The Message Inside the Shell; Cracking Open the Egg

Rhetorical Analysis of Haruki Murakami's Speech; "Always on the Side of the Egg"

Purpose: To avoid taking sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict, while delivering his own subtle message to the people. To accept his literary prize but simultaneously give a warning to the people of Israel and beyond that being on the side of the "egg" (i.e. the people) is the rightful place to be when faced by the demands of the "wall" (i.e. the system.)

Audience: A multi-national group of writers, artists, and thinkers at the Jerusalem Prize Awards Ceremony. All very intelligent and worldly people- who are likely to side with Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Context: Although under threat of the boycott of his books by people in Japan and elsewhere, Murakami decides to attend the awards ceremony and accept the Jerusalem prize. The host country (Israel) is embroiled in a controversial and frequently tragic war with Palestine- with both sides being subject to frequent bombings and violent incidents.


Section 1: Ethos- Don't Trust Me, But Trust Me Today

Purpose: To convince the audience that he -as well as all novelists, and general people in positions of power- are not to be trusted. No one person can lead a whole people in the direction of right or wrong, nor should they.
Appeals: Murakami mainly utilizes a direct form of ethos, establishing himself to the audience as a "proffessional spinner of lies." However, he assures the audience of his sincerity with a hint of pathos- stating ironically that; "There are a few days in the year when I do not engage in telling lies, and today happens to be one of them."
Techniques: He uses allusion, anaphora, and anecdotes in his first ethos section to solidify his approach with the audience, and assure them that he is qualified to issue his "truth" as a professional spinner of lies.
Effectiveness: This introduction is effective in the sense that it conveys a cryptic and fairly unsettling message- which is that you cannot ever trust Murakami, but you can trust him today. Murakami knows that this is contradictory, and he deliberately establishes novelists as spinners of lies while claiming their similarity to people like politicians and military leaders. Murakami created the intial uncomfortable paranoia necessary for turning th trust of the people against the system by turning them against himself. He was also effective in ensuring that the people knew he was not approving of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and not on any one side. However, he is inneffective in a broader sense, because he encourages negative ethos and leaves the listener confused and conflicted about his goals and his true purpose.

Section 2: Logos- The System, The Wall

Purpose: To show the people that the truth is at the base of all big lies, and that this can and is spun any which way on a large scale, by anyone/everyone. Murakami wants the people to realize the true power of discreet emotional and social corruption harbored by the system. Don't trust the system.
Appeals: Intrestingly enough, Murakami utilizes his own personal "logos" in order to drive home his metaphor of the egg and the wall. While not necessarily holding up as a formal line of logic, his decree that he will "always stand on the side of the egg" sets the baseline for all of his subsequent reasoning.
Techniques: Heavily utilizing imagery, mmurakami calls upon his surrealist background to evoke a visions
Effectiveness: Very effective. Murakami states his ultimatum of reasoning- that he will always be on the side of the people, no matter how wrong they may be, instead of the system. He guides the audience through his reasoning by using an extended metaphor- effectively explaining his ideology with an egg and a wall. He acknowledges that there are many such interpretations of his choice metaphor, and he mentions one. He then begins to acknowledge another interpretation- with a deeper significance, which effectively brings the listener into his next section; using pathos to explore and encourage the individual.

Section 3: Pathos- The Individual, The Egg

Purpose: To return strength to the individual. To point out that while we were the creators of the sytem we can also be its undoers, but we must have faith in ourselves as a people- across all barries set between us by the system.
Appeals: A strong dose of pathos, Murakami calls upon the listener to take action, reminds them with a bit of logos that since they created the system, they can rise above it. Murakami shows his awareness of his audience by trying to inspire them to band together across all nationalities, reflecting the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Techniques: Murakami emphasizes the importance of preserving the individual sould by exoking imagery when he says; "The purpose of a story is to sound an alarm, to keep a light trained on The System in order to prevent it from tangling our souls in its web and demeaning them." He is putting the system under the scrutinizing spotlight, trying to convince the people that the system is actually a sly and dangerous animal that can be trapped if they work together.
Effectiveness: The pathos techniques utilized by Murakami in this section really bring his final point home. He has already defined the System and it's relationship with the Egg in broad terms, but he makes it deeper in this section with an emotional anecdote, and literary techniques that emphasize his diction. He want's to drag the truth out of its hiding place and into the eyes of the people. He want to encourage the individual soul, and show them that the system is the root of their problems. He is very effective in his dramatic ending, putting responsibility for the creation and destruction of the System in the hands of the people. Leaving them with a clear message; move towards change. Work for the soul, and not the system.

