Who is the Modern Gadfly?

Who is the Modern Gadfly?

This is a difficult questions to answer. The present is sadly devoid of prominent gadflies. So while I'm not exactly sold on my answer, I have to go with Michael Moore: super-duper-leftist film maker extraordinaire. I love this man, but I know for a fact that many people do not. The thing that makes him a gadfly, rather than just a man with a camera and an opinion, is his willingness to be the guy no one wants to talk with at a party. When he wants he can be crazy annoying, but it's always to get his point across. In his movie Bowling for Columbine (probably his best received work) he took three survivors of the Columbine high school shooting to the kmart from which the bullets that were still lodged in their flesh had been purchased. They bought out the entire stock to keep those bullets from being sold to potential murderers. But that was definitely not enough. Moore brought the survivors to a Kmart flagship store in an attempt to return the merchandise embedded in the flesh of these young people. Moore and the victims were able to meet with Kmart executives and the next day the corporation announced they would be taking ammunition off their shelves. Still,. Moore had to bother frazzled employee after employee for hours and hours before getting a chance to speak with the execs. Most of Moore's antics are not this successful. Moore can often be seen on the steps of a capitol building, or in a boat full of 9/11 volunteers approaching Guantanamo Bay, shouting at the unseen powers residing within through a megaphone. After gaining admittance to Charlton Heston's home and challenging him on his pro-gun views and NRA statues, he was promptly kicked out. Some people are annoying just because they like to watch people squirm, some activists are overly polite because they don't want to be disliked- Michael Moore is neither of those things. Moore attempts to be as polite as possible while still not letting anyone off the hook, and he catches it all on camera. While Socrates wasn't concerned with preserving his dialogue, Moore is. By putting a camera in the situation people become self-conscious and not wanting to be portrayed in a bad light, they often reveal exactly what they are trying to hide.

Even if you disagree with Moore's politics you have to admire the way he unashamedly confronts people that need confronting and his effectiveness as a gadfly.

Is the Unexamined Life Worth Living?

Is the unexamined life worth living?

I think it definitely can be. The unexamined life is not one I wish to live, but I try not to judge those that do. I think sometimes it can even be beneficial. If a person is truly happy with their life, the universe and their place in it and doesn't wish to mar that outlook with deeper consideration- good on them. Now I'm not necessarily going to respect their opinions or expect them to make sound decisions, but I think there is something to be said for their life. Just because a person doesn't analyze their existence doesn't mean they cannot do good or contribute to society. Some people cannot handle too much self examination or become depressed by it and sometimes it is better overall for them not to question.

Sometimes there are people who do not examine their life but are still unhappy. They don’t examine this unhappiness because they are afraid they will only find more sadness. I have run into a lot of these people and I think they ought to serve as an example to the rest of us. Sometimes people make themselves even sadder by pretending that they aren't. Simply accepting things is not the answer; it will not make you happy. Happiness has to come from you and if you are not already happy turning a blind eye to it will not change it.

I believe leading an examined life is very important, but I do not believe that an unexamined life is worthless. Even the simplest, worst things have worth.

Me

Hello. I’m Gianna.

I’m really super excited about this philosophy class. I really enjoy thinking about abstract ideas and discussing them so I’m anxious to do so in a class setting. Also, I have a lot of expectations for this class because McCarthy is, of all the people I know, the most fitting to teach a philosophy class. When I took his American Lit class Freshman year he’d often let ideas and discussions from his philosophy class creep into our curriculum. Don’t tell Fanning but I was ecstatic when I found out McCarthy got this class back.

When I’m tasked with introducing myself I automatically think about theatre. It’s always my response to ‘So what do you do?’. I’m an active member in the Young Company and I hope to study acting in New York next year. I’m also a Young Ensemble member at Lookingglass Theatre downtown. I also enjoy dancing and singing despite being relatively mediocre at both.

My entertainment preferences are often a little nerdy. I grew up on Star Wars and my cats are aptly named Luke and Leia. I’m a huge Harry Potter fan. Emily Hawkins and I even went to a Harry Potter convention a few summers ago. I really into Battlestar Galactica, Doctor Who, Supernatural, Hannibal, and a few other shows. My little brother is significantly nerdier than me and a Freshman at WY, so feel free to penny him.

My celebrity crush of late is Taye Diggs. There’s also something about Ethan Hawke.

I am a vegetarian.

I have a coffee addiction.

I think Sylvia Plath is lovely.

Kathleen Hanna of Bikini Kill, Le Tigre and Julie Ruin is my idol.

Thanks,

Speaking of Courage...

