Well, for all those out there that probably don't even read this blog, its been real. And to Mr. Adam Wight, the best AP English language and composition teacher ever! you deserve an award, sir, you deserve a nobel prize thats for sure. this blog will never be read so whatevs y'all, im outty. CLASS OF 2012! Knib high football rules!!! Peace, I'm outta here!
--yeah ahhh you know who it is Travis Taypay, Travis Taypay
^that was kinda gay but who cares, no one's gonna read it :)
Monday, June 6, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
There's a Troll In Central Park...But Not Really.
The world’s fair was indeed influential. It changed American culture and influenced other countries as well. It has made a lasting impression in people, culture, and everyday life; many things we take for granted today were influenced by the fair.
First of all, the fair change America itself. The purpose was to introduce the world to new and amazing things. But, in the minds of Americans it was to prove our prestige to the rest of the world. One of the main goals was to best the Paris exposition; everyone wanted to “out-Eiffel Eiffel”. Initially the country was torn between who should host the fair. Every major city wanted to boast the privilege of housing the exposition to the world. Chicago was picked due to their determination and drive—the country knew that Chicago could do anything with their exemplary attitude. Again, the goal for Americans was to be better than France, prove to the world that the US could do nearly anything despite terrible initial conditions.
Also, the fair introduce many inventions and concepts that still exist and are widely used today. Telephones were introduced by playing music through them to speakers; now we use phones nearly everyday to communicate long distances and connect with family and friends, and the fair introduced them. Another huge invention was Thomas Edison’s Kinetoscope which is similar to contemporary movies we see very prevalent today. One example of “technology” from the fair we take for granted is the zipper; it was only first introduced at the exposition, but now you can’t go a day without using a zipper. Yet another luxury we enjoy today is the automatic dishwasher which was unveiled at the fair. Although not everyone has them today, they are widely proliferated in our society. In the less technologic realm, many food items came of the exposition. Juicy Fruit, an “oddly flavored gum” was introduced which many people enjoy daily now. Also, Cracker Jacks and Shredded Wheat are more foods that are eaten often with their roots in the world’s fair. The fair also utilized electricity. Electricity was not first used in the exposition, but it was the first time it was used inside and out. It also introduced the AC current that we used today; Edison promoted the DC current, but due to the use at the fair, AC current spread.
Finally, the fair influenced people who later did great things for the country. A widely-known icon that we see today was Walt Disney. His father worked on the exposition so he had access to the fair; the buildings amazed him and inspired him to create similar things in the future. And, in case not everyone knows, Walt Disney created Disneyland and Disneyworld.
The fair influenced many on the things we use and take for granted today. We cannot go through an entire without encountering something debuted, created, or widely used at the exposition. Even people that have done amazing, creative things, such as Disney, were influenced and inspired by the world’s fair of 1893.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Tonight We Dine In Chicago
The collapse of the roof of the Manufactures and Liberal Arts building was very significant literally and figuratively. Literally, it marked another monstrous setback in the already behind schedule fair and the eminent approach of opening day. Figuratively, it showed the collapse of the growing confidence and arrogance the United States had over the world; especially when comparing the exposition to that of the French.
The Manufactures and Liberal Arts building was to be the largest building ever constructed. It was also simply one of the many magnificent edifices being built for the world's fair. The Fair was constantly behind schedule and, as opening day approached, the designers slowly lost hope but remained confident in the completion of it. The fair was truly an outlandish scheme from the start; giving a group of architects a few years to design, build, and finish nearly a whole city's worth of structures was ridiculous to say the least. This, from the beginning, was a flaunt of hubris; the US believing they could beat--let alone match--the Paris exposition (disregarding the hard times, harsh weather, poor soil, and the time constraint).
