With Great Power Comes Great Corruption

One would think that "with great power comes great responsibility", but actually it comes with corruption.  Most government officials ignore their responsibilities and only focus on one thing: money.    That is the birth of most of the corruption found in the world today, and unfortunately, it is proven in this novel.

The Cali Cartel is full of retired military officials.  They all worked with Jorge back when he was in the Colombian army. Every time he turns a corner he sees a familiar face.  What better than to have people on the inside in order to help you out? These ex officials are familiar with the army's tactics and precisely how to defend themselves and their bosses. Since they know all of these things, shouldn't they also be aware of how bad joining a cartel is?! All of this is proof to how corruption in the Colombian government started long ago.

There aren't enough words to express how apalling everything is.  When it comes to money and corruption, everyone changes in a blink of an eye.  Everyone begins to only watch out for themselves.  Jorge makes that clear when he says, "I know it's wrong and I want nothing to do with the drugs".  He then expresses the fact that he "needs the money" and that his girlfriend "will understand" (Location 99-102).  Could a cartel really seem all that inviting? Aren't there other ways to gain money? Yes, working in the cartel is easy money, however I would rather work hard than risk my life.

It's Not Only About the Tutus and the Pointe Shoes

Ballet Documentary:

Or view it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCM0qgA28Rw&feature=youtu.be

Those Who Share Enemies Usually End Up Helping Each Other

Sharing a common enemy is what made Jorge join the cartel.  He hated Pablo Escobar and his cartel more than anything in the world. Pablo Escobar had murdered a dear friend of his, Rodrigo Lara Bonilla. The Cali Cartel had never hurt him in any form and didn't have the violent reputation the Medellin Cartel had.  Until a certain proposal was made, he had never considered taking sides.  He hated Pablo Escobar but was completely neutral to the Orejuela family and their Cartel.  Until the proposal, he had never considered taking down joining the Cali Cartel in order to take down Pablo Escobar and his followers.  The Cali Cartel's proposal was very simple.

""We want Pablo Escobar dead," said Miguel Orejuela." (49)

At this statement he agreed to hear more about what the Orejuela family had to say.  "Until that moment, Jorge had never given any though to avenging the murder of his friend." (49) "Maybe justice could be done after all." (50) In his mind, he would be serving God and country if he agreed to the proposal.  He would be getting rid of the most wanted man in the country!

They told him that they wanted the deed to be done with British men who had agreed to help the Colombian army fight against the FARC.  The only man who had known the secret was Mario, but the fact that he had told him hadn't bothered him.  The four leaders (Miguel Orejuela, Gilberto Orejuela, Pacho, and Chepe Santacruz) explained to him that the plan was for everything to happen in Escobar's tropical estate, Hacienda Nápoles.  Salcedo asked them about all of the necessities that would be needed in order for the murder to be successful.  Gilberto told him that "whatever" was "necessary" would "be done."(52) After considering all of the possibilities, he decided to do it. It was his fear of the 4 men and his gut feeling encouraging him that made him accept the offer.

It's hard to believe that all of this to be a person's reality. It seems like a fantasy.  The description of Escobar's and Orejuela's home seemed like Cinderella's palace.  It's hard to think that there are many people who work their butts off just to be able to put food on the table, while there are people who do illegal things and becomes millionaires.  Whatever, I guess that is just the way life works.

Money is a very difficult thing to say no to.  It's what causes men to become greedy and sometimes violent and evil.  I guess that is another contributing factor on why Jorge agreed to the proposal.  He had a great job offer in Bogota, but he would have never made as much money as he did in the Cali Cartel had he denied their proposal.  I wonder if I would have been able to decline such an offer.  It would be hard to say no with a close friend dead and the idea of creating a family.  I guess a person's morals can't really be the only contributing factor in making a decision.  So, I guess instead of judging people, we should reflect on what we would have said having been put in that situation.  Would we have also accepted the offer due to his reasons? Or would we have been brave enough to risk our lives and decline it?

The Godfather In Real Life

"If Miguel and the other Cali cartel bosses ever suspected that he had dialed the CIA, he was dead. No trial, no defense- just a few bullets to the brain… if he was lucky. There were worse ways to die." (15)

Most of the population has seen The Godfather. It is a spectacular film of a 1940's New York mafia family and their attempt to protect their empire and families from their rivals. It's hard to believe that the gruesome acts committed in this movie have actually happened in real life.  Can you imagine having to live that type of life? Anyone who is part of a mafia is constantly surrounded by violence, terror, and horrid crimes (to say the least). It's almost like the terrorist group in Colombia, the FARC.  Not precisely in their heinous awful acts, but by their people's decisions.  Most of the people who go into this type of business usually want out.  The only problem is that once a person is in, it's almost impossible to get out alive.