Chuchill vs. Goebbels

Both of these influential wartime figures used the inevitable collapse of society as an ultimatum. Churchill delivered his proclamation passionately, saying; "victory; victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival." He succinctly stressed the importance of the war effort, and the importance of some sacrifice in order to achieve victory. Not only does Churchill rally up the   British citizens, but he expressed a pure form of patriotic humility when he said that he will give his "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" to the cause he believes is right. Goebbels did no such thing. Goebbels took 20 pages of writing to convey what Churchill did in one paragraph. Goebbels rants about "International Jewry" and "Bolshevism." While Churchill just referred to the force they are fighting as a "monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime," Goebbels made sure to detail every last nook and cranny of the perceived evil, thereby invading every corner of the German people's minds- filling them with insecurity and paranoia. Goebbels not only wants his listeners to believe the very fiber of their society is in danger from "Bolshevism," but he wants his listeners to believe their very lives and livelihoods are in danger should they resist the war effort. He makes that clear with his multitudes of threats, one in particular warning that those who refuse to work tirelessly in Germany would be sent to the front lines for a near inevitable slaughter. In contrast, Churchill had warned of these sacrifices in broad terms, not wanting to primarily inspire fear in his listeners, but hope. Goebbels inspired fear and a personal kind of watchfulness that no doubt pressured the German citizens into conformity with the Reich's demands.
Instead of wagering his own personal welfare- his whole being, essentially- in the war effort and the quest for victory, Goebbels kept himself detached as a kind of overseer, and did not promise his own sacrifices.  Churchill offered all of himself alongside the people, and Goebbels merely promised an approving glance should the German people bend under his will. Their similarities are obvious, but the nuance of language in both speeches reveals how different they really are. The context of each speech is also important. Goebbels was giving his speech to a huge audience of carefully selected working class people, those who were not educated enough to make their own informed decisions about the war and were blinded to the atrocities being committed by their own country. Churchill, however,was giving his speech to parliament, which one could assume was a small group of elite, wealthy, and educated men. There was no hooting and chanting during Churchill's speech, or at least it wasn't included in the transcript. In contrast, the reaction of Goebbels audience was enthusiastic and highlighted in transcript, adding a sense of intensity to Goebbels words, and proving to the listener/reader that his propaganda was deliberate and effective. His immediate audience was much larger and produced loud reactions- although, both Churchill's and Goebbels's speeches were broadcast, so many people outside the audience also heard them. Overall, both speakers were making an attempt to energize their listeners to be a part of a total war effort, and both succeeded in using different methods.

The Prince and the Pauper

  Thoreau and Machiavelli are men of two very different times, places, and systems of government. Thoreau is a member of a union controlled by a democratic government machine, whereas Machiavelli is the citizen of an empire with a singular royal ruler calling the shots. Their philosophies about power and the government subsequently reflect this. While Machiavelli explores the careful balancing act that makes a successful prince, Thoreau explores the citizen's quest for justice, and how it may be achieved in a governmental machine. Thoreau takes the view that a person must put their whole being into whatever actions they take in order to be just and true, whereas Machiavelli preaches subterfuge as a leadership tactic- the promotion of a good self image, while privately acting on less appealing qualities.
  We can see from Machiavelli's language that he admires a prince/authority figure that can charm their citizens but keep their country in line with an iron fist. Machiavelli promotes his version of this ideal nation, where the citizens obey the idealized version of their prince while unconsciously falling compliant to his less noble designs. Thoreau champions the complete opposite, putting the power in the hands of the individual and asking them to see past the trickery of the machine of government (or a prince) and question whether the system is just. Machiavelli preaches compliance and strong leaders as a solution to government, whereas Thoreau promotes revolution and civil disobedience as the way to counterbalance the machine of government -which may not be exercising power justly-  hopefully changing it for the better, or eliminating it's necessity completely.