The fair was in commemoration of Columbus's voyage to the New World, but in actuality, it was for the US to better the French. From the start, the fair was an act of arrogance; cities fought among each other of who was most fit to house such an event--all were good in their own ways, but they fought nonetheless due to their arrogance. This in turn caused the limitation of time to complete the construction. The fair was being built at a rapid pace--it had to be to meet the approaching deadline of opening day. But, this pace, coupled with a dash of arrogance, reached an inevitable climax--the collapse of the roof. This sent a message. The architects were no longer so bold; it brought their arrogance down a notch and tightened up their designs and executions henceforth.
Such creative acts do not always entail such destructive parallels. In most cases, they engender none of the sort. Most times, projects are not constrained by time, money, or such things that the world’s fair was. But in this case, the consequences were unseen yet unavoidable and resulted from constraints that ruined the overall outcome of the fair. The designs were extravagant, but the construction was shoddy; the perceived image was glorious, but time wouldn't allow the whole image to be fulfilled. In the end the, the architects’ hubris equated to the poor construction and execution of the White City. And although the fair and its buildings and exhibits eventually were completed, the boldness and arrogance of the architects and everyone involved were put to the when events such as the collapse of the Manufactures and Liberal Arts building’s roof happened.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Choose Spiderman!
The note at the beginning of the book reveals how facile, evanescent, and delicate life is. With our fleeting lives, we have choices to be good or bad, successful or poor, etc. Some choices, we do not get to make... These choices are often involved in this "ineluctable conflict between good and evil." Most people out in the world are good, but there are those who are evil through and through; those that do not get to choose whether to be good. In this story, Burnham and Holmes are the epitome of these two ideals; Burnham using his "brief allotment of time" doing great things, impossible things, progressive things for the betterment of society, whereas Holmes has an innate reflex to manufacture sorrow, benefit only himself, and take ever-so-precious life from others.
Burnham, as stated before, used his short time on this earth to establish himself in society, make a name for himself, and create innovative new architectural works. He got married, built a corporation from the ground up with his life-long partner, and led the very important job of supervising the construction of the Columbian Exposition. The weight of the country rested on him and he prevailed through it; he embodied the American dream of picking yourself up by the bootstraps and the can-do attitude of the time.
Holmes on the other hand kept himself under the radar, yet made a name for himself (which often changed), broke all the rules even the unwritten, and used his genius and enthusiasm for dirty deeds. He moved to Chicago and established a pharmacy which expanded and became very profitable; behind this ambitious facade lurked something darker, bad intention--which explained his illegal, yet effective, work ethic and the frequent disappearance of his female staff. He too embodied the American dream, but only to the untrained eye.
The essential difference between these men is their use of talents. Burnham used his talent and expertise to design and build large edifices; Holmes used his keen nature and good looks to design and carefully execute murderous acts. Also, there title and attitudes were different. Burnham was a high-profile, respected, famous architect who was proud of his accomplishments; Holmes keeps his work off the record and under the table. When juxtaposed, they are very similar in their successes, but when further inspected, the light and dark, good and evil are revealed.
They are also very alike in ways. Both men take pride in their work. Of course, it is a different kind of pride. Burnham can look at the buildings he has designed and know he built it well to the right specifications; Holmes--whose work is with the disappearance of people instead of the constructing buildings--takes pride in how much he can get away with; he also takes pride in how well he prepares for his murders, he is proud of himself with designing his new building equipped with sound-proof rooms and incinerators to do his deeds. The men are also alike in their blue eyes; at the beginning of the novel, the coroner points out Holmes eyes and says that ambitious men all have blue eyes. In this situation, the blue-eyed men were ambitious in completely different ways.
Burnham, as stated before, used his short time on this earth to establish himself in society, make a name for himself, and create innovative new architectural works. He got married, built a corporation from the ground up with his life-long partner, and led the very important job of supervising the construction of the Columbian Exposition. The weight of the country rested on him and he prevailed through it; he embodied the American dream of picking yourself up by the bootstraps and the can-do attitude of the time.