This is exactly the case for Jorge Salcedo.  He joined the Cali Cartel business and six years later he wanted to get out.  For those who have seen The Godfather, it's obvious why this was almost impossible.  For now, the reason he involved himself in such a business is unknown.  Those facts will be revealed later on in the novel, At the Devil's Table. All that is clear is that his friend, Mario del Basto, somehow got him into the mess.

Jorge Salcedo is the son of General Jorge Salcedo Senior, an important figure in the Colombian army.  Salcedo Senior fought against the FARC and was completely against the idea of cartels.  Salcedo makes this clear on pages 24-25.  On page 28 Mario introduces the idea of meeting with "some Cali guys".  Later on does Salcedo realize that he is speaking of the "Cali cartel guys" (29).

At first he is against the idea.  He thought of his father and of everything he fought for in order to improve the country.  However, Mario succeeded in convincing him to meet with them.  He said that they were just an ordinary family who kept "a low profile" (30).  According to Mario, they were referred to as "the Gentlemen of Cali" and were "less violent" (30).  These "gentlemen" were only concerned on hiring more security details for their family and were NOT going to involve him in "the cartel drug business" (32).

How did Mario ever convince Salcedo? Yes, the form in which he expressed the idea made it seem better, but Salcedo had always thought negatively of all cartels.  How can one simply change their mind and not consider their morals?! Of course I have never had to make such a decision, but I would never want to meet those type of people.  Their reputation scares the hell out of me! It's beyond me how a man with good morals that came from a military family every agreed to enter such a business.  At first it may have seen all butterflies and rainbows, but how could he really trust those men?

It's All About the Camera Positions… Literally

When looking at a picture, how many people focus on the camera positions? The norm is for people to not focus on that at all. Hence, ladies and gentlemen, we have been looking at pictures wrong our whole lives! The camera positions are VITAL! Each position has a different meaning and they are used in pictures, movies, tv shows, etc.  They are seen everywhere in the media.  In the next three pictures you will see the following shots:

• Over-the-Shoulder Shot
• Point-of-View Shot (I)
• Point-of-View Shot (II)

The Over-the-Shoulder shot is one of the most common shots seen in pictures and motion pictures.  It occurs when the camera is placed behind the shoulders of the character.  This allows the observer to see the character's head and shoulders.  Usually a second character is seen in the shot and it is the subject of interest.  Instead of having two different close-ups of each character, the author chooses to have both characters present in one shot.  This makes it easier for the viewer to understand what is occurring.  For example, in this picture my mother is speaking to Mercedes.  You can see that Mercedes and my mom have a close relationship by Mercedes' facial expression and both of their postures.  If there were a previous scene before this one, they would most likely be laughing or Mercedes would have called my mom.  

This second photo represent the first Point-of-View (pov) shot.  This type of shot is used so that the audience can see the subjective view of the specific character.  "The camera lens is physically placed at the eye level of the character whose point-of-view we are seeing" (10).  In this photo I am the character so we are seeing my point-of-view.  We are looking at my foot in a pointe shoe as I check if it fits or not.  

This third photo is a demonstration of the second Point-of-View shot.  It consists of the same things and ideas that the first pov shot has.  The only difference is the change in character.  For this photo, the main character is my mom.  She is looking directly at my foot to see how the pointe shoe looks.  She is making sure it fits perfectly.

If You're Going To Be Different, Know How To Be Different

"To move people away from their current opinion, you need to make them feel comfortable around you." (49)

I loved this sentence the second I came across it in chapter 5.  The accuracy of this sentence astounded me since I had never really thought of the idea.  Usually one would think that it's better to agree with the person.  You are considered a God, in their eyes, if you tell them what they want to hear.  However, a person can change their opponent's opinion.  Once the person succeeds in doing so, they can follow the proper form of decorum.  However, this is not the common decorum "seen in leaders" today. It is actually quite a different one.  The book would probably disagree with me, but I promise I have a valid point.  Once the person succeeds in persuading the other, he can act however he wants.  It is expected from him to act that way.  Therefore, he is acting the way the audience expects him to.  It may not have been suitable in the beginning, but now it is.

