Last Meditation

I found this meditation rather strange, but it actually worked. The very last meditation was us sitting in complete silence and darkness, making me crash and fall asleep. The speaker told us to close our eyes. and told us a soothing message about forgiving others. He told us to forgive someone that’s making us hurt on the inside. The speaker in the video said forgiving them relieves you of an inner hurt. Dwelling in the past makes us weak, so giving up this will make you stronger. I wasn’t sure who to forgive, then it beamed on me- my ex-girlfriend. I had to forgive her for cheating on me with four guys with-in the first few months of us dating. I found that after forgiving that (w)horrid girl.. All in all, it was a strange meditation but cool.

Eve Ensler’s take on Social Justice

Eve Ensler drones on for an excruciating nineteen minutes. I say excruciating, not because it is boring, but because the Ensler made you imagine what horrific things happen to women in Africa. She casually talks about sexual abuse, mutilation of female genitalia, and rape of girls. She makes it very clear that little girls are raped, cut, beaten, and abused. Not only this, but she described one girl’s account of her experience, that she actually ran from her father at fifteen. This girl, like very many others, was going to be sold and trafficked. Most of the girls whom are trafficked are then made into sex slaves. Their ages vary, but they are primarily young girls. Ensler uses these horrific accounts of what happen to support her thesis, social justice. How is it socially just for little girls to be treated as if they are meat? Hell, meat is treated better! She cites from primary sources that these atrocities happen and has written multiple books about it. She has donated thousands of dollars to help women in Africa. She donates to a missionary, that takes in these girls whom are running from traffickers. Many of the traffickers are their fathers trying to make ends meet. Essentially, she sums it all up with support to back her idea, saying she is trying to stop these atrocities from happening in Africa…  Ensler sets a much different mood than other speakers. She introduces a subject that makes the audience think about social justice in a new horrific, gory light. She uses these things to support the idea of social justice. Many other speakers do well by describing social justice, but few do not make the audience understand fully what the thesis is. Ensler grips the audience’s attention and makes them understand. She doesn’t use civil rights to describe it, which may lose interest, but a seemingly fictional idea to back her main idea. It seems to awful to be true, so it grabs the audience’s attention versus other possible speakers.

Although, she does have a common thread like other speakers. Ensler uses several lines of support to bring one common idea up. She supports her thesis to the end and holds the audience’s attention. Her support was more ground breaking which makes her stand out versus others. And that is what makes the difference between good and great. 

Venting about research process

So far, the research process has been confusing in various aspects. I suspected it would be labor-intensive and time consuming, but I also thought there  might be able a slight chance to put off working on the subject, procrastinating for a little bit, and work on my other subjects… but I was wrong. You have to hop right on the subject once you have an inkling of what you want to do or you’ll be persuaded by inner thoughts. Persuaded by your inner-thoughts to hop around from different aspects of the topic to another, like oh that’ll work or that too! We started and had to think of a topic and my head was SWARMING with ideas, controversial topics. I had a few ideas in mind and I thought the research project is a broad idea. I, again, was wrong. The subject was to be narrowed down to a research question that defines the paper. It was a relief to know the question would change over time, but it killed me it had to be narrow. What would I write specifically about this topic? I hardly know anything about my topic. Hell, I’m a straight white boy… I have no background knowledge of the topic other than my best friend is gay and so is my cousin. So we had to dive into research and surface with an even narrower topic, basically an aspect of the topic. I felt cornered, since you can go about the topic in many ways. I still feel cornered because I’m uncertain about my research topic. I know the subject definitely, but to narrow it down and skim off one aspect of that subject I do not know much about.. That’s difficult for me. I thought at first finding resources would be an issue, then the floodgates opened. I was flooded with resources and I had to choose which resource would fit. It’s like deciding which enzyme fits into the catalyst.  With more added to the process, I continue to be frustrated by my inner-self not knowing of which aspect I want to narrow my topic down to. Although, I have a feeling I’ll figure it out.

Three Very Late Night Annotations

Robertson, Campbell. “An issue of gay rights, but not a simple one.” New York Times. 12 May 2012: A1(L). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.

A New York Times writer, Robertson, writes about something that hits close to home, locally, in Charlotte. He does not speak about Charlotte’s rise in banking jobs, but the same-sex marriage debate. Within the first sentence Robertson says, “North Carolina is as good a place as any and possibly better than most to explore the often contradictory sentiments at the heart of the same-sex marriage debate” essentially dispelling the thesis without making the audience think hard. He informs the reader that, North Carolina is now another one of the thirty states that ban same-sex marriage. He is not surprised of the ban, because of N.C.’s progressive past, with a population that is still majorly socially conservative; although, he is surprised how decisive the citizens of N.C voted. Also, Robertson found the decisiveness of the state to pass this law to be contradictory. To support this statement, he polled a survey at Elon University, a liberal arts college, which stated two-thirds of the participants, supported some legal recognition for same-sex couples. Robertson observes various vantage points to why N.C. banned same-sex marriage, thus making the article neutral since he shines light on all ends of the spectrum from religious figure heads, which are socially conservative, to gay rights activists. I will compare the recent ban of same-sex marriage in our own state to other states views on same-sex marriage. I will provide examples how and why the ban of gay marriage in our state is socially unjust.

“Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.” Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 408-409. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.

The author writes the thesis in the first sentence saying; the Defense of Marriage Act is a law that federally denies recognition of same-sex marriages and lets states refuse to some same-sex marriages licensed in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 and signed by Bill Clinton. Congress enacted this law because they did not want homosexuals to have the same federal benefits as legal heterosexual married couples. There are two parts to the actual document. One part says no other state or Indian tribe is required to legally recognize the same-sex marriage of someone of another state or Indian tribe. The second part defines marriage and spouse to federally bar same-sex marriage from recognition through these definitions. The author goes on to explain many more topics, like the opponents views of the law. This is the second source on the Defense of Marriage Act, but multiple sources make the information much more credible. The information on Opposing View Points will be useful for credible background information, since the information is coming from an Encyclopedia of American Law. I will be able to add more information, since this source has more information.

“What is the Defense of Marriage Act.” Wall Street Journal (Online): n/a. Feb 23 2011. The Wall Street Journal. Web. 11 Oct. 2012 .

The Defense of Marriage Act was created in 1996, signed by Bill Clinton. This federal law defines marriage as the partnership of a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Marriage of same-sex couples is legal in few states, but the people who are married in these states are not considered married under federal law. This makes it impossible for a partner to inherit tax benefits from the deceased spouse. The anonymous Wall Street Journal author states the thesis clearly as, “The law says the federal government will only recognize marriages that are between a man and a woman.” The anonymous author explained that the opponents of the marriage law believe the law violates the Constitution’s equal protection of the law. Under careful consideration of the current judicial administration, they believe the marriage law is unconstitutional. The law will not be overturned and most likely will not be changed, unless a court overrules it. A similar thread appeared recently in California, where voter-approved state law, Proposition 8, banned gay marriage. It is now being considered unconstitutional and the Defense of Marriage Law is being reconsidered. This source gives light to what the Defense of Marriage Law is. The Defense of Marriage Law essentially bans same-sex marriage at a federal level, so this source will give me credible background information on the law.

Library.helped.alot

After going to the library and listening to ‘our personal librarian’… He helped us understand how to use databases, ebooks, and how to search for research documents. With this knowledge, I can know find resources easier. I can go on the Johnson and Wales Library website to look over credible resources. This is time saving versus slaving over tens of books, that will not end up helping. These databases and ebooks will end up helping me save time and in the end find better sources. Databases and online resources pool information together, thus making it easier to find more resources. These are not just resources, but credible resources. I know all of these resources are credible, because they have been verified credible. For a source to be on this website, it must be published. With this knew found knowledge, I can find credible resources for my research project.

Huey defines Social Injustice.

Huey essentially defines social injustice as the oppression or unequal treatment of a populous; using the Lakota Native Americans as an example to thoroughly define how oppressive the American government is. Through the fifteen minutes of depressing examples, he explained their modern existence. He explained the majority of the population is Alcoholic and there is constant domestic abuse in the tribe, which leads to grandparents raising children.

Huey describes the Lakota’s past history in chronological sequence. He said the Lakota Native Americans of Blackfoot Hills, North Dakota, the majority, were killed or pushed out of the area. He showed the audience a map of the U.S., that if the Lakota were treated fairly, would have a reservation the area of Iowa. The Lakota now have a one-hundred mile area to fit their population. The American treated the Lakota’s unfairly and still are receiving little compensation for what they did in the past.

Social (In)justice

Stephenson is what one would consider a charismatic speaker. He lights a fire under you and you want to continue watching what he has to say.  I watched this video two days ago, so I am cloudy on how Stephenson defined social (in)justice. Webster’s Dictionary defines social injustice as the distribution of advantages and disadvantages in a society. This is also known as Egalitarianism.
I vividly remember Stephenson saying that when he went to Germany, he asked about their capital death policy and the people at the meeting looked appalled. This is ironic, considering Germany’s dark history. They have no room to talk! He believes deciding someone else’s life is socially unjust.
To add to this, Stephenson speaks of a thirteen year old African American boy that was held accountable for an adult crime, such as murder, in adult court. I personally do not believe this is socially unjust since he committed murder, but I agree with him whole-heatedly, thinking children should not be tried in adult court with the high possibility of capital death. He jokingly tells the crowd that if the jury tried the boy as a seventy year old Caucasian man, the end result would be different.
Stephenson speaks of when Rosa Parks, his grandmother, and elderly city officials reminisced of their past. As they reminisced, Rosa Parks spoke of the time she knew clearest; being kicked off the back of the bus and she held her own, staying there. Rosa Parks described to him how difficult being a black woman was at the time and how it was socially unjust.