I'll Be Thankful When It's Over.

  Thanksgiving is one of the most stressful holidays. It seems that somewhere down the line it was decided that; in order to accurately celebrate Thanksgiving, a maximum number of relatives must be gathered. It doesn't matter that each of these relatives has a different opinion on how to cook the turkey, mash the mashed potatoes, and distribute the seating. Long story short (or as it goes in our family; long story even longer), Thanksgiving is marked in my calendar as an appointment for an atomic family feud.

  My mom and her sisters compare recipes and force feed innocents to determine whose stuffing is stuffier, whose is saltier, and whose is prettier. My Uncle Patrick stoically mashes the potatoes, a task he has quietly overtaken as the years go by. My grandfather introduces me to his kitchen assistants for the 50 millionth time and I feel guilty as I keep returning to them with new plates of half eaten appetizer food. I try desperately to find a quiet spot to sit and read, like moses searching for an oasis in the Egyptian desert, but I am accosted by aunts. I am forced to hear my family's opinion on everything. EVERYTHING.

  And stuffing! Don't even get me started on the stuffing. Stuffing makes me sick! So do a lot of things. My stomach is about as strong as a 2 year old child.  I don't know, it has just always been that way. Unfortunately, my family seems to suffer a collective gap in linguistic knowledge. "No thanks" is an abstract concept, missing from their vocabulary and comprehension.

What??
You.... don't want another serving?
Is the food not GOOD?
Is it ME?
Are you trying to lose weight?
Amy, has she been eating properly?
You need your protein you know!
Do you have something against the Saldanas?
WHY?

  Meanwhile my father -in all respects a foreigner- sits nervously, tensely eyeballing my elbows to make sure they never touch the table. As an English man, Thanksgiving means nothing to him. He focuses instead of the sanctity of the family meal, and the stringent etiquette which he assumes is required.
"Treat every meal as if you were dining with the Queen." he would say. Ugh.

  Simultaneously, my Grandfather is testing the general football knowledge of the table. My father seems to shrink in his seat, like a turtle returning to its shell. My cousin Noah is being interrogated about his most recent romantic attachment. The ginger Puerto Rican Jew reclines, allowing his sister to answer for him, as she so frequently and readily volunteers her opinions.

  "Another one of those mindless Asian girls..." my cousin Julia interjects, issuing a trademark 11 decibel scoff and an earth shaking eye roll. And you thought I was condescending... ha ha ha.

  "Hey, you know what they say about Jewish guys and Asian girls..." I say, wiggling my eyebrows at Noah.
...No one seems to think it's funny.

  My Grandpa is a dear and laughs to fill the awkward and frankly judgemental silence, but I'm 100% sure he heard 0% of what I said. I'm also pretty sure he thinks I'm 21, because he keeps pouring me wine. "Red or white?" he asks- his Brooklyn accent faded but present.

"Green." I respond.

No one seems to think its funny.

Hamid and Changez, Brothers Through Circumstance

            I, like many other book readers, typically read the back covers of books before starting them. Usually, the back cover gives a brief summary of the book and a small biographical blurb about the author. So it comes as no surprise that The Reluctant Fundamentalist follows suit. This usually standard format gained a whole new meaning however, when I noticed something fascinating within the two blurbs. They mirrored each other. The summary says that Changez is from Pakistan. Hamid is also from Pakistan. It says that Changez studied abroad at Princeton. Hamid, summa cum laude at Princeton. These similarities continue , though more discreetly, for one would have to look up an extended biography of Moshin Hamid (which I did).

            Now the question is, what does it matter? I think that in order to proceed along this line of thought we need to dismiss the notion that writers are just blank faced creativity machines shrouded in anonymity. Hamid is far from anonymous, in fact, he probably seeks attention for his book. His book is written on a controversial topic with a dangerous tone towards terrorism. Because we know that Hamid and his character Changez are so similar in many ways, there is a high risk that Hamid's book maybe interpreted as his own declaration of anti-American sentiments, like those of Changez.