The perfect figure/celebrity to back up this idea is Johnny Depp.  He is a phenomenal actor and is liked by all ages.  His hilarious movements, facial expressions, and sayings can even make a
90 year old giggle.  In the eyes of society he is not considered normal.  However, in the eyes of the people he is considered amazing.  How did he ever manage this? Simple.  He made the directors, co-workers, and audience comfortable with himself.  Actually, better yet, his acting skills.  What a  stud.

Once a trailer makes it certain that he will star in the movie, it will probably have a good audience.  The theaters will most likely be full and the movie will make a profit.  His craziness attracts his beloved audience.  Since his hilarious and lunatic ideas are constantly seen in his films, why would the audience expect him to act differently in reality? This is where decorum fits in.  His personality fits the Romans' definition.  It is "an agreeable ethos" that "matches the audience's expectations for a leader's tone, appearance, and manners" (46). He may not be a political leader, but he is certainly a social leader.

He is a wise God in the eyes of a teen.  He is the perfect figure that stands up for what they believe in.  One of his most famous sayings is:

"The problem is that everybody treats teenagers like they're stupid."

This is exactly how EVERY TEENAGER FEELS! Someone finally understands! Quotes like these are what make him attractive to his audience.  He understands. He appeals to his audience's values. That is the definition you can find on page 65 for the term virtue.  This is exactly how he gets people to brag about him.  Isn't that what any leader would wish for?! His ideas are spread around the world and he is absolutely adored.  Something I admire is that he isn't fake.  He does not try to make people like him.  He does not say what people would like to hear.  He is just honest. This allows his fans to accept him for who he is.  He proves it in another famous quote:

"I think everybody is weird.  We should all celebrate our individuality and not be embarrassed or ashamed of it."

Here is a link to his hilarious awkwardness as Captain Jack Sparrow.

Breaking News: Arguing Is Considered An Art!

I never thought I would ever believe that arguing was an art.  When a person mentions the word art, the first thing that comes to mind is dancing, painting, sculpturing, etc.  Arguing with someone is definitely not the first idea that comes to mind when the word is mentioned.  As shocking as it may seem, the art of argumentation (aka rhetoric) was invented by the famous philosopher Aristoteles.  How he conjured up the factors that help a person win an argument is beyond me.  I would have never been able to do it on my own.  Any who, according to Aristoteles, you must realize if you want to change the person's "mood, mind, or willingness to carry out what you want" (26).  

If you are talented in rhetoric, than you can do all three.  By doing this, you will most likely win your argument.  They key idea in rhetoric is that an argument is not a fight. "The basic difference between an argument and a fight: an argument gets people to want to do what you want. You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement" (Page 17). Now, back to the topic. The only problem a person may face while quarreling with their opponent is them knowing the art of rhetoric.  If they know rhetoric than they most likely know how to argue.  The three steps a person should follow are:

"1. Stimulate your audience's emotions.

 2. Change its opinion.

 3. Get it to act." (22)

I guess you could stimulate your audience's emotions by "seducing" (23) them.  However, I feel like seducing a person is strongly frowned upon in our society.  Oh well. According to this book, Thank You For Arguing, "changing the mood is the easiest goal" (23).  I had never thought about that.  In an argument, a person enjoys using the facts.  You're most likely going to win if you are right.  However, wouldn't a person be considered more of a winner if the person were to completely change his opinion on the subject? Something that I have never noticed is that we "seduce" people every day.  Every action and motion have an intention.  

After reading these two chapters I realized that I have used this form of arguing many times.  Whenever I want to do something I just change my tone and open my eyes.  I usually get what I want.  These things vary from getting permission to go to a party to dancing at one.  It's a girl's most useful weapon.  However, something I never realized is that there are other ways to "seduce" a person in order to get what you want.  Seducing a person can range from "allowing your opponent to score points" (20), making the person feel bad for you, or by doing what I usually do.  The term "seducing" does not only have a sexual definition.  It also has a more proper definition which may help you win an argument.  The key is knowing how to use it!

