Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Final Position Paper

There are a few times in the world where some governments temporarily give up rights and freedoms in order to preserve democracy. The United States of America is a democratic country and has limited their rights and freedoms in order to give the people more security and safety. This was started from the making of the Patriot act that was made and passed after the attacks of the twin towers in New York City (2001). Germany before Hitler’s rise to power was having major economic issues that had caused the quality of life for the Germans to be terrible. When Hitler came into power and suggested that Germany should go back to an authoritarian-run government, the people had no troubles with giving up their rights and freedoms because they knew that life before democracy was comfortable and their quality of life at the moment made them desperate for a change. The preservation of democracy is important for people so that they can have a better life, even if it means that their rights and freedoms are temporarily suspended.


The source promotes the temporary suspension of individual rights and freedoms in order to preserve democracy. In order to have democracy there must be rights and freedoms for the individuals, however the viability of democracy, when those rights and freedoms are limited, it is okay to promote the temporary suspensions of those rights and freedoms in order to give more security to the universal whole of that country and to guarantee its democracy.


The United States of America had embraced individual rights and freedoms until the November 11th attacks of 2001, which had involved hijacked planes crashing into and destroying the twin trade towers. After this incident the USA had created the PATRIOT act and put into effect. The Patriot act gave the people more security; however although it did give the people more safety from mainly terrorism, it gave the government the ability to gain easy access into personal records of any individual (as long as the individual is accused of terrorism or any crime). The American people do not mind the government temporarily taking their individual rights and freedoms away for that extra security and the government does still give them rights and freedoms, but just not as much as before the Patriot act. The source could very well be from an American citizen as the source does support the temporary suspension of rights and freedoms like those that the Patriot act limits. Normally when the individuals of a country give up their rights and freedoms, there is something that caused the sacrificing of their rights and freedoms. In the USA it was the 9/11 attacks and, for a more historical example, the desperation of the Germans before Hitler’s rise to power. At this time, the citizen’s life had lacked the necessities of living like food, shelter and jobs and so they became desperate. When Hitler had started his promotion for Chancellor he had supported absolute nationalism, the unification of all German speaking people and that Germany needs one strong leader. To the individuals, Hitler’s proposition of an authoritarian government looked good for them. The people did not really care about giving up their freedoms so things could be how they used to. Hitler did create an authoritarian government for Germany and then made it a dictatorship. With a dictatorship Hitler had unlimited power to do as he pleased and had the ability to do as he please. He took away the Jews rights and freedoms, as well as other liberal principles, by creating genocide against the Jews. The rest of the individuals did not mind because they finally got their comfortable life back and they could blame someone for the life under democracy. When the temporary suspension of rights and freedoms infringe any harm on a certain group or type of individual then it will not preserve democracy. Hitler was elected democratically in a fair election so there was democracy that could have been preserved; however, Hitler did not keep a democratic government but made an authoritarian government that suspended individual rights and freedoms.


The extent to which temporarily suspending rights and freedoms in order to preserve democracy is when it infringes on the individuals. In both cases the individuals of the USA and Germany did voluntarily give up their rights and freedoms but the new authoritarian government of Germany did not become a democracy. The Patriot act still limits the American citizens’ rights and freedoms but the limitation gives the citizens more security that they feel is necessary to protect them. When the suspension of rights and freedoms are limited and not fully away taken then it is alright in order to preserve democracy.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Social Portfolio Extras

Bibliography


BBC. (n.d.). News World. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from BBC Mobile: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/


canlit. (n.d.). The Canadian Literature Archive. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from University of Manitoba: http://www.umanitoba.ca/canlit/


Capital Community College Foundation. (n.d.). Guide to Grammer and Writing. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Guide to Grammer and Writing: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/


CBC. (n.d.). CBC. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/


CIA. (n.d.). The World Factbook. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Central Intellegence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html


CLN. (n.d.). Community Learning Network. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from CLN: http://www.cln.org/subject_index.html


English Grammar and Style Theme Page. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from English Grammer and Style Theme Page: http://www.cln.org/themes/eng_grammar.html


Global Issues. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Global Issues: http://www.globalissues.org/


Government of Alberta. (n.d.). Learn Alberta. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Government of Alberta: http://www.learnalberta.ca/


Gray, T. A. (n.d.). Mr. William Shakespeare. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Mr. William Shakespeare: http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/


Humanities Department. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Lacombe Composite High School: http://elchs.wolfcreek.ab.ca/lcsweb/Departments/Humanities/


Ian Lancashire. (n.d.). Representative Poetry Online. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Representative Poetry Online: http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/display/index.cfm


ipl2. (n.d.). Literary Criticism. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from ipl2: http://www.ipl.org/div/litcrit/


LCHSHumanities30. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Wikispaces: http://lchshumanities30.wikispaces.com/


Library and Archives Canada. (n.d.). Library and Archives Canada. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Library and Archives Canada: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/canvers/index-e.html


Mabillard, A. (n.d.). Shakespeare Online. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Shakespeare Online: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/index.html


Poetry News. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from The League of Canadian Poets: http://www.poets.ca/


Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Statistics Canada.


Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Statistics Canada: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html


Tedford, R. (n.d.). Electronic Shakespear Sources for Researchers. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Electronic Shakespear Sources for Researchers: http://www.wfu.edu/~tedforrl/shakespeare/


The League of Canadian Poets. (n.d.). Young Poets. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Young Poets: http://www.youngpoets.ca/


World History. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2010, from World History: http://worldhistory.pppst.com/index.html




Perspectives on Ideology: Focus Question #1

There are many different perspectives on collectivism and individualism and even a combination of the two. Some cultures prefer to be collectivists and some individuals chose to be individualists. Here are two examples from different sources that show either they are collectivists or individualists, their connection between liberalism and each other.


Source one is told from Mary Anulik Kitsiq, an Inuit. Mary talks about how Inuit people were very close to one another and that they held a strong relationship with their community. People would share what they had, even though they did not have much themselves. She then talks about how people in these days do not share with the less fortunate even though the rich have lots to spare, and then she continues to talking about as the population grows, so do the gap between people. In a nutshell Mary is discussing on how people used to be more of a collectivists society rather than the individualists society we have become. Its connection with Liberalism is with economic equality and rule of law. Economic equality is connected by how all things, like wealth and food, were shared equally amongst the whole community. Personally I believe that the rule of law is a part of the Inuit people’s society because they did treat everyone with the same level of respect; well perhaps slightly more towards their leader, and this is shown by how they distribute their food: all evenly.


In source 2 the man in the cartoon shows him in an individualism point of view. When the bear is holding out his cup, which shows sharing with others, the man with the briefcase tells him “In my days, bears worked for their honey” which shows that he thinks that people should work for their own goods (including food) and so it indicates that the guy is an individualist. The guy mainly thinks that you get for what you earn; if you work hard you will be rewarded. Its connection with Liberalism is with self interest, economic freedom, individual rights and freedoms, competition, and private property. Self interest is when you make the decisions based on your own interest, while economic freedom shows that you have the choice of what to do with your wealth. With individual rights and freedoms everyone has the same rights and freedoms and no one can take it away from the individual. Competition is a good thing for economies because it sets up a supply and demand outcome and businesses go in to competition with one another to make a profit. Individualism and liberalism are also connected by private property because you have the right to own land, buy and sell, own and business, intellectual property, and have the ability to own and use property.


The relationship between the first source and the second source is that they both infer that back in the “good old’ days” society, in general, were collectivists and now our world is an individualists society. In the past, the Inuit’s talk about sharing everything they had even if they did not have much themselves and so people looked after other people. Mary Anulik Kitsiq, the source one provider, had talked about how in history people used to be collectivists but as the population grows and time passes on we, as in society, become more and more individualists. The man in the cartoon (source 2) says “in my day, bears worked for their honey” which shows that he believes in individualism. The bear is holding a cup and symbolizes collectivism and sharing with others (although this bear is on the receiving end). The quote is talking about that in history the bears had to work for their honey. Coincidently honey rhymes with money. If you take a look at history, people used to share a lot more than they do now and so that ties with the first source. In conclusion, the first and second source are inter-related by how they both infer that in the past society were more like collectivists and here in the 21st century people are more individualists and as time goes on, more and more people will become individualists.


In my final conclusion I would like to state that collectivism is connected to liberalism through economic equality and rule of law and that individualism is connected to liberalism by self interest, economic freedom, individual rights and freedoms, competition and private property. There is a balance between the two and that would be Liberalism because it gives you individual rights and freedoms while everything is for the great of the common good.








MC 1 (above right), MC 2 (above left), Run for the Cure 2010 (below)





Monday, May 30, 2011

Social 30-1 Portfolio

Issue 1: To what extent should ideology be the foundation of identity?


Focus question #1: Perspectives on ideology


Collective Norms – the standard that a group of people have.


Individualism vs. Collectivism



Issue 2 & 3: To what extent is resistance to liberalism justified?


Constant Principles


Laissez Faire Capitalism – Without the involvement of the government when it comes to the economy; the individuals will run the economy.


Neo-Conservatism – someone who opposes government involvement in the economy while focusing the importance of private enterprise.


War Measure Act – A Canadian policy that allowed the government to have huge control of power in the event of war or in a state of emergency.