            My understanding of the book as a whole is enhanced in an irreversible way with the knowledge of Hamids fairly parallel life. Ethos is given in large doses to reader, knowing as they read the descriptions of Changez’s Princeton social life and his outsider-ness that they are probably reading Hamid’s personal account. Hamid gains my trust as an accurate and relevant storyteller for the particular story, and this makes it harder to place the story in a fictional light.

            It seems to me that this loss of “fantasy” in the story is something that it gains. Hamid’s goal in writing this book was to educate Americans on the lives of transplanted Muslim Americans, and show them the downward spiral, aided by anti-Muslim bigotry, that pushes those successful citizens toward hatred of the US. Hamid wanted to make the story as real as possible. I believe that in getting his point across it is necessary for the reader to see the story as very possible, and a very real threat. Hamid’s biography shows us that this story is not plucked from thin air, it is solid and made from a base of real experiences.

            Although further reading of an extended biography on Hamid reveals that he has some pretty drastic differences with the Changez near the end of the book, this seeming discrepancy adds another level of introspection to the book. By presenting the reader with both his own successful American story and Changez’s eventually disastrous one, Hamid is showing the reader that they could have so easily gone the other way. While Hamid reaped the benefits of an American education and capitalism, Changez was disheartened and eventually made to resent America. Hamid wants the readers to know that he could have easily lived Changez’s life. Had he been exposed to just a bit more Islamiphobia, to a bit more of the horrors of capitalism, or even met Juan Bautista, he could be in Pakistan right now lecturing on the poisonous nature of American society, inadvertently encouraging future terrorists, like Changez did. The Reluctant Fundamentalist is not just a tale feared by Americans, but a tale feared by innocent Muslim/middle-eastern people everywhere, who are slowly poisoned by the tyrannical capitalist giant that is America.

Toulmin Analysis of My Last Blog

Claim:
It is believed that highschoolers hold little political importance, but in actuality they are very important to politics and the political process.

Reasons:
- Because highschoolers can't vote, many think that they have no impact on politics
-Because highschoolers are the base of future voters
-Because they can promote candidates and policies through other means

Evidence:

- "Because highschoolers can't vote, many think that they have no impact on politics"-  The voting age is 18, so almost all highschoolers are not qualified to vote. As voting is the highest form of political participation, the inability of highschoolers to do so makes the public commonly believe that teenagers are detached from politics.

-"Because highschoolers are the base of future voters" - Highschoolers should not lose hope about their importance in politics just because they can't vote. Highschoolers will become voting age citizens in no time, and one of the best things about the teenage years is that you have time to observe and learn the political system, and start shaping your own political views that you will support as a voter.

-"Because they can promote candidates and policies through other means"- Highschoolers can get involved in grassroots movements that augment the effectiveness of political campaigns. They can volunteer to advertise voter registration, participate in rallies and demonstrations, and sign petitions. Highchoolers have the option to lobby voting age citizens to support candidates and policies that will actually come into effect when highschoolers need them.

Warrants:

"Because highschoolers can't vote, many think that they have no impact on politics"-

• Voting is an essential and important part of the political process.

"Because highschoolers are the base of future voters"-

• Observing politics from a distance helps shape ideology
• Understanding the system is important in creating responsible voting citizens

"Because they can promote candidates and policies through other means"-

• Highschoolers would get involved in grassroots if they knew they could.
• Grassroots movements and political participation other than voting has an effect on candidates/policy.

Backing:
"Voting is an essential and important part of the political process."- Voting elects candidates to office. The citizens vote for the candidate that they think best expresses their interests, and who they believe will be the best person for the particular office. It is this voter to politician relationship that preserves the integrity of democracy.

"Observing politics from a distance helps shape ideology"- Before one votes, they usually form an ideology that will constitute who they vote for. The formation of this ideology comes from many sources, including family and the media. Highschoolers have the oppurtunity to understand how the sytem works by observing those who surround them take part in it.