Holmes on the other hand kept himself under the radar, yet made a name for himself (which often changed), broke all the rules even the unwritten, and used his genius and enthusiasm for dirty deeds. He moved to Chicago and established a pharmacy which expanded and became very profitable; behind this ambitious facade lurked something darker, bad intention--which explained his illegal, yet effective, work ethic and the frequent disappearance of his female staff. He too embodied the American dream, but only to the untrained eye.
The essential difference between these men is their use of talents. Burnham used his talent and expertise to design and build large edifices; Holmes used his keen nature and good looks to design and carefully execute murderous acts. Also, there title and attitudes were different. Burnham was a high-profile, respected, famous architect who was proud of his accomplishments; Holmes keeps his work off the record and under the table. When juxtaposed, they are very similar in their successes, but when further inspected, the light and dark, good and evil are revealed.
They are also very alike in ways. Both men take pride in their work. Of course, it is a different kind of pride. Burnham can look at the buildings he has designed and know he built it well to the right specifications; Holmes--whose work is with the disappearance of people instead of the constructing buildings--takes pride in how much he can get away with; he also takes pride in how well he prepares for his murders, he is proud of himself with designing his new building equipped with sound-proof rooms and incinerators to do his deeds. The men are also alike in their blue eyes; at the beginning of the novel, the coroner points out Holmes eyes and says that ambitious men all have blue eyes. In this situation, the blue-eyed men were ambitious in completely different ways.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
#3 Om Nom Nom Nom Babies
Starting with the title, “A Modest Proposal”, is a bit of an understatement; it sets the tone for the whole satirical essay. The title makes his plan sound like a plausible or even beneficial course of action to rid Ireland of poor useless children and help the poor receive some income to live. He says that, “whoever could find out a…method…would deserve…to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.” I find this funny in that he thinks anyone who can find a “fair, cheap and easy” way to help or get rid of the poor shall be hailed as a hero of the nation and will have statues in his honor. Swift is mocking that the government should be preserving its nation, but it is paying no attention to the poor that riddling the streets—although, it is not a problem to the wealthy because they do not have any interaction with the poor which is why there is no action being taken. Swift sells his satirical tone by saying he’s weigh several schemes and he’s calculated the options; it makes it sound like he has put a lot of serious thought into his proposal to “help” the poor.
In his proposal, his argument is for poor women to birth children, nurse them for a year—which would be compensated—and then sell them to be eaten be the rich. He says it will be beneficial in many different ways. It will prevent voluntary abortions to have babies eaten after a year of life; it will rid the land of young children that can’t work; young children are not very valuable to sell; this business venture will be a profitable plan; and the poor will die inevitably, so get some use out of them while you can. These all sound like they would benefit society by getting rid of poor children, but, of course, they are truly inhumane and outlandish requests that Swift is using to criticize the lack of action being taken. I was initially dumbfounded by Swift’s statements of eating babies and all, but once I remembered that it was a satirical essay, I was relieved. I find it funny that Swift could write or even think of this essay because it and its ideas are completely insane and I don’t see how anyone could write such a piece.
The most ludicrous part of the essay is at the end. First of all, he says, “I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal.” Once again, I realize this is satirical, but I find it outrageous that he would not take into consideration the consequences, the inhumane nature, or the sheer atrocity of his proposal. Also, he says, “I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work…I have no children, by which I can propose to get a single penny….” I found this funny because he is stating that he has proposed a plan which shall help the people, but he himself will not be helped by it at all. He is criticizing the government here; if the government were to propose a plan, it would not be a particularly good one—one that would be impractical—because the government has no true knowledge of the poor and their children because they have zero interaction amongst them.
