Waiting for the Chirp

... of an eaglet being born. - 1776 "Power is a test ... We call it breaking the egg. You never know what kind of bird is going to be hatched." - Brent Weeks, .............The Black Prism ............. (Katie Marinaccio's American Dreams Blog)

[waitingforthechirp]

Catching Fire, The Condemned, and Our Current Society

The reaction of Capitol citizens (notably Effie and the prep team) of Katniss returning to the games is telling, shows that this is the first time they have thought of the tributes as human beings. This dehumanization is central to the games and, if it breaks down, they are much less likely to provide the distraction for the Capital citizens, which is part of their intent (186, 204-205, 246-247).

              Tributes holding hands during interview is a brief strike against the enforced isolation, which keeps the capitol strong. Unity (partly) breaks down in arena, when tributes lives are at stake. (258, 275-277)

            This is true for Katniss too, when she tries to put down rebellions, or run away, in order to save herself and her family.

              Story about destroyed District 13 designed to inspire fear, reminiscent of government cover-ups? (139-150)

              Theme in Catching Fire of “simple life,” working to provide for self/living off the land. Katniss bored with being rich, not having to hunt for food. Preps complain about things Katniss thinks are stupid and don’t really matter

            Certainly there is the potential in American society for those with wealth to lose touch with what is important and lose that connection that says working = providing for my family.

              Unlike Hunger Games, The Condemned divorces government from commentary (mostly) and focuses on media.

  “Twenty-eight million people watching something I created. And not a single network gets a piece of it.” (1:10:19)

Benchmark for success is exposure and money, very little emphasis put on whether finished product is good (morally, entertainment-wise, etc.).

Similar to society today, where people want their fifteen minutes of fame with a youtube video, but don’t worry about whether it is something they will be proud to be known for.

  “CNN, ABC, MTV – all manufactured and manipulated just like this. To entertain.” (1:11:12)

Makes corollary between scripted violence and drama by actors and real violence shown in The Condemned. Asks where we draw the line.

Also makes argument that news is manipulated to tell the best story? (probably true).

               “Those of us who reward him, those of us who watch, are we the condemned?” (1:31:20)

            Big unanswered question (to me) is chicken and egg of society and people. But, obviously, people can halt a societal construct they do not agree with by refusing to participate. Participation, even just by watching, is implied consent.

  Idea of hunger games themselves as quest for American Dream (when defined as wealth/fame).  Some few (Capitol citizens) are born into it, and those from lower “classes” who would like to reach it must fight their way to the top, often doing things that are less than ethical to get ahead.

[waitingforthechirp]

America of The Hunger Games

The America of the Hunger Games, to me, represents a grossly exaggerated version of the America we live in today. I think nothing we do is as bad as Panem, but you can certainly see the roots of Collins’ dystopia in our society today.

            The Games themselves are reminiscent of American media and entertainment, especially reality television. Take first the increasing violence in fictional television and then the current obsession with shows about “real people” (in albeit increasingly unreal situations) and we have all the recipe we need to inspire a real life Hunger Games. I do not find it hard to picture the Americans of today eagerly watching such a show. (And, with the concession that in Collins’ version no one is actually being killed, we already have.)

Further, the disparity of wealth in the Hunger Games seems reminiscent of conditions in present-day America, where a small portion of the population (the Capitol) exerts all the power and is afforded all of the advantage of living in a presumably prosperous nation, and yet doesn’t contribute to the overall productivity of the nation. Bored, they engage in ridiculous fads and expensive frivolities. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but I think we can easily see how it stems from our real-life experiences. I thought it especially relates to the piece we read by Ehrenreich, where she says we, the upper and middle classes, are dependent on the working poor, without even realizing it. Katniss marvels at the ability in the capitol to push a button and have food appear, without any apparent thought for where it came from or how it was acquired. I think this would be a cmmon occurrence for upper class Americans today.

I think the biggest difference between America and Panem is the government. While our media and wealth structure are verging on dystopic. our government retains a structure that supports equality, even if it doesn’t always measure up. It’s not clear how President Snow is chosen or appointed, but it doesn’t seem likely that one person, one vote applies, at least not for those in the districts. In fact, the districts appear to have no voice at all, however small or symbolic it might be. While it is conceivable that large portions of the country could lose their right to representation in a failed rebellion under the current system, I think this represents an important distinction between America and Panem.

[waitingforthechirp]

Paper Abstract

A vital part of the American Dream, and indeed, the concept of America, is that people have a say in the institutions that govern their daily lives. Since the country’s inception, Americans have fought to achieve equality of opportunity and under the law, through any number of methods. This paper will focus on the method of non-violent direct action through the lens of labor unions and the actions of laborers and workers in general. I will use this lens to better understand the concept and mechanisms of non-violent direct action. I will extrapolate (briefly) to other instances of non-violent direct action in order to better understand the mechanisms at work. My hope is to demonstrate that non-violent direct action constitutes an evolution of the American Dream, in that it relies on a “moral” sensibility of the institution being protested against or the public, from which it draws its power (defining moral without religious connotations and without judgment of good or bad morals, just the recognition that a system of morals exists). I will also touch upon the necessity for collective protest in non-violent direct action, in comparison with other forms of protest, and how this may or may not comply with the American Dream. Finally, I would like to examine the possible application of non-violent direct action on a broader scale (e.g. Can a non-violent war be fought?) My hypothesis is that the answer is no (barring, perhaps, resistance to an occupation), however, I doubt I will have enough information to argue the point sufficiently either way.