"Understanding the system is important in creating responsible voting citizens"- Highschoolers should educate themselves as much as they can about the possibilities of the political sytem, so that wehn it comes time to vote they will not be voting for the candidate with the best hair, but the one that promotes their ideology. Informed voting is the key to democracy, as it ensures that the people's actual views are being represented. Being a part of the political system as a teen will help ensure political participation.

"Highschoolers would get involved in grassroots if they knew they could."- Highschoolers naturally want to be a part of the political landscape. They care about issues so they will seek any ways the can to support them.

"Grassroots movements and political participation other than voting has an effect on candidates/policy."- Lobbying is one of the most effective forms of persuasion in politics, and it doesn't involve anything other than talking to politicians and spreading awareness about issues. Grassroots movements like rallies and voter registration drives increase citizen awareness of issues and contribute to democratic integrity. Once elected, politicians make the decisions so convincing them through petitions and letter writing is key to effect what policy gets implemented.

Analysis
 I believe that my claim is valid, but it is a bit confusing because it has two discreet parts. I have to prove first that many/most people do not believe that highschoolers are important politically. I don't really do that effectively in my blog, but it doesn't sabotage the message of my post. My reasons are pretty good, and all three of them are very understandable and are probably going to be accepted without a lot proof. However, in the case that one may demand proof, my evidence is explicit and supports my reasons appropriately. When I get to my warrants and backing, that is when I find that the argument begins to weaken and break down. One of my warrants is that "highschoolers would get involved in grassroots if they knew they could." This is not a solid warrant. Many highschoolers would not get involved in grassroots and politics even if they knew they could, precisely for the reason that I state in my article: they don't believe they have political importance. I think that one of the huge issues with my argument which I do not address is that many highschoolers are apathetic to politics in general, so they do not participate based on this, and not their feeling of importance. I think that in order to strengthen my blog I should include some statistics that flesh out my reason regarding general opinion about highschoolers. I could also provide specific examples of highschoolers who have made a difference in government/politics, in order to back my point that voting isn't the only way to influence policy. I should back up my warrant about grassroots by including specific examples of rallies and lobbying. This would then solidify the larger point of non voting effects on politics.

High School Politics?

  Highschoolers are often ignored when it comes to politics.This may be because they are not of voting age. Or it maybe because they are not young enough to be kissed by candidates in publicity photos. Either way, most Americans, especially the young people in question, believe that they hold little political importance. This is incorrect. However, I can see why people would think so.

   Since the voting age is 18 and most government related positions have even higher age minimums, it is hard and nearly impossible for teenagers to get directly involved in politics. Since voting is viewed as the most direct form of political action, save for running for office, highschoolers seem to be of little worth and zero impact. If one cannot support what they stand for, are they standing for it at all? If voting on candidates and policy is truly the only way to promote your political goals and beliefs, then I agree that high schoolers have no political worth.

   However, we must ask ourselves, is voting the only form of political participation? I don't believe it is. I believe there are a multitude of ways that younger people can not only get involved, but also make a difference in politics. The main reason that the political potential of highschoolers is not exploited is because the highschoolers themselves do not believe that they matter. They could not be more wrong! The teenage population is essentially clay waiting to be molded into responsible, thoughtful, voting citizens. Teenagers have a chance to promote policies that will actually come into effect when they need them as adults. Many adults currently promote initiatives that will not benefit them personally, but their children and grandchildren. Some examples of these are education initiatives, environmental conservation efforts, social security benefits, etc. Highschoolers can spread the word about issues they care about and convince those adults that can vote that their views are valid. Although they cannot vote, high schoolers are especially helpful in organizing rallies and promoting registration to vote. Getting people to register to vote is equivalent to voting yourself, only you are increasing political awareness and participation as a whole.

  Those who do not believe that they can make a difference without voting would do well to realize their importance as the base of future voters. The teenage years are some of the most formative of the young life, and the best thing that teenagers could do is make sure that they are well informed and aware of their political opportunities and positions, and what they can achieve for themselves through politics. Although I understand that politicians overlook teenagers because they are not a part of their voting constituency, this doesn't mean that they should lose confidence. Keep fighting for what you believe in both the political and social arenas, and you can make a difference!

