[English] Language Analysis 2004 VCAA

[nacho]

[language analysis]
EXCUSE BAD GRAMMAR/PUNCTUATION, I used Siri App on the new iphone to email this to myself and just very briefly corrected translation mistakes.. Lol efficiency ftw
Following problems caused by students bringing their mobile phones to school, the principal of metro high school on the 12th of May, 2004, in a newsletter to the parents of students announced a complete ban on mobile phones. The principal John Black contends that mobile phones contradict what the school's central values are and furthermore, that they pose security threats to students. Black maintains a formal tone throughout the newsletter. In reply to Black's announcement, Mary Brown, a parent of a student attending Metro high school in a personal letter to the principal, addresses the ban with her concerns. At the onset, Brown conveys the implications the ban as distressing and making the lives of parent and students unsafe and difficult. Towards the end of her letter, her emotional pleas shift to that of a reasoned argument, which pokes holes into the aim of the ban made in how it helps uphold the school’s values. Furthermore, Brown attempts to paint a harmonious picture of society, resulting from lessons learned through mistakes and trust placed students. Both pieces convey different arguments and are aimed at different audiences – with Black’s newsletter aimed publicly at parents and Brown’s letter privately sent to Principal Black.

The logo of the school coupled with the school motto placed at the top of the letter works to emphasise that the school values ‘excellence’ above all else. In portraying what is central to the school’s values, Black is able to make apparent what the school prioritises. In addition, the silhouetted image of an academic scholar, adds to the sense of Black’s power as he is depicted as enigmatic and educated. In this way he is made to seem as an  undisputed enforcer of the school rules as his authority is unable to be questioned, given his anonymous identity. To add to this sense of being an arbitrator Black boldly states that ‘no student will be allowed to bring a mobile phone onto school property’ thereby showing his decision to be a ‘final’ verdict. Furthermore, so as to not seem as one who has “violated” the rights of parents and students, Black highlights that the decision was made after the ‘school council discussed the issue again last night’. This adds to the sense of a fair and unbiased court room environment where the discussion of the school council is shown to be much like the deliberation a jury takes part in. In this way, parents are made to feel satisfied as the decision has been made under carefully review, the word “again” suggesting much thought has been given, and also not positioned to feel at the mercy of the principal, who may at first seem to have unimpeded power.

Black, further exploits parental concerns, as he shows that the security of students is being undermined through the use of mobile phones. As he associates the use of mobile phone came with malicious activity, he is able to coerce parents into sharing his point of view that mobile phones need to be banned as their insecurities of the safety of their children targeted. The parents would not wish to have their child subject to such ‘accidentally’ being used to imply the opposite and convey that mobile phones are being evoking a sense of disgust from parents, as they are reminded of a displeasing taste. Moreover, Black raises further concern amongst parents as he suggests that mobile phones are ‘severely disrupting’ classes and are being used as instruments to assist in cheating in “tests” and “examinations” As Black adds that students “claim” they “were needed for ‘emergencies’ ” , he suggests that mobile phones are corrupting students as they tell lies to avoid punishment.

In stark contrast to Black’s formal newsletter which attempts to stir concerns amongst parents, Brown through personal letter attempts to repeal the ban through emotional appeals. Being a parent it would be of high import to Black who is made aware that Brown is ‘very upset’. Furthermore, Brown’s inclusive ‘our’ works to suggest that she is not the only person dissatisfied with the ban on mobile phones, and that other parents and students support her views , moreover Brown attempts to make it seem as a punishment imposed amongst all students and parents and conveys that the ban goes unjustified as just because ‘ some students are misusing their phone, all students are being penalised! “the addition of the exclamation mark adds to the sense of Brown’s outrage the regards to the ban. Additionally Brown attempts to downplay the seriousness of misconduct carried by the students as she states they ‘misuse their phones’ as opposed to Black who uses pejorative terms such as ‘unsavoury’ and ‘distressing’ to describe their actions. Furthermore, Brown attempts to alleviate the principal’s concerns of mobile phones as she states they are needed for the benefit of the community. In saying so she shows herself to have altruistic, rather than selfish values, as she is looking for the benefit of the community, and not just herself.

