Response essay #10 of "Memo to John Grisham: What's Next-'A Movie Made Me Do It'?"

Popular filmmaker Oliver Stone wrote “Memo to John Grisham” as a response to his article “Unnatural Killers” which was published in the Oxford American. Mr. Stone addressed the criticism laid about his movie Natural Born Killers. He gave his interpretation of Ben and Sarah (the convicted murders from Grisham’s essay) actions without giving the entire story. The entire article is Mr. Stone’s come back, yet he leaves the last half to enumerate different reason why John Grisham was wrong in his attack on Hollywood.

The purpose for Mr. Stone’s writing is not as clear to me as it may seem to others. The most obvious reason seems to be that he got a little teed off and wanted to rant publicly. His writing is filled with fallacies and contradictions. My attention was drawn more to his obvious dislike for Mr. Grisham. Mr. Stone was right to point out a few things though. He comments on how his film is no different from Tom and Jerry or Bugs Bunny cartoons, I agree. He makes the point that if you’re going to pick on one “harmful” industry you have to do the same to others, I agree to a certain degree. He was right to mention the protection given under the First Amendment. I must point out that he shot himself in the foot with the statistics of children and their TV watching. In his explanation he admits that the violence from television shows could contribute to violent acts. That doesn’t help his case much. His last paragraph is what makes his purpose so unclear for me. He writes “Strangle art in its infancy, he suggests, and society will be a better place. One might more persuasively argue that cold-blooded murderers should be strangled in their infancy. Yet as with human infants, can never know the outcome of nascent are, and so both must be protected and nurtured, precisely for society’s sake.” Does he dare compare his murder-film with a child? Is he trying to convince me that no matter how heinous a “human work” is, that it should be nurtured and protected just as a human child? If so, he just may be just a crazy and masochistic as Hitler.

Response essay #9 "Unnatural Killers" by John Grisham

“Unnatural Killers”
Written in the classic John Grisham style, Unnatural Killers begins with a thrilling true tale of two young persons’ coldblooded killing spree. Spun with the skill of his craft, Mr. Grisham argues that the couple’s violent actions were influenced by the movie thriller Natural Born Killers. In his scathing rebuke of the film and others like it, he places the blame on Hollywood and filmmakers. He conveys two options for dealing with the problem: boycott or lawsuit.

I believe that Mr. Grisham wrote an excellent argument. The story was very compelling and the given details were enough to make any mother hold her little ones close. In his attempt to persuade his readers he failed to include details that I think are necessary in forming a decision about the issue. Details such as knowing that the couple were using drugs that would cause hallucinations and knowing that they watched the movie over and over again would help the reader to form a much more informed decision. However, his points are right on in my opinion. Unfortunately, boycotting is the only way that I would, in good conscience, take action on “Hollywood.” Since the writing of this essay, several changes have taken place. Ratings on movies and other entertainment media have become more stringent. The violence has increased though. This point is one to camp out on. The draw of violence cannot be curbed by the letter of the law. On the contrary, the law is the symptom that there is a problem not the cure. The cure must be administered deep in to the heart of man and as far as I know there are no laws that go that far. I champion Mr. Grisham’s efforts and have joined in the fight by being a vigilant fighter for my children's and my mind by being one who actively guards against unwholesome media. No law of the land persuaded or influenced my decision.

Response essay #8 of "The Threat of National ID" by William Safire

William Safire, notably credentialed with being a speech writer for President Nixon, television producer, and reporter for a well known news paper, laid out his argument against the National ID card in this short article. He used the appeal to the draw of modern technology that not only convenience our lives and calm our fear by the use of a chip developed to help locate our lost animals, to begin his argument. Due to the threat of another terrorist attack similar to 9/11, law makers and marketers are eager to use the opportunity to trample the Fourth Amendment he argues. Mr. Safire relates the current misuses of government power to trample that amendment, to support his case. Not leaving imagination to chance, he described the implications of what having a National ID card would lead to, only after explaining the difference between what a State issued license and the federal card are. Lastly, if you had not been convinced by his argument Mr. Safire leads you back to the beginning showing how the information stored on the chip of a small and insignificant card would naturally be replace by a chip being implanted behind your neck.