Individual Resistance 3



Issue 4: asses the viability of liberal principles in contemporary society


Aboriginal experiences of Liberalism in Canada: Standoff at Ipperwash Provincial Park, Ontario


Civil Disobedience – the refusal to obey certain laws or government regulations for the reason of have an effect on legislation or government policies.


A Comparison of liberalism in the States and Canada



Summerative Assessment


Multiple Choice #1


Multiple Choice #2


Position Paper


3 Sources Diploma Style Paper



Showcase


Run for the cure 2010 -Red Deer, Alberta


1984 Novel Study Story Board


Bibliography

The Importance of Self Interest

People cannot be fully free unless there is no fear and insecurity (individual rights and freedoms). In a Left (socialist) type of government fear can be used through the use of secret police which would make the people extremely cautious of what they say/do. Since the people cannot say or do things that they want to do then they have no freedom. A welfare state (welfare capitalism) would give people the freedom to grow financially and educationally so the individuals can be a part of the all American dream (self interest & economic freedom) without the fear of the government, hunger, homelessness and racism while having the ability to develop their individual capacities (through the use of competition) as assured by Freedom and the Welfare State.


Vital Speeches of the Day is saying that the socialist government (the Left) will take things, like farms and natural resources from the people who own them and spread it out to everyone. The farmers do not have self interest so they can grow economically and their private property becomes public property. When the socialist government does this, it leaves the whole fed but not with full stomachs which leads them into hunger. The individuals will grow poor and leave the country hungry from the lack of human labour when applied to natural resources. Without private property, self interest, competition and economic freedom then the individuals will soon meet their demise.


The cartoon represents the rich and elite in their huge house that shows their indulgeant lives. The one male in the cartoon are reading the newspaper in which the title reads “Good times: even the poor gain”. The rich men do not like the poor gaining capital because with self interest, the rich become richer. The economic boom helped out everyone and the individuals who strongly believe in self interest, like the men in the cartoon, do not like that fact that everyone prospers.


With all of the sources they all have self interest that exists among them. Self interest in the first source is represented in “to receive just awards for their talents and to engage in the pursuit of happiness” in that the individuals must have the ability and chance to put themselves first (economically in this case) above anyone else. The cartoon had the same interpretation in that the men had put them first before everyone else economically. In the second source, self interest is mandatory for the individuals in order to grow economically and to keep food on the table. Self interest is shared among all three sources as a principle of liberalism that people should have.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Position Paper: Issue 3

In a democracy like here in Canada there tends to be either a conservative or liberal (not including the results of the previous elections of 2011) government in power. Friedrich von Hayek was a conservative himself so he had thought that society should embrace self interest and economic freedom. Hayek used directed economy to represent a socialist economy which has no economic freedom for the individuals without the use of force, since there is no economic freedom then there is not self interest which backs up economic freedom. No equality can be achieved with a directed economy. When self interest and economic freedom have been abused then that is the point where it should be embraced more in order to bring back a part of a conservative democracy.


Hayek believed when a directed (socialist) economy uses force, fraud or theft when it comes to production, trade and consuming then economic freedom should be embraced by that society/country. Russia is a prime example of a socialist economy, especially during Stalin’s five year plan. The state owns all of the farms and so when the government wanted more exports of grain then the state would force the farmers to grow more grain. The farmers were hardly paid as the Russian government wanted to save a few more bucks by paying people less like the farmers and during this time there was no subsides for the farmers. It was almost like theft since the government took the goods from the farmers and left them with nothing. Life was hard for the farmers to earn wages and to keep food on the table for their family. Through Hayek’s quote it is safe to say that if the Russian government were to embrace economic freedom then the farmers would be able to make an income and be more equal with society. Canada, on the other hand, currently day has economic freedom. The citizens can go and put their financials into the market on free will. Canadian farmers has the freedom to produce, trade and consume any good and services acquired which shows that Canada has economic freedom since it is done without the use of force, fraud or theft. Canada has embraced economic freedom because it is good for the people which is what Hayek believed in. If a society were to embrace economic freedom to the point of which people were to become too selfish then it must be more controlled until the position where that country has economic freedom without people fighting over producing, trading and consuming goods to the extreme.


Self interest goes almost hand in hand with economic freedom in that without economic freedom requires the pursuit of self interest. When Hayek talks about how a socialist economy it is saying that the government has self interest for itself rather than giving the people of that country self interest. This is the past what Hayek said is good for the people in that they do not have self interest. During the great depression in the dirty thirties, there was little self interest for the people in the United States. The government had to think of the whole rather than then individuals and so self interest was put on the back burner until the depression was over. The U.S. did implicate self interest before and after the great depression and so it had embraced self interest after the depression was over even though it was self interest that had caused the depression from people buying stuff that they want and did have the money the pay it off. Every country has its times when they are having issues and so it is sometimes better to think for the whole rather than for the different individual types. Self interest should be embraced until the country focuses primarily on the individuals and hardly on the whole group. When there is no self interest in place then there tends to be a self interest type of government. An example of this would be with Stalin and his government; they had put their needs and wants above the people of Russia which is inequality and which Hayek had stated. While there is an inequality then there is no self interest amongst the people and so self interest should be used by and for the people.