[waitingforthechirp]

Whimper

I saw the best minds of my generation made complacent, lulled by access to information into disinterest in acquiring it and taught implicitly that to be right is to be the same as everyone else is to be safe, running like lemmings off of cliffs because the lemmings in front of them did it first

who refused to be taught chess openings because they wanted to come up with the openings themselves

who cried when asked to choose a favorite color because they didn’t want any of the other colors to feel bad

who have forgotten all of the letters to their individual alphabets, deemed unfit for preschool assignments

who were not allowed to paint their nails because the other boys would make fun of them

who were taught to the test which has no imagination

who split their dessert by halves, quarters, eighths to share and nearly caused a riot when it couldn’t be split anymore

who read novels behind their music stands during band practice between clarinet whole notes

who planned political movements with grand historical allusions and without pants

who lie about their favorite color because it’s easier than explaining that it depends on the day and they’d rather not pick one anyway because they don’t want the other colors to feel bad

who were not left behind by the school system but were dragged through it by their feet, coughing up dust and bumping their heads on rocks as they passed

who sat up long into the night discussing politics and religion and favorite children’s books

who combed through massive tomes to pick the very best university with the simultaneous knowledge that this decision didn’t matter all that much and that it was the most important decision of their entire lives thus far

who didn’t get into the college of their dreams

who got into the college of their dreams and couldn’t afford to go there and stayed home and went to a local school instead

who went to the college of their dreams and failed because they were lazy and afraid of failure and did not yet understand the meaning of consequences

who are trapped in a capitalist system they no longer agree with by college debt they were never given the option not to take

who don’t remember the last thing they read that wasn’t assigned

who get their news from 95.5 PLJ

who hide behind rules and inconvenience and youth

who get discouraged by their ignorance and retreat into ignorance

who were never asked for more than the bare minimum, and so, never give it

who are waiting to be told what to rebel for

[waitingforthechirp]

Question III

I think these readings have shown me that what I’ve been taught about American history has been incredibly streamlined. Not false, exactly, but so simplified as to give an overall impression that is false. I understand this tactic for smaller children, but I must believe a grievous error has occurred for me to make it through AP US History with these false impressions intact.

  I was especially surprised by the Malcolm X reading, and the subsequent research I did to better understand it. All I’ve ever been taught about Malcolm X has been in comparison to Martin Luther King. The fiction is that these were two men who wanted the same thing, but went about getting it in very different ways. In discussions and lessons Dr. King’s methods were favored (because what teacher wants to preach the merits of violent dissent in his classroom?) and generally presented as more effective, while Malcolm X was relegated to an angry man who, while he had a legitimate reason to be angry, was obviously not employing the best tactics to achieve equality.

  What I was never taught was that Malcolm X and Dr. King wanted vastly different things. While Dr. King was working for an end to segregation, Malcolm X was, for at least part of his career, looking for an increase, to widen the rift to the point where African Americans would have autonomy similar to that of an individual nation. Nor was I taught that Malcolm X was such a dynamic figure, that his views changes so dramatically throughout his life and this, I think, is important in understanding him.

  This realization has convinced me that I need to be more active in questioning what I learn, read, see, hear. I can’t expect to be given the whole truth on a silver platter. And it’s all so subjective, can be spun so many ways, that I could be given three different dishes on three separate occasions and still call them by the same name. But we live in a wonderful time in history where we have access to all variety of interpretations of history and current events with just a simple internet search. And if we want information about what the government is doing, there’s a law that says they have to give it to us (baring probably some things covered under national security).

  The Corso poem talks about our ignorance, and I think that’s really good point as well as a really big problem. It’s less that we’re stupid and more that we willfully ignore the things we think it will be inconvenient to know. I think it’s vastly important that we not become complacent, that we keep looking deeper, and questioning, and asking for the information we deserve. And that we never forget that the information-getters, Frost and Snowden and others, are true patriots as well as dissenters.

  Because being a good American is kind of like being a vicious fangirl. She reads the first book and she thinks she owns the characters and she gets mad when the author kills her favorite or doesn’t pursue the love story she likes. We can debate how much of a claim she has when the book is just a book, but, when the book is America, and the “author” is the government, she has all the claim in the world. Because they gave it to us, in the first ever document of the United States of America, when our government said we had the right and the duty to alter or abolish any government that fails to protect our rights. To be a good American is to question our government, and to seek out new information, and to scream about the plotlines that we don’t like. Because we’re all the authors of America and, if we don’t like the story, we’re the only ones to blame.

[waitingforthechirp]

Wikipedia: The Final Frontier

Ship’s Log: Entry 1

  We begin our journey on the muddy shores of the cultural movement, Surrealism. This captain was surprised to find that Surrealism encompasses only one port, and is not separated in the nation of Wikipedia into different cities defined by the artistic, literary, or political aspects of Surrealism. After a brief foray into the Bay of Pataphysics, where the crew was frightened by a preponderance of vocabulary monsters, we journeyed back to more familiar waters, and the Channel of Automatic Writing.