A Video Based On the Life Skills Rubric- Worst Assignment Ever

Sorry Shanaynay :D

The Only Way To Escape Darkness Is By Turning On the Light

I do not understand Elie Wiesel.  I would be ecstatic f I were to survive the Holocaust and a traumatic accident.  Wiesel, on the other hand, only wants to die.  Everything he sees and thinks about relates to death or suffering.  Everything in the novel is dark and cold.  One evening he is on a balcony looking at the sea during a celebration.  A man finds him and asks him what the sea reminds him of.  "The sea makes me think of death", he replies to the man.  The man tells him that "the sea has a power of attraction." He tells Wiesel that "one must not look at the waves for too long.  Especially at night.  Especially alone." (37)

Later on in the memoir, Wiesel expresses his fear of day.  "At night" he finds "all faces familiar, every noise sounds like something already heard." (39) It is quite opposite for him during the day.  This is ironic since his memoir has the title Day.  Could this mean that Wiesel will overcome his fear of day? Will he finally decide to live his life as a happy man? Will the doctor help him make this decision? It's difficult to believe so due to his obsession with death and suffering.  I mean, he writes a whole paragraph about it on page 41.

If I were him, I would skipping around like an idiot.  I would be so happy to be alive! How can one only focus on death? How does he have friends? How does Kathleen love him? I would not be able to be around someone like that. How depressing! I can't even be around people who aren't happy for one day! Then again, all of my friends deal with me on my bad days.  The point is, will he finally become a happy man? The only way a person can escape darkness is by going to the light.  However, the person must find the light inside of him and turn it on.  As cheesy as it may sound, I like to think that the light in us would be our happy memories.  Light, in my opinion, is when we smile, laugh, are optimistic, etc.  Hopefully Wiesel will finally understand it because if not, he may end up with no friends.  I'm surprised he even has his coworkers and Kathleen to visit him!

Death: the Enemy or the Savior?

Elie Wiesel's obsession with death is petrifying! It is all he talks about in the second and third chapters, death and his grandmother.  Wiesel's approach to death is baffling.  Usually one is frightened of death and what comes after it.  It is the unknown.  A person normally tries to fight against death with everything they have.  That is the norm.  Wiesel, on the other hand, welcomes it with open arms.  In his noggin, "death is not the enemy". If a person does not realize that, he/she "knows nothing". (16)

Wiesel reflects a lot on death.  He relates it to the cold wind he felt in Paris.  Additionally, he explains to the reader that there is a proper and specific way one should think about death.  "It is only in silence, leaning over a river in winter, that one can really think about death." (24)  He also says that it's impossible to reflect on a dead grandmother "if you aren't alone". (25) Why would he reflect so much on death? Could it be because of his past? Does he welcome it with open arms due to the Holocaust? That could be a valid reason of why he finds it the easy way out instead of the enemy.

Deciding whether death is the enemy or savior is something each person will have to eventually decide.  It's not a conclusion we can come to over night. Death is both the enemy and the savior in my opinion.  It can take away pain and take people to a better place.  However, it can also take away a lot from the person's life.  For example, a boy with cancer would welcome it.  Cancer is so painful and exhausting.  Therefore, the child would welcome it because he/she knows that he/she is loved.  Death can also be the enemy in this situation.  It takes away the child's chance of living a complete life.  The child may miss things we find important like prom, soccer games, parties, their wedding, having children, etc.  This is when a person must look at life and death as  if the glass is half empty or half full.  It's a decision we all have to make in the end.  Is death the enemy or the savior?

Sucks to Suck

How unfortunate it must be to face so many tragic and scary moments in one's life.  This is the case for Elie Wiesel.  He has faced and survived the Holocaust and a deadly accident.  Wiesel's memoir,  Day, begins all loopty do but with some awkwardness.  It's a good day in New York and he is with his girl friend who seems to be a little self centered.  When I say a little I mean a lot.  He does whatever she says and tries to say "I love you" to her as much as he can.  The only problem is that it is as if he only says it to get her to shut up.  They walk past Time Square on their way to a movie when BOOM! The unthinkable happens! A cab hits Wiesel and sends him flying! He says that he doesn't remember whether he heard "the grotesque screeching of brakes or the shrill scream of a woman" (9) first.  Although it's a true story, it seems a bit cliche.  It's a nice day in New York.  The couple is having a semi nice moment, and then out of no where the person gets hit by a car.  If you have seen The Vow or Grey's Anatomy you know what I'm talking about.