Finally both pieces argue entirely opposite views and are aimed at different audiences. Black’s publicised newsletter gives the impression that Black is an enforcer of the rules, whose best interest is in up holding school values whilst Brown’s personal letter emotively intends that mobile phones are needed for the functioning of students and parents.

___________
Prompt: Conflict is fear of difference
MITE: Politics

What are we so afraid of?

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it”. Anna Mosity explores the fear prevalent in today’s jingoistic society.

In the past, we have seen fear ‘’pull Heaven down’’ and bring forth destruction amongst people. The McCarthyist fever which one gripped America post World War II saw reputations trashed and careers ruined as “any man who was not reactionary in his view was open to the charge of alliance with the Red Hell.” In his role, the megalomaniacal senator Joseph McCarthy did nothing but exploit the fears of his fellow American people, a fear of difference, a fear of being undermined by a subversive communist regime “allied with Lucifer”.  The radical right wings were so afraid of being undermined, that they began undermining themselves as they left people no choice but to “name names” in order to save themselves. As the paranoia and hysteria ensued, hearsay evidence was treated much like spectral evidence was back in Salem during the witch hunts, in that people were now guilty and prosecuted until they admitted to the accusations and named other ‘witches’.

Of course, McCarthy’s reign of terror soon came to an end, as he was dismissed for a fraud when Edward R. Murrow stood up for the core American values and proved to the country that there was nothing to be afraid of, that difference should be welcomed and that we may ‘’disapprove of what one says, but we shall defend to the death of one’s right to say it’’.
Now, sixty years on, a similar dilemma seems to be afflicting us, here in Australia. The government’s recent decision to deny all boat people asylum in Australia and appeal to the fears of a xenophobic society in order to win the ‘redneck vote’ is detrimental for the very stability and order of good governing. Fear is concomitant with conflict, and we must show no fear and come to our senses immediately.

We are being told blatant lies of our country being swamped with immigrants, and we face a situation only too reminiscent of the Mccarthyist era. What is there for us to be afraid of?
With 20 million people in Australia, why should we be so fearful of a few hundred more joining us? Does it not concern you that they are in dire need of our help? As Harper Lee’s Atticus Finch once said “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it”. Do we not sympathise for someone who has risked life and limb to live the Australian dream?
They too are scared, and they need our help.
It is time we stopped our “mawkish shows of patriotism” on Australia day, completely crushing diversity and segregating the indigenous and immigrant population.

Until we realise that it is our fear which causes conflict and that we are clouded with the miasma of deception from a government which is exploiting us, chasing for the redneck vote in order to stay in power, we face the prodigious danger of becoming the jingoistic country of the modern world, a country so afraid of change because it is so perfect, so pure that it has isolated itself from the rest of the world and formed its own theocratic society.

It was with great relief last week to see backbencher Chris Pearce dissuade from his party’s radical views and cross the line. Whilst he was condemned by his part and demonised by the media as “Un-Australian” and a “traitor”, the public must remember that “dissent does not mean disloyalty”. Chris Pearce demonstrated solidarity , much like John Proctor, the protagonist of Playwright and HUAC victim Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible as he cast aside fears of losing his “good name” and preserved his core values, values which lie somewhere deep within contemporary society but which are shadowed by confusion and fear.

Only yesterday, did Chris Pearce “denounce these [debates]” during the second reading speech of the bill which would see all asylum seekers suffer the ignominy of being rejected by a “land of golden soil” and of “opportunities for all”. As nine other fellow backbenchers followed Pearce’s lead, a sense of fairness in our legal and political seemed to be restored.

The government has a ‘predilection for minding [our] business’. It is becoming corrupted by ‘’not power, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it’, as said by human rights activist and Burmese Revolutionary leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Her wise words resonate amongst our higher ranks as the government is fearful of losing the upcoming election. Whilst we fear for our contemporary lifestyle which we believe is being undermined, we must cast aside our preconceived misconceptions if we wish not to be branded as the fools of the modern world – a redneck country pandering to our fear of difference.