I think that Swift is very successful in criticizing the government. The introduction to his essay states that there is an evident problem with the poor and their many needy children; the poor fill the streets and are nothing but bad news for the country. He also states that there is no action being taken, no plans being proposed, and, of course, no notice is being taken by the rich and the government. He dehumanizes the poor people by comparing them to cattle and pigs, the children are useless since they can’t work, and selling babies is just a means of trading goods. This shows how the government needs to do something, and the only plan proposed is Swift’s satirical plan. Swift’s dehumanization of the poor Papists is exactly how the government would approach the problem; they would view the people as pieces of meat instead of actual, living breathing human beings. Their plan would reflect their insensitivity for the human; although Swift’s plan sounds outrageous and is satirical in nature, the government wouldn’t propose a much better plan. Of course, it wouldn’t include eating babies, but it would not take into account the human element and it would not be effective because the government has no true experience with helping the poor.
In his proposal, his argument is for poor women to birth children, nurse them for a year—which would be compensated—and then sell them to be eaten be the rich. He says it will be beneficial in many different ways. It will prevent voluntary abortions to have babies eaten after a year of life; it will rid the land of young children that can’t work; young children are not very valuable to sell; this business venture will be a profitable plan; and the poor will die inevitably, so get some use out of them while you can. These all sound like they would benefit society by getting rid of poor children, but, of course, they are truly inhumane and outlandish requests that Swift is using to criticize the lack of action being taken. I was initially dumbfounded by Swift’s statements of eating babies and all, but once I remembered that it was a satirical essay, I was relieved. I find it funny that Swift could write or even think of this essay because it and its ideas are completely insane and I don’t see how anyone could write such a piece.
The most ludicrous part of the essay is at the end. First of all, he says, “I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal.” Once again, I realize this is satirical, but I find it outrageous that he would not take into consideration the consequences, the inhumane nature, or the sheer atrocity of his proposal. Also, he says, “I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work…I have no children, by which I can propose to get a single penny….” I found this funny because he is stating that he has proposed a plan which shall help the people, but he himself will not be helped by it at all. He is criticizing the government here; if the government were to propose a plan, it would not be a particularly good one—one that would be impractical—because the government has no true knowledge of the poor and their children because they have zero interaction amongst them.
I think that Swift is very successful in criticizing the government. The introduction to his essay states that there is an evident problem with the poor and their many needy children; the poor fill the streets and are nothing but bad news for the country. He also states that there is no action being taken, no plans being proposed, and, of course, no notice is being taken by the rich and the government. He dehumanizes the poor people by comparing them to cattle and pigs, the children are useless since they can’t work, and selling babies is just a means of trading goods. This shows how the government needs to do something, and the only plan proposed is Swift’s satirical plan. Swift’s dehumanization of the poor Papists is exactly how the government would approach the problem; they would view the people as pieces of meat instead of actual, living breathing human beings. Their plan would reflect their insensitivity for the human; although Swift’s plan sounds outrageous and is satirical in nature, the government wouldn’t propose a much better plan. Of course, it wouldn’t include eating babies, but it would not take into account the human element and it would not be effective because the government has no true experience with helping the poor.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
#2 Reflection of Heroism
In Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, Romero is viewed as a hero. In his bullfighting, he is very genuine compared to the other bullfighters; he truly works close to the bull when others only appear to work close. He is tackling his task head-on and comes out victorious in his fights even though he is younger than the other "great" fighters. He is victorious because of his truly genuine style; with his style he exhibits "grace under pressure". The aficionados--such as Jake and Montoya--recognize Romero's gift; Jake and Montoya do not want Romero's gift to go to waste by him being corrupted and going down the same path as many other bullfighters had. Many bullfighters--especially the good ones--were corrupted by their fame; they took advantage of their skill and fame to get stuff, they did not love the sport as much and as thoroughly as the competition and for that they left Spain for bigger things. But, like many heroes, Romero can create enemies. Because Jake loves Brett so much he betrays the sport he loves and the young fighter by setting them up together; this sets off a chain reaction that corrupts Romero and creates enemies. Romero is first corrupted by Brett who is only attracted to him because he is a new piece of meat and he is a rising bullfighter. He, like the other bullfighters, let his gift go to his head and he was using it for things other than bullfighting. Romero's first enemy was Cohn. Cohn thinks that he is Brett's one and only true love, but when he finds her and Romero together, he loses his calm and collective demeanor and beats Romero relentlessly. Romero, trying to retain his dignity, fought back but to no avail; he had already lost his values as a hero. No matter how strong Romero, like many heroes, gave into corruption, created enemies, and lost his heroic values..