Hayek supported self interest and economic freedom for governments and when the principles are rejected then they should be embraced. If a country does not accept economic freedom then that limits what the people can produce, trade and consume and goods and services acquired which leads to economic issues for the people. Now if economic freedom is accepted then self interest is typically accepted since they mostly go hand in hand with each other. Self interest should be embraced until the government only uses it and does not give the citizens self interest and denies the people personal advantage. With self interest it can create official enforced inequality amongst the government and the people. Hayek proposed that a directed economy is no good for the people and that self interest and economic freedom should be used in its place along with other classical liberal principles.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

IL 4

I think that Canada would be best run by a parlimentary (democratic) government. As a citizen in Canada, I was born and raised while Canada has been a parlimentary system and I have been pleased with the way how our government is run. I like the fact that the executive and legislative branch do not hold enough power to conqure anything they please and that every citizen (about the legal age of 18) has the right to vote and not fear the "consequences" of doing so; like in Afghanistan the Taliban cut off the arms of the people who have their finger covered in purple ink (after voting their finger is dipped in ink so they won't be able to vote again). But I digress back to the main issue: having a parilimentary system has worked pretty well for us Canadians. In Canada we have rights and freedoms and that allows us to really think about what is best for us and we approve of our parlimantary government.

IL 3

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

IL 2

I think that Canada does have some responsibility to protect the new democratic system in Afghanistan since we are a part of NATO. As a democratic nation, we view things differently then how other countries (with other government systems) view things like the treatment of women. One thing that I agree with is how Canada is increasing the capacity of for democratic government, and help with the carrying out of democratic elections; as well as helping the ministry plan, which is to explain effective budgeting. We (Canadian Government and army) should not push things to the limit by getting too involved in their government any further than we already are. However, since Canada is a part of NATO they can use the excuse that they are just there to help Afghanistan create and democratic system.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Team Resistance

Thursday, April 7, 2011

IR #5 Justine, Hannah and M'Lynn

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

ELA Portfolio

Expository Writing
Critical Analysis Response #1 - Perspectives on Ideologies
http://laughatyourselfbeforeanyoneelsecan.blogspot.com/2010/11/critical-and-analytical-responce-1.html
Critical Analysis Response #2 - Peter Jackson's Return of the King
http://laughatyourselfbeforeanyoneelsecan.blogspot.com/2011/03/critical-and-personal-responses-2.html

With the analytical response number 1 I found that I did not really put that much effort into it and since we, the students, could bring in a seperate piece of paper I chose to write it out before hand and just copy it word for word during the timed class. I did not go into enough depth and went off topic as I read it back now. For the second analytical response I decided to only write down the key points that I must center around which was Aragorn. I feel that this improved my writing skills because it made me focus during the timed class to write it. Not only did I stick to my main points the majority of the time but I went in depth and provided specific evidence from Return of the King to verify my reasoning. I could still improve by saying the points first then providing evidence for it instead of the other way around.

Personal Response

Personal Response #1- On the Rainy River
http://laughatyourselfbeforeanyoneelsecan.blogspot.com/2010/11/personal-responce-1.html
Personal Response #2- Falling on Cedars
http://laughatyourselfbeforeanyoneelsecan.blogspot.com/2011/03/critical-and-personal-responses-2.html

For timed personal response it may not seem like I have improved mark wise as they both received the same mark of 73%; however, I feel that I have improved on my writing of personal responses in that I have, like the analytical responses, thought it out during the class while only using a few jot notes unlike how I had wrote out the whole paper the first time and copied it word for word. I can still improve on supporting my thoughts with more personal knowledge or experience.

Creative Response

Poetry to Film Comparison - The Swimmers (Aragorn's) Moment
http://laughatyourselfbeforeanyoneelsecan.blogspot.com/2011/03/swimmers-aragorns-moment.html
Response to Hamlet
http://laughatyourselfbeforeanyoneelsecan.blogspot.com/2010/12/to-be-or-not-to-be-hamlet-responce.html

I chose to use the Swimmer's (Aragorn's) Moment as my ability to work with visuals becasue it was done using editing photo softwear. At the beginning of the year, I was not good at doing visuals in that I was hoping that the marker (Kabachia) would think deeper than I did when looking at a visual and get it, but for this visual I made it go deep but in a simple way. The way of putting certain objects at specific places with other important things makes the visual even better.
For the Response to Hamlet I took a phrase from Hamlet and put it into my own words, which is modern terms. Each word can mean something different from what the sentence is saying and I think that I cleary depicted what William Shakspear was trying to get across.