  Ship’s Log: Entry 2

  This captain was fairly relieved to find that the Channel of Automatic Writing was not, as the writings of Sir. Google had led her to believe, a bastion of paranormal activity. Instead, the channel, called Automatism by the natives, boasts a greater communion with, and outlet for expressing, subconscious. This captain was intrigued by the idea, but skeptical of its ability to be harnessed into a manifesto or political movement of any sort. Driven by curiosity, we stopped at a settlement built on just these principles, the manifesto, Refus Global.

  Ship’s Log: Entry 3

  Founded on anti-establishment and anti-religious sentiments, this captain was surprised that Refus Global, meaning “total refusal” in our native tongue, was an established entity at all. The terms, “anarchy” and “manifesto”, seem almost contradictory, and there is no instruction on how to build-up a new society when the old has, justifiably, been torn down. Accordingly, the settlement is very small. However, we were directed across the channel to a city inspired by Refus Global, the Quiet Revolution, and we made our way there post-haste.

  Ship’s Log: Entry 4

  The Quiet Revolution is a resplendent example of what, this captain believes, is good and necessary in society. It is characterized by secular public education and health care, as opposed to theses same institutions run by the church, a welfare state, unionization of the civil service, and increased control over the economy, which was originally dominated by outside forces. It is surprising that a society with such a reliance on governmental control and providence was inspired by an anarchist work. The relationship between the Quiet Revolution and Refus Global reminds this captain of the revolutionary capabilities of pieces of writing, even if they are not widely disseminated.

  Ship’s Log: Entry 5

  From here, we journey forth across a sea called the Grande Noirceur, the “great darkness” in our language, and the climate the settlers to the Quiet Revolution endured before making their home in the relatively peaceful new society. We find that the moniker of darkness is most apt, as there are none of the rights we here have come to enjoy, including free speech, freedom of worship, or even the right to unionize. We were asked to pay a very high price in goods to ensure our safe passage and, even though we have complied, we do not have much faith that our agreement will be kept.

  Ship’s Log: Entry 6

  As we travel across the Grande Noirceur, we encounter a sea monster of Odyssian proportions. Folk stories tell us that Padlock Law was originally put in the ocean by the gods to swallow those disseminating Communist propaganda. We are told that she has grown greedy, and now eats indiscriminately of all dissenters of the state, without presumption of innocence. She is an uncomfortable reminder, to this captain, of certain laws in our own country that deprive suspects of the presumption of innocence, or even a trial.

[waitingforthechirp]

A letter to my professor ...

Dear Professor,

  I’m sorry, but I do not believe it is necessary, or even beneficial, to do the assigned reading for your class. There are a number of reasons for my belief, but the first is this: the documents you assign are incredibly outdated. The Martin Luther King Jr. speech you assigned, for example, was about the Vietnam War, which was over long before my lifetime even began. Some of the other readings, like the Declaration of Independence, were even older. I do not believe something that old could possibly be relevant to my life today, or to understanding what the American Dream is all about.

  Now, dear professor, you may be thinking, “Aha, this is easy to solve, I’ll simply assign readings about current events.” But please be forewarned, I would not be likely to read those either. You see, I was taught to think for myself, and not to take the opinions of others and adopt them as my own, even if those others are experts in their fields, who are likely to know a lot more than I do about their particular areas of study. I would not want to read an informed and well-researched article and accidentally sully my fresh take on an issue with actual facts, or by holding it up to well-justified dissent.

  Now, you may ask, “But student, would you consent to read a document, not for its content, but to understand the rhetorical devices present and improve your own writing?” Alas, I must answer, “Nay”. Because, as I was taught to form my own opinions, was I also taught to have my own style and voice in my writing. I believe that this voice is innate and does not come from an understanding of rhetorical devices and the way that they work in a piece of writing. I would not want to alter or damage my individual voice by learning how to better convey my point or excite the emotions of my audience.

  Finally, you may appeal to my desire to achieve a good grade. You may say that I will not be able to write an acceptable essay without the help of the rhetorical devices present in the readings. To this, my counter is that all writing is subjective, and that you cannot possibly give me a bad grade if I complete the assignment sufficiently to fulfill all of the requirements, and I use correct spelling and grammar. If this proves not to be the case, I will declare that you “hate me” and this will nullify all of the ill effects of having a failing grade on my transcript.

  Thank you, dear professor, for your time and cooperation. I hope, in the future, that you will take my comments to heart and will not force us to read any documents whatsoever. I also hope that you can sympathize with my honest belief that reading a speech by Martin Luther King Jr. can only detract from my already prodigious writing ability.

  Sincerely,

An Aggrieved Student

  P.S. Would you please explain what a rhetorical device is again?