Come to the realisation that change is not bad, and furthermore, not imminent, just because of a few asylum seekers.
Come to this realisation before we are
“in blood,
 Stepp’d in so far that, should [we] wade no more,
Returning we as tedious as [going on]”.
“There is a prodigious danger of [letting our fears get the best of us] … I fear it, I fear it.”



finish. FINALLY GOT MY LENGTH!


Context : Encountering Conflict
Prompt:

It is an image.
Background of this image & my planning:
It is by picasso, made during the korean war era.
The ideas i drew from this were:
- doves = sometimes we must fight for peace
- two faces = our true feelings are not revealed during times of conflict
- tank vs sword/shield = conflict is often one sided
- tank’s guns pointing everywhere – conflict is reckless
Essay:

Sometimes to achieve what we want, we may have to do something contradictory. The notion of fighting for peace comes to mind as we unravel the many wars and court battles which have taken place in the past, and are still prevalent today. In the end, much is lost, but stability is regained as one side completely dominates the other. Who could ever forget the McCarthyist fever that once gripped America, which resulted in trashed reputations and broken alliances between old colleagues? Those accused of being communists and communist sympathisers trying to overthrow the government in place stood no fighting chance in what was largely a one-sided war, where few good willed men emanating with solidarity fought an ugly, reckless war machine – one that they had perhaps inadvertently created themselves. HUAC victim and Playwright Arthur Miller teaches us, through his allegorical play The Crucible that choosing to fight for peace, rather than conceding to an abuse of power may result in great losses such as one’s career or even life,  allows for the establishment of peace and stability for our underlying emotions – which is the greatest peace of all.

A man tortured “by his own vision of decent conduct”, John Proctor is able to show that whilst there may be “no ritual for the washing away of sins”, through fighting for what is right it is possible to regain moral sanctity. As Proctor makes the decision to give up his “good name” in an effort to save his friends and family, he takes a step forward in resolving the underlying conflict behind the façade of an invulnerable wall immune to emotional pain. Not only is he morally redeemed for his unfaithfulness, the tenuous strain on his relationship with his wife is relieved and made to be much stronger than before. Despite his inability to save his friends, we are shown that fighting against a seemingly invulnerable enemy for peace, is by no means as futile as it may sound, because in the end inner resolve can still be achieved.

However, if peace is to be achieved through war, our intentions must be pure. Senator McCarthy was nothing more than a politician corrupted by the power he wielded and the thought of losing it. As he condemned people on very little basis, he condemned too himself. After being revealed for the demagogue he was, he went into a state of depression, dying in the end from liver failure, resulting from his alcohol addiction. Hardly a heroic death, for a man once at America’s frontline for the fight against the “Red Devils”. In stark contrast, the victims of McCarthy’s reign gained further publicity and were commended for their heroic actions and even today, 50 years on, they are studied in schools. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with fighting for peace, despite as contradictory as this idea sounds, as in the end those who fight with the good intentions are able to clear their conscience. However, it is so often the case that one becomes disillusioned by the power they wield that they are no longer fighting for peace, but rather, power.

There is however one man in history, who fought for what he believe in was right – which included “naming names” to save himself. Even today, he is condemned for his actions. I talk about Elia Kazan, the notorious Hollywood director who for the past five decades has been erroneously labelled as a ‘’traitor’. What many fail to realise is the ordeals faced by this man, and that during times of conflict, people have a tendency of shielding their emotions from the eyes of others. Who knows of the permanent scars left on Kazan, as he was pressured into choosing career over friends? Who sympathises for the man, who after winning a lifetime achievement award had to face half a crowd unwilling to acknowledge him? Although it is not known whether Kazan regretted his actions, “He is a sinner … against the moral fashion of time” and there is no way for him to mitigate those sins now. Whilst in most cases when we fight for peace we are able to attain it, there are instances where this is not so, such as Kazan’s. It is therefore imperative to realise that conflict can have devastating impacts and the best chance of obtaining peace is to forgive oneself for sins committed, even if the entire world still condemns you.

