gHe3 THE KIWI! :]

1. How does Bokononism try to solve the problem of violent, religious dogmatism?
As defined by Merrium-Webster’s online dictionary, dogmatism is “positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant.” This statement relates to Cat’s Cradle, and more specifically Bokononism because Bokononism attempts to do quite the opposite of this definition. Bokononism tries to solve the problem of violent, religious dogmatism by banning the religion itself. It is a sort of reverse psychology in the sense that the purpose to banning the religions is to fender zest and appeal, in turn making the religion itself more popular. The leaders of San Lorenzo are going against this ‘positive assertion..in an arrogant manner’ by doing the exact opposite, and rather making the religion illegal in order to enhance it’s popularity. Sparknotes points out that Bokonon best does this through the creation of a false religion. “Bokononism offers the comforting illusion…without inspiring the violent religious dogmatism that sometimes characterizes the practitioners of other religions.” It also highlights the fact that Bokononists believe in the idea that as they live their lives things are “meant to happen” and they are constantly doing God’s will without any effort. This creates the image that the religion is incredibly passive, which is a way Bokononism prevents religious dogmatism.
2. How does Felix mock the prevailing notion that “evil” is humanity’s biggest problem?
Felix Hoenikker, or more so Vonnegut, mocks the notion that “evil” is humanity’s biggest problem by creating an image of childishness. Felix Hoenikker is a character who’s image reselmbles that of a child. Although Felix was the father of the atom bomb, and is a genius in a scientific respect, he is incredibly shy and innocent; he cannot comprehend how to interact with other people normally or process the concept of good vs. evil. Hoenikker created a bomb that killed an appalling number of innocent people, yet he cannot seem to grasp the idea that this was, or the bomb itself was evil. By creating such a character, Vonnegut mocks the notion that “evil” is humanity’s biggest problem. Sparknotes discusses the idea that Felix even emphasizes the fact that ignorance and stupidity is humanity’s biggest problem. The site states “an “innocent” person is ignorant of sin”, which directly relates to Felix Hoenikker, a man who is quite innocent and unaware, and can in fact not distinguish good from bad.
3. How does the commencement speech delivered at Frank’s high school graduation mock the valorized status that science occupies as a means to discover “truth?”
The description of the commencement speech delivered at Frank’s high school graduations mocks the status that science occupies as means to discover “truth” through irony. In the speech, the idea is presented that science is this outstanding/amazing subject from which measly humans can discover the “key” to life. It is ironic because science is supposed to be this great thing and show everyone the importance/meaning of life, yet Sandra and the bartender are living as…well.. an unhappy prostitute and a bartender.. They see no significance in science, although it is supposed to show them the key to their lives. From Sparknotes, I gathered the information that science, more so the discovery of it’s “key” (protein) is ridiculed in the speech. Sparknotes also reiterates that Sandra and the bartender both did not understand the details of the discovery, and it therefore did not change their lives at all. The line I most agree with is “The discovery of the protein might offer cures or better nutrition, but it does not offer happiness.”
4. How do Hazel and Lowe illustrate the irrational grouping behaviors of human beings?
“Call me mom”. What a creep! Hazel and Lowe are so tied to titles and overrated titles/groups to see or understand anything that is truly happening. Because Hazel is a Hoosier, she demands Jonah call her “mom”, which is strange considering she demands this almost simultaneously after they meet. Lowe feels some sort of unimportant and insignificant connection to all those who are from Cornell/a Cornell fraternity. Both characters emphasize the irrational grouping behaviors of humans by having irrational grouping behaviors. Through the eyes and emphasis of Vonnegut, it is clear they both possess unhealthy, unnecessary, and unimportant ties to groups: Hoosiers and Cornell Frat boys.

The last full length Hamlet version I watched was the Kenneth Branagh version. Coming into the film I had a preconceived notion that it would be absolutely horrible, but compared to the other versions, this one is without a doubt (holistically) the most accurate and pleasing to watch. The actors within this film also portrayed the characters of the play very well; they were incredibly believable and seemed as if they lived during the Elizabethan era. Other roles such as costumes and setting also added much detail and overall authenticity to this version of the play. In the movie, I especially enjoyed the ending scene. Everything was very dramatic, yet not too overdone. It truly gave a sense of tragedy to the whole play. My favorite character in the film was Hamlet. The actor who played him was outstanding. He was very believably dramatic, emphasizing all his lines as well as his emotion and actions nearly perfectly. A scene that confused me a bit was the ghost scene. I don’t really understand why Hamlet’s father is so aggressive with him, grabbing him and throwing him about. That scene is one of the only scenes that did not somewhat correlate with the scene I saw in my mind as I read the play. Overall, everything was outstandingly accurate. I have to give props to those actors who basically just memorized all of Hamlet (HOLY POOOP! That’s a LOT of lines!). This film was without a doubt the most helpful, not only in plot, but also underlying themes/aspects such as tone and emotion throughout the play. Although it was a bit lengthy, it was sorta cool to read the whole play (using subtitles) and watch it being performed at the same time. It combined numerous learning strategies (two types of visual and hearing) and created something easily understandable and quite enjoyable.