Individual Novel Study
http://laughatyourselfbeforeanyoneelsecan.blogspot.com/2011/01/1984-story-board.html

Story Board of 1984. I got a 5/5 on it becasue I made sure that the main quotes I had were acturate and were important parts of the novel 1984 by George Orwell. This novel was boring and slow at first but it gives a certain perspective of a citizen (Winston) of how they view living in a totaltarian regim. The middle-end part of the novel was really interesting in that it makes you want to read more to see what Winston's and Julia's fate will be. Remember, Big Brother is watching you.

Humanities 30.....Thus Far

Ah humanities, the class for the academics and homework lovers. I found that in this class there was a large amount of projects given with class time to complete them but it was still trying to find the balance of doing humanities assignments vs studying for my other courses. Last semester was busy for me and even stressed me out at a few times. However, this class is a really great class for me. For myself I learn better when the class discusses things and I just listen and I have been with this class for two years now and so I feel comfortable doing things outside of my box although I am still extremely opposed to presenting. Mr. Kabachia is one of those teachers that are serious (most of the time) about what they are teaching which is a major help, even though it makes it slightly harder to accomplish assingments as you have to really think of everything. In the end I think humanities is a fantastic class because it suits me and my learning style even though I am not, nor will I ever be a fan of english or social studies but the content is important and will never leave me. This class makes me think more intellectually everyday and so I rate humanities 30 and Mr. Kabachia 9/10 (not a 10 because of the Grapes of Wrath and the presenting).

Critical and Personal Responses #2

Critical Analysis Response to Text: Return of the King

Peter Jackson had directed the movie Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King with characters that consider making important personal sacrifices by taking responsibility that may mean their own demise. Aragorn is one of the characters that take such a risk and learn to take responsibility for the good of mankind and if he should fail then mankind would not exist. He takes responsibility for the great of mankind and that of Arwen. Only he has the power to bring victory to the battle at Minas Tirith.

Throughout the movie series Aragorn had resisted the idea of becoming King of Gondor because he felt that if he should be in a moment of temptation, he might give in like his ancestor did with the Ring. He had ended up being one of the main people who had made the decisions based on war and such, this proved that he was King material. When Aragorn made a decision, it was based on what was good for the people and of mankind. Before the eve of the ride out to the final battle, Aragorn had a dream in that Sauron took over Middle Earth and then Arwen died from Sauron’s evil rule and he woke up angry. Peter Jackson put this in because it showed how much Aragorn wanted to put an end to Sauron and the evil. It was at this point that Aragorn is determined on saving Arwen by winning the battle against Sauron but his hope was lost since they did not have enough men. Just as he had awoken he was brought to a visitor: Elrond. Elrond had explained that if they were to win this war they had needed more men and that there is an alliance that dwells in the mountain. However, Aragorn only states that those in the mountain are murderers and traitors. They don’t believe in anything and answer to now one. Elrond then says that they will answer to the King of Gondor; then presents Aragorn with Anduril, the reforged shards of Narsil (the sword that removed the Ring from Sauron by his ancestor). With this blade, Aragorn and summon up an army that even Sauron cannot withstand. Elrond stated to Aragorn that it is time to put aside the Ranger, and that it is time to become who he was born to be; the King of Gondor. Aragorn had been pushed to this moment by many people in that he would not have made this choice in the first or second movie. Elrond may seem like the person who did give Aragorn the biggest push toward becoming King but it was Arwen. Aragorn loved her and he wanted her to live so he made this decision based on the victory of mankind, but mostly for Arwen to live through this darkness. Aragorn took responsibility for his people and for Arwen and accepted his destiny to be the King of Gondor.

Now that Aragorn had accepted the responsibility of becoming King, Aragorn went into the Dead Mountain saying I do not fear death. This is significant because he does not care what happens to him as long as it benefits the good of mankind and is taking on his responsibility. When Aragorn is talking to the King of Dead he says that he can fulfill their oaths but the King of Dead replied back only the King of Gondor may command him. Aragorn showed his blade to that army and got their attention by showing that Anduril is real and orders them as their master to join him on the battlefield of Minas Tirith and once they destroy the enemy, he will fulfill their oath. The Black fleet was on its way South of Minas Tirith and when the boats stopped, Aragorn, along with Legolas as Gimli right behind him, headed straight for the crowd of Orcs right in front of them. Then the Army of the Dead appears. Peter Jackson has Aragorn leading the way because that shows that Aragorn is wanting to take the lead, which is a King’s duty.