Finally, it could be said that it is not impossible to attain peace through conflict, and furthermore, a lost battle has the potential to lead to a clear conscience. Every so often, we see those who are troubled until the end by the battles they fought and lost, and in those times it is most important to maintain solidarity.

Didn't really like any of my body paragraphs, i found this to be a very challenging prompt, on top of the fact that im bad at context.. Any suggestions very welcome. Reposted at end of thread

another language anaylsis.. whatever happened to the like 30 volunteers who said they would mark essays throughout the year.. boo

[LOVEPHYSICS]

I think it would be better to rephrase your contention. It sounds a bit too absolute. Maybe answer the question as- Perhaps Keller is ideally not the best teacher for Paul, given Keller's own insensitivity and the coldness he often displays which further distance their relationship. Nonetheless, the lessons and teachings he is willing to offer Paul far exceeds any negative impressions or eccentric methods that Paul disliked.

[nacho]

Double Language analysis.
Articles here: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/09/inside-the-motel-rooms-asylum-seeker-kids-call-home/
and here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/childrens-path-is-a-bad-dream/story-e6frfhqf-1226018715638

Essay:
The two opinionative pieces, “Children’s path is a bad dream” (Herald Sun, March 10, 2011), by Steve Price and “Inside the motel rooms asylum seeker kids call home” (Crikey.com, September 9, 2010) by Pamela Curr present opposing viewpoints on asylum seekers and how they should be dealt with. Price adopts a calm tone and throughout his piece uses satirical humour to relegate his opposition. The language used is fairly basic and colloquial and so his piece is aimed at a general audience who are interested in the issue. Price’s well reasoned approach elevates the asylum seekers so that they appear on an equal ground to Australian citizens. In this way he contends that asylum seekers should not receive special treatment. (unsure about this wording) In contrast, Pamela Curr supports the asylum seekers and gives her article a sympathetic feel and builds her own image as a humanitarian. Being published online, it is aimed at a younger audience who are skilled with technology and open minded.

The prominently placed image of the scales of justice encapsulates Price’s point of view that asylum seekers are taking advantage of the law, thus positioning readers to accept this stance before beginning to read the article. The image is skewed so that the scales of justice appear unbalanced which works as a visual metaphor to suggest that an entity is taking advantage of the law. The image is reminiscent of American, and furthermore suggests that this entity consists of migrants, but more specifically, asylum seekers. Price contrasts his views, by first creating a positive and joyful image of the asylum seeker “children [jumping over] the fence to pick plums on a neighbouring property” which conveys that the asylum seekers are ordinary people ust like Australians. Price then contrasts this image with the illegal act they committed in carelessly “[taking] risks on the open ocean” to arrive to Australia, so as to condemn the asylum seekers for obstructing the law.

Curr, on the other hand, is entirely sympathetic towards the asylum seekers. The graphic accompanying her article works to support her point of view by giving the impression the asylum seekers are being detained, almost like criminals. The grilled balcony connotes are prison cell in which the asylum seekers are being detained in, giving the reader an inclement feel of the detention centre before they begin to read the piece. Curr gives her views credibility as she has “checked out these conditions first hand”. By describing the asylums seekers as “so called queue jumpers” the audience with an opposing view questions their own beliefs as to whether the asylum seekers have been erroneously labelled as such. Furthermore, by employing a passive voice, Curr appeals to parents’ sense of protectiveness for their children when she creates the image of guards pulling down sheets “to count heads” of children. The use of the word ‘guard’ has negative connotations and references to male prison guards, which further positions the reader to be sympathetic towards the asylum seekers, as they would not want their own children subject to such treatment and whilst vehemently rejecting the male guards from being allowed to do so.