The chapter “Speaking of Courage” in Tim O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried” surrounds Norman Bowker and his adjustment back into the American society. Courage is in some ways the opposite of guilt but in other ways works hand in hand. The things that you didn’t do that you regret not doing almost always come back to courage. You didn’t have the courage to do something. Norman Bowker didn’t have the courage to pull Kiowa out of the mud he was being sucked in to. Tim O’Brien didn’t have the courage to jump into the rainy river and swim to Canada, but he wishes he had. He says he wasn’t courageous enough to do it. Courage is a word that we made up to describe what would happen in the absence of our short comings. In the book courage doesn’t exist for the individual outside of regret. When someone does something courageous they never sit back and think “Hey, that was a pretty great thing I just did there. Go me.”  Other people can see someone’s actions as courageous but mostly because they doubt their own ability in being able to handle the situation the same way.

In the chapter courage is also used to mask the absence of courage. Bowker hides a story about his friend’s death in a story about almost winning a silver star, an award for bravery. However, the real courageous thing for Norman to do would be to show his emotional side and openly talk about Kiowa’s death. Instead he hides behind this false macho front. Norman Bowker didn’t even have the courage to approach anyone with this story, no matter what sort of front it was hidden behind. He blamed the fact that he was driving around in a car all day and imagining conversations on people not wanting to talk to him. But he didn’t try. He never approached his father or his ex-girlfriend to try to talk to them. And he had the opportunity at the hamburger joint to share his story but he didn’t.

Courage is a complicated thing, and I don’t think it means what anyone thinks it does.

The Joys of Memoir Writing

I read the memoir "A Guarantee in Life" by Justin S., you can read it here.

The memoir is great, it starts off by clearly stating to the reader what the memoir is supposed to accomplish in a reflection sort of way. He talks about regrets and how everything that those horrible things that happened made you who you are today. He had me right away because that's the sort of mindset I have towards bad things that happen. I think a lot about not having regrets because I have those regretful things to thank for me being who I am, and I can't imagine not existing...because I quite enjoy my existence. Justin (Yeah, we're on a first name basis) did a great job of using imagery and his detailing was just enough to put me right in his shoes. I could feel what he was talking about. When his five year old self got out of the bath tub and put on his pajamas I could feel the way itchy little kid pajamas feel on a freshly bathed body. He was able to tap into my memories to feel his memories. I felt that he could have supplemented his writing with a bit more reflection from his current self back to the memory he is telling. He did a lot of reflection in the beginning and the end but not really  any mixed in. That being said, the reflection that he did put in at the beginning and end was really good and perfectly complimented the story. At the end he talks about his feelings now that he looks back on it and how much he's changed and grown because of his father not being there for him. We also learn that his father becomes a part of his life (however minor that part may be) based on the reflection at the end. The father is expressing regret that he couldn't  have been there for Justin's childhood, tying back perfectly to the beginning of the memoir.

The Vietnam War a brief history

The country of Vietnam was split between the communist north and the anticommunist south and in 1956 the south refused to participate in unification attempts. In 1958 the United States began sending military assistance to Southern Vietnam. By 1968 there were 536,000 Americans in Vietnam which turned many at home against the war.  Richard Nixon withdrew troops from Southern Vietnam to let them fight their own war, which Nixon called Vietnamization (possibly the stupidest name on the planet). He destroyed a communist supply base in Cambodia which violated Cambodia’s neutrality and provoked anti-war protests in the United States. The war stretched on from 1958 through 1973 when the United States withdrew completely. And the 15 years we had troops over there obviously worked really well because in 1975 Southern Vietnam surrendered to the North. So we definitely didn’t waste 15 years making absolutely no progress, that definitely is not what happened…at all.

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/vietnamwar.htm

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/vietnam/index.cfm

"Homeland of the Free"

Langston Hughes is one of the few people who is so widely renowned and deserves every bit of it. He never disappoints. I could read “Let America Be America Again” a million times over and find new meaning each time. My favorite line is “Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath”. It resonates with me for some reason. I feel like patriotism is such a double standard in this country. Calling yourself “conservative” automatically stamps you with an American flag. The right has monopolized patriotism. The tea party is a radical group and they wave around American flags and they’re seen as patriotic. It’s fine for them to criticize President Obama because they’re just exercising their right as citizens. Oh, but if anyone said anything against President Bush they’d be shot down as unpatriotic. I mean, really, how dare anyone criticize a Republican president? Because to be Republican is to be more Patriotic than anyone else in the history of the country…ever! To me, being patriotic is to expect your country to be the best it can be, which can include criticizing a completely out of touch President.

America was built on good ideas but it has never really fully reached those ideals. First the natives were kicked out and then that whole slavery bit, it’s hard to build an equality based country when its foundation is so cracked. America was never America. And I’m not sure it ever will be. Equality is such a hard thing to get to, because part of life is that everyone will never be fully equal. It’s like the first thing we read in English this year, the excerpt from Harrison Bergeron. When do we draw the line on equality? However, when people are hindering other people from doing things, that’s when there’s a need for equality.

Hughes and Fitzgerald have very similar views of the American Dream, that it’s broken. They both go about it slightly different but the fundamentals of the statements they’re making are the same. People at the top are continuously pushing down people beneath them because they can, because it keeps them at the top.