[waitingforthechirp]

Background on Issue

Why is conservation important? In theory, the question makes me angry. Did you breath any air today? Do you plan on drinking any water? But that’s not exactly fair, as my stated topic is climate change and we have no evidence to suggest that changes in global climate will make the atmosphere un-breathable. Instead, I should ask more practical questions. Do you live near the ocean? Sea level rise may put many costal communities underwater, or at least at greater risk for flooding during high tides or storm events, which become more frequent and intense as climate warms. Do you eat fish? An increase in atmospheric CO2 is likely to cause ocean acidification which will affect all the entire marine ecosystem, including fisheries. Do you want to prevent disease? Global warming will likely increase the area that pathogens, and their carriers, are able to live, greatly increasing the chances that people will contract them. And, though I hesitate to put it up next to human health risks, do you like polar bears? Do you want to preserve the right of your children and grandchildren to see a coral reef in their lifetimes? Do you want to have a rich reservoir of biodiversity to rely on, not just for it’s medicinal, recreational, scientific, genetic (for food production), and other instrumental purposes, but for the beauty it lends to the world?

            I recently attended a conference on climate change that’s focus was Urban Resiliency. The question the presenters asked and answered was not ‘how do we avoid climate change?’ but ‘what do we do when it happens?’ The fact of the matter is, we’ve already released enough carbon into the atmosphere that it will have significant impacts on Earth’s climate for generations to come. Storms, flooding, changes to distributions of plants and animals, changes in thermohaline circulation, these are all realities of our future. However, we still have control of how great those changes will be. Will sea level rise a meter or a centimeter? Will ocean circulation stop, or just slow down a little? We are at a critical time in our history, where we can decide what our future Earth will look like and, I sincerely hope, it will be a planet that human beings can still call home.

[waitingforthechirp]

Outline

1.     Intro

      a.     My issue is global climate change and the need for renewable energy sources

     b.     I will propose small economic actions that can be taken, as well as the need to be conscious of the energy decisions we make. I will also propose political avenues to support renewable energies.

     c.      The two speeches I will draw from are FDR’s four freedoms speech and Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee’s commencement speech at Barnard College

2.     Reflection on looking back at past speeches

3.     Background on “four freedoms” with emphasis on historical context

4.     “take” of four freedoms

5.     How I can use this in my speech

6.     Background on Leymah Gbowee’s speech (with focus on her history?)

7.     “Shadow” theme and how I want to use that in my speech

8.     Why I didn’t use an environmental speech

9.     FDR has historical evidence

10. Leymah Gbowee has personal stories

11. While I think personal stories are often stronger, historical context and evidence will be important for my speech too (and stories may be hard to find). Maybe I should use both?

12. FDR’s speech and sacrifices

13. Leymah Gbowee’s speech also acknowledges difficulties/sacrifice

14. My gut instinct, assuring people that what I’m asking is easy to do, may not be the correct take

15. Leymah Gbowee’s speech is personal (bottom –up)

16. FDR’s speech is fairly impersonaland is from a position of power (top-down)

17. Bottom-up is better for my speech

18. Reflect again

19.  Speaking while female, does the fact that the majority of famous historical speeches were made by men mean women are at a disadvantage when trying to give a memorable speech or that we need to be more careful about the way we speak (not sure if I want to include this, but it's something I’ve been thinking about)

20. Why my issue is important

21. What I want my speech to do/mean

22. Conclusion

[waitingforthechirp]

Freedom is Slavery

“To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a basis of wartime production of implements of war is no small task.”

  “Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it to be so.”

  “We must all prepare ourselves to make sacrifices that the emergency –almost as serious as war itself – demands.”

  The first statement initially implied, to me, that the United States was at war, or would be shortly. However, the second statement clearly says that the country is not declaring war. The third supports this by calling the situation “almost as serious as war.” On my first reading of the speech, I thought this was a contradiction. Roosevelt seemed to be adamantly denying something he admitted offhandedly only two pages earlier.

  However, this conflict can be resolved by looking closely at the context of the first statement. In this section of the speech, Roosevelt is speaking, specifically, about industry and the production of armaments. And even within the statement, he is sure to say the nation is changing to the “basis of wartime production” to create the “implements of war.” This has meaning distinct from my initial interpretation, which was: ‘We are now beginning wartime production.’ “Wartime”, in Roosevelt’s true meaning, is a descriptor of the types of production, indicating those one would need in a time of war, rather than a description of the state of the country.

  Thus, all three statements are in agreement. None declare the country at war, although they all paint us as very close to it. The aim, I would imagine, was to get the country used to thinking of the “emergency” as war, to make people more amenable to the sacrifices they were asked to make, but to avoid actually declaring war in the hopes that it could be avoided. This interpretation fits into a greater understanding of the historical context of the speech, as the US wasn’t officially at war at the time the speech was given, but did declare war almost a year later.

  “No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion -or even good business.

  Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. ‘Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’"

  “Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom.”

  These statements initially struck me as, not exactly contradictory, but conflicting, because they espouse the same goal, but seem to give entirely different reasons for doing so. The first is very practical: a peace negotiated with dictators would not be a very good peace and we would not be secure. The second is much more idealist. It says that we are morally opposed to a peace “dictated by aggressors” because it would be at the cost, in some distant and undefined way, of someone else’s freedom. It seems as if Roosevelt is casting about for reasons that we will like, rather than giving us the true reasons.

