The Scarlet Letter- a Classic?

The Scarlet Letter is a definitive classic novel. The story is so impressive in many ways. Although a certain English teacher made it the book of choice to read over a semester where she discussed classic novels, a conclusion will not just be drawn from that evidence alone (although it very likely could be). The novel portrays certain problems that exist in the world today. Because some of the events are relatable to real life stories for some people, it makes the book more lasting than thoise which do not have exciting/relatable themes.

In the novel, a woman named Hester Prynne decides to get with another man because her husband went overseas and did not try to contact her for a few years. As a result, she gives birth to a baby girl in wedlock. The town knows her husband is not present, and decides to punish her for it. Besides being locked up in prison for her "adulterous acts," she has to wear a life-long symbol of shame. She must wear a Scarlet "A" on her dress for life, so others know that (and are weary) she is an adulterer. The novel ends with Hester escaping, but returning to Boston to wear her "A". No one quite knows why, but she dies and is buried next to her mister (mistress).

The theme that reoccurs in this book is adultery. It's not talked about a lot ins coiety today. However, it happens often. There are certainly studies that show a large percentage of both men and women have cheated on their spouses. However, the consequences for such actions are not the same, at elast certainly not in America.

Here in America, promiscuity is also popular (at least in the "limelight".) However, there are certain ways in which the shame factor is associated in today's world much like it was in Boston in the story's time setting. Today, adulterers are often known of by word of mouth, and the shame they share is of their (former) family and friends. Most adulterers are put to this type of shame, although some are given another chance. It's rare to se someone not face moral or social consequences from society for these actions (unless they are a celebrity who feeds off of that kind of publicity). The difference between punishments is quite substantial though, in that there is certainly no jail time for this social crime in America.

This book helps historically archive what adultery once meant, and how even in somewhat honest circumstances, it was always a serious offense. It helps people today to remember how it was frowned upon, and how it still should be seen as (a bad act.) America could use a refresher on moral values, and the idea that this book presents is one that is relevant to society today. It is for these exact reasons that "The Scarlet Letter" is indeed a classic novel.

8th Quote- Blog Analysis

A quote on page 145 of "The Scarlet Letter," is one that provides tremendous insight into an akward situation for a parent. The quote on this page, by Pearl, reads, "What does this letter mean, mother? and why dost thou wear it? and why does the minister keep his hand over his heart?" This quote shows an interesting situation in which Hester is being pummeled intoa situation of discomfor, where she doesn't really want to tell her daughter why it is that she has to wear the horrib letter. She doesn't want her to think any less of her than she does already. However, it is quite curious that Pearl is asking ehr mother all fo these questions. It is inferred that she already knows what the letter represents, and that she just wants her mother to be shameful. It's as if she is feeding off of her mother's woes and depression to satisfy her own happiness. It really does seem quite odd, but the daughter is envisioned as having black eyes, adn being somewhat evil. So, in reality, it's believable that a child with that description could actually be trying to torment her own mother. In today's society, there are teenage arguments with parents. Although that is a someone common occurance today, the type of insult and maliciousness of Pearl's somewhat rhetorical questions is a much less common occurance. Children don't normally psychologically abuse their parents, but it seems that Pearl has done so to her mother, Hester.

7th Blog- Quote Analysis

A quote on page 196 of "The Scarlet letter" provides insight into how the character's feel. The quote, by the minister, reads, "May God forgive thee! Thou, too, hast deeply sinned!" This quote is very significant in that the man screaming for forgiveness in sucha way is a teacher and strong servant of the Lord, a minister. It's almost shocking to learn that someone who has so much religious influence in the community has not follwed what he had preached for years. it's relatable to a prisoner and a prison guard, in which the prison guard has a warrant for arrest. In this case, the prison guard is no better than the prisoner. However, appearance at that time kept the two from falling into the same moral category. The fact that the minister has come clean with God is a relief to him. Shortly after this scene, he tells Pearl that he is her father. They exchange kisses, but she secretly despises Hester for a while afterwards. In many ways, this quote is that of a hypocrite. In already saying that he didn't follow what he taught, it shows the minister to be hypocritical. This, in turn, makes him less influential in the community and certainly less-respected. The only thing the minister has to fall back on after this scene is that God is merciful. he repeats it to himself a few times, maybe out of worry, Either way, it's safe to say the minister had a large moment of weakness.

