is not only concerned about the U.S. government using this technology in the future, but also about other countries, such as China, who is more than willing to encroach on its people's privacy. The company is making a statement about its commitment to its customers' privacy. The effects this new software may have on the world is just too risky to them. And I have to agree. We have to be so careful about how much we allow the government into our personal lives. There are just way too many uncertainties about what this new software could mean.
I'm all about security and justice. But when we have to sacrifice our rights as citizens to achieve these things, this is when we have to be wary. There has to be some way we can do both. If Apple can find a way to unlock the iPhone without opening a Pandora's box, great. If not, Apple is right to continue its fight to protect privacy.
In an age where the debate over privacy and safety is at the forefront of people's mind, (think Snowden and the NSA) this is a huge deal. In their 1984 commercial, Apple presents themselves as the antidote to "Big Brother" IBM. They're progressive, revolutionary. They will bring down IBM and its ruthless control over the computer industry. Their computers will forever change what it means to be a computer.
Apple has always seen itself as a revolutionary company. They constantly challenge the way people view technology. This remains true today. In a way, the FBI and the U.S. government has inched closer and closer to being the new "Big Brother." This is certainly the image projected in the case of Apple vs. the government. Apple is the rebel, the defender of democracy. It will fight to uphold our right to privacy.
The ramifications of Apple creating new software to unlock this iPhone are far-reaching. There is much concern over what it would mean for future cases. If Apple were to follow the government's orders, it could open up a can of worms. What if this software got into the wrong hands? What would this mean for the masses?
Apple is not only concerned about the U.S. government using this technology in the future, but also about other countries, such as China, who is more than willing to encroach on its people's privacy. The company is making a statement about its commitment to its customers' privacy. The effects this new software may have on the world is just too risky to them. And I have to agree. We have to be so careful about how much we allow the government into our personal lives. There are just way too many uncertainties about what this new software could mean.
I'm all about security and justice. But when we have to sacrifice our rights as citizens to achieve these things, this is when we have to be wary. There has to be some way we can do both. If Apple can find a way to unlock the iPhone without opening a Pandora's box, great. If not, Apple is right to continue its fight to protect privacy.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Go Carolina by David Sedaris
David Sedaris writes in his short story, "Go Carolina" (2000) that the system of speech therapy (and therapy in general) in public schools is flawed. He does this through his account of his experience with a speech therapist who tried to get him to correctly pronounce the letter s. The author's purpose it to shed light on this issue in order to hopefully bring about a change in the system. Sedaris achieves this goal through the use of comedy and sarcasm, techniques his readers will likely connect to.
2. Sedaris is clearly using humor to describe personal issues that likely weren't all that funny at the time. For example, he talks a lot about the insecurities he felt because of how high pitched his voice was. He writes: "...my only option was to take a vow of silence and become a monk. My former classmates would call the abbey, wondering how I was doing, and the priest would answer the phone. 'You can't talk to him!' he'd say. 'Why, Brother David hasn't spoken to anyone in thirty-five years!'"
He was incredibly embarrassed of his voice, which in reality probably caused him a lot of anxiety. By using humor, he can openly and effectivelt talk about how his insecurity made him feel without it being too heavy.
3. There is an overwhelming tone of sarcasm and wit throughout the story, such as when he says, "I couldn't imagine anything worse that driving down to Florida to watch a football game, but I pretended to be impressed. 'Wow, that ought to be eventful.'"
Another great example: "Did they hope that by eliminating our lisp, they might set us on a different path, or were they trying to prepare us for future stage and choral careers?" The sarcasm and wit in the story makes it so much fun to read. For me, at least, it makes me instantly like the speaker.
4. "I couldn't imagine anything worse that driving down to Florida to watch a football game..." This sentence shows just how much Sedaris couldn't relate to his speech therapist. They really had nothing in common, and the woman never made any effort to connect with him. This is part of the reason why he disliked her so much.
"It was an answer I would regret for years to come."
He's exaggerating, obviously, but it is a reflection of just how much he hated these sessions. It's also a comedic technique. He is saying that it was as if, in that moment, by choosing the wrong sports team, he had sealed his fate.
2. Sedaris is clearly using humor to describe personal issues that likely weren't all that funny at the time. For example, he talks a lot about the insecurities he felt because of how high pitched his voice was. He writes: "...my only option was to take a vow of silence and become a monk. My former classmates would call the abbey, wondering how I was doing, and the priest would answer the phone. 'You can't talk to him!' he'd say. 'Why, Brother David hasn't spoken to anyone in thirty-five years!'"
He was incredibly embarrassed of his voice, which in reality probably caused him a lot of anxiety. By using humor, he can openly and effectivelt talk about how his insecurity made him feel without it being too heavy.
