Farewell, English Composition

Ah, English 150. First of all, I have to say that through this course I have cemented what I already knew. I am a reader, NOT a writer. Reading a novel is relaxing and enjoyable. You curl up, wrap in a blanket and go for it. Maybe sip a warm drink. You get lost in the pages. Life is good. Writing is not that. It is exhausting and stressful. Working on an essay makes my brain hurt. Working on more than one essay for different courses... excruciating. Oh, and research projects are not my cup of tea. Don’t get me wrong, I have a huge appreciation and respect for those who write. I love to read. Where would I be without writers?

As for the course content, I would say that of all the reading that we did this semester, my least favourite was Japan`s Kamikaze Pilots by Yuki Tanaka.  I personally just didn’t connect to the writing style or subject matter.  I would say my favourite by a landslide was Kurt Vonnegut`s How to Write with Style. I liked it so much that I do plan to look for one of his books and give it a try. I would say a second favourite was Code Breaker by Jim Holt. It wasn’t so much as the style, but the subject I loved in that one. Having an IT background, Alan Turing is somewhat of an icon, and who doesn’t love to read about their icons.

I thank Laurie for all of the tips and comments, although, I may try not to write again for some time. All I can think about right now is this: One more essay, just a short one, you can do it. But only one thing keeps me going. I have a date, on Thursday, Dec 16^th, after my last exam. Sitting on my night table, waiting patiently is my new book, In the Still of the Night by Ann Rule. I will not argue with it, or analyze it, or write about it. I may rave about it verbally to anyone who will listen. But mainly, I will just read and enjoy.

Informative AND Entertaining

I am not sure if I can do justice to Kurt Vonnegut’s “How to Write With Style”. I found this article to be the most well written piece of work that we have read to date in the course. Vonnegut’s style is truly his own, coincidentally this is the main point of his article.

Vonnegut gives a number of valuable tips on how to grab a reader’s attention and hold it. He does so with such headings as “Pity the Reader” and “Sound like Yourself” (Vonnegut 67). These are not-so-gentle reminders to keep the audience in mind when writing. He shares with us that it is best for his readers if he sounds like he is from Indianapolis, because he is. The fact that in Indianapolis “common speech sounds like a band saw cutting galvanized tin” is irrelevant (Vonnegut 66). The idea is to not pretend that you are someone or something that you aren’t.

Some other helpful tips are to keep it simple and don’t ramble on (Vonnegut 66). Both are great reminders that people reading something you have written don’t need to try to translate what is meant. A simple approach is always better. Say what you mean, and be concise.

I am not familiar with any of the novels written by Vonnegut. Although I have heard of “Slaughterhouse Five” I haven’t read it. I must say, though, that after seeing what a great job he has done of writing something as mundane as a lesson in writing with style, I will search out one of his novels and give it a try. I am sure it will be an interesting read, done with style and flair. Have you read anything by Vonnegut?

Works Cited

Vonnegut, Kurt. “How to Write with Style.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. PC 24 Vol 2. Print.

An Exercise in Frustration

In my opinion Yuki Tananka’s “Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots and Contemporary Bombers: War and Terror” was an exercise in frustration. After my first reading I felt confused. The first four paragraphs gave so many statistics that my head was spinning. Once I made it through the numbers, I looked forward to learning something about the kamikaze pilots, as I knew nothing. This was to be a rather large letdown. I felt that the remainder of the essay was poorly organized and confusing. I decided to sleep on it and read it again for more clarity.