  However, on closer inspection, it seems absurd to me that I thought these statements were so different. They both have the same elements of security, enduring peace, and basic human liberties. They both make the same arguments against peace negotiated with a dictator. But, the tone and diction are such that they appear to be entirely different statements. The growth of the argument from a realistic precaution to a moral imperative, with the retention of the same basic arguments, serves to enhance, rather than undermine, Roosevelt’s point.

[waitingforthechirp]

What Is a Drop of Jupiter, Exactly?

“Drops of Jupiter” is moving to me because I can recognize the emotion without the lyrics spelling in out. I think it’s very powerful when a singer says more with tone and inflection than what the lyrics say, and I think that happens here. The protagonist is in love with the girl (I think) and is afraid that she forgot him while she was off on some trip, but says it with little more than “did you miss me?”

  Things “going on” in the song:

  Throughout the song, there is the extended metaphor that the woman the protagonist is speaking to/about is returning from and was traveling in space (in astronomically unlikely ways, so she’s probably not literally an astronaut). This metaphor most likely serves to emphasize the fantastical nature of her journey, its extreme “otherness” from the “normal” world she is returning to, and to allow for layers of meaning. For me, however, this tool increases interest and meaning precisely because it obscures meaning, at least initially. I think that choosing a surprising metaphor and interesting imagery asks the listener to pay closer attention, and that this helps enhance our understanding of the entire song. Beyond what the metaphor says, which is undoubtedly important, the simple act of having a metaphor asks the listener to engage with the song far more than simply telling the story would.

  The artist routinely juxtaposes references to the protagonist with fairly ordinary things we are meant, I assume, to associate with life on Earth. E.g., “The best soy latte that you ever had and me.” The implication is that the protagonist considers himself on the same level with soy lattes, fried chicken, and other mundane Earth-items. However, we are informed by tone, repetition of the question, and some assumed empathy with the protagonist (?) that this is not the case, he would like to be considered much higher. The disparity between how we think he would like to present himself and how he is actually presenting himself informs our inference that he is censoring himself due to fear of rejection.

  Finally, references to the protagonist (or to emotion) generally come on the last line of a stanza or before some sort of musical break. I think we are informed culturally that important things come last, but, even mechanistically, the placement of these references has an effect. Generally, the transitions from one line to the next in the song are very quick, so, when we do have a break, it gives us a novel chance to reflect on the previous statement and serves to enhance the importance we give it. Thus, though ”and me” comes at the end of a line of fairly unexceptional things, we have three beats to reflect on it before launching into the next lyric, giving it more weight than the other things in the list. By contrast, with statements we are not meant to reflect on deeply, the instrumental break is often filled in with a “na, na, na.”

"Drops of Jupiter" is by Train

Lyrics are from AZLyrics.com

[waitingforthechirp]

A declaration of independence

I declare independence from the two-party system. We have in this country two parties, which are remarkably similar, compared to those found throughout history and around the world, but which cannot seem to agree on anything at all. One party spends all of its time trying to foil the plans of the other and, as a result nothing ever gets done at all. I would prefer the abolition of parties altogether, with the result that representatives would be chosen for their personal merits. However, as I understand the value of a defined party platform to the voter, I would also accept a cap on the number of representatives a party may have in each house, so that no party might have a majority on its own.

  I declare independence from fossil fuels. Today it is clear (95% certainty according to UN) that anthropogenic carbon emissions are responsible for a marked increase in global temperatures. This will undoubtedly lead to, and, in fact, is already beginning to effect, negative changes to human lives and livelihoods, not to mention our fellow organisms. I firmly believe that when fossil fuels are no longer available, human beings will be able to develop renewable energy sources that can provide for our current energy needs, and quite probably exceed them. However, until such time, we do not have the motivation or initiative to do so. I would propose the outlawing of fossil fuels, or the imposition of taxes so great that they make the use of fossil fuels prohibitively expensive. Without access to fossil fuels, our only options would be to develop new sources of power, or to go without.

  I declare independence from race. At a time in our scientific knowledge when we cannot even accurately define “species,” it is absurd to propose splitting people into apparently genetic groups based on arbitrary physical features. Race is a social construct, having no scientific basis and existing predominantly in order to discriminate against groups of people perceived to be inferior. I would abolish the concept entirely, opting instead for descriptions of individual physical features when absolutely necessary (e.g. eyewitness accounts to police).

  I declare independence from gender. With the (slow beginnings of) acceptance for different gender identities, it is becoming increasingly clear that an individual’s reproductive organs do not confer clothing preferences, emotional stability, or a proclivity for sports (How did we not figure that out sooner?). I would propose abandoning the idea of gender altogether, and the words used to distinguish one gender from the other. Sex classification would exist for medical purposes, and for the purposes of romantic relationships, but would not exist as a means to divide or classify people. Thus all occupations, sports, organizations, and other societal institutions would be gender-blind.

  I would institute communism (note, not Marxism or Soviet-style Communism). I know that communism (real communism) has never been historically successful on a large scale. However, I firmly believe that it is the only conscionable economic system. I would prefer not to go about it the way Marx and Engels prescribe, but I do think it would take at least a generation to take hold. It would require a different way of thinking about prosperity and about the divide between self and community. I envision it as redistributed wealth, rather than the sharing of physical possessions.

