Blog #2 New semester

Starting with the title, “A Modest Proposal”, is a bit of an understatement; it sets the tone for the whole satirical essay. The title makes his plan sound like a plausible or even beneficial course of action to rid Ireland of poor useless children and help the poor receive some income to live. He says that, “whoever could find out a…method…would deserve…to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.” I find this funny in that he thinks anyone who can find a “fair, cheap and easy” way to help or get rid of the poor shall be hailed as a hero of the nation and will have statues in his honor. Swift is mocking that the government should be preserving its nation, but it is paying no attention to the poor that riddling the streets—although, it is not a problem to the wealthy because they do not have any interaction with the poor which is why there is no action being taken. Swift sells his satirical tone by saying he’s weigh several schemes and he’s calculated the options; it makes it sound like he has put a lot of serious thought into his proposal to “help” the poor.
     In his proposal, his argument is for poor women to birth children, nurse them for a year—which would be compensated—and then sell them to be eaten be the rich. He says it will be beneficial in many different ways. It will prevent voluntary abortions to have babies eaten after a year of life; it will rid the land of young children that can’t work; young children are not very valuable to sell; this business venture will be a profitable plan; and the poor will die inevitably, so get some use out of them while you can. These all sound like they would benefit society by getting rid of poor children, but, of course, they are truly inhumane and outlandish requests that Swift is using to criticize the lack of action being taken. I was initially dumbfounded by Swift’s statements of eating babies and all, but once I remembered that it was a satirical essay, I was relieved. I find it funny that Swift could write or even think of this essay because it and its ideas are completely insane and I don’t see how anyone could write such a piece.
     The most ludicrous part of the essay is at the end. First of all, he says, “I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal.” Once again, I realize this is satirical, but I find it outrageous that he would not take into consideration the consequences, the inhumane nature, or the sheer atrocity of his proposal. Also, he says, “I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work…I have no children, by which I can propose to get a single penny….” I found this funny because he is stating that he has proposed a plan which shall help the people, but he himself will not be helped by it at all. He is criticizing the government here; if the government were to propose a plan, it would not be a particularly good one—one that would be impractical—because the government has no true knowledge of the poor and their children because they have zero interaction amongst them.
     I think that Swift is very successful in criticizing the government. The introduction to his essay states that there is an evident problem with the poor and their many needy children; the poor fill the streets and are nothing but bad news for the country. He also states that there is no action being taken, no plans being proposed, and, of course, no notice is being taken by the rich and the government. He dehumanizes the poor people by comparing them to cattle and pigs, the children are useless since they can’t work, and selling babies is just a means of trading goods. This shows how the government needs to do something, and the only plan proposed is Swift’s satirical plan. Swift’s dehumanization of the poor Papists is exactly how the government would approach the problem; they would view the people as pieces of meat instead of actual, living breathing human beings. Their plan would reflect their insensitivity for the human; although Swift’s plan sounds outrageous and is satirical in nature, the government wouldn’t propose a much better plan. Of course, it wouldn’t include eating babies, but it would not take into account the human element and it would not be effective because the government has no true experience with helping the poor.

Blog #1 new semester

In Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, Romero is viewed as a hero. In his bullfighting, he is very genuine compared to the other bullfighters; he truly works close to the bull when others only appear to work close. He is tackling his task head-on and comes out victorious in his fights even though he is younger than the other "great" fighters. He is victorious because of his truly genuine style; with his style he exhibits "grace under pressure". The aficionados--such as Jake and Montoya--recognize Romero's gift; Jake and Montoya do not want Romero's gift to go to waste by him being corrupted and going down the same path as many other bullfighters had. Many bullfighters--especially the good ones--were corrupted by their fame; they took advantage of their skill and fame to get stuff, they did not love the sport as much and as thoroughly as the competition and for that they left Spain for bigger things. But, like many heroes, Romero can create enemies. Because Jake loves Brett so much he betrays the sport he loves and the young fighter by setting them up together; this sets off a chain reaction that corrupts Romero and creates enemies. Romero is first corrupted by Brett who is only attracted to him because he is a new piece of meat and he is a rising bullfighter. He, like the other bullfighters, let his gift go to his head and he was using it for things other than bullfighting. Romero's first enemy was Cohn. Cohn thinks that he is Brett's one and only true love, but when he finds her and Romero together, he loses his calm and collective demeanor and beats Romero relentlessly. Romero, trying to retain his dignity, fought back but to no avail; he had already lost his values as a hero. No matter how strong Romero, like many heroes, gave into corruption, created enemies, and lost his heroic values..
Today's heroes are very much the same as those like Romero; they are tough and graceful in hard situations. There are many different types of heroes in our society today from local heroes like fire-fighters and volunteers to superheroes in comics like Batman, Spiderman, and Superman. There is a huge riff between the types of heroes in modern society, but the gap is bridged by their courage and and ability to confront dangerous situations. To juxtapose modern heroes to those like Romero, I will use Spiderman as an example. He receives a superhuman power and initially uses it for good. He helped the city and was encouraged by the citizens. But, he eventually created enemies like the Green Goblin. The Green Goblin attempted to corrupt Spiderman by trying to make him evil. The Goblin, unlike Brett, did not succeed in destroying the hero's values. Spiderman continued to save people and use his powers and bravery for good; if Romero had stood up to the pressure and recognized the corruption, he would have retained his heroic values.
Modern heroes have the same values and are looked up to very much like Romero. Romero was very good at what he did; for that, many looked up to him. The aficionados that watched him adored him for his graceful skill working the bull. Other fighters looked up to him even though he was only nineteen years old. This is very much like today; people look up to heroes. A child's hero could be a famous baseball player; the athlete is very good at what he does and the child looks up to him because he wants to be able to be just as good as the athlete one day. Another kid's hero could be their parents. The parents encourage him in school and in other aspects of his life; when he has children, he wants to encourage them and mold them into outstanding citizens just like his parents did for him. Basically, a hero is anyone that is good at what they do and people look up to them for that.