With a clear head, I sat down to reread the essay. Although, I found that I understood the text more clearly than my first reading, it was still a bit of a muddle. So, I tried to figure out why that was.  The essay was almost two separate topics. The first topic was about “who” the kamikaze pilots were. The second topic was a comparison of some similarities between kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers of today. I didn’t feel that the two topics flowed together very well.  Even the labels of “Kamikaze Pilots” and “Contemporary Suicide Bombers” seemed to separate the two trains of thought.  Another thing that bothered me was the incredibly long sentences. It felt as though there was too much to absorb in one thought. An example, “Undoubtedly war is an act of madness, its absurdity clearly shown in the paired (but imbalanced) actions and reactions of World War II: as Japan adopted kamikaze-style suicide attacks, the US used “strategic bombing” to indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, and finally engaged in atomic bombing attacks (Tanaka, 297).” I find it difficult to follow too many of these strung out thoughts. Even the “point form” themes that were given as reasons the pilots accepted their missions were lengthy paragraphs (296). By the time I reached the last paragraph in the section, I had almost forgotten what the point of the number (5) beside it was.

I decided not to read the essay a third time. Although I recognize that Yuki Tanaka is well educated, and a specialist in his field, I counted myself out as being one of his target audience.  Am I alone in this? Do you feel that you connected with this essay?

Works Cited

Tanaka, Yuki. “Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots and Contemporary Suicide Bombers: War and Terror.” Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Ed. Katherine Ackley, Kim Blank, and Stephen Hume. Toronto: Nelson, 2008. 199 – 208. Print.

Win / win situation

“30 Little Turtles” by Thomas Friedman is a short argument in favour of hiring from other countries, in this case India, for jobs that are “low-wage, low-prestige” American jobs (177). Although I can see the positive side in hiring from other countries for these types of jobs, I can’t help but find it a little sad that the people taking these jobs are first trained how to speak with a Canadian, US or British accent, depending on which country they will be answering calls from. But, they don’t seem to mind. They are just happy to have what they consider to be high-paying, fulfilling jobs.

Many of the young people that are hired to work the call centres would otherwise not be working. Many have degrees from college or university that will not be used (176). It must be frustrating to put the time and energy that it takes into their schooling only to be faced with lack of employment when their education is complete. This does not seem to bring them down in their enthusiasm according to Friedman (176).

It is refreshing to hear that these call centre jobs create a sense of pride among the workers. They are given a chance at financial independence and a sense of hope for their futures. Freidman finds it “uplifting” to watch these young people as they gain “self-confidence and self-worth” (176). On a larger scale, it works out to the advantage of everyone involved to continue to outsource these jobs. The Americans aren’t really interested in this work, while the Indian people are happy to have the jobs. This being the case, those people that call in are just happy to have someone on the other end of the line willing and happy to help. On a personal note, if I need assistance with something, I would prefer to deal with a person that is enthusiastic about what they are doing. Overall, is it more important to keep these jobs local to North America, or to have someone do the job that enjoys it and strives to do the best they can?

Works Cited

Friedman, Thomas. “30 Little Turtles.” Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Ed. Katherine Ackley, Kim Blank, and Stephen Hume. Toronto: Nelson, 2008. 176 – 177. Print.

A True Hero

“Code-Breaker” by Jim Holt is, in my opinion, a fascinating account of Alan Turing’s accomplishments.  The attention grabbing first paragraph mentions death and suicide, military secrets and crimes of homosexuality. A reader can hardly get through all of that without dying to find out what comes next. As a former Computer Science student, I recognized Turning’s name immediately. He is well known in the IT world as a forefather of the present day computer. What I didn’t know was all of his other accomplishments, including the code breaking done during the war. Alan Turing appears to be a brilliant and likeable man, happy with his lot in life. So, why would he commit suicide?

The opening paragraph states that two years prior to his death, Turing was “exposed” for being gay, “when he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ for having a homosexual affair” (Holt 337). This is cleverly worded to invoke interest and keep the audience reading. Later it comes out that Turing wasn’t actually “exposed”, in fact, he simply told the police of his homosexual affair in order to explain how he knew of the identity of an intruder to his home. It appears that a big deal was not made out of it, with only probation and hormonal therapy being his punishment. Hi s mother still loved him, his colleagues accepted him and not only was his job safe, he was given a pay raise along with freedom to continue his work and enjoy his notoriety for the “Turing machines” (345).