6th Quote- Analysis

A quote on page 186 of "The Scarlet Letter," is significant in relaying facts to the audience. The quote, by Pearl, asks, " Mother, was that the same minister who kissed me by the brook?" This quote is significant in telling the audience that Pearl does not know who this man is, when he is, in reality, her father. It is also a good job of foreshadowing by the author, because I don't think the audience quite knew at this point who the man was themselves. It shows the willingness of the mother to keep it a secret from Pearl, in everyone's best interest. Pearl shouldn't have to worry about who her father is. The minister doesn't need to be shamed as well for what he and Hester did. It seems the two ahd the agreement that they both do not need to be miserable, and if one can take the fall for both, then so be it. Hester is selfless in doing so, and it shows a great deal of character on her part (regardless of what the public perceives her character to be like). This quote is interesting in relativity to the world today. I have heard stories of mothers taking their children to say hello to a man before and not telling them it was their father. Sometimes fathers who run away re-instert themselves into their children's lives only to get close to them without them knowing who they really are. I think this is a defining moment in Pearl's life. Later on, the parents usually tell their children who that really was, and sometimes they snap back with anger (much like Pearl does later in the story).

5th Blog- Quote Analysis

In the book The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, a particular quote caught my eye. On page 160 of the book, this quote was found: "The stigma gone, hester heaved a long, deep sigh, in which the burden of shame and anguish departed from her spirit." This quote is so significant to everything she's going through. It is referring to her Scarlet Letter leaving her dress. As it falls, everything she has felt in the last few years (shame, guilt, angusih) also lie there with it. She hopes to leave it there, never to see it again (although her daugter Pearl won't have any of it). It represents a moment of peace and freedom for the woman that just wanted to be accepted. It seems unfair that she was put int he position she was put in, so this moment where she sighs of relief makes the audience react in sucha way that they almost sigh with her. The stigma from the quote is obviously referring to the Scarlet Letter that was stitched onto her dress. The uniqueness of this quote is partially the emphasis on the sigh. She did not just let otu any sigh, but it was a "long, deep sigh." There is a quite a difference between the two. The other significant part of this quote is where the shame and anguish depart from. The soul is an extremely "powerful" part fo the body for most believers (of anything to do with soul). Using the word soul, to have the bad depart from, means that she is altogether better for eternity because of what she has done. The moment she left that letter on the ground, she was cleared and free from the sinful nature society has to see in her. The soul is arguably the strongest (and most effective when writing) part of the body. This quote really has an impact on the reader's vision of the scene.

Blog Post Response to a Quote #2

A quote on page 83 of The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, reads, "The discipline of the family, in those days, was of a far more rigid kind than now." This quote alludes to harshness of punishment within the family, and it also compares the norm of that time period to the norm of the author's.

Hester Prynne's daughter, pearl, is described as being somewhat disobedient, so this quote appropriately ties in to the story. However, a layer of complexity is added when one considers that Hester herself is being disciplined by a higher authority at the same time she might be trying to discipline her child. This may not bode well with regards to controlling the child's behavior.

This quote helps describe how beatings were common back in the day, though not severe ones. It is almost contradictory, however, that hester may have sufferred beatings herself as a grown woman and an adulter, while her somewhat disobedient child may have to suffer the same from a "criminal."

In time, it is almost certain that Pearl would lose all respect for her mother based on her crime and what other people say about her. She will want to disobey her orders and separate herself from even being associated with Hester. She is probably ashamed of her heritage, and for this reason she will likely defy her mother with hopes that one day she can be considered socially normal. In this case, the want to be accepted by society may very well outweight the bond between a mother and her child.

Blog Quote Response #1

A quote from page 74 of The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, says," She could no longer borrow from the future, to help her through the present grief. This quote tells so much about the main character, Hester's, situation. It is describing the fact that there is no hope for a better tomorrow than there is of today. Things were only getting worse for her, and in turn, she may even lose her child.

