Wisconsin

“A flyover state,

Nothing but fields” they say,

“All they have are cows,

Those cheeseheads got no clue.”

 

Let me tell you something many do not understand,

 

We may have more grass

Than cement and asphalt,

That’s not a problem that needs fixing,

 

We enjoy the hustle and bustle of Milwaukee streets,

We love the wild atmosphere of Badger game day,

This is all true,

But our true Sconnie pride isn’t found in these places,

 

You’ll find it in the wide open spaces and fresh country air,

The children playing in the streets

Not worried about traffic,

 

The tractor driver holding up a line of cars on a back road,

The fisherman sitting on the dock every weekend,

No one to accompany him,

Just him and the setting sun,

 

The bleachers bowing underneath jumping fans on a Friday night,

Small town boys feeling like pros under bright stadium lights,

Bonfires with friends,

And cookouts every weekend,

 

A tight knit community,

A family brought together not by blood,

But by the place we live

 

 

 We are proud of this place
And the people within it,
Our home,
With the happiest cows
And even happier people.

Social Mobility in America

Personally, I believe social mobility is possible in America. But, there are many intricacies that need to be taken into account. No two people on this earth are exactly alike, so each and every case is different in some way. Some are lucky enough to be born into a wealthy heritage. Others strive from the power of self motivation. In my opinion, that is the strongest aspect that is taken into account—the willpower of the person involved.

                Source B states: “…countries spend more on the education of poor children than rich ones, in America the opposite is true.” This has a lot to say about the mindset of our country. Many believe that those with the correct resources are the ones who will succeed. While this may be true in some cases, not everyone takes advantage of the resources that are available to them. Those who have grown up in wealth know nothing else. So they grow accustomed to these privileges. They are not appreciative of the things they have because everything has been handed to them. Take private school as an example. Most wealthy parents pay to have their children placed in private school because they believe they will receive a better education. First of all, let me point out that this is not true. Just because the teachers at private schools are paid by a private investor does not mean that they are a better educator. There are many fantastic teachers that are found in public schools around the country; ones that should be paid more but pay no attention to the loss because they love what they do. One important aspect that should be taken into account is the abilities of the students. If you compare one student from a private institution to a student from a public school, there may be no differences in learning capability at all. But, the student at the private school will receive more credit because of the belief that private schools provide a better education to all students. Maybe a private school student has a learning disability… what is thought of them then? The point I am trying to make is that sometime in the future, in the workplace, those two students will be compared again. This time, they will be compared fairly, by ability and not cost of schooling. That public school student could rise up to the head of a company and make more money than the family of the private school student all together.

                Self motivation is the key to social mobility. That is how our country was founded. Men and Women alike fought for what they wanted and what they believed in. Henry Ford wanted to make cars in a more productive way, so he perfected the assembly line. He spread this technology to other self-motivators and made himself an enormous fortune. A beautiful quote from Source D says it perfectly: “The true beauty of America lies not in its fruited plains or purple mountain majesties, but in the determination of its people.” Our country would be in ruins if it weren’t for the self-motivators—those who want to make the world a better place. Even those who want monetary value from their success had to start with  an idea that would help others more than themselves. They wouldn’t be making millions if they only created something for themselves. They take their idea, tweak it to reach a large number of people, and get the job done. I will not deny that there are those who benefit from others work—such as the daughter of a hotel chain tycoon. But their work did not get them there. They cannot be truly happy with their lives. Deep down, we all want to accomplish something ourselves and have it known. It’s human nature. The American Dream was founded on the idea that you will be noticed for what you do. And as stated by Sara Rimer, “…the American Dream is working hard for something you want. (Source C)"

                 So many changes have been made to American Society. But after all this time it is still possible for someone to move through the classes and use social mobility to their benefit. It is said that anyone can do it, but this is not true. You have to have the right attitude and self motivation to carry you through. The American Dream was not created by bystanders.

Puritainism in America

        I think Matthew Hutson made mediocre arguments attempting to portray America as Puritan. I see where he is coming from, yet I don't completely agree. He states "They also believed in predestination and viewed success as a sign of salvation. This led to belief in success as a path to salvation: hard work and good deeds would bring rewards, in life and after." He connects the strive for success as a religious endeavor, when I believe it merely materialistic. Yes, we all dream of fame and fortune, but it isn't driven from a religious purpose. We do this for self-fulfillment-- to have the newest and coolest things. Also, the addition of experimental data is usually a great argumentative strategy, but the data he added to his article wasn't convincing. It seems like he found any information possible: student performance on fabricated puzzles was not enough to persuade me.

i love kaitlyn summers

       In the early 20th century, the United States entered an era of industrialization. As cities emerged, the center of population was shifted from rural to urban areas. The industry of Agriculture was put on the back-burners as the time of the wealthy businessman had arrived. Theodore Roosevelt was a man who dedicated much of his presidency to protect Agriculture, protect consumers, and control corporations. Trusts and Monopolies are examples of partnerships that were harmful to the average consumer. They were formed to raise prices and gain maximum profits for businessmen-- bringing money into their pockets and out of those belonging to middle and low class citizens.

