I believe that the American Dream is something that everyone aspires to, even unknowingly. It is possible for this to be true because the American Dream is subjective. It carries different meaning for different people, but is usually contingent on the concepts of success and wealth. However, depending on a person's upbringing, how they define those two concepts alters their perception of the American Dream. The American Dream stems from the idea that for anyone, no matter where they come from, success is possible in America. Success can mean many things and I've always said that I've wanted to be successful. Coming from a family of successful people that made it on their own, I see that the American Dream is real, but only for some and just a literal dream for others.
The American Dream is usually a concept referenced by foreigners in old-timey movies who came to America in search of a better life. We still see this to be true and it seems that those who believe in the American Dream the most, immigrants, are the ones who it is least realistic for. America has not created a system that allows for people from other countries to succeed here, Americans can barely succeed here. America as a whole values wealth and looks down upon those who aren't wealthy. Although much of America would not be considered wealthy, we still manage to look down upon those who have less than average, American or not.
Poverty and wealth should not dictate a person's value to society, but just as I believe that the less fortunate should not be looked down on, neither should those who happen to be fortunate. There is a growing trend amongst my generation to dismiss the opinions of those who are wealthy and also to assume that no hard work went into their success, even if they came from money. For instance, just because someone went to a better school, got the same grades, and got into the same colleges as me doesn't mean that they didn't have to work as hard to get there. I've seen the American Dream first-hand and while it isn't achievable for everyone, it is still there.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Practice IOC
My Passage:
I don't think I ever got the packet with excerpts so I used this one from the IOC Reminders google slides.
My IOC audio
How I scored my self: 14/30
Criterion A: 5
I don't think I ever got the packet with excerpts so I used this one from the IOC Reminders google slides.
How I scored my self: 14/30
Criterion A: 5
- I think that I showed a good understanding of the text and I usually went back and talked about the greater significance in the text.
Criterion B: 5
- I talked about a few literary devices but I feel there could've been more, but I did talk about effect on the reader a lot.
Criterion C: 2
- This wasn't well organized at all, I started out with a plan but then things kept popping into my head that I thought I needed to say.
Criterion D: 2
- I said "um" and "uh" a lot and I kept taking pauses causing broken sentences, so overall my grammar, sentence structure, and vocabulary just wasn't up to par.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Pro-voice: listening and storytelling on the hard issues
Aspen Baker: A better way to talk about abortion
Aspen Baker starts out by talking about her first time talking to someone who willingly talked about their abortion. As a new college graduate she worked as a bartender, but one night at a point when she would normally have a drink she couldn't because she was pregnant. Aspen was raised in a vehemently christian community that was strictly pro-choice, she never thought that she would have an abortion. She was raised to see abortion as a very solemn issue that wasn't to be discussed, until it was possible that she would have one. Unsure of what to do about her pregnancy, she turned to her friend Polly who calmly said, "I've had an abortion."
Baker went on to have an abortion, but the night she spoke with Polly stuck with her. Polly made her realize that abortion and issues like it don't have to be something that we're afraid to talk about and that it's not simply pro-life or pro-choice. She discusses how since the issue has become so politicized we neglect talking with one another about abortion, which is fairly common for women in America, and instead talk at each other. This discovery prompted Baker to make it her life's focus to shift conflict over issues we can't talk about to a place of discussion through listening and storytelling.
Through an organization she founded Baker opened a talk-line for people to get emotional support about the real-life side abortion. In doing this she found many instances where it simply isn't possible for people to just pick a side in the abortion issue and thus pro-voice was created. Pro-voice aims to create a new perspective on issues that have been heavily debated for years like immigration, religious tolerance, and abortion, but also issues that are very personal. The keys to pro-voice are fairly simple: listening and storytelling, but it's not as simple as it seems. Issues seen from a pro-voice perspective are the one's that there is a lot of controversy over and that people don't want to discuss.