Yay! Another film down, and one more to go . In the Ethan Hawke version of the Hamlet, the play was intertwined into a modern setting. Instead of Denmark, it was Denmark Corporation, which I thought was a pretty lame cop out so they could just use all the same lines (word for word) from the original play itself. Claudius killed Hamlet’s father in order to gain the “crown” of C.E.O of Denmark… I’d have to say the whole idea was pretty lame from the start; bringing such an old piece of work into modern time may have seemed to be a good idea to the director of first, but honestly, for me it merely made things more confusing and the story harder to follow. I was often confused of what was going on and which character was who. The fact that everything visually was fairly modern, versus the very old Elizabethan style language was very distracting. Overall nothing fit together very well, and I strongly disliked that. The movie didn’t flow and it wasn’t cohesive at all. The role of Hamlet also bugged me a bit. Although Ethan Hawke is usually outstanding, the role he played was very half-butt. He didn’t show much emotion throughout the movie, mumbling his lines, or not saying much at all. Holistically, I did not necessarily enjoy the movie, but I did appreciate a few scenes/aspects from it. I enjoyed the first ghost scene. I liked this scene because in this version of Hamlet the original king was actually ghost-like! In the other versions he is merely a white-dusted solid figure. I highly appreciated the fact that he was transparent J. I also very much enjoyed the scene where Hamlet catches Ophelia wired/bugged. The reason I liked it is because Hamlet was actually emotional and dramatic in this scene! yay, so one more film to go! Hopefully it won’t be too dry..

In his essay, Lord Rees-Mogg describes his view of Hamlet and it’s correlation to politics. To begin the author argues that nearly each main character is a protagonist in their own story (“tragedy of Gertrude”, “tragedy of the Polonius family”, “tragedy of Claudius”), rather than Hamlet being the center of the play. Soon after, Rees-Mogg makes yet another argument: he calls upon concrete details from the play and connects them back to behaviors in politics during that era. For example, Rees-Mogg argues the sheer aspect of a human murdering a loved one in order to gain the crown/power has often been seen in politics (Richard III). He picks specific details throughout Hamlet and relates them back to political behavior. Focusing on Claudius near the end, Rees-Mogg magnifies and examines Claudius’ characteristics/activities such as selfishness and corruption and again relates the actions back to the stereotypical politician’s attitude from then and today.

The Franco Zeffifelli (2000) film version of Hamlet was quite interesting. It is not what I expected at all, but it was still better than I thought it would be. During the middle of the film is where I thought it was a bit dry because we had not read that far in the play, and I didn’t know exactly what was occurring. Some scenes were a bit confusing, but overall it was a mediocre movie. The end was surprisingly much more eventful  and kept my attention more than the first half.

The overall story line was fairly accurate (at least in my view), but certain scenes surprised me greatly. First off, the ghost scene was a total bummer. The King’s ghost was merely a man dusted with flour. It was disappointing there were no special effects or elaborate shots, everything was incredibly simple. Another example of a surprising scene was Polonius confronting Ophelia about Hamlet and his so-called love for her surprised me. In my mind Ophelia was much more indifferent toward her father’s commands rather than resistant. In the movie she had a sassy attitude toward her father, whereas I pictured her as extremely submissive.  Another scene that caught my mind off guard was the scene when Gertrude called Hamlet to her room after the players had performed. Gertrude and Hamlet seemed very intimate with each other, often kissing and at one point on top of each other, violently kissing. This was NOT the way I had pictured the scene at all. It seems as if the director is trying to get across that their love for each other may be stronger than an average mother and son. Perhaps Hamlet felt the King as competition between him and his mother. That’s just not normal. lol

Throughout the novel Their Eyes Were Watching God, author Zora N. Hurston utilizes numerous techniques to reveal deeper meanings. In chapter six, Hurston uses an extended metaphor to subtly convey the deeper meaning of the symbolic image of the mule. The mule relates to women, quite literally Janie, and alludes to slavery. The mule alludes to slavery in the sense that the mule is basically treated as a tool, to accomplish work with little or no rewards. He is fed very sparingly and mistreated, yet still expected to do much labor. The animal is also able to be bought and sold as if it weren’t much at all. Jody purchases the mule as if it were a mere object. A symbolic image from the chapter also paints an image of slavery around the mule; “he stood on the distended belly of the mule for a platform and made gestures” (60), which shows certain men assuming power over other beings, and using them as tools (platform).

