Biggest Fear

While I’ve never had any problems with swimming or being in the water, I have been afraid of drowning for as long as I can remember. This fear was only cemented further into my mind when I visited Mount Olympus for the first time when I was ten. My parents had planned the trip for mid-August back in July, and I had been anxiously waiting for the day that we would go.

On the day of, I woke up bright and early, which is not like me at all, and eagerly packed my things so that we could leave. Soon enough we were off to the park and everything was going great. When we arrived, my brothers and I jumped out of the car and rushed into the park, unable to contain our excitement. The day was shaping up to be a good one as I rushed into the wave pool. Instantly I wanted to go out as far as possible in order to get the huge waves. So I went, past three feet, then four, then five, and finally stopping at the six feet marker. It’s important to note that when the waves were going, It was more like four feet (when they weren’t crashing into you).

I swam, jumped, and “Super-Manned” through the waves until I felt the urge to go even deeper: I wanted go right out to the buoy. With that in mind, I swam towards it, fighting through the progressively larger waves all the way. Upon finally arriving, I already felt fatigued from the swim and doubted the intelligence of going out so far. As the thought crossed through my head, I was struck by an enormous wave that sucked my under the depths of the water. An invisible force stopped me from being able to come to the surface as I struggled under the waves. The initial crash had knocked most of the air out of me, and I was beginning to blackout when finally I managed to escape the grasp of the wave and surface. Gasping for air, I looked around to find that I was standing in just over one foot of water – I had been sucked under the water and carried nearly a 100 feet back to the entrance of the wave pool!

Ever since that day, I have been especially scared of drowning as I know how frightening and out of control you feel being trapped under the water. Luckily it isn’t something that affects me on a day-to-day basis, but every time I go swimming there is part of me is always thinking about my trip to Mt. Olympus.

Sound and Fury

After watching Sound and Fury, I was left with a completely new viewpoint about deaf people. Before the film, I had always thought that being deaf was a handicap and a curse; however, Sound and Fury brought many original ideas to me such as the awareness of “deaf culture”. It is this idea that is the driving force behind not implanting a cochlear implant into a deaf person. On the other hand, there are also many strong arguments for why a child would benefit from having a cochlear implant such as the idea of “living in both worlds”.

With this in mind, I decided to take a deeper look into the backbone of these arguments and how the film expresses them. The main reasoning behind a child not receiving a cochlear is the fear of that child losing their “deaf culture” or the way of life for a deaf person. For example in Sound and Fury, Peter and Nita worry that if they give their daughter Heather an implant, she will forget that she is deaf. Heather will mold to the hearing world and try to distance herself from the deaf world. The movie does an excellent job of portraying Peter and Nita’s feelings about this, allowing the viewer to understand them without being deaf. Another argument the film brings to the table is the idea of the implant not working well. While success rates are generally high in younger children, Peter and Nita feared that if something were to go wrong, Heather would be shunned from both worlds putting her in a separate “cochlear world”. I believe that these arguments are quite effective as they personally allowed me to sympathize with them and at least understand their reasoning behind not implanting their daughter, even if I don’t agree.

Switching gears to the other side of things, there are also many strong arguments that support having a cochlear implant. The main one shared in the video was the idea of being able to have all the doors open for the child, not being limited by their deafness. This is the main drive behind Chris and Mari’s decision to implant their son. They don’t want him to be held back by his deafness and later resent his parents for not giving him a cochlear implant. An example supporting this is when the movie shadows Peter for his normal work day. He constantly needs help from a translator in order to work, thus stopping him from moving and further up in his company. Another argument that was brought into the film was that deaf schools were not as suitable as hearing schools. Sound and Fury talks about how some deaf children graduate high school with a fourth grade reading level. It was because of these reasons that Chris Mari chose to implant their son. In my opinion, it was the right choice. Unlike Peter and Nita, deaf culture isn’t as big of a factor since both of them can hear. With this in mind, it seems that the positives of the cochlear would outweigh the negatives for a hearing family, while for a deaf family it is really just a personal choice that has to be made.

After having said all of this, on the whole I thought the movie did an excellent job of showing both sides of the story and not letting bias become a factor. It simply provides all the facts and all the opinions, so that the viewer can make an informed decision for themselves. I believe that Sound and Fury is an eye-opening film that makes the viewer re-consider all they know about deaf people and their culture.

Julian Assange/WikiLeaks

After having read Schoenfeld's article, I am somewhat split on how I feel towards what WikiLeaks does. I believe it is important to not only take opinion into the matter, but also the legal aspect. In my case these two aspets contradict each other.

When looking at WikiLeaks from a legal standpoint, it seems clear to me that Julian Assange and anyone else associated with WikiLeaks are innocent. In Schoenfeld's article he clearly states that in order for them to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 Assange must have intended for the information to hurt the U.S; however, it would be extremely hard to prove this point. Personally, I don't think Assange's goal was to hurt America; he almost certainly just felt that the citizens of the U.S. should know what's going on in there own country. When this as well as the first amendment are considered, I think it's clear that Assange is innocent in a court of law.

Despite how I feel about WikiLeaks and Assange from a legal standpoint, personally I think that he had no right to publish classified documents without government permission. Assange can't know the repercussions of his work. Assange may have unknowingly killed an American spy or gave away the position of American troops. In return, all that is gained is information that the public will forget within a month. In my opinion Assange was and is too impulsive in how he runs WikiLeaks, and I completely disagree with the idea of a website that releases classified information.

The Ethics of Living Jim Crow

         Upon reading this the Jim Crow essay by Richard Wright, one of the most prominent things that I took away from it was how well the author managed to capture the life style of an African-American during the 1930's. Wright fully explains just how horrific it was to be in the south during these times through his use of personal experiences as well as stories about other African-Americans.