Baker then goes on to talk about how to be a good listener, an important trait to have in pro-voice activism. Her tips include simple things such as asking open-ended questions and using reflective language. On the flip side of listening there is storytelling and Baker goes on to talk about the potential danger in it. Baker talks about how empathy is created through storytelling and how it's not wrong for someone to have done something different or felt differently than you given the same set of circumstances. This illuminates the nature of pro-voice which doesn't try to push everyone into sameness concerning their views on the tough issues, but instead creating a culture where everyone's opinions are valid and their differences are respected. Baker concludes by saying that experiences aren't always right or wrong, but that they can exist on a spectrum.
The purpose of this Ted Talk was to inform people of the existence of another perspective on abortion that exists beyond pro-life and pro-choice, pro-voice. Baker is attempting to create interest in something that she has devoted her life's work to. The main way that Baker does this is by telling stories. Storytelling is one of the main concepts involved in pro-voice activism, so Baker uses this to her advantage to create an extremely pathos fueled Ted Talk. With every major point she brings up, she accompanies it with a story. In doing this, she further reinforces the ideals of pro-voice by using stories related to abortion, especially those concerning her own experiences with it. By giving various examples of times that pro-choice has impacted her outlook or others on the tough issues she is showing the audience it's practical application.
I chose this Ted Talk because abortion is an issue that I am very passionate about, I even did my ToK presentation on it. When I first saw the title of this Ted Talk I thought it would be interesting, but the small possibility that it could be someone who was pro-choice lingered in my mind. I always groan a little (ok, a lot) when I hear abortion being discussed from a pro-choice perspective, but I chose to watch this talk anyways. This talk caused me to change the way that I view pro-choice perspectives and talking about tough issues in general.
Aspen Baker starts out by talking about her first time talking to someone who willingly talked about their abortion. As a new college graduate she worked as a bartender, but one night at a point when she would normally have a drink she couldn't because she was pregnant. Aspen was raised in a vehemently christian community that was strictly pro-choice, she never thought that she would have an abortion. She was raised to see abortion as a very solemn issue that wasn't to be discussed, until it was possible that she would have one. Unsure of what to do about her pregnancy, she turned to her friend Polly who calmly said, "I've had an abortion."
Baker went on to have an abortion, but the night she spoke with Polly stuck with her. Polly made her realize that abortion and issues like it don't have to be something that we're afraid to talk about and that it's not simply pro-life or pro-choice. She discusses how since the issue has become so politicized we neglect talking with one another about abortion, which is fairly common for women in America, and instead talk at each other. This discovery prompted Baker to make it her life's focus to shift conflict over issues we can't talk about to a place of discussion through listening and storytelling.
Through an organization she founded Baker opened a talk-line for people to get emotional support about the real-life side abortion. In doing this she found many instances where it simply isn't possible for people to just pick a side in the abortion issue and thus pro-voice was created. Pro-voice aims to create a new perspective on issues that have been heavily debated for years like immigration, religious tolerance, and abortion, but also issues that are very personal. The keys to pro-voice are fairly simple: listening and storytelling, but it's not as simple as it seems. Issues seen from a pro-voice perspective are the one's that there is a lot of controversy over and that people don't want to discuss.
Baker then goes on to talk about how to be a good listener, an important trait to have in pro-voice activism. Her tips include simple things such as asking open-ended questions and using reflective language. On the flip side of listening there is storytelling and Baker goes on to talk about the potential danger in it. Baker talks about how empathy is created through storytelling and how it's not wrong for someone to have done something different or felt differently than you given the same set of circumstances. This illuminates the nature of pro-voice which doesn't try to push everyone into sameness concerning their views on the tough issues, but instead creating a culture where everyone's opinions are valid and their differences are respected. Baker concludes by saying that experiences aren't always right or wrong, but that they can exist on a spectrum.
The purpose of this Ted Talk was to inform people of the existence of another perspective on abortion that exists beyond pro-life and pro-choice, pro-voice. Baker is attempting to create interest in something that she has devoted her life's work to. The main way that Baker does this is by telling stories. Storytelling is one of the main concepts involved in pro-voice activism, so Baker uses this to her advantage to create an extremely pathos fueled Ted Talk. With every major point she brings up, she accompanies it with a story. In doing this, she further reinforces the ideals of pro-voice by using stories related to abortion, especially those concerning her own experiences with it. By giving various examples of times that pro-choice has impacted her outlook or others on the tough issues she is showing the audience it's practical application.