  I would establish marriage equality. It baffles me that this continues to be such a controversial issue. I don’t believe I should have any say in whether two consenting adults should be able to live their lives together. Nor should I have a say in the affairs of three or four or five or six  (etc.) consenting adults.

  I would commodify environmental assets. I believe that people sometimes abuse natural resources because they don’t understand what they’re worth. Unfortunately, I think sometimes the only way to explain to people how much something is worth is in dollars. This system would ask them to pay for whatever service the environmental resource served before they repurposed it. (E.g. if you cut down a tree, you would be required to pay what it would cost industry to produce the oxygen and sequester the carbon that the tree would produce and sequester throughout its natural lifespan.)

  I would establish a stronger global authority. Issues like economic strength, environmental health, and security can’t be adequately dealt with as individual countries anymore. They must be addressed, at least in part, by the world as a whole.  Currently, there is the mechanism to make agreements and treaties between nations, but little ability to enforce them. I have no idea how this would be achieved, but I think it is becoming more important as our world becomes more and more interconnected.

[waitingforthechirp]

Because I Am an Idiot Who Doesn't Listen to Instructions

The American Dream is like Uggs. No wait, hear me out. Ever since Uggs were wildly popular in the mid-2000’s they have been decidedly not. I’ve hear them decried countless times, by people presumably in the fashion “know,” and by people not. The verdict is clear; the Ugg is dead. Still, as cold weather rolls around, the Ugg emerges from closets and mudrooms, clad in water repellant spray and with skinny jeans sticking out of its top, still very much alive, and a little worse for wear, but all the more willing to slog through snow and ice if it means it gets to stay firmly attached to our feet. My high school English teacher once mocked the fad, asking if any of us would have bought our precious boots if they weren’t so wildly popular. I couldn’t figure out quite how to tell him that I DID like my boots, but it was absurd to think of fashion without its social context. The truth was, I didn’t know if I would have liked my Uggs, even though they were incredibly warm and made me look like a Rescue Hero, if a million other girls hadn’t liked them first. I want to wear my Uggs, because I like them, and I like what they represent. But I wonder how they could ever really be mine if they’ve already been worn by so many people.

The above is my writing assignment for yesterday's class. Suffice it to say, I understand NOW what you wanted us to do. Please don't feel that you need to comment/critique, this was mostly for me.

[waitingforthechirp]

Red Pill It Is

I have a dream. In fact, I have multiple dreams. Most nights I have dreams and even some days in particularly boring biology classes. I have dreams that are hopeful and expansive and dreams that are inconsequential and often immature. I have never, however, thought of myself as a person who has collective dreams, that is, dreams that I share with my family, my community, or my nation. The American Dream is just that, a dream that is so big it can’t fit inside just one head, so big that it takes all of America, upwards of 300 million people, to dream it up. And, understandably, with that many people actively dreaming and wishing and thinking and hoping, with all their immature thoughts in particularly boring biology classes across the nation, it’s liable to get a little messy in there. And we wouldn’t be remiss to ask, ‘What exactly is this American Dream, that looks like an overtaxed Google Doc, so many mice scrabbling for attention that the words become illegible and the ideas indecipherable?’ I think it can be defined for my family as a place where one can stand, looking out on the collective dreamscape, and choose, from amongst the vast expanse, her ideal world. ‘I’ll take a purple mountain and some fruited plains, hold the amber waves of grain.’

Looking out at the hodge-podge of American dreams, one could say that education stands like a pinnacle, a mountain of arkose with trees winding their way up its slopes, so tiny at a distance that they almost look like ivy. My grandmother, in particular, expounded on the importance of education …

  Thoughts:

            Can I carry the dreamscape metaphor through the entire essay? Or will it become labored? (How am I going to make “moral code” a landscape anyway?)

            Is my thesis clear enough? Can IT carry through the entire essay?

 Possible progression: Education, Education as a vehicle for choice, Money, Money as a vehicle for choice, How to get there, How to choose, My thoughts?, ???

[waitingforthechirp]

Thesis and Interview Questions

Thesis:

  My family has come to define the American Dream, not as a personal material goal, but as a position where one has unlimited choices about how to live his or her life, and the ability to choose well.

  Thoughts:

  I want to look at this through lenses such as education and money that, I contend, give a person more options or choices about their future. I’ll also try to relate it to historical ideas of the American Dream.

  I was surprised that I got comments from both my parents about some sort of moral code or responsibility, so I want to look at that as “ability to choose well” (though I’m not actually sure if that’s how I want to phrase it).

  Personally, I’ve been a little resistant to define the American Dream as a thing common to all Americans, I have personal dreams but I’ve never thought of them as an “American Dream”, but I think this thesis makes it easier to connect the collective dream with those of the individual.

  Further questions/things I want to know but don’t know how to ask:

  Employment history

  How would you define success?

  About parents/ancestors (e.g. What did your parents think of…?) – This might give context and show change, but I keep thinking it’s hearsay. (And I should be focusing on the interviewee not his parents, right?)

  What were your realistic dreams? (As opposed to ‘dream job,’ which is what I get when I ask, “What were your dreams/goals?”)

  What obstacles did you face? – I’ve asked it in a couple interviews but my interviewees didn’t quite understand what I was looking for, and I don’t know how to explain it, or ask better.