3. There is an overwhelming tone of sarcasm and wit throughout the story, such as when he says, "I couldn't imagine anything worse that driving down to Florida to watch a football game, but I pretended to be impressed. 'Wow, that ought to be eventful.'"
Another great example: "Did they hope that by eliminating our lisp, they might set us on a different path, or were they trying to prepare us for future stage and choral careers?" The sarcasm and wit in the story makes it so much fun to read. For me, at least, it makes me instantly like the speaker.
4. "I couldn't imagine anything worse that driving down to Florida to watch a football game..." This sentence shows just how much Sedaris couldn't relate to his speech therapist. They really had nothing in common, and the woman never made any effort to connect with him. This is part of the reason why he disliked her so much.
"It was an answer I would regret for years to come."
He's exaggerating, obviously, but it is a reflection of just how much he hated these sessions. It's also a comedic technique. He is saying that it was as if, in that moment, by choosing the wrong sports team, he had sealed his fate.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Toni Morrison
In her Nobel Prize for Literature acceptance speech (1993,) Toni Morrison speaks of dangerous, insufficient, or meaningless use of language. She does this by bringing in an anecdote and a metaphor of a woman, some young people, and a bird. The authors purpose it to explore the power of language and the inappropriate ways people use this tool. Morrison establishes an impassioned tone with the audience as she receives this coveted prize for her work in literature.
1. Morrison clearly has a passion for language. At the same time, she is worried and frustrated about the way language has come to be used. One example she gave is how language is used to subjugate and oppress people. This is not, Morrison argues, the way in which language should be used. Another example that really stuck with me is when she mentions the fact that "there will be more diplomatic language to countenance rape, torture, assassination." This manipulation is terrifying, and it is real. We can so easily trivialize or twist someone's pain through the use of language. Political or law jargon can easily wipe any emotion or sympathy from a real issue. This is the type of irresponsibility Morrison is afraid of when it comes to language.
2. The old woman wants the children to understand how powerful language can be. She wants them to realize how valuable of a tool they hold in the hands, and to facilitate the continuation of language so that it does not die. The children, on the other hand, want the old woman to give them more than her short, vague response. They want pieces of wisdom, advice for their lives, stories from the past. In the end, after the children have expressed what they wanted to hear from the old woman, she remarks, "I trust you now. I trust you with the bird that is not in your hands because you have truly caught it..." She sees that these children have and will continue to use language in the way that it should and ensure its survival.
3. Absolutely. Without the metaphor it would be much harder to grasp Morrison's message. This is especially true considering the fact that this was an acceptance speech given aloud; it is more difficult to take in a point when you don't see it on paper, when you are unable to read it two, three times. The fable ties all the themes and points together so that it not only makes sense, but is interesting and memorable.
1. Morrison clearly has a passion for language. At the same time, she is worried and frustrated about the way language has come to be used. One example she gave is how language is used to subjugate and oppress people. This is not, Morrison argues, the way in which language should be used. Another example that really stuck with me is when she mentions the fact that "there will be more diplomatic language to countenance rape, torture, assassination." This manipulation is terrifying, and it is real. We can so easily trivialize or twist someone's pain through the use of language. Political or law jargon can easily wipe any emotion or sympathy from a real issue. This is the type of irresponsibility Morrison is afraid of when it comes to language.
2. The old woman wants the children to understand how powerful language can be. She wants them to realize how valuable of a tool they hold in the hands, and to facilitate the continuation of language so that it does not die. The children, on the other hand, want the old woman to give them more than her short, vague response. They want pieces of wisdom, advice for their lives, stories from the past. In the end, after the children have expressed what they wanted to hear from the old woman, she remarks, "I trust you now. I trust you with the bird that is not in your hands because you have truly caught it..." She sees that these children have and will continue to use language in the way that it should and ensure its survival.
3. Absolutely. Without the metaphor it would be much harder to grasp Morrison's message. This is especially true considering the fact that this was an acceptance speech given aloud; it is more difficult to take in a point when you don't see it on paper, when you are unable to read it two, three times. The fable ties all the themes and points together so that it not only makes sense, but is interesting and memorable.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
The Importance of Getting History Right
History is one of my favorite subjects, not only because it is interesting, but mainly because it is fascinating to me that certain events somehow took place. It is often shocking to hear about something that happened in history; it is hard to imagine that something so outrageous, or tragic, or morally reprehensible could take place.
One of my favorite eras of history to learn about is the Civil Rights Movement. It is incredibly difficult for me to understand how people could have treated other human beings in such an awful way. I try to imagine myself in that period- would I do the same? I would like to hope that I would not have treated someone differently because of the color of their skin. Perhaps I would have even been involved in the fight for civil rights. I simply can’t say. But this is why learning about history is so important. It forces you to insert yourself into the situation and consider what you might have done. It makes you confront issues (such as race) that still may be relevant even today.