After winning the battle, Aragorn fulfills the Dead Army’s oath. If he was not ready to be King then the oath would not be fulfilled because then Aragorn was not serious about becoming King but the oath was fulfilled and so this proves that he has taken responsibility. Peter Jackson had also shown how Aragorn will not stop part way but go the full length to save his people by his self sacrifice. Aragorn takes responsibility as a friend to Frodo and Sam by planning to distract Sauron long enough so Frodo and Sam could make it to Mount Doom without being seen by the Eye. Late at night, Aragorn used the Palantir to tempt Sauron by saying that the Dark Lord had haunted him and has long eluded him but no more. He shows Sauron Anduril and then Sauron shows a vision of Arwen dead and that Aragorn drops the seeing stone and shatters the Evenstar. Aragorn’s trick worked and the fields of Mordor emptied. He builds an army of the remaining armies and heads to the Black Gates, leading them while wearing a King’s amour. When there, Aragorn makes a speech saying “I see fear in their eyes, the same fear that would take the heart of him. But not this day, as today, the age of men won’t fall, as today – they fight!” The Eye of Sauron then glares at Aragorn, taunting him. Aragorn had walked slowly toward the Eye as if in a trance. He then turned slowly around to face Gandalf, and said this is for Frodo. Then he charges at the Mordor army, which is about 10000 times bigger than their army. He had taken responsibility for his people and for Frodo and Sam, his friends even when his own demise was not looking good.

Aragorn did not suddenly choose to take responsibility but rather he was pushed towards it. With every event that had occurred over time and the people around him, it made him realize that he must take responsibility for the good of mankind, the outcome of the war, and the success of Frodo and Sam by becoming King. Peter Jackson refers to Aragorn taking responsibility for others by becoming the King of Gondor.

Personal Response to Falling on Cedars

When one takes responsibility, it is normally through the guilt one has about what he or she has done. In the short story Falling on Cedars by David Guterson, Hatsue is a young woman who is about to deal with her childish decisions and so she must take responsibility from her actions and decide how to fix the issue(s). Her mother, Fujiko, had found about her love affair with Ishmael Chambers and feels deceived about Hatsue’s actions and forces Hatsue to make a decision of what she wants in life, Ishmael or to grow up and move on.

When Hatsue was a young girl, she started seeing Ishmael Chambers and the “couple” never told anyone about them. Perhaps a reason for them not telling anyone would be because the parents would not allow it or they felt this affair gave them the feeling of being on the bad side. The bad side always seems more tempting because as a teenager all you want is freedom from parents and self liberty. Being bad is great for a bit but then the guilt starts to set in. Hatsue and Ishmael had been seeing each other for a few years but during that time Hatsue was starting to feel guilt towards Fujiko. Fujiko felt that Hatsue was deceiving Fujiko in that Hatsue did not tell Fujiko about Hatsue’s romance. Hatsue wanted to tell her mother, but never had the guts to do it. It’s almost like when you are skydiving and at the jumping moment, you cannot bring yourself to do it. Of course skydiving is physical and not mental but it is relatively has the same feeling. For years Hatsue wanted to tell Fujiko but never could do it and every time she had failed to do so the guilt grew more and more. When Fujiko read a letter addressed to Hatsue from Ishmael she felt very deceived but her daughter. She had confronted Hatsue and told that she could no longer receive letters from his or write to him; but worst of all Fujiko told her that not only had she deceived her but also Hatsue herself. There is no worse feeling as a kid, teenager and even as an adult is when you disappoint someone you love very much. Hatsue had disappointed her mother. It is almost like a rock crushing you from the inside out while falling indefinitely.

After the mother-daughter confrontation Hatsue started to realize many things. She realized that she must take responsibility of her actions and it was the mature thing to do. First, she had to acknowledge what was done and know that there is no way to change the events that happened. This is where the stretched out stories come in and trying to make the events look not as bad or to his or her own fault. For Hatsue she knew that her affair was childish and it was not right to keep her mother or his parents in the dark about them. Secondly Hatsue had to know how she felt about everything. While she was on the bus on the way home all she could think about was Ishmael and how she felt about everything and whether or not she loved him. This is important when accepting responsibility because it is done on a personal level. Only the person themselves know what is right and what is wrong for them so the external forces will not change their mind about how they feel. Once they know how they feel then the person must make a decision on his or her own accord to what they must do in order to achieve responsibility. Making a decision is never as easy as it looks. The stress builds up along with the different emotions which makes it more difficult to make the choice. Hatsue had to choose if she wanted to stay with Ishmael even though she did not fully love him or to move on in life; she chose to move on in life. Hatsue told her mother that it never really felt right with him and she knows that he would not end up being her husband later in life. She and Ishmael had their fun as children but they were now adults and things would be different and not the same. The process of becoming an adult is stressful in that people are always watching you to see if you choose the right thing to do in that society. To Hatsue and to Fujiko, she had made the wise choice; she had thought about her future and her present. All that was left was to do something about the situation. Hatsue had decided to do the mature thing and write him an honest letter. A letter that contained her honest feelings about how she felt guilty of deceiving her mother, her lost feelings towards him even though he was a great guy, and about how it was better for both of them. Hatsue had took responsibility of her actions through acknowledgment, assessment of her feelings and her choice that she made to put her error behind her and to move on in life.

