# 2 "A Modest Proposal"

sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn

"A Modest Proposal" by Dr. Jonathan Swfit was written in 1729 and is a sarcastic essay in which he believes he is promoting for the good of Dublin, Ireland.  As the solution to poverty and starvation within Dublin, Dr. Swfit suggests eating babies; or to put it simply, cannibalism. He states " I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children . . . is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom, a very great additional grievance." Later on, he states "I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection." Dr. Swfit is being especially sarcastic right here, for if one proposes for a city to eat children, he or she MUST expect opposition. 


When he first introduces his proposal, Dr. Swfit compares children to animals. He continues to say how a number of children will be reserved for the specific purpose of breeding, and how "these children are seldom the fruit of marriage . . . therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females." This part is completely dehumanizing! All I could think was, " is this guy really suggesting that the human race is equal to the those of the animal kingdom!?" Next, he casually describes the plumping process and sales of children. He says after about a year, the children should be fat enough, and at the last month the mother may allow them to "suck plentifully," of course, before being sold. After that he goes on to say that seasoning the carcasses of the children correctly would lead to quite a good meal. 


He then continues to talk about the proposed cannibalism, then writes to justify the reasons for doing so. He states reasons such as: lessesning the number of Paptists, giving the poor something of value, economic growth, etc.  He also goes on to say that even if one thousand families were constant consumers of child carcasses, there would still be plenty of people left to populate the rest of Dublin. 


I have to admit that I didn't catch on to Dr. Swift's satire the first time I read this. I was disgusted at the thought that some, especially a doctor, who I figured had to have a great amount of intelligence, would ever propose such a thing as cannibalism. Then, as I reread this essay, I realized that Dr. Swift actually felt sympathy towards the people of Dublin.


Dr. Swfit loves Dublin, and several times throughout the essay, emphasizes the fact that his proposal is for Dublin's greater good in mind. I also noticed that Dr. Swfit referred to Dublin as the "kingdom." This shows that he he feels great pride for Dublin, Ireland, and puts it above other countries, and even above himself. In the end, he genuinely hurts for the Irish who face poverty and/or starvation. I can read that he really wants to be involved and help Dublin during its time of need. 


I also noticed that Dr. Swfit used a good amount of statistics throughout his essay, proving that he thoroughly reviewed this proposal. If it were not for me finally realizing that Dr. Swift used satire throughout the essay, I actually would have believed that his position was in favor of cannibalism. The fact that Swift is a doctor, and therefore is a credible source of the included statistics, makes it harder for, or at least drags out the process for, readers to understand his true thoughts. 


When I first read this essay, I thought the title, "A Modest Proposal," was completely contradictory to Dr. Swfit's writing. Proposing an idea such as cannibalism is far from, or actually, is the complete opposite of modesty. If anything, I thought, it is bold, daring, radical. But now, I would have to say that it truly is a modest proposal. It is modest because Dr. Swfit's feelings are not, at any point, completely or simply put out there on the table. He uses  satire to express his views and feelings on poverty in Dublin, but at the same time, stays away from that vulnerability that comes from telling the honest truth. 


I enjoyed "A Modest Proposal." I am definitely one who appreciates the art of sarcasm (my mother can agree with that!). I like the fact that Dr. Swift decided to be creative, instead of doing the average essay that is to the point with a list of reasons as to why something should or should not be done. 

Second Semester Blog #1: Pedro Romero

Hemingway defined a code of ethics for heroism, the most important tenet being that a brave hero exhibits "grace under pressure." What this means is that in difficult situations -- especially mortal ones -- the hero handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on.  First, how does Romero display these qualities in The Sun Also Rises?  Second, how does this mesh with our modern heroes?  Minimum 650 words.


In The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemmingway writes of the "Lost Generation"- a group of post-war individuals. In the midst of their madness, Hemmingway introduces Pedro Romero, a nineteen year old matador who serves as the foil to Jake Barnes, the narrator of the novel. Romero is written as Hemmingway's ideal version of a hero. Romero is pure, confident, and does not fear danger. For these reasons, he is looked onto as as superior character in comparison to the World War I veterans of this story.


Being only nineteen years old, Romero hadn't experienced as much as the group of friends in this novel, and therefore remains pure. Romero did not experience the loss of a loved one, as Brett did; he did not experience a life-changing injury, the violence of war, and did not serve in the war, as Jake did. Life had only consisted of bull-fights so far in Romero's life. There was nothing that had tainted his vision. Also, before meeting Brett, Romero did not feel the kind of love as she and him had had together. The love that they shared together was brand new.  The reason Romero's purity is significant heroic, is because the other characters' impurities lead them to be messed up individuals. Jake, Brett, Cohn, Mike, Bill- all of them were living lives which consisted of sex, drinking, and partying nonstop. They each gave into their weaknesses, and it only left them unhappy and unsatisfied with their lives.