Short Skirts vs. Loose Shirts

One of the most nonsensical things I have ever heard, in fact, something I have heard from both male and female mouths- is the slut-shaming argument. As defense for rape, it is a flimsy one, at that. "Defense for rape" doesn't even seem like it should be possible. Rape is rape, rape is a crime.
"Slut-shaming" is basically the practice of blaming the victim for "tempting" the rapist with what they wear. Ridiculous right?
No? Well, then let me explain their train of thought;

Some girls wear revealing outfits
Rapists only rape girls in reaviling outfits
Some girls are inevitably going to get raped

Well first, let me start with the fact that the second premise is completely untrue. People have a preconceived notion that only beautiful people attract the attention and desire of others, and therefore are the ones rapists most frequently target. This notion is not their fault, it has been created by the toxic media environment, but regardless- it is wrong. Oftentimes, rape occurs in interpersonal relationships in the capacity that it relates to power and control. Rape of strangers is statistically less likely than rape between associates/colleagues/family/spouses. Rapists will target anyone whom they view as weak- they view girls as opportunities- and are not picky as one is with consensual romantic partners.

That "some girls are inevitably going to get raped (if they are wearing revealing outfits)" seems to be the slogan of late. When girls report rape (which is a feat within itself- most rapes go unreported) the first question that an authority figures asks is "what where you wearing?" Is this question relevant to finding and prosecuting the perpetrator of the crime? No. This question is a silent blame for the victim. Women should be able to walk naked through the streets and know that their only confrontation will be an arrest for public nudity (although that is a whole other thing). We should be able to rely on the characters of men to control their violent urges, divorced from the fact that a woman may be "tempting" you. The victim never deserves rape.

An analogy, for example;

One day you wear a red shirt. As you do every day, you walk down the street. This time, when you bump into a commuter he punches you. You have bumped into commuter before, and they have never punched you before. You go to a police station.
"I was assaulted by a commuter!" you say.
"Well were you wearing that shirt?" they ask.
"Uh....yes" you answer in confusion.
"Well everyone knows that red is an angry colour. People that wear read and bump into others are obviously going to get punched. It's not his fault. You should know better not to wear that shirt next time."

You leave the station with a sense of betrayal. You were assaulted! How could you trust in the system after that? You feel disgust for the colour red. You never wear it again.

The Female Gaze

Boys, men, and males. Listen up and just bear with me for moment. I want you to close your eyes, and place yourself on a street corner. You may make this any particular corner in any particular place, any place you want, because you are a man and the world is your oyster, and there is nowhere you cant go, nowhere you are told not to go because of the shape of your body. Anyway, just picture yourself. 

You are standing on this street corner, and you are waiting for the crosswalk light to turn green. The light turns green, and you begin to walk. You are wearing a nice pair of khaki shorts and a t-shirt with some sandals. You feel great. You feel comfortable, confident, and handsome. As you walk down the street ahead of you, you glance from side to side. It's dusk. It's getting darker and darker and you start to feel a little tickle of uneasiness. You pass by stoop after stoop and you begin to feel eyes on you. It makes you uncomfortable, but you shrug it off. After all, you are just walking, not bothering anyone, you aren't even wearing anything risque. Twenty feet ahead you see the outline of several tall women lounging by the crosswalk. You slow down, and glance nervously behind you. These women are not moving, they seem to be staring at you, and you are only feet away from the crosswalk. You subconciously pull down your comfortable t-shirt to cover your crotch area because you don't want them to see what you've had since birth. You can't let them see what marks you as male. 

It's no use. 

You approach the green walk sign and your heart sinks as it turns red. The women are emerging from the shadows and inching towards you, laughing, nudging each other, gradually growing in volume and staggering towards you. You want to move, but you're stuck. You are a law abiding citizen, you wont cross at a red. You would turn, but the women are coming from all sides. These are the kind of women who linger on empty subway cars and stare at men, making obscene hand gestures. The kind of women who visit strip clubs daily, and who jeer the men who work there with lewd suggestions. These types of women are the kind every man fears. You feel your heart speed up.

