Response essay #6 of “Who Killed Benny Paret?” by Norman Cousins

(This was based on article written about a fallen prize fighter. It's a pretty sad story. I hope that my response gives a perspective to make you think deeper than you had before. I know I did after reading the article.)

Millions of people worldwide take part as spectators to the sport of prize fighting: better known as boxing. In 1962 two men stepped into the ring and only one walked out. Millions of television viewers watched as Benny Paret was brutally beaten into a coma of which he later died. Norman Cousins, a journalist at the time, wrote his essay “Who killed Benny Paret?” In his scathing rebuke of the sport, he recorded the testimony from a fight promoter. That promoter, Mike Jacobs, tells that the secret of putting on a good fight is to put killers in the ring- that’s what the people want. Mr. Cousins’ explanation of the delicacy of the brain and the destruction caused by human fist pounding on it commands much attention. Quite naturally an investigation was conducted to find out what the cause of Benny Paret’s death. Was it the manager’s, referee’s, or the exam doctor’s fault for negligence in some way or another? Mr. Cousins espouses that those questions are futile and places the blame elsewhere. He blames the millions who flock to see the blood, violence and the all important knockout blow.

As many did who went before Norman Cousins to rid the world of violence-made-sport, they wrote papers to persuade people to their point of view. St. Augustine wrote centuries ago about the Roman games. I applaud these men for their efforts for many reasons. The brutality of boxing and other prize sports do not encourage growth in our human existence. The proof is in the pudding however. The desire that is in all of us to see violence shows that we are not getting better. I believe that if societies will not be shamed by Mr. Cousin’s accusations things far worse than watching prize fighting will be written about. Just how far can reality television go? The movies that make millions of dollars at the box office are not the “tea party” types. American Idol is not as popular as it is because we want to hear bad singers. We like it when Simon insults the hopeless and the hopeful. I am very sympathetic to Cousins cry. However, I disagree with his measures. The thirst to see blood, foolishness to make a career out of getting your brains beaten out, or being sleazy enough to make money off of it are issues of the heart that should not be dealt with from a state house or federal building. St. Augustine wrote about his transformation from within that came from God giving him the desire to no longer frequent the coliseums. Jonathan Edwards wrote of how taverns went out of business for want of patrons. It is my belief that the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ causes such transformations. I understand that my convictions are not held by everyone who has had a change in their life. Yet how often is that change helped by government controls? Mr. Cousins desired to protect young men from a blood thirsty crowd, but would he want them saved them from their own foolishness?

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 #4 of The Power of Words in War Time by Robin Tolmach Lakoff

(This was an intersting and thought provoking essay to read. My response does not do it much justice.)


Robin Tolmach Lakoff, a contemporary linguist, has studied the effects of language in different venues. In this article, which appeared in the New York Times, she unfolds the ever changing and ever present language of war. Documenting many dehumanizing terms, Ms. Lakoff presents to her readers several ways that the “enemy” is addressed. From the Greeks and Romans reference to everyone else as “barbarians” to the American soldiers’ reference to Iraqi prisoners as “it”, we get a glimpse of some of this terminology. She mentioned the idea of an Austrian ethologist, Konrad Lorenz, that “the more we see other members of our own species, the harder it is to kill them.” She also suggest that collecting the enemy in our minds as an “undifferentiated mass” helps us to not think of them as individuals who can suffer. She sights several historical facts, and bring her expertise to bear on the subject.

The purpose for Ms. Lakoff’s article is hard to know at first reading. However, upon reflection I can’t escape the impression that I am left with after each reading. Judging from the style of her writing she seems to be informing. I believe that she is informing, yet I can’t help but agree with her reasoning. Therefore, I think that she is trying to persuade me and her readers to choose peace instead of war. I was of the same opinion as the author before I read the article and found myself congratulating her for articulating this point of view the way that she did. This passage from the article shows clearly her point of view, “The linguistic habits that soldiers must absorb in order to fight makes atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib virtually inevitable. The same language that creates a psychological chasm between “us” and “them,” and enables American troops to kill in battle, makes enemy soldiers fit subjects for torture and humiliation. The reasoning is: They are not really human, so they will not feel the pain.” The danger and tragedy of ignoring the wisdom laid out here is endless war of course, but worse still could develop and has developed. Babies are called embryos and fetus, or blobs of tissue. If they are not babies they can’t feel the pain of being aborted. The elderly are tucked away in nursing homes. The atrocity that we hear about that goes on there, and in mental health facilities shows the evidence of dehumanization. It’s hard to know what hope that Ms. Lakoff has for the abolishment of war, but my hopes for that are dark. My hope resides elsewhere.

Home Schooling in South Carolina (essay#2)

(word count 684)

Educational trends tend to come and go. As the transfer of responsibility of educating children has moved more away from the jurisdiction of the local government to the federal government here in the United States, parents have taken it upon themselves to grab the reign and educate their won children. I am one of those parents. Often times I am asked, “Is it hard to home school?” or the basic query of, “What must you do to home school?” although opinions or wording may differ from home school family to home school family home schooling in South Carolina requires you tend to three important things in order to be successful.