It seems as if his life was written by a scriptwriter who specializes in traumatic events.  He stays in a comma for five days, survives two deadly surgeries, and fights off a deadly fever.  On top of that, there is a weird tension between him and his doctor as soon as they meet.  After exchanging a few words, "the doctor continues to look at" him "closely, very closely. A strange gleam- perhaps a strange shadow- was in his eyes.  Suddenly" his "heart jumped. Frightened," he "thought: he knows something." (14-15) It would not surprise me if the doctor ended up being his long lost Holocaust friend.  What could the doc possibly know? Could the numbers on his wrist possibly have given the doctor a clue about something? Only time will tell.  Only one thing is absolutely clear.  His life until this point has been incredibly unfortunate.  It must suck to suck.

He Made A Difference

I found Douglass' ending to his memoir to be very modest and caring.  He definitely used his brain and reflected on his writing.  Instead of writing about his escape detail by detail, he decided to refrain himself since it would "induce greater vigilance on the part of slaveholders than has existed heretofore among them;...". In other words, the slaveholders would make sure to guard "a door whereby some dear brother bondman might escape his galling chains." (99)  In a memoir, the first thing the writer would like to do is write about the most important and exciting thing that has happened in his/her life.  They would love to express it using details that would allow the reader to imagine the monstrosity or amazing event.  Douglass wanted to but he didn't.  I admire him for doing that.  He put his fellow slaves' lives first nstead of putting himself and his memoir first.  Douglass decided to write about what happened after his successful escape.

I realized that Douglass finally did Something useful fornhis fellow slaves.  I discovered this while reading the last chapter of his memoir.  However, at first he only watched out for himself until he met   Mr. David Ruggles.  He took him in and presented him to his future wife, Anna.  Ruggles sent the couple to New Bedford and taught Douglass to trust men.  Due to fear, Douglass had decided to "Trust no man!" (105).   Ruggles helped him turn a new page in the novel that represented his life.  Douglass began to fight for the freedom of his "brothers" on August 11, 1841.  He finally decided to help the other slaves and speak in front of white abolitionists.  His care for slaves and modesty is seen in his tone.  The form in which he expressed his escape proves it.

I admire Douglass for escaping, learning, and taking a step forward to free the people he cares about. It's not easy to do that in one life time due to the gruesome and scary consequences that may follow.  He made sure the world learned and realized the cruel torture the shaves were going through.  Instead of focusing on his escape, he wrote about his life as a slave. He wrote of what he did after his escape instead of writing a memoir on how he did it.  He was intelligent enough to realize that the slaveholders would use his memoir for their advantage.   He made a difference.

A Slave's Position Demands Respect

Animals. That is how the slaves are seen in the eyes of the white men.  I fail to comprehend how one can be so cruel to someone just because of their skin color.  They have the same body parts and organs! They have souls! How can they just see them as animals due to their dark skin? Something I realized while reading this memoir is that a slave was never safe.  They were constantly considered property whether they remained there or not.  In chapter VIII, Douglass expresses his anger towards the fact that they "were ranked with horses, sheep, and swine." (56)

As if their ranking wasn't bad enough, they were treated way worse than animals.  A white man living in that time period would have never whipped their animals to the point of leaving scars.  However, they would definitely do it to their slaves.  In chapter X, Mr. Covey whipped Douglass and left severe scars on his back.  His reasoning? He didn't have any.  Douglass could not control the oxen and was honest about what had happened.  Instead of being rewarded, he received lashing  which caused "ridges" on his back "as large as" his "little finger." (67) Did the oxen get beat up? Of course not.  What type of parallel universe is this?!

All of these situations and Douglass' points of view reminded me of the movie Ever After.  It is based on the story of Cinderella but in a realistic way.  Now I know all of you are thinking the same thing. "How the heck does Cinderella have to do with the cruelty of slavery? This should be interesting." Trust me, it actually does relate to the memoir.  Danielle (the main character) is a slave back in the times of the Renaissance.  There they would receive harsh treatment just like the slaves do in the memoir.  In the movie comments are made by her evil stepsister Marguerite.  She says, "Why don't you sleep with the pigs, cindersoot, if you insist on smelling like one." Although she isn't ranked with a pig, she is considered one.