Today's heroes are very much the same as those like Romero; they are tough and graceful in hard situations. There are many different types of heroes in our society today from local heroes like fire-fighters and volunteers to superheroes in comics like Batman, Spiderman, and Superman. There is a huge riff between the types of heroes in modern society, but the gap is bridged by their courage and and ability to confront dangerous situations. To juxtapose modern heroes to those like Romero, I will use Spiderman as an example. He receives a superhuman power and initially uses it for good. He helped the city and was encouraged by the citizens. But, he eventually created enemies like the Green Goblin. The Green Goblin attempted to corrupt Spiderman by trying to make him evil. The Goblin, unlike Brett, did not succeed in destroying the hero's values. Spiderman continued to save people and use his powers and bravery for good; if Romero had stood up to the pressure and recognized the corruption, he would have retained his heroic values.
Modern heroes have the same values and are looked up to very much like Romero. Romero was very good at what he did; for that, many looked up to him. The aficionados that watched him adored him for his graceful skill working the bull. Other fighters looked up to him even though he was only nineteen years old. This is very much like today; people look up to heroes. A child's hero could be a famous baseball player; the athlete is very good at what he does and the child looks up to him because he wants to be able to be just as good as the athlete one day. Another kid's hero could be their parents. The parents encourage him in school and in other aspects of his life; when he has children, he wants to encourage them and mold them into outstanding citizens just like his parents did for him. Basically, a hero is anyone that is good at what they do and people look up to them for that.
Today's heroes are very much the same as those like Romero; they are tough and graceful in hard situations. There are many different types of heroes in our society today from local heroes like fire-fighters and volunteers to superheroes in comics like Batman, Spiderman, and Superman. There is a huge riff between the types of heroes in modern society, but the gap is bridged by their courage and and ability to confront dangerous situations. To juxtapose modern heroes to those like Romero, I will use Spiderman as an example. He receives a superhuman power and initially uses it for good. He helped the city and was encouraged by the citizens. But, he eventually created enemies like the Green Goblin. The Green Goblin attempted to corrupt Spiderman by trying to make him evil. The Goblin, unlike Brett, did not succeed in destroying the hero's values. Spiderman continued to save people and use his powers and bravery for good; if Romero had stood up to the pressure and recognized the corruption, he would have retained his heroic values.
Modern heroes have the same values and are looked up to very much like Romero. Romero was very good at what he did; for that, many looked up to him. The aficionados that watched him adored him for his graceful skill working the bull. Other fighters looked up to him even though he was only nineteen years old. This is very much like today; people look up to heroes. A child's hero could be a famous baseball player; the athlete is very good at what he does and the child looks up to him because he wants to be able to be just as good as the athlete one day. Another kid's hero could be their parents. The parents encourage him in school and in other aspects of his life; when he has children, he wants to encourage them and mold them into outstanding citizens just like his parents did for him. Basically, a hero is anyone that is good at what they do and people look up to them for that.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
# 1 Turgenev
Turgenev's passage, "The Execution of Tropmann", is about him being invited by a friend to the execution of a recently condemned murderer. The text is about his experiences through out the night leading up to the execution at 7 o'clock in the morning. The murderer, Tropmann, is calm, cool, and collective the whole time before his execution; he is stripped, clothed, bound, and embarrassed and never loses his cool.