Once you have decided to home school it is pertinent to take the necessary steps to make your home school legal, and to protect your rights. The stat of South Carolina has made three options available for the family that chooses to home school: In short, option one states that instruction must be approved by the district board of trustees. Potion two allows it by becoming a member of the South Carolina Association of Independent Home Schools (SCAIHS). Potion three allows a family to gain membership of an association for home schools which has no fewer than 50 members. Each of these options varies in the level of accountability. To learn more about the three options ample information can be found through public resources. Though many would say that educating your own children is a privilege others contend that it is a parent’s God given right. However you are persuaded the Home School Legal Defense (HSLD) is a group of lawyers whose mission is to protect the rights of homeschoolers in the United States and other countries.

After you have legitimized your home school, gathering your curriculum and developing a plan will be the next critical phase. Many of the option three accountability associations, such as Piedmont Home Educators Association (PHEA) equip new homeschoolers with free and invaluable information. This information will include; curriculum providers, local home school activities, organizations that would be beneficial to your school, and the like. Just as with anything else, the internet is a great tool for locating books- new or used. Here in the Upstate there are a couple of local home school bookstores which carry several popular books and curriculum. The major home school book store in our area is called Children’s Books. The store is owned and operated by a veteran home school family. Their help is welcomed from the new and experienced families alike. The sweet nectar to most home school families however are the used book sale! In the spring co-ops, associations, or support groups organize our book sales. Going there will afford you the benefits of good deals, a wealth of information, encouragement, and good fellowship.

Lastly, and perhaps the most important requirement for homeschooling in South Carolina is to garner moral support. Educating at home is gaining more and more credibility; however there are still many who are against the practice. Having support from family and friends may help to ease emotional burdens that often come from non-supporters because you home school. Aside from accountability associations, there are many support groups all over the state. Some of them cater to specialized needs such as: families with special needs or autistic children. Co-ops are outlets that families take advantage of. They meet the needs of families by providing, tutors, classes, and several children in one place. Sometimes the support of fellow homeschoolers is the only support you may get. In what ever form that it comes remember to draw upon it on the days that you feel burned out and discouraged.

You will hit bumps in the road but over all home schooling in South Carolina can be quite rewarding. If you follow the necessary steps of legalizing and protecting you home school, gathering curriculum and developing a plan, and gaining moral support you and your family will have an experience that may pay off for years to come.

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 #2 of Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell

(Orwell wrote this account of his early years as a British civil srervant in Burma. One of my very favorites!)

The thought laid out in this most intriguing narrative were masterfully related by the famous writer George Orwell. His narrative begins with telling of his time living in the town of Moulmein in Lower Burma. The political climate in the world at that time (late 1930’s) had Britain as the dominate world power. As it were, they had conquered and occupied Burma. Orwell despised the philosophy of the “white man’s burden” which many European nations had adopted. Yet he had a conflict. The Berman people hated him. Relating several incidents to support this, he mentioned how “the young Buddhist priests were the worst of all.” This conflict which he described, “All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beast who tried to make my job impossible” were the two sides of the coin of the nature of imperialism. The crux of the story is revealed in the telling of his experience with shooting an elephant. On receiving a phone call about an elephant, who had been “musting” and ravaging a town he, being the local officer, went after it. The descriptions given of the damage caused by the tamed animal were excellent. He told of the gruesome murder of an Indian Coolie man, which plays an important role later in the story. As he hunted for the elephant, the town’s people were disinterested. However, once he sent for an elephant rifle, the people came out in droves. An internal conflict began to develop inside of Orwell. He had no intention to shoot the animal, but sent for the gun for his own protection. Upon finding the elephant peacefully eating in a paddy field, it became apparent that the two thousand followers were looking for sport and intended on the death of the animal. He spoke of the will of the crowd pressing down on him. In this he said, “. . . it was in this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East.” He realized that he had to shoot the elephant. The reasoning to this end was so that he would not look foolish. He was loathed to shoot the beast. He even thought of a way to get around it. Yet in the end the mockery would be too severe. In comparison to the killing of the Indian man and the elephant, the man’s misery had ended quickly while the elephant’s death was torturous and laborious.


The purpose of the narrative lies in Orwell’s enlightenment. He said that the incident of shooting the elephant, gave him a better glimpse into “the real motives for which despotic governments act.” Therefore, I believe his design is to warn and dissuade people from the point of view of Imperialism. In his description, by no mistake, he chose to inform his readers that the Burman people were defenseless. They had no weapons, and despised the “white people” for occupying their country. The way that he spoke of the mask that he wore depicts the illusion created by the elaborate game of playing God called Imperialism. It is my opinion that if we do not consider what Orwell has written here and in other works, we will find ourselves marching into World Wars. Indeed, only a few years after he wrote this story that the Second World War took place. Even so now, our own dear country is plagued with this awful disease. Though we may not call it “Imperialism” or “the white man’s burden”, it has been called “Manifest Destiny.”