In contrast to Curr’s sentimental approach, Price berates the government and describes Chris Bowen, the Immigration Minister, as someone who easily acquiesces in to plans “at the urging of refugee advocates”. Price further disparages people like Pamela Curr, labelling them as “do-gooder social worker types” which positions the reader to feel that Curr is only getting involved with asylum seekers to elevate her public image.  To condemn  Curr further, he ridicules her by purposely quoting her out of context and saying that “the security guards stomp around” which arouses a sense of satirical humour from the reader, who is made to feel as if Pamela Curr “lives in her own [fictitious] world”. In relegating his opposition, Price is able to influence the reader in thinking that “so-called” humanitarians are exacerbating the issue at hand. In stark contrast, rather than ridiculing her opposition, Curr focuses on creating a feel of self-shame amongst her audience. By having established her view, Curr further appeals to her female audience, by describing one of the pregnant asylum seekers as finding “their current clothes tight”. This evokes a sense of sympathy from the female audience who may have formerly lacked compassion and thought that the “queue jumpers… were living it up”. Curr reinforces her stance as she reveals that asylum seekers are allowed to buy “a packet of chips and maybe some nuts”. The image created works to show how” life for children in this environment has little to offer” and leaves the reader feeling that the asylum seekers are being given the short end of the stick.


Both pieces appeal to a different audience and employee different techniques to persuade their audience. Curr is completely sympathetic towards the asylum seekers and emanates her point of view by showing the distress they live through in detention centres. In contrast, Price develops a reasoned argument to establish himself as free from bias, whilst at the same time he patronises his opposition and relegates those with differing opinions so as to make them seem foolish.

[taqi]

cool story yash. k

[nacho]

Topic:
On the waterfront is a moral tale about the power of the individual to overcome evil. To what extent do you agree?

Elia Kazan’s didactic film On the Waterfront conveys a parallel to the tale of Jesus Christ. It shows that not only does the individual have the power to overcome great evil. But that this power may come from one’s defeat. Through sacrifice, many of the characters overcome evil, whether it resides in themselves such as Charley, or whether it resides in others such as Friendly. Kazan uses religious symbols and gestures to signify the overcoming of evil and a moral transcending amongst the characters. Albeit, not all evil is conquered as the enigmatic Mr. Upstairs manages to elude the Waterfront Crimes Commission, a certain degree of justice is served as the longshoremen can work freely on the waterfront. Finally, no individual who acts alone against evil is successful, only Terry, who has the support of Father Barry, Charley and Edie is able to succeed.

Religious symbols in On the Waterfront work to depict a moral parallel between the character’s in On the Waterfront and the tale of Jesus Christ. Those who are murdered by Johnny Friendly and his thugs are shown to be redeemed morally. Charley, for example is not only killed, but crucified, after he makes the ultimate sacrifice after coming to the realisation that he ‘’was [Terry’s] brother and should have looked out for [him] a little bit”. Charley’s crucifixion evokes a feeling of moral redemption for his sins and betrayal of Terry, whom he told ’this ain’t your night’ prior to his boxing match. A parallel is also created between Terry’s defeat and Jesus Christ’s death, after which both rise and lead their people to salvation. Terry shows solidarity and courage, qualities he has always lacked, in his confrontation with Friendly to “gain his rights”. Face down, bleeding profusely, he is battered and has “lost the battle, but has a chance to win the war”. And, just as Christ rises from the grave, Terry emerges from a defeated battle to lead the longshoremen to work. It is the idea of gaining power through defeat that is central to this parallel.

In making decisions for himself, Terry displays the ability of an individual to make change to overcome evil. Terry does not, however, instigate the action against Johnny Friendly. He is aided by Father Barry, who comes to realise that “no saint [hides] in church”. With the help of Father Barry, Terry fits into Joey’s windbreaker and continues on with the unfinished work of abolishing corruption on the waterfront. The power of the lone individual is in this way shown to be insufficient in overcoming evil, as it takes the death of Charley, for Terry to stand up against Friendly. This is evident, when prior to Charley’s death, he exclaims to Edie “I won’t do it”. But, in showing that Terry overcomes the corruption on the waterfront more effectively than the crime commission, On the Waterfront contends that power rests with the individual, to overcome evil. However, even with the prosecution of Johnny Friendly, evil is not overcome on all levels.

Kazan asserts that evil can and must be continually confronted and is never totally overcome. Friendly’s illegal lucrative schemes come to an end, but Mr. Upstairs and the corrupt members of the crimes commission remain untouched. It is the responsibilities of all other individuals to carry on with the work of Terry, who carried on the work of Joey and Dugan to abolish evil.
So even though not all evil on the waterfront is overcome, the instigating of action against corruption signifies the beginning of a movement forward for the individual who is empowered by those before them.