The author's tone is depressing and bleak. He describes the situation as awkward; many of the privileged few that saw all the pre-execution "ceremonies" could talk of nothing else but the condemned criminal because that is all that was on their tired mind. He also speaks of the extreme dreariness which is "...a hundred times worse than boredom." A very depressing scene is "the toilet of the condemned man". The author describes Tropmann as a very young clean cut man who looks too innocent to have committed such a crime. He is stripped of his clothes and his dignity (although it doesn't seem like it); this whole time Tropmann shows no emotion and the men watching seem more affected by the ordeal than of the criminal himself. Turgenev also talks of the grotesqueness of the crowd; the spectators wait in restless boredom to watch a gruesome execution. When Tropmann is finally killed, some deranged viewers soak their handkerchiefs in his blood. Turgenev is disgusted by the entire night and its events; he does not even watch the execution.
Turgenev's purpose is to describe the weaknesses of capital punishment. He takes the reader through the whole pre-execution process to show the dehumanizing affects in the last half-hour of the condemned's life. He mentions the murder of Noir and the acquitting of his murderer Prince Bonaparte; he also adds how Tropmann insists on having accomplices. The public is thirsty for blood for the murder of Noir--they don't want to find Tropmann's accomplices and bring them to justice--since Bonaparte was acquitted, they await the murder of Tropman to receive some closure.
Turgenev's point of is that of his own. He was a reporter that was invited to the execution. Without hesitation he accepted but then had regrets for doing so. He did not want to be a coward so he stayed until the end of the execution. He views capital punishment as a corrupt institution for the enjoyment of the public. I disagree with Turgenev's argument; today the death penalty has improved from 140 years ago, it is not influenced by the public's need for closure. People who do bad things should be brought to justice and pay for their actions.
The author's argument is of the corruptness of capital punishment. At the time this was relevant and I believe he was right in finding it a terrible institution. But today, the system isn't like it used to be; people don't like to see others die (at least most people) and the process of execution isn't as inhumane as it once was. The cruel and unusual punishment clause has gone a long way and prisoners, especially those condemned to die, are treated better than in the 1800's.
The author's tone is depressing and bleak. He describes the situation as awkward; many of the privileged few that saw all the pre-execution "ceremonies" could talk of nothing else but the condemned criminal because that is all that was on their tired mind. He also speaks of the extreme dreariness which is "...a hundred times worse than boredom." A very depressing scene is "the toilet of the condemned man". The author describes Tropmann as a very young clean cut man who looks too innocent to have committed such a crime. He is stripped of his clothes and his dignity (although it doesn't seem like it); this whole time Tropmann shows no emotion and the men watching seem more affected by the ordeal than of the criminal himself. Turgenev also talks of the grotesqueness of the crowd; the spectators wait in restless boredom to watch a gruesome execution. When Tropmann is finally killed, some deranged viewers soak their handkerchiefs in his blood. Turgenev is disgusted by the entire night and its events; he does not even watch the execution.
Turgenev's purpose is to describe the weaknesses of capital punishment. He takes the reader through the whole pre-execution process to show the dehumanizing affects in the last half-hour of the condemned's life. He mentions the murder of Noir and the acquitting of his murderer Prince Bonaparte; he also adds how Tropmann insists on having accomplices. The public is thirsty for blood for the murder of Noir--they don't want to find Tropmann's accomplices and bring them to justice--since Bonaparte was acquitted, they await the murder of Tropman to receive some closure.
Turgenev's point of is that of his own. He was a reporter that was invited to the execution. Without hesitation he accepted but then had regrets for doing so. He did not want to be a coward so he stayed until the end of the execution. He views capital punishment as a corrupt institution for the enjoyment of the public. I disagree with Turgenev's argument; today the death penalty has improved from 140 years ago, it is not influenced by the public's need for closure. People who do bad things should be brought to justice and pay for their actions.
The author's argument is of the corruptness of capital punishment. At the time this was relevant and I believe he was right in finding it a terrible institution. But today, the system isn't like it used to be; people don't like to see others die (at least most people) and the process of execution isn't as inhumane as it once was. The cruel and unusual punishment clause has gone a long way and prisoners, especially those condemned to die, are treated better than in the 1800's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)