  Do you feel you had more or less advantages/opportunities compared to your peers? – I’m trying to ask about equal opportunity (which we discussed as part of the American Dream) but I’m not sure it’s coming across quite right.

  Is there anything about America today that’s the same as when you were growing up?

  Popular culture when you were younger? (Like, what kind of material things did you want, what did kids watch on TV (if there was TV), etc.?)

  Education history

  In general, do you think life is better or worse now than when you were younger?

  How would you define the American Dream? Have you achieved it?

[waitingforthechirp]

Behind their cage, yellow dinosaur steamshovels were grunting

            “Behind” is an interesting choice of word for this statement. One would expect “inside their cage” instead, meaning the word behind might be significant. It can signify that something is out of date, as in, “behind the times.” It can also signify support, as in the phrase to “get behind” something. Another understanding is that the choice was not to use “behind” but to NOT use “inside” or some synonym. This would imply that the dinosaur steamshovels are not wholly contained.

            Cage has its own implications and, contradictory to my final interpretation of “behind” all of them are centered on containment. A cage is something used to trap or restrict motion for an animal, or occasionally a human. It is usually small in relation to the animal. It does not provide a habitat or, normally, space enough for extended living. My immediate understanding is of a cage as an inhumane form of containment. A caged animal has been denied its freedom. Further, we make efforts to give different names to forms of containment we find acceptable; crate, enclosure, kennel, habitat, pen etc. However this may be something that has come about since the poem was written. On the other hand, a cage may be used to contain something we find dangerous or destructive. Large cats come to mind for no particular reason I can discern. A lion or tiger may rightly be considered dangerous by its human keepers, and the enclosures of the old cat house at the Bronx Zoo could certainly be called cages. However, we still have the image of an animal taken, unwillingly, from its natural habitat. The animal is only dangerous because of human action that brought it here. Finally, “cage” yields an allusion to the adjective “cagey”. The implication would be that the steamshovels are somehow secretive or mysterious in the work they do, and this is perhaps referenced later with the phrase “underworld garage.”

            The color yellow is generally used to symbolize fear. In this context it could either mean that the steamshovels are themselves afraid, or that they inspire fear, as in yellow journalism. However, we must also concede that pieces of machinery, such as steamshovels, are often yellow.

            Dinosaurs are most notable for being remarkably large. This is certainly at least part of the reason for this choice of word. They also may inspire fear, make loud noises, and move rather slowly, all consistent with a literal view of a steamshovel. However, they are also extinct. This seams an odd association to make in contrast to something like the aquarium, which we’ve stipulated to symbolize relics of the past. Also seeming more in line with than opposed to the symbol of the aquarium, dinosaurs are awe-inspiring. They are the subject of many of the books, toys, and movies that are the favorites of young children and, I would venture, feature more often that fish. I would imagine there would be many young noses pressed against the fence to see dinosaurs, and I wonder if the narrator is colored by his own age, more than by the merits of fish vs. dinosaur.

            The word steamshovel is probably chosen, primarily, because it is the literal tool used to excavate such a site. However, again I am struck by the idea that the symbol is outdated. In a time period where we know cars are prevalent, and that they run on petroleum, why would the symbol of advancement be powered by steam? Also in line with the symbolism of “dinosaur,” I see steamshovels as being interesting or awe-inspiring, especially to young children. In fact, I can recall two separate children’s books that features steamshovels as main characters (granted, I remember many more with fish). On a third hand, not that I have one, steamshovels, as a man-made machine, can be seen to be at odds with the natural world, where a dinosaur cannot.

            Grunting is a guttural sound associated with hard work. It is not elegant or pleasant sounding and might be associated with people who are uncivilized. However, it is also a sound associated with hard labor, where the sound may be uttered when lifting something very heavy, and in this instance it is cast in a much better light. It is certainly a sound dinosaurs might make, and so alludes back to that image. Most importantly, I think, it tells us the dinosaur steamshovels are doing something, not sitting idly in their “cage.”

[waitingforthechirp]

Interview

My grandmother, Sonja Callahan (maiden name Holgersen), was born in 1929 in the Bronx. She recalls being referred to, affectionately, as the “princess of Boynton Avenue.” Her parents, Herman and Inga, were both immigrants, from Norway and Sweden respectively. She has two younger siblings, Norman and Ellen. During the Great Depression, her father got a very sought-after job and they moved to a house in Old Westbury, where they lived for the rest of her childhood. She married a man named Louis Callahan and they moved to a house in Glen Cove, New York, where she lives to this day. She has one daughter, Elaine, and two wonderful grandchildren (although I may be biased about that last bit).

Now 83, she is stick thin and has hair that is not quite completely gray, much to her annoyance. She lives alone, except for her beagle, Amber. Her home is not incredibly large but, with three bedrooms, it’s more than she needs, especially since she no longer uses the second floor. When I enter, I find her in the TV room smoking a cigarette, which she puts out as soon as she sees me. We make our way back to the kitchen where I make her a cup of coffee and feed the dog. We bargain briefly about what she should eat and settle on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

“I have a big favor to ask you,” I tell her, “Can I interview you for my American Dreams class?”