Even though Hester had the chance to leave the city, she didn't. She stayed there to face the agony of being taunted by the public for her scarlet letter everyday. This quote shows that she is never going to have a better future, but in fact, a seemingly worse one. Everyday, Hester passes a new group of people in the streets who will see her and potentially make fun of her. So, in turn, everyday more and more people recognize Hester and resent her for her actions. More and more people hate and taunt her everyday, and some wish she just wouldn't exist at all. Before everyone recognized her, I'm sure life was easier. However, not that more and more people know who she is and what she has done, thanks to the letter on her clothing, she can no longer look to the future to help her through her grief. The future is most likely more scary than it is helpful with regards to her situation. In conclusion, this quote recognizes the grief that Hester faces at the present time, but it also makes the reader aware that her situation/condition in society will most likely never improve, but will likely deteriorate.

Response to "Pre-reading" #2

After reading this section about men and women's equality (or lack thereof), it is evident that some of the authors had very different ideas on the matter of equal rights.

In some of the segments from articles, the way women are described is almost demeaning. If I were to be referenced to as only being property belonging to my spouse, I would surely be offended. Women are also referred to as having no place in society, in terms of social or economical involvement once married. This sounds like it prevents them from being recognized except through their husband, and that they wouldn't be able to get a job in most cases. If i were a woman at the time when these articles/laws were published, the way these sentences are worded would have made me reconsider ever marrying. However, I also that marrying was the complete norm for any woman at the time, and they would likely have been frowned upon if they never married. So, it was a lose lose situation either way.

I'm sure that the world today is quite different in understanding equal rights. One prime example of this is that I am one of only two guys in my English class, which is comprised of about 20 people. We are all attending the same class and learning from the same teacher. I'm sure if any school like this had ever existed, especially with such a low ratio of men to women, it would not have been highly regarded back then. However, today, I feel blessed to have the chance to have an education, and that everyone is protected equally under the law. I cannot imagine my school, let alone my life, being remotely the same if the world was as it were hundreds of years ago.

The article also mentioned something very interesting with regards to the custody of children. Custody, back then, was normally given preference to the father. I can onyl guess this is because he made the money and could care "financially" for the child. This is extremely different than today's world. Primary custodial consideration is almost always given to the mother of a child, today. This is because she gave birth to the child, and I also think it has something to do with the bond between a mother and a child. Also, the circumstance that juries may favor women over men in a case gives them the advantage in a custodial battle. Once again, I cannot express how interesting it is that things happen to change so quickly in society.

I'm sure that most of the bloggers in my class will be offended by the first part of this reading (referring to women not having "equal rights") , and they have every right to be. I am glad that the laws today protect each American and ensure that justice be brought into the situation if the rights of equality are not upheld.

Response to "Pre-Reading" # 1

I have read the section from 241-245 in The Scarlet Letter and it intrigues me. The laws pertaining to adultery seem so harsh in relation to today's world. Since there are no longer any laws punishing those who commit adultery here in America (that I know of), it seems almost surreal that there were ever such laws to begin with. One can hear about adultery, sometimes quite frquently, in the news today. Most people would probably even know someone who's marriage ended because of it. This is sometimes more commonly referred to as "cheating" on one's spouse.

The laws referred to from the passage suggesting brutal whippings under some circumstances, but most suggested death. Capital punishment was not uncommon according to these laws. It looks like the laws suggested in the passage are so brutal because they follow God's word so closely. In its most literal state, I am almost positive that the Bible has a passage referring to adulteres. It most likely mentioned that they are surely to be sentenced to death. It seems as though in the setting where these laws were active, the governments closely followed the word of God.

The change in there being no law against adultery today is most likely a factor because the government doesn't follow the teachings of the Bible as closely as they once did. The separation of church and state occurred some time ago. Since then, purely biblical laws like adultery are laws no more (almost certainly before then, though). However, it is still frowned upon in society even though some celebrities are known to have cheated, or have even acquired fame by doing so.

It was interesting to read this passage to see how much the laws of the world can transform in just a matter of a few generations.

Response to "Employers Have a Lot to Lose," by Barry Newman

The article "Employers Have a Lot to Lose," by Barry Newman, is about fields of major employment that employ substantial amounts of illegal immigrants. New laws against employers make it hard for them to keep all of their workers, because of raids, and fines make it hard to stay financially stable. This article argues that employers shouldn't be the ones who have to decide whether someone is really an American or not. They don't want to face jail time for something they can't tell for sure. Also, how is an employer supposed to know if a document is forged or not? it just doesn't seem fair to hold the honest ones accountable. However, there is a side of unhonesty to this equation.