After reading William Safire’s argument, one could be left thinking that they had read a science fiction story. Sadly the truth is stranger than fiction. All of what Mr. Safire has written is true and modern reality. His purpose of writing is an obvious warning call.Many people believe, not just Americans, that they are marching toward an abyss that has been described by some biblical scholars as the End Times. Though Mr. Safire was not writing from a biblical persuasion, the question that he addresses gets to the very core of liberty. Are you willing to giving up anonymity, privacy, your liberty for convenience and false security? With the use of technology like the Magic Lantern and the Carnivore, our liberties are already in a precarious place. The way that he describes the natural evolution of a devise such as the National ID card is no scare tactic. He desires for the reader to think. The consequences of not thinking and taking action has been devastating for our nation and I fear that twilight has passed and the dawn of a new day for the US and indeed the world may already be here.

Response essay #7 of "Why Fear National ID Cards?" by Alan Dershowitz

Why Fear National ID Cards?
Alan Dershowitz, a self proclaimed civil libertarian, takes a radically non-libertarian stance on the National ID card in his essay.-Why Fear National ID Cards? The essay’s introduction brings readers attention to the modern technology that has made life for travelers easier who use toll booths. His argument begins to center on sacrificing anonymity for security; however by the end of his writing his argument changes to the issue of Americans’ obligation to give up liberty for that security.

The purpose of Mr. Dershowitz’s essay is clearly to persuade and almost mock the citizens not in favor of the National ID card. The trading-privacy-for-convenience argument that he used does not carry the same weight as the real issue at hand. He and others may be comfortable with being totally transparent with their lives but many others are not. To buy a service and tool that would allow drivers to pass through toll booths quickly is a choice that can be accepted or denied by the patron. However, the choice to accept or reject a National ID would be denied if it were to become mandatory. This is a point that he neglects to mention and weakens his argument for me. His attempt to address the possible objections fell with only non-answers such as: Question-“What about fears of identity cards leading to more intrusive measures?” Answer- “We already require photo IDs for many activities, including flying, driving, drinking, and check-cashing.” Doesn’t this National ID card come in the form of “more intrusive measures?” He fails to ask the question if there is anything wrong with giving licenses for those things that he holds up as identification that “we” have accepted. Thinking like Alan Dershowitz does not actually solve problems. I think that his fear of terrorism has blinded him to what he should really fear, and sacrificing his liberty is a symptom of it. His ideas are not uncommon and I fear a change in America unlike any that we have seen before. The people are ready to sacrifice all but there pleasures to be safe.

Response essay of 'Sico' by Michael Moore

Word count 711

Michael Moore has made a career of producing films that make political statements. Sicko, his latest film was meant to address the health care crisis that is a hot topic in America today. Mr. Moore chose a light-hearted approach peppered with seriousness, sadness and anti-American sentiment. He crossed the globe to make the point that the universal health care system, used in other countries, is a far superior system than what is used in America. Questioning citizens from Canada, Britain, France, and even Cuba, Moore’s objective was to establish that the wait, quality, and cost of health care under those countries’ systems were to be desired and adopted here in the US.

Without much delay Mr. Moore tried to connect with lower class Americans. Identifying the lower class white male without health insurance who severed two of his fingers, Moore explained how the man had to choose which fingers he wanted to save because he was too poor to pay to have both reconnected. If that story does not pull at your heart strings, then the story of the older couple, who had to file bankruptcy and move into the storage room of their unwilling grown daughter, because they lost everything due to medical expenses, will. The assertion that super expensive medical care opposed to free medical care is preferred is almost a nonissue. Unless you understand that nothing is truly free. Socializing medicine is not the only alternative.
In the film we, the viewers, watched as Mr. Moore accompanied a French doctor as he made house calls. What a revolutionary idea! In fact, home visits are not a new idea and would strive better under a free market system rather than a socialist one.

