Sunday, October 10, 2010

Rand - Racism Summary and response

In Ayn Rand's article on racism it was obvious that she held hatred and malice towards the use of racism in our society. She makes it seem in her article that she is fighting for the greater good of all people and that the racist boundaries need to be cut so that all can live together, but that is just a cover-up. She actually supports the segregation of the races, calling it individualism and saying that you can't judge a race a whole, because it is only a select few that are actually worthy, while the rest don't have to the right to coexist in a culminated society. This point is distinctly made clear to us, when she says that she is against the civil rights act, which was a corner stone for the civil rights movement, taking away states right to declare “separate but equal” and allowing for a assimilation in schools, work places, and the overall public. Rand quotes, “'If two men, one negro and one white, are equally qualified for a job, hire the Negro'...It does not merely demand special privileges on racial grounds--it demands that white men be penalized for the sins of their ancestors.” (N.Y Time, August, 133 Rand) This lest us know that she is in favor of whites and that she hates that the “Negros” are taking away jobs that supposedly have equal chances for all to get in. Throughout most of the article you get the idea that she is against the segregation of the races, but only in the last couple pages do you see she real point of view. She is emphasizing the fact the the Civil Rights Bill is taking away from peoples right to private property, by saying that it is discrimination not to assimilate together the two races. But she is trying prove the folly, by saying that even though it may me a racist claim, the individual people still hold their rights to private property and the government should not be able to take that away.
I believe the the opinion that Ayn Rand is trying to make in this article is very flawed. She is saying that people need to be judged as individuals and shouldn't be judged by the acts of their race, but at the same time she is only critically judging how the “Negroes” are affecting the rights and opportunities of the White people and choosing to remain silent about just how unfair and biased the “separate but equal” society was. Hypocritically Rand states that “'Racial discrimination, imposed and enforced by law, is so blatantly inexcusable an infringement of individual rights that the racist statutes of the south should have been declared unconstitutional long ago,” (131) but at the same time is arguing against the governments right to eliminate the discrimination and segregation that is causing inequality throughout the country. She is saying that the the states have no right the go against what is considered discriminate, but then she says that the government has no right to might things right again. Rand's argument seems very focused upon making people think that she is against discrimination and segregation to such an extent that it creates holes and contraindications throughout what she is saying. Even her use of the word “Negro,” a derogatory term for the African American people, is contradicting the idea she wants people to perceive, that she supports anti-segregation. The argument that she puts up is just so flawed and blatantly against equal rights, that it shouldn't even exist. She is secretly showing her support for a position that goes against all the ideals that our society disagrees with. I think that this is a very disappointing way of doing things, since you have to essentially trick your reader in order for them to agree with your opinion. It is as if she doesn't have influential capability to convince people otherwise, which makes her seem very shallow and desperate. I don't agree with the author point of view because I think she is only using racism as as wordplay to further her own goals and opinions.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

David Sedaris' – Solutions to Saturday Puzzle

In this chapter titled, Solution to Saturdays Puzzle, by David Sedaris, he explores the concept of humor through everyday experience. I found the humor to be a little tasteless, not that I didn't find myself chuckling at times over the shear stupidity of what was happening, but it seemed that the jokes weren't really meant to have much thought in it, it was just blatantly exaggerated and absurd. Though I did find the humor to be a bit over the top more my liking, I did find myself pondering over one of the statements made, “What if I was wrong? I pictured her in a dimly lit room, trembling before a portfolio of glowing X-rays. 'I give you two weeks at the most,' the doctor says. 'Why don't you get your toenails done, buy a nice pair of cut-offs, and spent some quality time with your husband.'” (132) It really hit me hard when that came up. I did not expect to find such a thought provoking and tragic idea within the contexts of something meant to be humorous and joyful. I thought that that was a very strange concept, the idea of tragedy amongst humor. Though that was no were near the focus of the chapter, it was none the less very influential to how I pictured the rest of the story. It drew me away from the humor of the story and made me think, if that really was the case, how would you feel and how would this change the story if the people had known this to be the truth. I found it hard to really focus upon the humorous side of the story, when all my thoughts dwelled upon the seriousness of what the situation could be.
Though I may have overlooked the humor a bit, I did like how the author tied the whole things together at the end when he referred to the the ladies comment as an eight-letter word the was described as, “above the shoulders, he's nothing but crap.” I thought that that really tied the game with reality. As if all of the reality was just a words game. How your very outlook and opinions can be changed upon the changing of even a small aspect of a situation. For example, I found this to be relatively humorous, until I came upon the idea of death, and if Becky was really dieing how would that change things. The whole story is just one way of looking at things. The author is using the idea of humor to give a happy and warm feel to the story, even though when looked at in a different way, that happy feeling goes away. The way that words are presented changes everything about how one will view things. A pessimistic view of life will result in an outlook that is very dark, evil and depressing, were an optimistic view will result in the complete opposite. A lot of this story focuses upon these contradictory ideas of humor very serious and makes you think whether the author was really trying to make this a humorous story, or is the author trying to make a point that the anything can be made to look or appear humorous no matter how serious it really is, as long as you are able to describe it in a humorous manner.

My Joke: Really, really old joke my cousins use to tell me and my sisters during Christmas and thanksgiving when we were really young.

Billy's teacher told him to find 5 vocabulary words for homework the next day. So Billy goes home and asks his mom. His mom says, “shut up!” So he writes that down. Then he goes to his dad who is watching football in the other room and he says “lets go baby lets go.” So he writes that down. Next he goes to his little brother who was watching batman and he says, “Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Batman.” So he writes that down. After that he goes to this little sister who is flushing his toy cars down the toilet and she say, “I flushed them down the toilet I flushed them down the toilet.” So he writes that down. On his way to school the next day Billy passes by a bun shop and hears the baker yells, “My buns are burning my buns are burning.” So he writes that down.
Once Billy gets to school his teacher asks him, “Billy what are your vocabulary words” and he say, “Shut up!”
“Do you want to go to the principals office?” she replied.
“Lets go baby, lets go.”
So they march down to the principals office. When they get their the principals asks, “Who do you think you are?”
Billy says, “Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Batman.”
Angrily the principal asks, “Where are your parents?”
Billy replies, “I flushed them down the toilet, I flushed them down the toilet.” So the principal picks Billy up and begins to spank him, and while she does this he says, “my buns are burning my buns are burning.”

Second joke:

Sixth grade science teacher Mrs. Samson asks her class: "Who can tell me which
organ of the human body expands to 10 times its usual size when stimulated?"
Nobody raises a hand, so she calls on the first student to look her way.
"Mary, can you tell me which organ of the human body expands to 10 times its usual size when stimulated?"
Mary stands up, blushing furiously. "How dare you ask such a question?" she says. "I'm going to complain to my parents, who will complain to the principal, who will have you fired!"
Mrs. Sampson is shocked by Mary's reaction, but yet undaunted. She asks the class the question again, and this time Sam raises his hand.
Yes, Sam?" says Mrs. Sampson. "Ma'am, the correct answer is the iris of the human eye."
"Very good, Sam. Thank you." Mrs. Sampson then turns to Mary and says, "Mary, I have 3 things to tell you: first, it's clear that you have NOT done your homework. Second, you have a DIRTY mind. And third, I fear one day you are going to be sadly disappointed."