What's the most important thing you learned and how does it apply to everyday life?

That revolt is possible, and that when incited enough we can stand together and at least attempt to make a difference.

SwissPositionPaper[1]

Model UN

Jared Reyes

1^st Period

Model UN II

When we first broached the topic of gun control, it never occurred to me that we would spend as much time as we have on it. I deducted that this was in response to the Arizona shooting spree, but to my surprise (and pleasurably so) we expanded from that, and it was very enlightening as we explored gun policy, and how often it could be contradictory or outrageously loose on gun trading. At least, personally I thought so.  While I admit that at times, our simulation was outlandish in some respects, it was nonetheless refreshing to see some of my peers actually work towards something that stemmed from their beliefs, however minimal the work, effort, or even interest was.

 Call me a misanthrope, but throughout the simulation I found that I felt that humanity as a whole shouldn’t have access to firearms, much less the United States. I’ve never seen such pettiness, such boyishness, such an overwhelming amount of foolish clinging at the façade of masculinity and “American” spirit, than I’ve seen in the politics defending anti-gun control.  And I became increasingly infuriated as I found out more about these (forgive me if you find that I’ve beaten this word to death) “lax” gun control laws.  I was very surprised that I felt that such a tight grip on gun control was needed. I suppose my beliefs are akin to that clip of Chris Rock’s performance, Bigger and Blacker, in that if excessive restrictions were to exist, people would be less likely to buy guns. Simply put, less guns= good.

After watching Bowling for Columbine, I felt that Michael Moore did a solid job of denouncing the most purported reasons as to why Americans are so prone to violence, and/or obsessed with it, i.e. violence portrayed in media, America’s violent history, and so on. From what I gathered, it all boiled down to sensationalism that nearly all news outlets provide in their news coverage. Something that Oliver Stone had already addressed eight years before Bowling for Columbine, in his satirical film Natural Born Killers, which also addressed the issue of violence in America, and also laid part of the blame on sensationalism.  Sensationalism and cultural enforcement that guns are good, are what I believe are reasons to our nation’s current dilemma. I believe that we as a people are deadened to the idea of death, and that it can even be justified in some cases.  Otherwise, I felt that our brief focus on gun control was very enlightening, very informative, and inspires me to fight this growing threat in the near future, just as the those Columbine victims did in the film.

And with luck, maybe I’ll accomplish something like they did.

Thoughts on Invisible Children

Last week, when Invisible Children held a presentation in our school, I found it hard not to squirm in my seat with every faux cinematic scene. The images of hordes of young teens raising their fists in unison resiliently (or the peace sign) was a bit too much for me. But nontheless, there were some touching truths, and everytime the camera swung around for Tony or his neighbors, I felt my heart be wrenched. If the film was weepy, it still presented real tragedies. But I suppose the biggest surprise was the wide spanning effect the film had on the audience, my peers. If I've known the students to be anything, it's apathetic, and especially considering global issues. It gave me hope for my peers.

As A Brother

 As  A  Brother

       Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a civil rights leader and pastor, criticizes the war in Vietnam. Hedepicts the war as an unpopular and distasteful affair carried out by a stubborn government that isdestroying it’s legacy and the notion of American nobility, and why and how it must halt the war fromprolonging. He attempts to convey this by employing a tone of connectedness with the reader, a critical butnot overtly emotional undermining, and of course being declarative throughout it.Dr. King begins by clarifying that while speaks for the “voiceless” in Vietnam, he also recognizesthe troops, and that they are in fact fighting for lies fabricated by the government to protect their self imageamong the American public. That the war is in fact not fought for said public, but the elite, while creating“a hell for the poor.” Even through the simplification just given, one can sense the candidness of such astatement. It is already obvious that Dr. King has anti-war sentiments, in his framing of the war’s“brutalizing process” of destruction. Establishing that war is a horror in any case, to add insult to injury, theUnited States government is in fact hiding behind a façade, disguising their ulterior motives for the war. Byportraying the government as deceitful and cynical towards the deaths of their soldiers for the sake of their political needs, he victimizes the soldiers as they are cheated out of their lives under the ruse of patriotism,along with the Vietnamese. Even the use of the word “voiceless” is a clear demonstration of King’s effortsto victimize the Vietnamese, and establishing himself as a herald for said victims, an initial attempt atdisplaying himself as connected to those on the receiving end of hardships. Then using anaphora (a devicethat King, as anyone familiar with him should know, has an affinity for) to further this connection,reaffirms that he speaks and represents all victims of this war, and those who oppose it, while hevehemently declares (pun intended) that the American government must pull out of the war on their ownaccord. At this statement, King now emanates determination.Dr. King then resorts to citing a “great Buddhist” leader on how he accounts the war. This is afundamental use of ethos as the source can be seemingly credible as he is centered in the very location of the turmoil. The Buddhist leader then describes the Americans as a hostile force that alienates it’s allies,and turns on the values that they claim to be fighting for(“revolution, freedom, and democracy” etc.) asthey incur instead an “image of violence and militarism.” A force that is so blinded by a focus on militaryvictory, that it cannot see the “psychological and political defeat” that they themselves are immersing in.Firstly, it must be noted that King uses a source that is akin to himself, in that he is highly spiritual andcalmly outspoken. Secondly, that the source himself is fairly neutral in that he is a religious figure, neither afighter or villager that is prone to any immediate danger from the war, but as a Vietnamese individual, itcan be presumed, has a better grasp of the situation than any outsider, or as King would like you to believe,seeing as there is no actual evidence to enforce this. But still it is effective in furthering the portrayal of theAmerican government as obtuse and forceful. He then returns to speaking himself and once again for theworld, to display America’s sinister motives as nothing but imperial colonization, and to the extreme, toengage in a war with China to “bomb her nuclear installations.” While not stating it outright, the presumedintentions are displayed as petty and oppressive (if not a bit desperate), at least in the context of international modern politics.Now exposed in such a trivial light, at least in the framework of Dr. King’s speech, Dr. Kingspeaks for the world (again) to claim that it “demands a maturity of America” and it must admit to theatrocities and negative effects of the war on the people. Furthermore, in order to compensate the war mustbe aborted on our call with five means to be taken. These include ceasefires, stopping troops fromextending any further in southeast Asia, allow the southern Vietnamese to fight for themselves, and totalwithdrawal of troops in Vietnam. A definite, straightforward how-to, devoid of any lyrical or emotional appeals.