Taking responsibility is not an easy thing to do because the truth hurts and it is never easy to admit that you have done something wrong in your life. It may take losing a friend for someone to realize that it was their mistake and they must act upon their responsibility to fix the mess they have caused. Hatsue had taken responsibility of her deceitful actions with Ishmael and had reconciled with her mother Fujiko. Everyone learns from their mistakes and after taking responsibility the individual will feel much better as they have done the right thing.

Friday, March 4, 2011

The Swimmers (Aragorns) Moment







For this visual I chose to use a whirlpool as the background to represnt the poem The Swimmer's Moment by Margaret Avison (page 186 of Imprints), and Aragorn as the foreground main object from the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. The saying at the bottom is refering to Aragorn in that the right thing to do (become King) will not be easy or possibly successful but it is a risk worth taking. Aragorn is faded because during the movie, the outcome of man kind was not positive nor negative, and so he is faded and must take a chance to risk everything in order to have everything.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

There and Back again

Frodo Baggins’ journey in Return of the King certainly was certainly not short, sweet nor easy but protracted while he struggled his way to Mordor to destroy the one ring. His quest changed who he was in a much deeper level. While he carried the ring he did not remember the feel of grass nor the taste of strawberries but once the ring was destroyed, the memories of the Shire slowly found its way back into his mind. He had completed his task then he returned back to the Shire. Sam did not let their terrifying journey there stop him from moving on with his life. However, Frodo’s stab wound still hurt even though it was roughly three years ago that he had acquired it. A part of him still wants the ring, even though Frodo is happy to be done with it. Frodo’s mind was still encased in the past of his journey there even though he tried to move on. In conclusion, Frodo did not come back from his quest because of what had happened on the way there; the war, the suffering, the pain, and mostly the Ring. Frodo could not let it go.
Arogon is the aire to the throne of Gondor. Through-out the movie series, Arogon starts off to be a ranger and does not want to become the King of Gondor. With Middle Earth in harm’s way of Sauron, mankind unites together. The last hope of man is Gondor, if it shall fall then so shall man. Arogon is slowly taking on the leader roll of many situations and in order to save mankind and defeat Sauron, he must lead the people of Gondor as their King. Arogon is afraid of becoming king because his ancestors had the weakness to succumb to the Ring’s power and he does not want to even be tempted to take that chance. Arogon’s journey was to realize who he was, the aire of Gondor, and what he must do, become King of Gondor. He found himself at the most crucial moment of the war. Like Frodo, Arogon did not go back to the way things were but take on a new journey as the King of Gondor. Arogon acknowledged his past, present and future and went for his destiny in life.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Iran: Contemporary Rejection of Liberalism

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Hamlets Delay

It is hypothesised that Hamlet had many reasons for his delay in taking action; however, one particular theory makes the most logical sense and in which has the most evidence leaning in its direction: Hamlet meditated when he ought to have acted. It can be proven correct by a simple line such as And this the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er the with the pale cast of thought (III, I, 85-86). Other evidence would be from the character foil of Fortinbras and Laertes with Hamlet; which it outlines Hamlets characteristics. There are also other theories that suggest another reason for Hamlets delay which can be disqualified because of hit-and-miss ideologies. After taking a look at one theory and its reason for not working, the wrong answer actually helps back up the solid theory.

Hamlet has to deal with his father’s death and his mothers too soon marriage to his father’s brother. After the ghost of his father comes from the grave, he tells Hamlet that Claudius has murdered him and that Hamlet must avenge his death. With this task daunting Hamlets mind he says And this the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er the with the pale cast of thought (III, I, 85-86). Hamlet is saying that what if this does not work, and then what happens next is unexpected. He is worried about the consequences of his actions if he were to kill Claudius. Hamlet thinks very critically about the situation and why he must do this. This is shown during Hamlets soliloquy while Claudius is praying. Now might I do it pat, now he is praying; and now I’ll do’t: and so he goes to heaven: and I am so revenged. That would be scann’d (III, III, 74-76). The key word in this is scann’d for it means that the current situation should be considered carefully. The phrase summed up means that Hamlet could kill Claudius right there because he was praying: the perfect time to strike; however, if Hamlet were to kill him then Claudius would go to heaven. Hamlet could not let Claudius go there, and as angry as Hamlet was, Hamlet thought that he should think this thoroughly through as possible. After Hamlet was done analysing the situation he ends up going to see his mother and leaves Claudius to pray. Thus Hamlet meditated when he ought to have acted.