In conclusion, Kazan depicts a moral transcending of individuals who attempt to overcome internal and external evil, through his film On the Waterfront. Whilst evil still exists by the end of the film, it is implicit that the individual has made a movement forward and will work to abolish evil.

[Greatness]

Wow that seems like a toughish question but you handled it quite well!! Good job. Ive never thought about it as a parallel to jesus another nice/uinque point.
I think that most of it is written quite well, but i dont think its the best thing to do by opening the conlcusion with 'In conclusion'. Why not use shinny's opening 'In essence'?
Also i think the first sentence of the conclusion would sound better if you had:
Through his film On the Waterfront, Kazan depicts a moral transcending of individuals who attempt to overcome internal and external evil.

[nacho]

Bridging the Generation Gap - LANGUAGE ANALYSIS
The issue of “Bringing the Generation Gap” has arisen as a result of a speech given by Associate Professor George Roper. In an infuriated response to the speech, the author of this opinionative piece contends that the youth of this generation are in more need of guidance and support than ever before. Furthermore, by evoking a sense of sympathy towards the current youth, the writer coaxes adults, in particular educators, into realising that to teach the ‘trophy generation’ is a challenge that they must step up to, rather than to ‘pander to the whims of the inexperience youth’. The writer parallels their appeals to the audience with hostility towards George Roper, by disparaging him and his unrealistic views of what the future may hold.

The prominently places image works to enhance the writer’s view that the gap between young people and adults needs to be bridged. It evoke a sense of separation between the two generations, as depicted through the elderly man who is reading a book and the young teenager on his mobile, both of whom appear to be isolated from each other, thereby confirming that the generation gap exists. Furthermore, both seem unhappy and rather dull. This works to generate a sense of responsibility from adults, who are made to realise that they have become isolated from the present youth, and need to communicate with them more, if they are to lead a happier life. The visual further suggest that it is untrue that “we have nothing to talk about” as the adults and youth may both learn from each other.

The writer disparages Roper’s views on the future, so as to denounce his image and take away the credibility of his opinions. The reader is made to feel compelled to act against what Roper suggests, so as to avoid being classified as those who have ‘jumped onto the unthinking band wagon’. Through words like ‘preposterous claptrap’, the writer is able to make Roper seem ignorant and illogical. Furthermore, a sense of doubt is evoked from the reader towards Roper, as the writer states that he is an “Associate professor at RMPIT’s ... dubiously named ‘Futurology Faculty’” thereby taking away the expert or authoritative opinion Roper may have held.   To further dissuade his audience from siding with Roper’s idea that “learning facts of any kind is pointless”, the writer openly states that only “imbeciles” would agree. In berating Roper, the writer enhances his own point of view that young people need the help of adults more than ever before.

In an attempt to connect with their audience the writer addresses them with a more respectful tone, to elevate their position and make them feel as if they are authoritative figures who young people will turn to for guidance. In doing so, the audience is compelled to act to “bridge the generation gap” between themselves and a “panicked and uncertain [generation]... of young people”.  Furthermore, by addressing young people as “panicked and uncertain” the writer is able to evoke a sense of responsibilities from the audience, who must not surrender to “the pandering whims of the youth” but overlook this and maintain teaching them the important things valued today, even if they may seem bored by it. In this way, the target audience of adults and educators are made to feel that helping the youth is a difficult, but necessary challenge to step up to, and not one which must be given in to, if the “trophy generation” are to stand a chance of surviving a world of global warming and dwindling resources.

The writer therefore contends that adult must work on bridging the generation gap between the youth and adults, if the youth are to survive future comings. By disparaging George Roper, the writer is able to dissuade the audience from accepting his views, thereby dismissing him and his opinions. Through a more concerned and appealing tone, the writer emphasises the plight of the confused youth, who are in dire need of the guidance of adults.