       Breaking trusts and weakening monopolies was TR's passion. He believed that the average consumer should be protected from increasing prices. His goals focused on placing power back into the hands of the people of the United States. The word "power" was one of TR's most frequently used words in his inaugural address-- which I tied to his actions as a trust-buster.

       Roosevelt's successor, William Howard Taft, is known to have shared similar policies with TR. This is because TR and Taft had become good friends throughout their political years, and TR wanted Taft to pass on his ideas after he left office. The duo worked together to determine what actions Taft would take to limit business control in the United States once he was sworn into office.

       In Taft's inaugural address, some of the most frequently used terms were "business" and "secure." Business refers to the dedication that he and Roosevelt shared to limiting the power of corporations. The word secure could be used to describe a multitude of political ideas. But, I believe Taft was directing attention to the necessity of protecting the consumer, and securing their financial interests.

       Because Taft and Roosevelt had similar priorities, their inaugural speeches had many striking similarities. They would not stand for a country in which business rules, and the people are taken advantage of.

Analyzing Apocalypse Now

There were several strategies Francis Ford Coppola used in the opening scene of Apocalypse Now that was effective in setting a certain mood for the viewers. One of the main aspects I noticed was the music choice. Music has a certain effect on all of us. It can change our mood in an instant, and sometimes change our habits. A great example of the use of music is in the ASPCA commercials, the ones with all the sad-looking animals. The pictures are usually accompanied by a soft, slow song sung by Sarah McLachlin. For Apocalypse Now the song used was “The End” by The Doors. This was a great choice because it had an intense feel to it. Like the music found in horror movies, this song made the audience feel uneasy, so they knew something wasn’t right.

Another example would be the use of multiple pictures in the frame. Using multiple pictures in one shot was effective because it set the scene. For example, in one shot there was a man smoking, the helicopter, and the fire in the background. This composition helped the audience know that all of these factors were important, and they all worked into the film. Coppola most likely used this strategy to get his point across without taking up too much time. A boring introduction to a movie can affect how the audience views the rest of the movie.

Sound and Fury

Watching this video really opened my eyes. I never realized that deaf people felt that their world was living inside another. A person would have to lead an entirely different way of life to truly understand them. Throughout the film I found myself constantly changing my stance on the issue because I could see valid arguments on both sides. The main argument I had against the implant is the fact that I don’t know what it is like to be deaf.

                That made me realize, yes, I don’t know what is like to be deaf, so I have no evidence to believe that someone’s life would be better that way. I realized that I belong to the “hearing discourse,” and that is all I have ever known. That’s how I decided that if in the future I was to have a child that was born deaf, I would get the cochlear implant for them. The hearing world is the one I thrive in. My entire family can hear, my friends can hear, and the vast majority of my community can hear.  I would want my child to grow up in the world I was familiar with, so I could help them succeed and be the best they can be. If they did not have the implant, I am not sure how well I would be able to communicate with them.  I would always feel an invisible barrier between the two of us.

                The evidence I have actually comes from the deaf family in the film. Since their entire family is deaf, they felt it was best that Heather did not get the transplant—the deaf world was the one they thrived in. If Heather was to get an implant, they felt she would be taken out of their world and be placed in one that was unfamiliar to them. In other words, they would be losing a connection to their daughter. My argument has the same intention behind it, yet it comes from a different perspective.

                I was happy to see that the deaf people in the movie didn’t feel that they had a disability. They had a positive outlook on life, and people who have that are always the happiest. I have to say I disagree with them though. Peter said he was in a high position at his job, yet he also stated he had trouble communicating with his co-workers. He also knew that there was no hope of him climbing the corporate ladder. To me, this is a handicap. Something that prevents you from becoming something you want to be is a handicap.

                 How do we determine what is better for someone? Most of us have only lived in one world—either the hearing or the deaf. We are biased because we only know one side of the story. It would be interesting to ask someone who has lived in both worlds to see what they think.