It is too bad that the apple he ate shortly before bed the night before he died, was not ever tested for cyanide.  It is too bad that we will never know if Turing indeed committed suicide, or whether he was killed by someone afraid of what he might discover. To me, he sounds like a truly lovely man and his death was a great loss. If he hadn’t died, I wonder what other fascinating contributions he would have made. Was it really suicide, what do you think?

A Need for Confrontation of Another Kind

“Women Confronting War” by Jennifer Turpin is an eye-opening look at the latent effects that war has on women. It is an informed looked by someone who is well qualified to speak on the issue, based on her background, most especially her position with the European University Centre for Peace Studies. It is a commonly held perception that women are not a large portion of the casualties of war, because of the small numbers that are in active service (325).This perception couldn’t be more wrong. Women and children suffer immensely in the form of death, sexual assaults, violence and the loss of homes and loved ones during and after war. (325).

I found this essay to be deeply disturbing in its content. Mainly because I have been lucky as to never have experienced war first hand. I have always held the belief that those soldiers that are fighting are fighting for a cause and with good intentions. Further, I have always felt that the countries involved in war supported my belief that war is an unfortunate side effect of ‘doing the right thing’. My belief was that in the unfortunate event that some rogue soldier behaved in a way that crossed the line between what is necessary and what is appalling, he would be disciplined harshly by military organization that he represented. If this failed, there was a backup, the UN would step in. I was not expecting the cavalier attitude of those in charge of these organizations, when questioned about such horrific events. “When the head of the U.N. mission in Cambodia was questioned about the sexual abuse of women and girls by U.N. troops, he responded that he was ‘not a puritan; eighteen year-old, hot-blooded soldiers had a right to drink a few beers and chase after young beautiful things of the opposite sex’”(327). Are you kidding me? These are the words of someone in such a position as the HEAD of the U.N. mission? Even more shocking was the response of the commander of the United States Pacific Command when he was asked about the assault and rape by three of his soldiers against a 12-year-old girl. He felt that there stupidity lay in resorting to rape rather than using the money spent on renting a car to purchase sex (327). Is the fact that this girl was 12-years-old, the age of a seventh grader, completely lost on this man? I wonder if this fact would still be lost if it happened to be his 12-year-old daughter.

I am bewildered by the fact that nowhere does there seem to be a point where someone steps in to say, enough IS enough. How can the populations, mainly women and children, of underdeveloped countries continue to be killed, raped, brutalized and chased from their homes? What purpose is this serving? What is the greater good that will come from this? How can this be helping them? I think that something needs to be done to protect these people from the salvation offered by “primarily . . . former colonial powers” of the developed nations in the world. What can be done, and who can do it?

It is what it is...or is it?

“There are no lessons to be learned from Littleton” by Gary Kleck reflects exactly what the title suggests. In contrast, I feel that there is a very large lesson to be learned from Gary Kleck. This essay appears to be a clear-headed, insightful explanation of how we, the intended audience are manipulated in times of turmoil. Kleck explains how we are guided by the media sensation and the reactions of politicians into believing that they are trying to learn from these acts, and to use this knowledge to protect us from seeing this type of violence again in the future.  He explains that this is impossible and will never happen. Even worse, the attention given to these types of rare events is likely taking away from less extraordinary issues such as bullying and teen dating violence.

To begin with Kleck reminds us that the people that we are counting on to give us “the diagnoses and solutions” (211) immediately following these massacres are the news media. A group that is largely untrained in the area of crime analysis. These people are not only unqualified, but the causes and solutions offered by them in the “aftermath of such events are especially likely to be irrelevant or even counterproductive” (211).