Some employers take advantage of the lower wages they can offer to illegal citizens. They don't always turn them away for economic reasons, even when thy know something is fishy. However, in times like these where racism is such an issue, even a simple speculation of a legal Mexican-American could lead to some kind of lawsuit. It's ridiculous, even in its purest form. Now that laws have been proposed (at the time of this article) regarding amnesty, or making these workers legal, this gives a sense of security to the workers. However, the employers would face harsher sanctions for the future employment of illegal immigrants (including long periods of jail time).

Although I believe so strongly against illegal immigration, I pity the employers from this article because of their situations. I think this situation is much like that of homeowners versus roofing/private construction workers. There are so few laws protecting the homeowner, however there are plenty of laws that help the contractor get paid in full, even if he/she does his/her job wrong or fails to finish a project. The homeowner is at a disadvantage, while the worker (immigrant) has laws protecting them, even if they are violating a law in the first place. I don't like what is being done to protect the employers, because they are legal citizens unlike the illegal immigrants. In no instance should an illegal alien have more of a right to be protected than an American citizen.

Response to "Death and Justice," by Edward Koch

This is an article written by a liberal who supports the death penalty. It starts out by quoting what convicted murderer said in their final words before they were executed. They all stated that "Killing was wrong, no matter who does it," including the government. This seems like a last stitch effort on the criminal's part to save their life. Murder is wrong, but words weren't going to separate these murderers from their heinous past. They were all put to death.

Mr. Koch argues seven main points, all of which I can relate to, and most of with which I agree entirely. Not only does he "debunkify" the myths associated with capital punishment, but he makes claims as well. He objects to statements like "no other democracy allows the death penalty." He claims that if other countries had the amount of crime (in comparison) and support from the general public on the topic, then they would. I agree, that in some of our largets cities the rates can be large in comparison (at least to smaller ones). Also, he raised the point that not many people are found innocent after death. In fact, those who make it off death row sometimes kill again, multiple times.

Mr. Koch is an extremely courageous man for backing his support of the death penalty as a liberal. (He supports most liberal causes, but it does not describe his stances on other things but as liberal) . It shows that party lines need to be drawn more vaguely, because no person in one party should take criticism for a believe they hold themselves. I do support the death penalty because I think of it as a deterrent, but Mr. Koch provided some other excellent examples, and he argued against some of the adjacent points.

The death penalty is a deterrent because it reinforces the morals of Americans. Most Americans wouldnt be able to commit murder, or don't endorse it because it goes against their religion, or for other reasons. When you add the fact that the government could have the right to execute someone for doing so, the average American would likely never attempt such a dangerous, immoral to their own morals) crime.

Mr. Koch supports the death penalty, much like I do. I am glad that he is not a political figures who holds his value according to basic party lines.

Response to "The Struggle to Be an All-American Girl," by Elizabeth Wong

This was a short essay that reflected on a young girl's past. She wanted so badly to be just like everyone else. When she was in elementary school, she would have to learn Chinese at a night school by her mother's request. Her mother wanted her to learn the foreign language associated with their Chinese heritage. However, the girl just wanted to be a kid and play. She also did not want to be affiliated with the culture. She described it as "humiliating," and referred back to her grandma's awful, "unbeautiful" voice in the supermarkets. After two years of Chinese school, she and her brother had finally convinced their mother to stop making them go there. This was a decision she clearly regretted.

At the end of this essay, the author shows how she wanted to fit in so badly at a young age. However, she reflects upon it now as saddening that she is more like a normal American, not by association, but by choice. Had she not gone the route of quitting Chinese school, perhaps she wouldn't have given up a piece of herself just to fit it. Being an American does have strong affiliations with our slurred English language, and it seems like this pushed her over the edge. She did not want to be unique, but later in life, everyone (at least I do) does.

I'm sure we can all think of a time when we did something for the wrong reasons. We may have even conformed to society's ways on something we objected to. This is what Elizabeth Wong did, and it appears that she regrets her decision everday. This story teaches us to hold on to our backgrounds and our unique habits, because they are the only thing that separate us from the neighbor next door who is your average American.