The mule is very much like Janie in the sense that it is mistreated by its owner, as Janie is mistreated by her husband, Jody. The mule and Janie also share a relationship in the fact that they both directly relate to the quote made by Janie’s grandmother about how women are “de mule uh de world” (14). Both are also given less respect because of what they are: women and animal; they are viewed as inferior to men- able to be controlled by men, used as tools by men.

The buzzards in chapter six are a metaphor relating to the treatment of women; the buzzards symbolize man. After the mule dies, it is drag[ged] out” far enough from the town and left to be eaten by the buzzards, which are expected to finish off the mule. They were expected to feed by tearing off the rotting flesh of the mule just as men during that time controlled their woman by tearing at their pride and opinions. Men were once again, viewed as superior to women, often degrading them, and the metaphor about the buzzards show this underlying meaning.

1. Extenuating circumstances: a situation where an excuse is provided for an action
2. Venturesome: something that shows risk or danger
3. Proscenium box: a section of a theater between the musical performers and curtain
4. Pigmentation: color (skin)
5. “the world is your oyster”: idiom that states one has the choice/freedom to do as they wish and accomplish anything they want
6. Reconstruction (as in post-Civil War South): the act of rebuilding
7. Bully (as in the adjective, like Teddy in Arsenic and Old Lace): someone who picks on others (usually smaller/weaker people) to make themselves feel better
8. Hegira: Muhammad’s flight from Mecca to Medina that took place in order to escape persecution (beginning of the Muslim Era)
9. Barnard College: a woman’s liberal arts college located in New York, NY; a member of the” Seven Sisters”
10. Circumlocutions: using extraneous words, “beating around the bush”, “speaking in circles”
11. Thorax: the part of an animal that lies between the neck and the abdomen
12. Rambunctious: crazy, wild, difficult to handle
13. Assegai: a southern African tree from which spears are made (by the Bantu-speaking tribes)
14. Veneer: thin pieces of wood glued together to create plywood
15. Peggy Hopkins Joyce: aka Marguerite Upton; an actress born in Berkley, VA well known for marrying numerous wealthy men (6) and having scandalous affairs
16. Raiment: another name for clothes
17. Miscellany: a group of random, unrelated, or various items; an assortment of literary texts by different authors assembled into one volume/book

It’s easy. Check this link. Start second semester with an easy 100% by spending 10 minutes doing this homework:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=d96ggpt_63fd6g3fc3

Ghee obviously forgot that no one is allowed to log in to their blog on Ms. R’s computer at school. Because edublogs is less than effective. Now I can’t post the homework.

Kaaaaahhhhhahhhhahhhhn!

Within the Vietnam War, countless incidents of cruel and unusual punishment took place. Although the Geneva Convention of 1949 stated that immoral behavior would not be tolerated, numerous events still occurred throughout the Vietnam War that opposed this new mandate (also occurring in Iraq). Occurrences such as the “My Lai Massacre” and “Tiger Force” are often called “atrocities” where mindless “slaughter” takes place. Those in authoritative positions for the US went too often, completely unpunished or punished to lightly. “No disciplinary actions” against the individuals took place, although these individuals were committing ghastly crimes right and left. Cutting off victims appendages and other means of cruel and unusual punishment were taken out upon not only the Vietnamese, but also the Americans during the war. P.O.Ws would often be housed in horrid conditions (Hanoi Hilton) as well as receiving brutal treatment.

Brutal treatment also occurred in the Congo where many see the root of the fighting and social and economic unstableness as a result of colonization. Europeans/Belgians would come into the Congo attempting to accomplish a “small good” but rather ultimately end up causing a civil war, genocide, and unstableness/chaos within the region. They would use the African youth to fill the ranks as soldiers in parts of their new military force, which often caused rebellion, then revenge attacks, more fighting, “Africa’s first world war”, etc, all thanks to the “intrusive European political, social, cultural, and economic rule.”