[nacho]

Pit bulls - language analysis

Following the death of a child in a pit bull attack, David Penberthy in his article “Another death, and some still defend killers” published in the Herald Sun, condemns those who defend dangerous breeds of dogs and their irresponsible owners. In a vitriolic attack, Penberthy accuses dangerous dog owners and sympathisers of being insensitive criminals who easily condone the attacks by pit bulls on humans, and take little responsibility in preventing them. He couples his aggressive attacks with a sympathetic tone towards victims, to elevate his own image to that of a humanitarian and appeal to protective parents who are able to sympathise with the victims. Furthermore he attempts to tarnish the image and of dangerous breeds of dogs by depicting them to be dangerous killing machines.

The prominently placed image works to elicit fear from the audience. Before they have even began to read Penberthy’s article the reader is positioned to share his viewpoint that some breeds of dogs are too dangerous to be allowed as pets. The mouth collar and chain work to suggest that the pit bull poses too great a risk to society, and must not be allowed to roam free. The image sums up the violent nature of pit bulls, and the reader is made to realise that great precautions must be taken when approaching this dangerous breed of dog, and that they are too dangerous to be kept as pets.

To further fuel fears amongst his audience, denounces xyz pit bull owners as “ Macho dills” who are “completely undesirable”  and not “overly keen on obeying the law”. Through this, the reader is made to feel insecure as they come to realise that their safety is at the hands of incompetent people who have no regard for the law. Furthermore, Penberthy reveals that negligent owners of killer dogs can face jail. In this way, Penberthy creates the image of criminals for pit bull owners and draws the reader in to share his viewpoint that dangerous breeds of dogs need to be banned, as their owner’s are generally incapable of handling them. Penberthy goes on to deprecate killer dog sympathisers and reducing their image. He insinuates that they are “maniacs” as he asks the reader ‘’what is happening inside the minds of these people”. In doing so, he is able to draw the reader away from killer dog sympathisers and raise further concerns of safety, in regards to not only killer dogs, but those who support them.

In an attempt to connect with the audience as opposed incessantly disparaging his targets of criticism, Penberthy sympathises with the victims of the pit bull attack. He elevates his image to one who has only good intentions for the community, as he reveals he too feels the plight of the “poor shattered family”. In particular he appeals to the parents amongst his audience, who are positioned to empathise with the victims which have lost their four year old daughter in the pit bull attack. As Penberthy describes the helpless efforts made by the mother who had “to prise her girl from the dog’s jaws” he generates further sympathy from his audience, in particular mothers, whilst instilling a horrific image of a battle between an “insane…unpredictable …mongrel’’ and helpless mother. By doing so, he is able to make deep emotional connections with his audience of parents and get them to coax them into believing that some breeds of dogs are too vicious and must be banned for the wellbeing of the public.

To further separate his audience from those who defend the actions of killer dogs, Penberthy attempts to make them seem eccentric, through a sarcastic and ridiculing tone as he says “ Colin Muir  got into some weird relatives’’ . He cleverly quotes Colin Muir to make him seem foolish and confused, leaving the audience to further question the mindset of dangerous dog owners and sympathisers.

In an anger fuelled response, combined with sympathy, Penberthy asserts that certain breeds of dogs and their “negligent owners” pose a great risk to society.  Penberthy ridicules and denigrates his targets of criticism and makes them appear nonsensical, so as to separate his audience from them. Moreover, through appeals to maternal values and fear, Penberthy is able to gain the support of his readers.

[FromBaghdadWithLove]

Topic:
On the waterfront is a moral tale about the power of the individual to overcome evil. To what extent do you agree?

Elia Kazan’s didactic film On the Waterfront conveys a parallel to the tale of Jesus Christ.

never call jesus christ a tale... what happens if a christian marks that.. ouch!

[nacho]

Topic:
On the waterfront is a moral tale about the power of the individual to overcome evil. To what extent do you agree?