Doctors and patients would have the freedom to determine pay, and demand would keep doctors competitive. This point leads me to an organization that Mr. Moore mentioned in the film- the American Medical Association. This group deserves a little credit for the “health care crisis” that we find ourselves in. What with capping the number of students that medical schools will take makes the ratio of doctor-to-patient unbelievably skewed. No matter how noble doctors are the law of supply and demand works in the medical field just as well as in any other field. Raise your hand if you want to be a doctor. Mr. Moore also documented a conversation where President Nixon seemed to be selling the American people to a greedy business man who started the HMO mess. I don’t cast much doubt on the point that he was making, yet his argument is so laughable. His argument is that the “government” screwed us over so we need more “government” (universal, national, controlled by the government healthcare) to rescue us from the mess that the “government” got us into. I’m a little dizzy trying to stay on that merry-go-round. I will give him credit for pointing out that the government does a crummy job helping people.

It was apparent to me from the beginning of the film that Michael Moore did not share my ideas. I have friends who: sew their own stitches, change their own radiator and toilets, work several jobs, pay for their own health care, and would think it an insult if someone were to tell them that they “should be kicking back on a beach somewhere”-both woman and men, young and old. I would ask my fellow Americans who would desire to go to France so that the government nanny could cook the food and do the laundry, are you truly comfortable with laying your life wide open for the government to look in? A better question would be; would you like an IRS official cleaning your house? Or perhaps having a DSS worker babysitting for you would be more appealing? Unlike others that I know, I am for trading with Cuba, and Moore was right to bring to light how inexpensive medicine is there. Was there a sleight of hand involved? I’m not sure; however I do know that the value of currency plays a big role. To my American friends who would envy the life in Cuba, I would issue a warning. CUBA IS NOT FREE PERIOD.

Response essay #5 of The Ways We Lie by Stephanie Ericson

(This essay by Ms. Ericson was bitter-sweet in that when you find yourself wanting to cheer you're let down by her... if you ever read The Ways We Lie you will understand what I mean. You will get the gist of it from my response.)

In her essay The Ways We Lie Stephanie Ericson begins by giving different scenarios of how people may lie. She cited two definitions for the word lie from the Webster’s dictionary. From there, she laid out her implications from them and constructed several different ways that people might lie. She asserts that all people lie. Ms. Ericsson mentioned the lies that are hardly disputed like the infamous “white lie” and the “out-and-out-lie.”However, she includes deceptions that are unsuspecting, easily disguised or flat out ignored.

I believe Ms. Ericsson had two reasons for writing her essay- to inform and to entertain. I was provoked to think about the things she said, yet I did not get the impression that she had any intention to change, nor did she give the impression that she expected anyone else to. Her essay was rife with subjective opinion. I thought that with each one of her types of lies she was on the right track, but when she illustrated a few of her points I was left disappointed. In regards to the lie by Omission, she said that it involves “telling most of the truth minus one or two key facts whose absence changes the story completely.” She then chooses to illustrate it by telling of a rabbinical legend that in her mind discounts the truth of the Bible. With the lie Ignoring the Plain Facts she expresses her distrust for the Roman Catholic Church. I found it hard to follow her motives. I have heard and read many stories that have a semblance to certain accounts in the Bible such as Gilgamesh, the story of Remus and Romulus, the story of Turtle Mt. to name a few, yet I do not judge the source of my faith by legends. The fact that she chose to use that illustration gives the reader a glimpse into her disdain for the bible. I was personally offended because she, hedged on one legend, condemned the Bible as a lie. The essay was interesting reading and I would hope that, if anything, her readers would read it with the intent to improve themselves.

Uh oh! Letting The Cat out of the Bag on the War on Drugs

To get you thinking about the War on everything series, if you have not, begin here with the other side of the debate on the War on Drugs. Many people have not thought about these things before....
Now you know where I stand on the issue.