When you compare Hamlet with Laertes and Fortinbras in a sense of archetypes, Hamlet’s logical side is more apparent. Fortinbras is the chief. He is thoroughly determined to accomplish his goals, is tough and is born to lead. When his father, the King of Norway, died Fortinbras wanted to reclaim his father’s land that his father had lost to Denmark. He planned to regain this land as quick as he could so he assembled an army and took action of his plan. Laertes is classified as the warrior. A warrior acts with honour. When Laertes found out that his father and sister died, he wanted to restore their family honour and he reacted fairly quickly and would do anything to succeed. Hamlet on the other hand, is the philosopher. Here the philosopher acts calmly, only believes in hard facts and thinks issues out thoroughly. The philosopher does not act out, and if he were too he would analytically verbally act out. When compared to Laertes and Fortinbras, Hamlet is defiantly not the type of person to act out physically and is more likely to let his opportunity to pass while he is still contemplating every aspect of the situation.

Several numbers of people believe in different theories for Hamlet’s delay in reacting to the situation. Another theory suggested is that Hamlet was delayed because of external obstacles. This theory can be rejected in that there is one huge issue with it: he is the Prince and thus he had a great extent of power. Sure the King had a number of guards around him the majority of the time, it is still excusable because Hamlet could have ordered them away and the guards would have to comply with his orders. Even if the guards were around Claudius the vast amount of time, there are still some moments in which the King was by himself. The prime example would be when Claudius was in the church. It can be suggested that he was alone because he had confessed his involvement of killing his brother while having an affair with his wife. Claudius would not have risked any person to hear his crimes. In theory and evidence, the external obstacles would not have been an issue for Hamlet but rather suggest that Hamlet does not act upon incidences but thinks about them.

Hamlet meditated when he ought to have acted. It is as simple as that. Hamlet’s character type supports this theory because he is no warrior or chief, he is a philosopher in which he thinks things through and does not act upon issues physically. Sure throughout the play Hamlet does slay Polonius thinking that it was Claudius, and does end up killing Claudius in the very end but it was not a truly successful mission. If Hamlet did not hesitate to take charge of his father’s revenge then there would not have been as many casualties but he did succeed in his task, no matter the misfortune of others and his ultimate death himself.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Personal Responce: Honor and Certainty

Life is full of surprises. They can be good or bad sudden changes but are a part of who we are today, and can change one self’s honor and certainty in a flash. Grade 12 is full of choices, responsibility and stress. Yet we, the students, stay and push our limits to exceed our norm for a better future. It is this nameless “future” that is the unknown for the majority of fellow students, and its uncertainty puts us into overdrive to put some certainty in this busy world. The only thing that keeps a person moving on is his or her self honor. The next step in life is post secondary which is worrisome because you leave most things you know and enter a whole new world. This change is tough but, honor is one thing that always pulls a person through the rough times. Sure all you think is that “okay, I have rent to pay and I now I have to make the best of this ambiguous life”. However I think that the uncertainty is important to people to experience every once in awhile. Personally, I think the uncertain is the certainty of life as it cannot be always predicted. For all we know life could end tomorrow or in thousands of years. Honor is something that an individual must acquire on a personal level for it is not something a person can give to another. It is such a huge part of a person’s soul that there is no way to define it for a general group of people because it is different for every single person in this world. For this assignment we had to choose which reference (out of three) which we could relate most, and for me, it was the picture called 120 km/h by Jan Saudek. I don’t relate to it yet but hopefully I will in the future. The reason for this is because the young person is sitting on a crossing gate, seemingly to be perfectly balanced and with no desire to do anything but watch the train pass. It seems like the person is certain that he does know what he should do with his life because he is relaxed and at peace and so this person is acting upon his honor. Honor is respect, admiration, reputation, and pride that one has for his/her own self. If one loses their honor and certainty then they struggle to regain them. I would assume that a person would try to restore them by doing the right thing for themselves, whether it be apologizing to someone or even to make up for his or her own mistakes. I do not know much about honor or even certainty; but that is alright because I am still young and have not experienced much in this world to merely understand the full concept of restoring honor. As for certainty, well there is hardly any certainty amongst the population because life changes constantly, thus creating the wonderful world of uncertainty.

Mine honor is my life: both grown in one; Take honor from me, and my life is done.

–William Shakespeare

Thinkexist. (1999-2010). Honor Quotes. Retrieved January 13, 2011, from Thinkexist.com: http://thinkexist.com/quotations/honor/

Friday, January 7, 2011

Laertes the Pawn Archetype

Cast

Laertes - Shicara

Warrior - M'Lynn

Outcast - Doulton

Director - Justine and Hannah