          Although most people know that racist acts were frequent and unpunished for far too long in much of America, Wright connects the reader to the essay by using his own life as an example. One strong instance of this is when he talks about how he was beaten and forced out of his job just for forgetting the Mr. before a white man's name (although it sounds as if he didn't even forget it actually).

Despite having learned much about this already in school, I'm still astounded at how long African-Americans were treated as second rate citizens if even citizens at all. One thing that caught my attention in this essay though was that Wright didn't even realize he was treated any different than white  people until in his teen years when he was hit by the broken bottle. I had always been under the impression that African-Americans in that time were brought fearful of white people even when very young.

          My personal reaction to this essay was that I though it was very strongly written and demanded a reaction from the reader. After reading, I gained a new appreciation for the hardships that African-Americans faced and felt angry about how severely they were discriminated against during the early to mid 1900's. The amount of punishment they endured without any repercussions for the attacker makes me sick.

        After having reflected on all of this, I think that this article does a fantastic job of showing the reader exactly how corrupt and blinded America was at one of its darkest moments in history. The way Wright doesn't sugarcoat the atrocities of that time and incorporates his own life experiences into the essay make it an exceptional read.

       
       

Talk of the Town Essays

          After reading the two essays by John Updike and Susan Sontag, the most striking thing I noticed was the difference in what the author took out of 9/11. It was like day and night reading the two papers. Their opinions can be summarized as the following: Updike took a more standard, remorseful look at the twin tower bombings while Sontag expressed a "we had this coming to us" attitude which borderline defended the terrorists.
          Some examples of that support my opinions of Updike's writing are laced throughout his essay. He takes a very dramatic approach to 9/11 by recounting where he was, what he was doing, etc. Then later on in the essay he attempts to inspire some nationalism in the reader by saying things such as "this is a country worth fighting for". When these aspects of his paper are analyzed along with his overall attitude during the essay, it becomes clear that Updike falls in with the majority of Americans after 9/11- horrified by the bombings but also very patriotic.
         While Updike may be the voice of the majority, Sontag most certainly is not. Her essay practically stood up for the terrorists through the manner in which the essay was written as well as the actual writing in the paper. Although this isn't to say she necessarily approved of the bombings, just that she understood them. An example of this is when Sontag talks about how the terrorists are not cowards, and America is actually the coward since they bomb countries such as Iraq where retalliation is impossible for the Iraqi people. Near the end of her power, she hints at what she thinks America needs to be. Sontag states "Who doubts that America is strong? But that's not all America has to be". I believe she is saying that America needs to not just be a military force, but a force that will realize the consequences of their actions and make decisions accordingly. With this in mind, It's clear that Sontag is less concerned with the actual affects of the bombing and more concerned with the why.
       So which paper did a better job of capturing 9/11 and the events of that day? Well it really depends what the reader is looking for. Updike's essay was brilliant in the way that it described the bombings and took the reader back in time to that day. You could almost hear the crash of the planes through the paper and feel the shivers down your spine. Sontag's essay on the other hand provides valuable information as to how America can improve and learn from the bombings. She firmly backs her opinions with valid arguments and makes the reader think.
       In my completely subjective view, I enjoyed Sontag's paper more simply because it was a more unconvential view of 9/11 that left the reader believing that change needs to be made. Any paper that can accomplish that is a successful paper in my mind. If I had one critique about the essay, it would be that I thought she was rather cold in her writing. Sontag offered no condolences for the victims nor sadness of any kind. In my opinion this is a flaw because empathy is a key factor in writing. Sontag would have done well to sympathize with her audience in the beginning to capture their attention. Then she could have gone into her main point. As it stands, the first time I read the paper I felt almost angry at how blunt she was. Despite this, Sontag wrote a fantastic paper providing a unique view on 9/11.
      With all the information presented, there is no doubt that Updike and Sontag both wrote two vastly different yet elegant papers that entrance the reader and take them deep into the events of September 11.
         
         

Introduction

Hello everybody and welcome to my AP Compostion blog. My name is Will Bacon and I will be a Junior at MHS next year. Regarding school, I think of myself as a hard-working, determined student who always strives to excel in class. My favorite classes would have to be the various english or science classes that I have taken, and of course gym because who doesn't like gym?
          Outside of Academics my hobbies include playing tennis, soccer, or cards, and going boating, four-wheeling, or snowmobiling. Last year I was a part of the tennis and soccer team at the varsity and JV level respectively. Other than this I also occasionally play basketball with my friends, but I will be the first to say that I'm far from a super-star at that sport.
          This summer I have had the pleasure of being able to do nearly every one of these hobbies except for snowmobiling of course. As I write this, I am in Montana-a place my family and I visit every summer-enjoying the weather (despite being unseasonably warm), scenic views, and playing Pinochle, a card game that my family particularly relishes. The other day we went for a ride on the four-wheelers that ended up being a 50 mile, 6 hour excursion after we lost our way among the many mountainous trails.
           Besides hobbies, I have a passion for traveling as well. Throughout my life I have visited numerous states in the U.S. such as Montana, Arizona, Minnesota, Wyoming, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Virginia, Texas, S. Dakota, and N. Dakota. I have traveled to a myriad of countries outside of the U.S. as well including Italy, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria (briefly), Mexico, and The Vatican. My favorite part about traveling is observing the differences in culture and lifestyle that each country presents. For example, in Rome I noticed how absurd the traffic is there. Drivers there are absolutely  nuts going over curbs, through alleys with inches of space on either side, and nearly crashing into eachother! All you can hear is the squelch of brakes and the honking of horns. If you compare that to a place like Montana where traffic is seldom and open spaces are bountiful, there is a massive difference.
        I hope you learned a little bit about me through this post, and I look forward to meeting all of you this upcoming school-year.