"The Lost Generation" was also known for being a group of people who did not believe that they had a future. After the war, their outlook on life seemed so demented that the thought of a bright future was nothing but a joke. Romero, in contrast, exhibits "grace under pressure" because he does believe in his own future, and is not afraid to take on whatever is to be served to him. Once Romero and Brett began their affair, they decided to be together. Romero was not afraid to settle down, while Brett was. He was able to see their future together, but Brett was too afraid to follow through. Because Romero was not a part of "the Lost Generation," he had something that the others lacked: hope. The others saw that their lives were pretty much over, whereas Romero knew it had just begun. 


While Romero demonstrated his heroism outside of the ring, he definitely showed it within the ring as well. To be a bull-fighter in the first place is quite heroic, considering the potential dangers that are offered. The steers in the book are gored, and some even die. By putting himself at risk, Romero demonstrates his confidence in himself. Romero was said to have "never made any contortion, always it was straight and natural in line." Romero did not beat around the bush. He put 100% of himself into bull-fighting. Even though he was in the face of danger, he did not flinch. He carried within himself a sense of confidence and professionalism. Also, Hemmingway writes "Romero's bull-fighting gave real emotion, because he kept the absolute purity of line in his movements and always quietly and calmly let the horns pass him close each time," which is a metaphor. First of all, Romero was not afraid to share his emotions, and was not afraid to deal with them. The drunks in this novel, however, use drinking itself as an escape from the truth, and from their very own emotions. Next, Romero "always quietly and calmly let the horns pass him close each time," meaning that he did not try to shove his problems away. He allowed them to come, he did not stop them, but he did not let them hurt him either.  


Romero's qualities definitely blend in with our modern day heroes. Heroes are no longer seen just as those who go out there and fight crimes. Heroes were also seen as those who were fearless, but there have never been such people. Romero is a hero because even though he knew that life was tough, and that he had things to fear around every corner, he did not sit back and let life continue without him. He decided to take charge of his own life and do something meaningful with it. He decided to live with passion, and I think it's something heroic and respectable that people of these modern times can look up to. 

#14

Generally speaking, I do not believe public schools should teach students ethics and personal values. Every person is a unique human being with different views and beliefs, making values personal. School should be a safe, positive, and accepting environment where students can develop into "good citizens" just by being present. For example, I have learned from school to be a respectful and responsible young lady, even though it was never put into lesson plans, or actually taught by teachers.
Personally, I don't think science classes should teach students about evolution just because there are many students, such as myself, who believe in creation, or disagree with the idea altogether. I agree that it isn't fair to teach about any religion or religious values in public school, and therefore I do not think it is fair to teach a controversial theory.

#15

Blog #15 - Discuss the three reasons Sante gives for a breakdown of secrecy (Soviet Union/KGB, internet, “confessional culture”/media). Do you agree, for example, that the Internet is a “nemesis” to secrecy? Defend your answer. 

#13

Reserved!

#12 El Flamenco Rosa

Self Check:
1. I believe that I did answer the promt. My essay was about Price's use of language and how it indicated her views of American culture.

2. I feel that my thesis is pretty straight forward and obvious. I think it is strong, and I am content with it.

3. My essay is focused on a central theme, and I do believe that my paragraphs build on top of each other.

4. In my essay, I did cover 1-2 things fully; but I admit that in the end I did throw in other things that I thought I should cover. Oops!

5. I do not believe that I vaguely explained my analysis. I included several quotes and textual details to support my ideas.

Reflection:
1. What went well? I finished my essay! :) Also, I was able to provide and support several different quotes from the prompt.

2. While writing, I felt exremely rushed, so I don't think I did as well as I could have. I didn't feel like I could afford the time to annotate so much, and I started writing my essay right away.

3. If I had more time to write the essay, I would annotate more, and organize the essay better. I would probably remove some of the half-baked sentences that I used for the sake of covering more ideas.

4. Well, I didn't really plan the organization of my essay. I had certain ideas with supportive details, and I ran with them to make paragraphs. I made changes to the ones that I thought were unnecessary.

5. While writitng and trying to suppport my ideas, I think I fully realized Price's views on American culture, and how money truly affects it.

6. For the next timed write, I need to organize my essay better!

#11

Reserved!