History has to be taught in an accurate way. Of course there is often bias, whether intended or not, but it is our duty to get all the facts straight. This is the only way we can learn from history. People say we should learn about history so that it doesn’t repeat itself. I think this holds true. If a person is ignorant about history, they can’t learn how to avoid the failures of our past.
I am incredulous as to how people can deny the Holocaust. Somehow these people exist. We have to do a better job of education. It pains me every time I hear of another Holocaust survivor passing away. I am so sad, even scared, that my children will not have the opportunity to hear about the Holocaust from someone who experienced it first hand. It is our duty to ensure that our children are educated about the history in a way that is not only true, but will resonate with them. This is a daunting task, but I think it is possible.
We talk a lot about getting history right, ensuring it is unbiased and based on actual facts, when it comes to Israel. If I want to be an advocate for the State of Israel, I have to understand its history. I have to have knowledge of its successes and failures so that I can effectively paint a picture of the country as a whole. This is an area I continue to research and learn about.
History is, I think, one of the most important topics to be learned about. It is crucial that we make the teaching of history a priority in our schools, that the teachers are those who can put aside personal bias and opinion to present the material in a fair, accurate way. There is so much at stake when it comes to the teaching of history; what we learn from the past has the power to shape our future.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Through the Vietnam Veterans Model, Maya Lin is sending a message about the importance of remembering the armed service members who were killed in the Vietnam War. She does this through the design: the black, reflecting stone, and the long list of names of those who were killed. The artist's purpose is to express appreciation for these fallen soldiers' service and to remember them long after they have died. She establishes a somber, reflective mood for those viewing the memorial.
1. The memorial is incredibly effective in memorializing those who died. It's vast length and number of names listed is an accurate reflection on how many people were killed as a result of the war. The fact that all the names are listed humanizes these people. It gives names instead of statistics. Additionally, the reflective nature of the memorial makes a statement about the viewers. It is forcing them to see themselves along with the dead.
2. This memorial is so much about humanizing not only the dead, but the troops who are currently serving our country. It also shows that there are real consequences to war that we may not want to confront. It makes the viewers think about all of these ideas and their role in them.
1. The memorial is incredibly effective in memorializing those who died. It's vast length and number of names listed is an accurate reflection on how many people were killed as a result of the war. The fact that all the names are listed humanizes these people. It gives names instead of statistics. Additionally, the reflective nature of the memorial makes a statement about the viewers. It is forcing them to see themselves along with the dead.
2. This memorial is so much about humanizing not only the dead, but the troops who are currently serving our country. It also shows that there are real consequences to war that we may not want to confront. It makes the viewers think about all of these ideas and their role in them.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Living Like Weasels
In the essay, Living Like Weasels, Annie Dillard writes that she wishes we would live life like the weasels. She offers a series of anecdotes to show the characteristics of weasels and her relationship with and views on the animal. The authors purpose is to urge that we all take a lesson from the weasel on how to live life with true freedom. The author is addressing her readers, hoping that they relate to her desires to live a life based on necessity rather than choice.
1. The numbers work well in the essay because the author is making her points in chronological order. The breaks in the essay also serves to give the reader a chance to pause and reflect on what the author has written.
2. The author is saying that she wishes, like the weasel, she would be keen about her surroundings ("noticing everything",) but not dwell on the decisions she makes ("remembering nothing".) She wishes to have the sense to understand what's going on around her and do what she feels is necessary. However, she doesn't want to focus on the past one she has done an action. In life we often make decisions and look back in retrospect with guilt or shame. A weasel doesn't have this quality. Rather, he acts solely according to what is needed at the time.
5. By "wild," Dillard means to live according to instinct rather than thought. She writes, "...but I might learn something of mindlessness, something of the purity of living in the physical senses and the dignity of living without bias or motive." She sees this nature of the weasels as pure, not bogged down by the emotions and thought process of human beings.
1. The numbers work well in the essay because the author is making her points in chronological order. The breaks in the essay also serves to give the reader a chance to pause and reflect on what the author has written.
2. The author is saying that she wishes, like the weasel, she would be keen about her surroundings ("noticing everything",) but not dwell on the decisions she makes ("remembering nothing".) She wishes to have the sense to understand what's going on around her and do what she feels is necessary. However, she doesn't want to focus on the past one she has done an action. In life we often make decisions and look back in retrospect with guilt or shame. A weasel doesn't have this quality. Rather, he acts solely according to what is needed at the time.
5. By "wild," Dillard means to live according to instinct rather than thought. She writes, "...but I might learn something of mindlessness, something of the purity of living in the physical senses and the dignity of living without bias or motive." She sees this nature of the weasels as pure, not bogged down by the emotions and thought process of human beings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)