The two main characters, Douglass and Danielle, also have the same viewpoint on their position.  They find it unfair and upsetting.  The only difference is that Danielle actually does something about it while Douglass just sits back and complains.  Danielle dresses up as a courtier in order to save a man's life.  During this scene, the prince runs into her and helps her save the man.  He begins to ask her why she was so intent on saving the slave's life.  At one point in their conversation she says to him, "They [slaves] are the legs you stand on and that position demands respect...". Douglass should really take note on her behavior and attitude.  All he does is sit down and write a memoir on how depressing and unfair slavery was.  Yes, he is considered great in literature. However, is he considered great in terms of taking action against slavery? No, not really.  This man, like Danielle, could have made a difference.  Yes, slavery is unfair, but there comes a time when one must stand up for what they believe in.  His chance was as soon as he got to the North.  He could have done it in the South, but it would have been a lot easier in the North.  Instead, he decided to hide behind his paper and pen.

Is Arrogance Better Than Knowledge?

Is arrogance better than knowledge? This is one of the most important topics brought up by Douglass in chapter seven.  According to Douglass, his knowledge "relieved" (51) him "of one difficulty" (51) but brought him "even more painful" (51) difficulties.  He envied the other ignorant slave.  They knew not of the possibilities.  Therefore, they accepted their lives as slaves without even pondering how life could be if they were free.  Douglass did not have that luxury.  All he wanted to do was escape as soon as he began to read the newspaper.  He began to discover the possibilities of abolishing slavery and wanted it more than anything.  He says that learning how to read was his "curse" (51).  His master's wife taught him the alphabet.  After that she stopped because her husband scolded her.  He told her that he would become knowledgable and gain his freedom.  From there, everything went downhill.

I don't understand why Douglass finds his knowledge to be his curse.  He escaped. That is what he wanted isn't it? Why is he complaining? Yes, it took time, but what doesn't? I find it ridiculous that he is incapable of being grateful that he discovered how to escape.  Obviously I have never been in his position. However, I can relate in terms of choosing knowledge over ignorance or vise versa. With that said, I can carry on with my argument. I completely disagree with him! A person should welcome knowledge.  You can never be too knowledgable.  Yes, it sucks that he is treated like a barbarian, but at least he knows that it isn't right.  If he didn't, he would live like any other slave.  He wouldn't have escaped and he would have died as one.  I have pity for him for being knowledgable.  He is probably one of the luckiest slaves.  He was the "chosen one" in a way.  He, out of all others, was chosen to go to Baltimore.  He was chosen to learn the alphabet.

There are always two ways to look at a situation.  You can always look at the glass as half full or half empty.  Douglass is looking at it half empty instead of half full.  Of course he is upset! He isn't looking at all of the wonderful possibilities he had.  He could have made a difference by teaching other slaves to read.  He could have taught them that it wasn't right for white men to treat them as vermin.  He could have acknowledged that fact that there were white men rooting for the slaves.  Yet, he didn't.  Instead he only focused on himself.  He waited for the right moment to escape.  The only difference he made was for himself, not the african americans in slavery.  I pity him for having to live most of his life as a slave, but I absolutely do not pity him for having acquired knowledge.

Mind, Heart, and Guts: The Three Vital Necessities of Life

Aristotle was the brilliant mind who came up with rhetoric (the ancient art of arguing/argument). Rhetoric is made up of three categories: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.  These three categories represent the important organs of the body that one must metaphorically use and manipulate in order to win an argument.

Logos: argument by logic
Pathos: argument by emotion --> manipulating to get what you want
Ethos: argument by character --> persuader's personality, reputation, and ability to look trustworthy

Frederick Douglass uses these three elements in his memoir Narrative Of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. The reader can see these three things being used by the masters with their slaves and the slaves with the audience. For example, logos is seen in the third chapter by Frederick Douglass with his masters and fellow slaves.  He wrote:

"I have been frequently asked, when a slave, if I had a kind master, and do not remember ever to have given a negative answer; nor did I, in pursuing this course, consider myself as uttering what was absolutely false; for I always measured the kindness of my master by the standard of kindness set up among slaveholders around us." (page 32)

Douglass uses logos here because he wins the argument by using his brain. The argument in this situation is his life and whether or not he should be punished for telling the truth to other slaves or even to his master.  By using his brain, he realizes that he should always say positive things about his masters and overseers.  By doing this, he avoids receiving all of the punishments possible for talking bad about his masters.  If a slave ever badmouths his master he receives a lashing or is sold to another slave holder.  It does not matter whether the slave is being honest or not.  This happened in the third chapter on page 31 to one of Colonel Lloyd's slaves.