Response essay #3 to My First Conk by Malcolm X

(Malcolm X's perspective was not one that I could agree with; however it was an interesting read)


Malcolm Little, who became a controversial figure in America for his outspoken views on social injustice, changed his surname to X. He wrote this account from his youth during a time when being “black” meant being inferior to the “white man.” Being related with a bit of light heartedness will give the reader a false security. Underneath the joviality Mr. X lays the bitterness of the story. The time had come for him to have his hair conked. A friend of his “Shorty” had given him the list of supplies to get from the drug store so that they could do it themselves: One can of Red Devil lye, two eggs, and two medium-sized white potatoes were a few of the essentials needed for the task. Malcolm retold his experience with great clarity. Shorty explained to him how painful the process would be, yet nothing would have prepared him for what he actually experience. Once the mixture was combined Malcolm touch the jar and felt the heat that the lye produced. Quite frankly, he felt like his head had caught fire when the congolene was combed through his hair. Even after the concoction had been washed out of his hair the pain was unbearable. He did bear it though while Shorty styled his hair. After seeing the results, he vowed to never again go without a conk. “This was my first really big step toward self-degradation:” in this, Malcolm’s purpose for writing the narrative is revealed.


Malcolm X’s reason in writing may be twofold: to shame and to persuade. His choice of words such as: brainwashed, inferior, and superior gives me the idea that he intended to shame “Negro men and women.” He seemed to want to persuade the same people to change the way that they saw themselves and not just change a hairstyle. He wrote, “To my shame, when I say all of this, I’m talking first of all about myself-because you can’t show me a Negro who ever conked more faithfully than I did.” Although he was writing during a time when social injustice was more prevalent than today his message of the futility in harming yourself for the approval of others is universal. Many young women and men came learn from such a lesson. Granted that his point of view, being that if you get conked you degrade yourself, may have been true for him and many “Negros” during his time I can’t say that it is true today. Personally, I and many women of different ethnicities undergo a similar process to have straightened hair, yet are perfectly happy in our own skin. There are indeed many points of view on this issue today, but Mr. Malcolm’s view was probably more widely received during his day.

Response essay#1 to Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call Police by Martin Gansberg

(This article was a good read.)

“For more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens.” Martin Gansberg began his compelling article as if he were writing a murder mystery. Indeed, as the story unfolds, one would believe that this tragedy was the invention of Edger Allen Poe, and not an event that took place in an American Suburb. At 3:20 A.M. Catherine (Kitty) Genovese, a young woman living in New York, was returning home from her job as a bar manager. She became alerted to a man stalking her. Then he violently attacked her. Her screams drew the attention of her neighbors: Lights went on, windows slid open, and voices yelled. The attacker was frightened off for a time; however no one telephoned the police for help, or came down to attend to the young woman. With renewed confidence, the man returned on two separate occasions (within the span of 15 minutes) to attack Kitty. Finally, he had completed his cruel task by stabbing her to death. The murderer found her slumped at the foot of the stairs merely doors away from her apartment, and only feet away from the help of neighbors. When questioned, by the police, about why they had not called for help, Ms. Genovese’s neighbor’s responses revealed apathy, fear and perhaps even a mild sadistic curiosity.

Mr. Gansberg’s implied purpose for writing the article was to shame the society at large that had adopted the cultural attitude of “minding its own business.” For the myriad of reasons conceived for adopting such an idea; I believe that he was, and remains to be justified in bringing such a charge. If we assume, as it seems the author does, that our neighbors are indifferent or afraid to become involved when we are in danger we risk loosing vital elements that makes a community what it is. Furthermore, failing to heed the message may produce distressing results; such as an increase in violent crimes, a rise in corporate crimes, fewer whistle blowers in the government and a break down in family values. Martin Gansberg wrote this article over 50 years ago; in my opinion the effects have already taken hold to our homes, businesses, neighborhoods and nation.

Modern day Slavery

This is reality for many children outside of America today... What will we do about it?



To read the story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=5326508