I chose this Ted Talk because abortion is an issue that I am very passionate about, I even did my ToK presentation on it. When I first saw the title of this Ted Talk I thought it would be interesting, but the small possibility that it could be someone who was pro-choice lingered in my mind. I always groan a little (ok, a lot) when I hear abortion being discussed from a pro-choice perspective, but I chose to watch this talk anyways. This talk caused me to change the way that I view pro-choice perspectives and talking about tough issues in general.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
She Ain't Nothin' but a Gold Digger
3. Double Indemnity has been called “a film without a single trace of pity or love.” Do you agree with this statement? Think about the motivations that lie behind the actions of Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson when you consider your response.
Double Indemnity has many intriguing elements; murder, drama, and deceit. But I agree that it does lack both love and pity. The plot of Double Indemnity is formed off of lust and greed. Instead of the main characters falling madly in love with each other and committing a criminal act out of love, the main characters use each other for their own personal gain. Phyllis is portrayed as the ultimate femme fatal and it is blatantly obvious that she only cares about herself from the moment she first interacts with who we believe to be a clueless love stricken pawn. It is easy for us to see Walter in this light because his motives aren't so obvious from the beginning, but as the story progresses he turns into a much darker character. They were each able to hide their motives under the ruse of love and pity until we see them as they are in the very end.
At first Walter Neff is seen as one of the only lovable characters in the film, he appears to be an unlucky man who just got caught up in trouble with a woman he loved, but we see this facade crumble as the story goes on. Ultimately, Walter is in it for the money, he finds himself more attracted to it than Phyllis. If he did truly love her or even pity her a little he wouldn't have ended up killing her. As we see this happen we find out his true motives greed and the small amount of lust he felt towards Phyllis. The same is true for Phyllis. She never loved Walter, despite her saying so moments before she is killed. She is introduced as a trophy wife and we see almost immediately that she is a stereotypical gold-digger. She uses her sexual appeal to draw Walter into her evil scheme and acts as if she loves him in order to get him to stay involved. If she had truly loved him she would have never insisted that he commit such a terrible act, but she couldn't do otherwise, she was indifferent and incapable of feeling emotions. She was in it truly for herself and saw her incapability to feel as a means to exploit and manipulate the feelings of others.
Double Indemnity has many intriguing elements; murder, drama, and deceit. But I agree that it does lack both love and pity. The plot of Double Indemnity is formed off of lust and greed. Instead of the main characters falling madly in love with each other and committing a criminal act out of love, the main characters use each other for their own personal gain. Phyllis is portrayed as the ultimate femme fatal and it is blatantly obvious that she only cares about herself from the moment she first interacts with who we believe to be a clueless love stricken pawn. It is easy for us to see Walter in this light because his motives aren't so obvious from the beginning, but as the story progresses he turns into a much darker character. They were each able to hide their motives under the ruse of love and pity until we see them as they are in the very end.
At first Walter Neff is seen as one of the only lovable characters in the film, he appears to be an unlucky man who just got caught up in trouble with a woman he loved, but we see this facade crumble as the story goes on. Ultimately, Walter is in it for the money, he finds himself more attracted to it than Phyllis. If he did truly love her or even pity her a little he wouldn't have ended up killing her. As we see this happen we find out his true motives greed and the small amount of lust he felt towards Phyllis. The same is true for Phyllis. She never loved Walter, despite her saying so moments before she is killed. She is introduced as a trophy wife and we see almost immediately that she is a stereotypical gold-digger. She uses her sexual appeal to draw Walter into her evil scheme and acts as if she loves him in order to get him to stay involved. If she had truly loved him she would have never insisted that he commit such a terrible act, but she couldn't do otherwise, she was indifferent and incapable of feeling emotions. She was in it truly for herself and saw her incapability to feel as a means to exploit and manipulate the feelings of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)