The women begin to call out; 

"Hey Boy!"

You can feel one woman's whiskey breath on the back of your neck. You're too scared to move.

"Hey handsome boy! Smile! Work what god gave you, show us how handsome you are." she says in your ear.

Another woman comes from the side and you can smell her yellow sweat sticking to her twisted leathery face and alcohol coming from her mouth full of rotten brown teeth. She places her greasy dirty hand on your shoulder and squeezes. You jump. 

"Please stop bothering me." You beg.

The woman grips tighter.

"Don't be such a frigid asshole!" The woman snarls.

Her friends begin laughing and grunting agreement. They inch closer to you and you can see that one woman is hairy and muscular, and another is fat and doughy and smells like rot. They stare at you. Not at your face. They smile with their thin lips and don't look away.

You regret not buying a gun when you turned 18. You chide yourself for putting on those khaki shorts, because they are very short and you do indeed look too handsome. You can't look handsome. You can't tempt these women. It is your fault. You can't wear plaid pants because perverted old women will harass you with their schoolboy fantasies. You cant wear a low cut shirt in school because chest hair is distracting to women. It is your fault that women can't get their school work done, because you wore that low cut shirt and forced these women to look at a natural part of you. You shouldn't even have chest hair. If it is so scandalous then you should shave it off, or hide it under baggy sweatshirts. This is your fault. You deserve what these women might do to you, because you made the stupid mistake of walking down a street at night when there might be dangerous women around. You are an idiot.

This is your fault.

Re-imagined Passage

"And so you can imagine how I felt when, one day, in Antigua, standing on Market Street, looking up one way and down the other, I asked myself: Is the Antigua I see before me, self-ruled, a worse place than what it was when it was dominated by the bad-minded English and all the bad minded things they brought with them? How did Antigua get to such a state that I would have to ask myself this? For the answer on every Antiguan's lips to the question 'What is going on here now?' is 'The government is corrupt. Them are thief, them are big theif.' Imagine, then, the bitterness and the shame in me as I tell you this. I was standing on Market Street in front of the library. The library! But why is the library on Market Street? I had asked myself." (Pg.41) from A Small Place, by Jamaica Kincaid

My version:

And so you can imagine how I felt when, one day, in my house, laying on my couch, gazing at the tv screen, I asked myself: Is the Dr.Pepper I see before me, extra-delicious, really not meant for me to consume happily just because I am a young woman? How did advertisement culture get to such a state that I would have to ask myself this?  Well the advertisers would answer the question "Why do you target women as inferiors?" by saying "Women are weak. They are dumb, they are not important." Imagine, then, the bitterness and shame in me as I tell you this. I was sitting on my couch drinking male soda. Male soda! But why can't I have this soda? I had asked myself.

Things I Wish Would Change

School

• We need a common room, not just for CGS. A place for kids to go when they have a free or study hall that isn't messing around in the hallways, and can be social.
• The art program should get more funding creativity is the key to happiness for some people who may not be strong in academics.
• Teachers should try and coordinate test schedules, at least within CGS
• The dress code should not penalize for being too "revealing" (ie. How dare you show that you are proud of your body, and you are inherently distracting as a woman!)
• Less paper waste!
• more serious qualifications to take AP classes. (some people are actually interested in Psychology!)
• Support AP classes even if they have a small amount of students, (AP Bio and AP Art History)
• Encourage people to join yearbook!
• SCF and Peace Project in general need to be changed, no more special treats during lunch and time out of class to hold meaningless signs. (you should not receive privileges for fulfilling your basic civic duty, you shouldn't be rewarded for what you should be doing anyway)
• A few mandatory community service hours
• More classes that allow study in less academic-based careers. (Auto repair, Carpentry, Electrician, etc...)
• Can we make the parking lot less confusing?
• Non- Academic success should be considered more in college applications and in general school reputation

Laws

• Gay marriage everywhere, for g-d's sake
• Please stop making us say, "In g-d we trust"
• The driving regulations are bullcrap
• No intelligent design
• Laws/Programs to keep kids in high school
• Stop censoring TV shows...