Response to "Take This Fish and Look at It," by Samuel Scudder

The essay, 'Take This Fish and Look at It," by Samuel Scudder, is about a young man studying to be a scientist. When he meets with his professor for the first time and talks with him about his desired field of study (to study insects), he presents him with an unusual, yet daunting, task. The student had to study a fish. It seemed easy to him at first, however the professor expected him to see a lot more in the fish than that which was first visible. I think that the professor was trying to teach him a valuable lesson that goes deeper than what the eye can see. Observation is not always with your eyes.

In the beginning, the student was told to tell the professor what he observed about the fish. After a few minutes the professor came back into the room. He asked what the student had initially observed. The student answered back to him regarding its structure and body parts. The professor said, try looking deeper. Each time the student saw the professor, he would tell him all the new things he had observed, and each time the professor would say "That's good, but there's something else."

Finally, the student became confused as to what else there was to be seen of this dead fish. He decided to draw it on a sheet of paper. To this, the professor was delighted. He said something along the lines of, "Art is one of your best pairs of eyes." After this, the professor took the fish away from him and made him study without actually observing the object. After a few days, he came up with observations he hadn't when he actually had the fish in front of him. The professor proved a point to him that day. What i gathered from the article is that observations are to be made after looking at the objects. The thought process is obviously involved and infused with making and recording observations. After all, your eyes can't think, but they can give you the necessary information required to produce a thought about something you see.

Response to "Cesar Chavez Saved My Life," by Daniel Alejandrez

The article "Cesar Chavez Saved My Life," is one that threw me for a curveball. Many different ideas are produced throughout the article. Some ideas are tied so deep into the article, that I had to read certain sections twice to understand the connection the author was trying to make. The article reflects on the author's life, and doesn't fail to cover any bases. It discusses how hearing a man prach about his beliefs helped shape his own. It also jumps to some conclusions about the Mexican race, but ends on a good note in which everyone had a selfless moment that failed to recognize race.

Mr. Alejandrez was just an average Mexican fieldworker who had to travel to find work. His family had done the same before he did. One day, he realized that he was being paid over four times less than the men who just sat on a machine all day (he was working by hand). He hadn't noticed that he was even being treated unfairly until a radio broadcast came on one day. Cesar Chavez was on the radio telling his ideas about seeking justice. This struck a chord with Alejandrez, and he and the workers went on strike. The employers agreed to raise their wages a little, but that wasn't the point.

After this, the article skips around to when he organized dances that unified people at prison. It ends talking about an instance where gang members of opposing gangs held hands and dances unified. He mentioned that the world was happy for one moment, and that these people put aside their differences for those few minutes of bliss.

I think Mr. Chavez's radiocast was fortunate to be on at the time it was. It influenced Mr. Alejandrez to want to help all people, for the good of mankind. Mr. Alejandrez talked about how so many of his people (Mexicans) had wound up in jail, much like he did. I believe what he meant by this article is that if you unite everyone, differences will fail to be recognized by society, and no one group can be classified by its race. To Mr. Chavez, we all owe a little thanks. He stood up for justice, and each and every one of us can too (much like Alejandrez did).

Response to "Vows," by Christopher Caldwell

*This Response does not argue against the idea of gay marriage, but against the idea that it would make homosexual couples more acceptable in today's society*

"Vows," by Christopher Caldwell, is a response to an article written by Jonathan Rauch. Rauch is a Washington journalist who mainly writes/responds to gay issues, and who happens to be gay himself. Rauch wrote an article pertaining to the sanctity of marriage. In it, he comes to the conclusion that gay marriage fits the definition and standards of regular marriage. However, Mr. Caldwell, who wrote the article that responds to Rauch's, completely disagrees with Caldwell's conclusion, and how he came to his overall reasonings. I mostly agree with Mr. Caldwell, in that legalizing gay marriage would not solve the problems that gays face in America. There are numerous logical ideas against this information, including lowering standards as opposed to meeting them and changing a law that many consider sacred (this could make quite a few people angry).

Rauch comes to the conclusion that once gay marriage is legalized, that gay citizens in America will be "seen in a new light." He argues that society does not accept homosexuals because they do not conform with society's ideals and traditions. One of these prominent traditions includes marriage. Because homosexuals cannot marry, he argues, they are seen as adulterous and threatening to the community. This idea seems to be a bit nieve. Allowing marraige does not make homosexual couples more "acceptable" in society than before. Caldwell argues that if marriage is altered to fit the desires of homosexuals, that marriage will no longer be a norm in society. The concept of marriage would lose its moral luster, and their would be no new push to accept gay couples, because gay marriage would still be a new idea. (and) New ideas are often not accepted at first, or possibly even at all. There is a method of building up to do so, and going from nothing to marriage is a large step. Quite possible there is a step inbetween no legal tie and marriage.