Of course, when something as tragic as a mass killing at a school occurs, we can hardly be unaffected emotionally. We send our kids to school each day, we think they are safe, and for the most part, they are. So when the unusual does happen, we can’t help but think...this could be any school, our school. When the government steps forward and ‘does’ something, such as “making murder on school property a capital offence” (213), we feel as though they are looking out for our kids. But are they? What difference will this law make if “premeditated murder, regardless of location” (213) is already a capital offence? It makes no difference to the safety of our kids, but in the emotional glow, we feel as though they really care.

I wonder how it is that politicians can ‘use’ these tragedies to “crack down” (213) on the irrelevant issue of selling guns to our children.  Kleck points out that none of these children bought the guns used at the school shootings. They were stolen, bought legitimately and given as gifts by their parents. So what is the purpose of the “crack down”? It does make the politician look good. It does make us feel safer. But it doesn’t stop the problem.

One of the most important points that Kleck makes is that while we are busy focusing on the “freakish events” (215) that the news media provides to us, we are missing good opportunities to study “ordinary crime and violence” (215). As long as this continues, we will see actions that make us feel better and can be quickly implemented, rather than those that will actually make us safer (215). I feel that because of Kleck’s essay, I will be a more critical thinker.  I for one will pay more attention to the details when the next media sensation hits.  Will you?

A case of mistaken identity

“Aggression: The Impact of Media Violence” by Sissela Bok is a case of mistaken identity. Based on the title, I had assumed that Bok would make a clear argument towards the need for media to curtail the violence that it presents. After reading through the piece the first time, I felt that although she didn’t appear to take a clear stand, she did side with this assumption.  However, after several careful readings, I think she is saying something altogether different. I believe she is suggesting that society points a finger at the media contribution to aggressive behaviour, but is unsubstantiated in doing so. Maybe the real fight against aggression lies within us, and how we teach our children.

Bok states that public perception of media violence is “that it glamorizes aggressive conduct” therefore “curbing aggression has priority over alleviating subtler psychological and moral damage.” Could we be focusing so much attention on the violence in the media that we are missing the real issues? She points out that although crime rates have been dropping since 1992, media coverage of violence has escalated. Even so, in 1995, 21 percent of the public blamed television for teenage violence. She goes on to say that “no reputable scholar” accepts this view. Since when does a negative correlation become proof that an issue exists? More violence on TV should not equal a lower crime rate, if violence on TV is the cause of violence in society.

No real proof has been given creating the link between media violence and aggression in society. There is no consensus on how much TV violence affects the violence in society. Only “probabilistic causation” is used to debate the need to curtail TV violence, as it has worked against the “glamorization of smoking and drunk driving” on TV programs, even with the “lack of conclusive documentation of the correlation between TV viewing and higher incidence of such conduct.” In all fairness, this isn’t right. Perhaps what we should do is address violence without blaming an unsubstantiated cause.

Bok suggests that the public is giving too much credit to the media in terms of responsibility for violence in society.  She suggests that children should be taught to make decisions on their own about violence and aggression and “to strive, instead, for greater resilience, empathy and self control.” This is not aimed only at violence but at all risk factors that our children will face. We should give our children a chance to mature and grow early on. Although TV violence has not been concretely linked to violence in society, it is a distraction. Maybe we should turn off the TV and encourage a focus on something more productive, in order to foster a well rounded childhood, where a child can become a clear thinker and develop good judgement. It can’t hurt, can it?

Africa, My Love

Pandemic: My Country is on its Knees by Stephen Lewis was at first heartbreaking. Although, I am sure that heartbreaking was not the intention. Awareness is likely the true intention of this essay. Several of the anecdotes Lewis uses give a visual that is hard to ignore. The visit to the hospital in Malawi where there are “2 to a bed” and “in most instances, someone under the bed on the concrete floor” seems impossible when we think of a typical hospital, here in Canada. How can people be treated and reach a full recovery in such a place. It seems to be a place where people go to die, instead of receiving treatment. It must be an even more difficult challenge with many of the African doctors being “poached” by other countries of the world, and pharmacists being a rarity.