Frederick Douglass also uses pathos with his audience.  It is the probably the most important element in this memoir.  He uses it every time he tells the audience of the unfairness and cruelty all the slaves must go through due to their cruel overseers.  This element has been used various times throughout the first four chapters.  One example is when Douglass writes about the cruel form by which slaves have been murdered by their overseers and slaveholders.

" He had given Demby but few stripes, when, to get rid of scourging, he ran and plunged himself into a creek, and stood there at the depth of his shoulders, refusing to come out. Mr. Gore told him that he would give him three calls, and that if he did not come out at the third call, he would shoot him. The first call was given. Demby made no response, but stood his ground. The second and third calls were given with the same result. Mr. Gore then, without consultation or deliberation with any one, not even giving Demby an additional call, raised his musket to his face, taking a deadly aim at his standing victim,  and in an instant poor Demby was no more." (page 36)

Similar unjustness happens to two more slaves in this chapter. These courses of action affect the reader emotionally and create questions like: why would someone be so cruel and unjust? This is exactly what Douglass wants the reaction to be.  The argument here is about who is right in terms of their actions, the slaves or the slave holders and overseers. Douglass manipulates the reader's emotions and conscience in order to have them side with him.  Slave holders and overseers are cruel and the slaves must suffer for absolutely no reason.

In chapter three Colonel Lloyd uses ethos with one of his slaves. Since he is the master, he is allowed to sell slaves for whatever reason.  In this case, it was because one of his slaves answered his questions truthfully.

"It is reported of him, that, while riding along the road one day, he met a colored man, and addressed him in the usual manner of speaking to colored people on the public highways of the south: "Well, boy, whom do you belong to?" "To Colonel Lloyd," replied the slave. "Well, does the colonel treat you well?" "No, sir," was the ready reply. "What, does he work you too hard?" "Yes, sir." "Well, don't he give you enough to eat?" "Yes, sir, he gives me enough, such as it is." The colonel, after ascertaining where the slave belonged, rode on; the man also went on his business, not dreaming that he had been conversing with his master. He though, said, and heard nothing more of the matter, until two or three weeks afterwards. The poor man was then informed by his overseer that, for having found fault with his master, he was now to be sold to a Georgia trader." (page 31)

In this situation Colonel Lloyd used his status to sell the slave to a Georgia trader.  He did not give a good reason fore selling the slave.  He simply didn't like what the slave had to say about him, so he sold him.  Additionally, he used his ability to look trustworthy in order to get the slave to tell him the truth.  He used two important factors of ethos and won his argument.  The argument in this case was whether or not the slaves found his treatment fair.

The Truth Is Never Pretty, but Would We Act Any Differently?

"To those songs I trace my first glimmering conception of dehumanizing character of slavery. I can never get rid of that conception. These songs still follow me, to deepen my hatred of slavery, and quicken my sympathies for my brethren in bonds." (page 28)

Humans are barbaric. That is the first thought that came to my mind once I finished reading the first two chapters of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. How can these overseers be so inhumane? I cannot even say they treat the african american slaves like animals because animals are treated way better. The savages in this memoir are the overseers, not the slaves. How can people who are supposedly catholic be so cruel? It doesn't make since.

All those questions and ideas popped into my mind once I sat down to write about the first two chapters.  However, I did not stop and think of how I would have reacted had I been living during that time.  Would I have treated people the same way? It's easy to judge when you're not living the actual story.  As an audience member to the story, it's easy to see who is right and who is wrong.  However, we all go along with society no matter what happens to be going on.  The same situation happened in The Holocaust.  Regardless, how can these people see slavery as normal? Doesn't the cracking of the whips onto the slaves' backs hurt them on the inside? These are questions that can never be answered because the only people who know the answers are dead. How unfortunate.

These first two chapters and my observations reminded me of Suzanne Collins' novel Mocking Jay. It is the third novel in the series The Hunger Games. Each district is forced to fight to the death and the people in the capital find it entertaining.  Only the people of the districts realize how wrong it is! Eventually, they realize that they should do something about it. Isn't this exactly what is going on in the memoir? The only difference is that Mocking Jay is fictional while Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave is not. The reader tends to side with the correct side.  This side would be the one receiving the pain and trying to change it. However, the reader usually never thinks of how the other side must be feeling.  We do not know what is going on in their heads.  Additionally, that's how the other side was probably raised.  They don't know any better.  That is what frightens me the most.  Humans are so barbaric and self-centered that we do not realize what is right from wrong. We go along with what is normal to us as well as what society dictates.  THAT IS THE PROBLEM! The truth is never pretty which is why we usually cringe and hide from it.  So, I think we should all reflect on one question. Before judging the white men, would we act any differently had we been raised in that society?