Also, legalizing gay marriage would create the same kind of problematic opportunity for polygamists. If made legal, not only would it fail to change the unfavorable opinion of homosexuality in America, but it would give polygamists a reason to shout for change as well. Sub-common religions like Mormonism would demand that multiple marriages to the same partner be legal. Once the definition of marriage is altered for a minority group, a majority of Americans would be upset. Also, once altered, the legalities involved with marriage would change altogether, because it only takes one (precedent) case to change the definition of marriage as it has been known for decades. Marriage would not make any difference to society's acceptance of gays (however, I'm not saying gays wouldn't enjoy the right to get married).

In conclusion, Caldwell was right in that Roush failed to realize that changing a normality in society to fit a new idea, is altering the normality as society knows it. Upon changing the idea, it is no more normal and holds less weight within the socially acceptable boundaries in America. It would make no difference to most of America (Roush's reasonings were off).

"Today's Special" by David Sedaris

The main point of this article is to explain how "fine dining" has turned into awful meals. Mr. Sedaris explains that when he and his friend got out to eat in New York, they face ridiculous dishes. He would much rather prefer something simple. However, I think that many Americans can relate to what he's saying. I appreicate simplistic foods because I appreciate the affordability.

Some dishes described by the author have over ten ingredients, and sometimes no one even knows what the ingredients are. Mr. Sedaris talks about how a food with so many different ingredients is humorous because it defeats the purpose of enjoying a meal. A food with so many "odd flavors" can not really be called a food anymore. Sometimes, the plating makes the food a bit less edible and desirable as well. I would much rather prefer a huge burger with cheese over a stick of meat topped with green speckled "things" and shiny glazes with who knows what in them. Sometimes simple really is better.

On to my favorite point about this "busy" kind of cuisine: the ridiculous prices. Although the author did not really touch base on how horrible the prices are. I woud never buy a $35 salad, and I wouldn't care if it had roasted almonds that had been baked in sunflower-seed oil. I would much rather have a salad with French dressing, and for $5 to boot. Although the chefs of New York and other big cities would like to think of these weird combinations of ingredients as food, others would rather call them an "interesting experience." I know that America jumped in late to the game in everything, but this doesn't mean we have to claim new recipes and call them American "cuisine." It's not the quantity that counts when dealing with almost anything, it's the quality, and some things are best served simple (like Google's blank webpage, for example.)

I completely agree with the author's attitude toward "fine dining" : It's not worth it.

"All's Not Well in Land of 'The Lion King' " by Margaret Lazarus

Margaret Lazarus wrote about "The Lion King" (the movie) using deep thoughts and connections she made while watching the movie. She states that the Lion King presents racist ideas, and even implies a gay character. Howver, this was not exactly the first thing that popped into my mind when I think of the movie. Mrs. Lazarus made some pretty significant assumptions when watching this movie. I don't think anyone else could quite understand what she believes, not even her young son, who she said agreed with her.

When I think of the Lion King, I think of the plot, of course. I think of the singing animals and their catchy tunes. I wonder if the little cub is going to survive. However, I never delved in to thought and analyzed the movie for deeper meaning. Lazarus mentions that the hyenas live in a dark place, and are mostly black. She thinks this implies racism. Honestly, the writer wouldn't write such a thing on purpose would he? I would like to think he just wrote it for the story. I am not much for "trying to put thoughts together that weren't supposed to be grouped that way " stuff. Sometimes those kinds of connections can lead to the wrong types of assumptions. For instance, if my grandpa had a long beard and a jolly belly, one could possibly assume that he is Santa Claus. And since "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" last year, my mother is really my grandmother?!?! No, of course not. My grandpa is just round and the fake santa last year was my dad in a suit. See what happens when you try to hard to find something, Margaret?

I thought the article was interesting, however I can't take a series of analogies that outrageous and believe them to be true of the movie. However, I managed to "analyze" one thing about Mrs. Lazarus: she doesn't like Disney.

"Do Americans Really Want Jobs" by Ruben Navarrette, Jr.