The Things They Carried- conflict resolution

His inner conflicting feelings are mainly that O’Brien has killed a man and has witnessed unheard of things. He is feels guilty for his life and does not know how to handle this, seeming like a trainwreck waiting to happen. O’Brien holds a pair of Kiowa’s sandals and he decides to bring them back to Vietnam, so he travels to there with his nine year old daughter. He then takes his nine year old daughter to the ‘Shit fields’ in Vietnam where Kiowa died. O’Brien finds comfort in dropping Kiowa’s sandals back in the ‘shit fields’ and he gets an overwhelming sensation to go in the shit fields himself. He was possibly reminiscing and he goes in as a baptizing ritual, cleansing himself of is sorrows and grief he’s held the past years. He understands moments later that he should stop thinking of the man he would have been, had it not been for the war, but decides to deal with it. He understands that he uses his story telling as relief and his stories unload his inner burdens, even if he does have to tell his nine year old daughter he killed a man. He gets a sense of relief from this.

The Things They Carried conflicts

In O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried”, O’Brien faces multiple types of conflicts. The short story that comes to mind the quickest is “On the Rainy River”. O’Brien faces Man versus Society in this short story. He does not believe that the war is right in any way. He calls himself a twenty-one year old college student that is a ‘Liberal’, justifying that him being drafted into the war is unbelievable. He runs away from his home town in hopes of ditching the war. This is two conflicts now. Man versus Self and Man versus Society.  O’Brien runs and lives with Elroy Berdahl for almost a week. I believe O’Brien is conflicted with himself. He cannot find it in himself to go to the war, because he does not want to be a pawn of the government fighting a useless war. He is conflicted with himself and since he is running from the draft he is conflicted with society. Society needs him to fight in the war and to bring back justice. “Destroy those Commies!” and all of that propaganda. In the end O’Brien gets paddled down the Rainy River, a river in Minnesota that goes to Canada, and Berdahl makes it apparent that O’Brien can get off and run to be in Canada. O’Brien now has the choice of being a draft runner or going to war. O’Brien chooses the latter, only because of persuading himself. Berdahl does not say a word, besides smiling and nodding. O’Brien could have ditched the draft, but he was conflicted with himself so he goes to war.
My favorite scene has been when Mitchell Sanders  tells the trillion dollar artillery drop story. Mitchell Sanders tells the story of the six men hiking in the Vietnam mountains. As the men trek through the mountains they hear something. Something like an orchestra or as they say chamber music. They hear chatting and instruments playing. They hear martini glasses and other civilized sounding things. They say they hear a cocktail party and radio a massive army to blow up whatever it was. They call in air strikes and napalm trees. They blow down the mountain ridge and they still hear them. They head down the mountain and say absolutely nothing. When the colonel asks for all the explosives and incendiaries the men look at him and say nothing, like they’re blind and dumb. The colonel says it was six trillion dollars and they continue to say nothing. It’s my favorite because the colonel is amazed of their silence. I love how eerie it is, that they hear noise before and after the artillery drop, and it is in the middle of absolutely no where.

It isn’t connected to the main characters conflict. It’s an eerie and funny story.

Tree walk

I set my head on the desk, shut my eyes, and drifted off to ‘la-la land’- the place where dreams come true. I was walking down one of my old neighborhood streets, which in the dream is now abandoned, and continued walking until I got to a cul de sac. There’s a sidewalk that leads from this neighborhood to the public school nearby, which has a soccer field. I walked down this side walk until I got to the soccer fields and past the fields until *WHAM* I hit an old oak tree. City ordinance will not let trees over two hundred years old to be cut down. This tree looks like the tree from Avatar, but is much smaller. Imagine a very large oak tree awkwardly sitting in the middle of a meadow. Multiple soccer goals are about half a mile away, so all there is on this meadow is this oak tree awkwardly sitting in the middle of the meadow. It has no tree friends, just that one tree. Its roots span out for a few feet and it is a very large tree. It rises about two story levels. When you look at the tree it doesn’t look like your generic tree, but an ancient oak tree. It’s massive with large bumps on it, like warts. Scanning the tree you would think it is a hundred or so years old… The tree did not have anything, besides comfort. It was a warm and sunny day in this dream, so I was without sunglasses. The tree did provide shade.

When I went for this walk and meditation, I did not find a doorway. I sat on one of the tree roots and fell asleep.