Women

• Equal pay
• Abortion rights
• It's embarrassing that I have to say access to birth control
• LEGITIMATE RAPE?
• No one deserves rape, no exceptions
• "women's" sportswear- Now you can get your favourite team's shirt- made just for you! (how about we just classify them as fitted or not fitted??)
• Advertisements shouldn't make women look weak, pathetic, and endlessly concerned with their appearance and men
• I agree with Ms. Parham - let me keep my last name! 

My Name, Dissected

My Name
September 5th 2012

There are too many things to say about my name. As someone who loves to talk about themselves and has a severe case of word vomit, this is particularly difficult considering I have a 600 word limit. However, I must try.

Let's start with my first name; Cordelia.
A name which immediately suggests several things to the average human. The first thing it suggests is that I have bitter parents who live vicariously through me because they were given painfully normal names like Amy and Michael. The unfortunate second, which I have often heard, is that I have a "porn star name." (I like to interpret this comment as meaning that my name is dramatic and easily captures the attention of those who hear it.) The third thing it brings to mind is not necessarily immediate. This is that my name comes from one of Shakespeare's great works; King Lear.

 This is were we begin to see a pattern. Drama and theatre have always been a large part of my life, and as my name would imply- a large part of my parents lives as well. My parents met as theatre managers, and both my parents are extremely well read in plays and literature. This comes as no surprise when looking at their educational background- my mother studied philosophy at Brown and went to graduate school at Columbia, my father studied English at Oxford and went to Yale Theatre School for graduate. My father was the ultimate chooser of my name, and the name says a great deal about our relationship.
"Cordelia"- the "good daughter" in the play King Lear. Even after being cast away by her foolish father, Cordelia awaited him in exile. She was the picture of loyalty and good nature.
Now, my father has never been the type to count his chickens before they hatch, but this was an embarrassing gamble on his part. The question was; would I live up to my name? Would I be a loyal and good natured daughter to my father, and just as importantly, my mother? I like to believe I do, for the most part. Some of my contemporaries would argue that my nature is far from "good." Actually, I have been told on numerous occasions that I am devious and fairly evil, and likened to a cold emotionless reptile. However, I doubt any of my peers would denounce my loyalty to my family. My love for my family is so obvious that it sickens certain friends (who will go unnamed, Sydney).

This is why I choose to embrace the implication of loyalty that my name gives, and not so much the good natured one. I don't want people to assume I'm nice because my name has a ring to it or is a metaphor in some dead guys play. I tend to think of my name as symbolic of familial duty as well as rather imperious sounding. As a family borne from England, imperious names are familiar to us. As you can tell by my style of writing and my tone, I tend also to convey an imperious attitude. I went from being dramatic and emotional as a child to being solemn and sardonic as an adult (by Jewish law). But through all these changes, I carried a sense of entitlement through my name.

Even if I was unremarkable, my name would stand out. "Cordelia Diamond," it is a name laden with references to wealth and history, works of literary genius and precious jewels. My name makes me feel smart even in my dullest moments. Actually, I once wanted to change my name to Harriet simply because I admired the wit and intelligence of Harriet the Spy, a character in my favourite book series as a child. What brought on this intense craving for intellectual recognition? From the outside it seems I have a painful case of "inflated ego," and I wont completely deny that. However, I think my name has had a lot to do with how I presented/present myself. I've always felt I had to make my appearance and behavior as dramatic or intelligent as my name implies, and I've grown as a person chasing this image down various rabbit holes. How could I possibly be deserving of such a name? Me, who prefers dreary days to bright ones, who likes to go unnoticed in a crowd, and who would rather be behind the scenes than on the stage? I'd rather not become a porn star just so my name will fit.

 As I grow older I realize the true value of my name, which is one of a kind. No longer do I let my name create my image for me. Instead, I look to my name as a template. With such a commanding name, I see an example of the person I could be, and the person I strive to be. I hope one day to fulfill the expectations of my name- not for my parents, but for myself.