The Joy Of Going To the Office For A Late Pass

This is a paper I wrote in Mr. Tangen's class for PAP English 10.

The Joy of Going to the Office For a Late Pass

Going to the office for a late pass is something students always look forward to.   Getting out of the car and walking across the street to the foot of the mountain is the puzzling moment when all students think: “What is my excuse going to be for Majo this time? Will Mr. Guenther be in the office? Do I have enough lates to get an after school detention?”  The students spend several moments pondering these questions trying to find a believable answer to the late excuse.  By the time they finally cross through the gate and stop at the foot of the mountain they have crossed off the traffic excuse, accident excuse, and pretty much every other excuse known to the citizens of Bogota who deal with the bumper-to-bumper traffic daily.

After finally reaching the top of the mountain gasping for air, can we go to our classroom? Of course not! We must walk all the way to office to make a pit stop for a late pass. Taking a deep breath before walking in, the student prepares him or herself for the “tardy again” look from Majo and any other teacher that happens to be in the office.  On the count of three the student pushes open the door and yells, “Hello Majo! How are you today? Can you please write me a late pass?” Glancing around the room to make sure Ms. Kaun or Mr. Guenther is not present the student normally tries to rush Majo or Andrea into writing a late pass.  Since Majo is the type of person who loves conversation, she decides to ask questions like: Why are you so late? Why don’t you leave the house earlier?  What would the principal have to say? When she finally finishes writing the pass the student yanks it from her hand and runs to his or her classroom. 

As if climbing the mountain all alone, running to the office for a late pass, hiding from Mr. Guenther, and having a nice conversation about being late with Majo aren’t enough reminders that we are late, the teachers decide to make a comment.  With Ms. Pascale you can expect the, “Late again. Do you have a bunch of photo copies of these late passes in your room or something?” With Mr. Tangen you will most likely get the, “Hello just throw your pass in the garbage,” with the singsong tone he always uses with Lina Merizalde.  Hearing a comment from your teacher is completely natural for any student across the globe. The stressful thing is having to go all the way to the office for a late pass when the teacher clearly knows that you are already late. 

This procedure does not only occur if you are late in the beginning of the day. It is for every single class that you arrive at least one minute late.  As soon as the classroom doors are closed you may as well just start your walk to the office.  At this time of the day it is different because you can’t use your sister, driver, or traffic as an excuse.  The excuse you come up with this time has to make sense and it can’t be the typical excuse everyone gives.  The counselor? Dumb excuse and dumb idea because eventually they will ask the counselor if your whereabouts had anything to do with them.  Talking to a teacher? Bad idea. Mr. Guenther is most likely a friend of the teacher and if not then you can definitely assume that Majo will contact the teacher sooner or later.  The only excuses left are: my friend was crying, I was crying, I was picking something up all the way down by the gate, or the truth.  Not many students will decide to tell the truth because then that will definitely gain them the “shame on you” look at the office.

 At no point can a student sigh with relief and think: “I’m safe for now.” Not before any of his or her classes at least.  The only time you can sigh that sigh is at the end of the day when you can no longer be late.  At some point a student finally realizes that the best route is to leave a little bit earlier, walk to class a little bit faster, or speed up the conversation with his or her friends so that he or she can arrive to class on time.  By accomplishing these tasks you can avoid the long walk to the office and the painful process of thinking up a good excuse.  

Common Sense, The Least Common of All Senses

Blog and blog post, the difference between both is enormous, and yet many people mistake them to be the same thing. It is a common stupid error! A blog is a website on which an individual or group of users record opinions, information, etc. on a regular basis.  A blog post is a written entry on a blog about anything the author would like to share.

People refer to their blog posts as a blog. What could they possibly be thinking? It is obvious that the author doesn't have an entire blog on one specific topic. It is a silly mistake that should be fixed.  Putting a title to your blog post such as: A Blog On Anorexia will definitely confuse the reader.  Instead of thinking that the blog POST will be about anorexia, they will think that the entire blog is on it.  THe key to specifying between your blog and blog posts is creating an appropriate title for each.