“Oh, I don’t know” she says with a mischievous laugh, “I might have to come up with some controversial things to say.”

I assure her this is perfectly alright, but then I waffle, “ Just nothing inappropriate. I have to hand this in.”

  Me: What was your first job?

  Sonja: My first job was when I was sixteen in New York City. I worked for the Golf Association. And I did the typing with the old - oh boy, these things are so good now [she gestures to my laptop]. You had paper, carbon paper, paper, carbon paper, and carbon came off on you and there was no air conditioning. It was a mess. That was my first job, but I was sixteen.

  Me: So, did you take the train there?

  Sonja: Yes. And the subway was a nickel. Now how much is it? That’s ridiculous.

  Me: How was America different when you were younger?

  Sonja: How was it different, really? There were a lot of prejudices. Even in the school I went to, they had a house which they had janitors, lived there. I even remember him, Mr. Johnson, he had two boys, but they weren’t allowed to play on the baseball team.

  Me: Oh, because he was the janitor?

  Sonja: Because he was black. Because East Williston was a purely white community and I went to North Side School. They weren’t allowed to … My mother got up at the PTA meeting, along with Mrs. Beard, and told them how crazy they were. If they wanted to have a lily-white school, well they didn’t say it that way, they should have hired a white person. They wouldn’t let their kids participate in what was happening because the baseball team was called the Royals. But they couldn’t join. It’s just like Jackie Robinson was the first black in the Major League. They didn’t want negros, but why didn’t they hire a white janitor? Because they probably got him for less money. That’s me saying why, I don’t know why, but …

  Me: What dreams or goals did you have for your future?

  Sonja: I wanted to be a figure skater [she puts her hands in the air as if to demonstrate].

  Me: Really?

  Sonja: My name isn’t Sonja for anything and Sonja Henie is one of the famous skaters. She won the Olympics; she’s Norwegian. She won the Olympics. I even have her book inside. And I practiced for hours. You know, I went ice skating every day that I could? Every day and I walked there and I walked back, after ice skating, and a lot of, you know people don’t believe me, a lot of my fractures, when they do the MRI that they see on my back, is from ice skating and trying to learn the jumping. I could do all those things. I really loved to ice skate.

  Me: What kind of obstacles did you face? What kept you from becoming a famous ice skater?

  Sonja: Come on, I wouldn’t have had private lessons and the whole thing. And no one was going to send me to college either. Even Ellen had, she went to St. Lawrence. They had ice skating; she was in a ice skating show. But that’s, St. Lawrence is a long way away. She wanted to get as far away from my mother as possible.

  Me: How important, or unimportant, do you think education is to success in America?

  Sonja: Very, very important. Extremely important. Unfortunately, people don’t get to go because it’s getting too expensive. Even student loans don’t help you now. They’re not half that. If you want to go to an Ivy League, forget it. Most people can’t afford that, mostly cause there isn’t jobs.

  Me: Right, because after you graduate, there’s no guarantee you’ll have a job to pay off those loans.

  Sonja: No, no, what are you gonna have, a job that pays eight dollars an hour. That isn’t going to work. After all that studying and you still owe for these loans years ago. Yeah, most of the American Dream of college is really gone. Unless you get a full scholarship, and who does? Not that many people. Very few. Ellen did, from a tungsten manufacturer here in town.

  But anyway, there’s not enough scholarships. There’s not enough money for people to send they’re kids to college. If you’re just an average worker, it’s beyond you. If you have three children, … Ellen would never have gone unless she got that scholarship.

  Me: What kind of future did you want for your daughter (my mom) when she was growing up? What did you picture her having?

  Sonja:  … I pictured her going to college. Poppop [my grandfather] and I worked very hard to send her to college, no scholarships. We only asked her to take a student loan in the last year. But it was affordable in those days. Lafayette was a good school, and it was seven thousand dollars. That is very affordable. Compared to what it is now, it’s, I think it must be forty thousand.

  Well, anyway, we did that.

  Me: Where were you working?

  Sonja: Oh I worked so many different jobs, I don’t remember. I think I was working at the track because I was making good money. They paid a lot of money. And that was a job I got because they had to put women in. They never hired women before. Well there was a lot of places, it’s hard to believe now, because, when I worked for Altman’s, men made more money then you did for basically the same job. It was stupid. Why should they make five dollars more an hour? And you had no maternity leave. You were told to go the minute you showed.

  Me: That’s really bad.

  Sonja: Yeah, well, all those things happened to me, and other people. I remember my friend, who worked there too, she was pregnant too, she got thrown out the same time. I say thrown out, they said “It’s time to leave, you’re showing,” it’s the same as being thrown out. You didn’t get leave and your husband didn’t get to stay home, now the husband’s have … Even if you needed the stuff and you were paying a mortgage and every other thing. It was stupid. But, that was all taken care of eventually.

  Me: What would you change about America today?

  Sonja: I think I already said it: education, affordability. There are so many people who can’t do… You might do it with one child… but… And nobody can afford the Ivy League schools. Nobody. An average person, you might as well not think about it. Let’s face it, it’s the bottom line that counts. I’m making twenty thousand dollars a year, I can’t afford to pay – well, you think of it, you’ve got to eat and everything. You have to have your stuff when you go to school.