Illegal immigration is a touchy subject for some Americans. However, many unauthorized people cross the border into our coutnry, and never check out. How are they surviving? Surely not on welfare, because they don't even exist in our country. No, they're surving because they have jobs. Yes, I said it. There are plenty of illegal immigrants with jobs in America, thousands really. Just the thought that someone who isn't even supposed to be here in the first place has a job when millions of legal citizens don't, just makes my blood boil (especially in this economy). However, this article challenged my thoughts about illegal immigrants, and the work they find in the United States.

Americans often expect the best. Because of our high-standard society, we often think that as a part of it, we have already earned our keep. The article mentions that Americans can often find jobs, but that they do not care for the type of work, or that it doesn't pay enough, or that their schedule falls over their favorite t.v. show. The author makes a point that illegal immigrants are low maintenance, and don't expect a lot, seeing as they were just happy to escape from, say for example, an impoverished country. Illegal immigrants will take anything that pays, most of the time, making them eye candy for the average employer. Some businesses have hired large numbers of illegal aliens in the past because they can save money and the workers require adn expect less of their jobs.

Although I used to be angry at the thought of an illegal immigrant taking up an American job, it's almost entirely true that there is work to be found. It might not be as much pay, or benefits, or hours as one might want. However, it's a job, and in these tough times, anything that pays is a blessing (don't take this too literally).

"Teaching Tolerance in America" by Dudley Erskine Devlin

Mr. Devlin said it best in his article, "Teaching Tolerance in America," stating, "Helping students appreciate and welcome differences in culture, racial heritage, and personal identity…are especially hard to teach." He mentions the problems that cliques, gender discrimination, and social classes create in the average American high school. The article points out that although America is "the land of the free," and so on, high schools are not implicating and enforcing rules and codes to protect the freedom Americans should possess from discrimination.

Among the most noticeable difference between cliques, are racial differences amongst students. These groups mirror the cliques that society has already quietly implemented for years. The author calls out to students and educators to make it so that these groups disappear entirely. However, it is not entirely fair that the young adults and children of America should be faced with the daunting task of bringing Americans of different ethnicities closer together (even if there is success in doing so.) These kinds of issues should be brought to a head and solved by mature adults in America, the very people that taught their kids who they should "eat lunch with," and so on (if not by explanation, by example). Children who cannot tie their own shoes should not be thrown into the fire of racial issues and even tension, though they are more successful at breaking barriers than common adults who are stuck in their ways.

Next, Mr. Devlin mentions the gender issues in classrooms, such as males harassing girls for being "fat," and so on. I can believe that it happens, but the author makes it sound like guys are the only offenders. I have seen some pretty vicious "chicks" talk about other girls, worse than any man could, in my opinion. Although I will agree with the author when he says that the issues exist, I do not think they are up there on the intolerance scale with cliques and social classes.

The last problem mentioned in the article revolved around social classes. We all have them, "geeks, jocks, skaters," it's nothing surprising. However, these groups could potentially be the ones responsible for tearing Americans apart the most (and it starts at an early age). The main problem associated with social classes is bullying. Bullying is an issue that I believe is misunderstood in schools across America. You don't have to be the kid who jams someone's head into a locker to be a bully. It can involve mental harassment as well. I strongly support the "no bully" programs at schools, because they are the quick and even "cool" way to stop harassment before it starts.

The suggestions given by the author to solve these school offenses by groups across America range from implementing uniforms to having tolerance classes offered at school. Frankly, I don't agree with almost any of Mr. Devlin's suggestions on how to build up tolerance. I won't speak much on the uniform issue, but uniforms hinder individuality, and by implementing them, schools would make racial cliques more important, by exonerating the only clear difference that is left unchanged (skin color). I also firmly believe that such tolerance classes would not be taken seriously, and that it would take one, extra special teacher to keep the class from arguing the whole period. Although I do not agree with the authors methods to solving the problem involving a lack of tolerance in schools in America, I do acknowledge that it is a large problem that society is forced to deal with. I think a more appropriate way to find what works best for the students would be to ask them their thoughts and feelings on the matter, much like what the opera company that came here a few years ago did. Students will best connect with what intrigues them, and will only respond passionately to issues that they can relate to. It is important to act swiftly on the matter of tolerance, but it is more important to do it right.