Perhaps the most vivid of the anecdotes that Lewis uses is the story of the babies in Zambia. “Every crib had four or five infants and toddlers crushed together between the raised slated sides.” This breaks my heart. As a mother, I cannot fathom the thought of a mother’s baby squashed into a crib with other dying babies, waiting their turn to be taken away. How can this happen?  These children are born with no chance. The ones that do have a chance are the lucky ones, the orphans. “In Zambia, 23 percent of all children are orphans now, with numbers expected to rise to one in three”.  These children are left to raise themselves, the oldest sibling becoming the parent. As young as 8, they are now the head of the household. They have no guidance, no sense of security, no food. What kind of “chance” is this? With some real luck the children may have living grandmothers, who in their 70’s can take the children in. At least they are not left on their own, to fend for themselves in a world that doesn’t know they exist.

Beyond the hunger, the AIDS, the death and the sorrow, Lewis holds tight to the belief that Africa will one day recover. They are a people with hope. With guidance from those who can give it, Africa can recover. They do not just need help; they need someone to lead the way. Doctors Without Borders, working in a small town in Uganda, are showing what can be done. They provide more than treatment, they dispel the stigma.  They help the people find their joy again. The World Food Programme provides more than food. They supply free condoms, and education about the prevention of HIV/AIDS.  They may not be able to stop the spread, but they can help reduce it. The Rockefeller Foundation has initiated a program Of “Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission” – Plus.  They treat expectant mothers, their partners and families. Slowly, families are being saved.  If we could all do our part, we could help Africa to stand on their feet again. To dance and sing, like the Africa that Lewis fell in love with back in the 60’s. What can we do to help?

Before it’s too late...

Margaret Atwood’s Letter to America  expresses her concern for America’s growing quest for power and what the results could be. She tells a story of growing up beside America, using examples of popular characters to describe the changes in her perception of America. She talks about characters that people can relate to as fun, such as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, Elvis and the Andrews Sisters. The symbol of America becomes more grown up as she mentions characters from books she read as a child. These characters are all “courageous in their own ways”. They deal with larger issues such as racism, patriotism and loyalty at a level that can be understood and appreciated by younger readers. Next, Atwood mentions a number of great authors, known for their support of issues such as democracy and environmentalism. She mentions key characters in classic movies, such as Lillian Gish who was ‘saintly’ in The Night of the Hunter; Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront was honourable and courageous. All of these references give examples of the good in America.

Atwood acknowledges that even while she believed Americans were mostly just and strong, they equated money and power to strength. They printed God on their money, mixing power with “the things of God”. The intention of being a nation that helps others, a “city upon a hill” is being lost.  It is becoming a country who dominates instead of helping. In an attempt to explain her view, she gives the example of us as Romanized Gaul’s, peering over the wall at the Romans, asking “Why is the haruspex eyeballing the sheep’s liver?” The haruspex examined the entrails of animals that were sacrificed, looking for the will of the gods. Is this just an excuse to sacrifice?

She wrestles with whether or not she should write this Letter to America, wondering if it is her place. She rationalizes that as a person affected deeply by America’s actions, it IS her place. It needs to be said. Americans have begun to sacrifice others, as well as their own freedom, to be the most powerful. She mentions the US invasion on Iraq and acknowledges them as yet another sacrifice at the hands of the Americans in their search for power. She then focuses on what America is doing to America. They are taking their own freedom. They are trading natural resources for military advances. They are creating a nation of crime. Will they continue until all that they touch turns to gold, at any cost?  She warns that if they proceed as they are, they will lose what they value the most, their freedom and respect it. They are breeding a nation of greed, prejudice and disregard for the law. They are making their own laws. America IS powerful, and affects all nations, the Jolly Green Giant on a rampage, trampling other small plants and animals in its way. What will become of all of us?  She implores them to call upon the strength they possess to show the good and courageous side that they have and to stop the slide down the “slippery slope” before it’s too late. Is it too late?