Elia Kazan’s didactic film On the Waterfront conveys a parallel to the tale of Jesus Christ.

never call jesus christ a tale... what happens if a christian marks that.. ouch!

hm didnt consider that, although my english teacher is christian and actually told us to use that as an example and he used the words 'tale'
however, i see you point and willl be more careful next time

[nacho]

Context : Encountering Conflict
Prompt:

It is an image.
Background of this image & my planning:
It is by picasso, made during the korean war era.
The ideas i drew from this were:
- doves = sometimes we must fight for peace
- two faces = our true feelings are not revealed during times of conflict
- tank vs sword/shield = conflict is often one sided
- tank’s guns pointing everywhere – conflict is reckless
Essay:

Sometimes to achieve what we want, we may have to do something contradictory. The notion of fighting for peace comes to mind as we unravel the many wars and court battles which have taken place in the past, and are still prevalent today. In the end, much is lost, but stability is regained as one side completely dominates the other. Who could ever forget the McCarthyist fever that once gripped America, which resulted in trashed reputations and broken alliances between old colleagues? Those accused of being communists and communist sympathisers trying to overthrow the government in place stood no fighting chance in what was largely a one-sided war, where few good willed men emanating with solidarity fought an ugly, reckless war machine – one that they had perhaps inadvertently created themselves. HUAC victim and Playwright Arthur Miller teaches us, through his allegorical play The Crucible that choosing to fight for peace, rather than conceding to an abuse of power may result in great losses such as one’s career or even life,  allows for the establishment of peace and stability for our underlying emotions – which is the greatest peace of all.

A man tortured “by his own vision of decent conduct”, John Proctor is able to show that whilst there may be “no ritual for the washing away of sins”, through fighting for what is right it is possible to regain moral sanctity. As Proctor makes the decision to give up his “good name” in an effort to save his friends and family, he takes a step forward in resolving the underlying conflict behind the façade of an invulnerable wall immune to emotional pain. Not only is he morally redeemed of his unfaithfulness, the tenuous strain on his relationship with his wife is relieved and made to be much stronger than before. Despite his inability to save his friends, we are shown that fighting against a seemingly invulnerable enemy for peace, is by no means as futile as it may sound, because in the end inner resolve can still be achieved.

However, if peace is to be achieved through war, our intentions must be pure. Senator McCarthy was nothing more than a politician corrupted by the power he wielded and the thought of losing it. As he condemned people on very little basis, he condemned too himself. After being revealed for the demagogue he was, he went into a state of depression, dying in the end from liver failure, resulting from his alcohol addiction. Hardly a heroic death, for a man once at America’s frontline for the fight against the “Red Devils”. In stark contrast, the victims of McCarthy’s reign gained further publicity and were commended for their heroic actions and even today, 50 years on, they are studied in schools. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with fighting for peace, despite as contradictory as this idea sounds, as in the end those who fight with the good intentions are able to clear their conscience. However, it is so often the case that one becomes disillusioned by the power they wield that they are no longer fighting for peace, but rather, power.

There is however one man in history, who fought for what he believe in was right – which included “naming names” to save himself. Even today, he is condemned for his actions. I talk about Elia Kazan, the notorious Hollywood director who for the past five decades has been erroneously labelled as a ‘’traitor’. What many fail to realise is the ordeals faced by this man, and that during times of conflict, people have a tendency of shielding their emotions from the eyes of others. Who knows of the permanent scars left on Kazan, as he was pressured into choosing career over friends? Who sympathises for the man, who after winning a lifetime achievement award had to face half a crowd unwilling to acknowledge him? Although it is not known whether Kazan regretted his actions, “He is a sinner … against the moral fashion of time” and there is no way for him to mitigate those sins now. Whilst in most cases when we fight for peace we are able to attain it, there are instances where this is not so, such as Kazan’s. It is therefore imperative to realise that conflict can have devastating impacts and the best chance of obtaining peace is to forgive oneself for sins committed, even if the entire world still condemns you.

Finally, it could be said that it is not impossible to attain peace through conflict, and furthermore, a lost battle has the potential to lead to a clear conscience. Every so often, we see those who are troubled until the end by the battles they fought and lost, and in those times it is most important to maintain solidarity.




fin

[nacho]

TIME : Politics

What are we so afraid of?

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it”. Anna Mosity explores the fear prevalent in today’s jingoistic society.

In the past, we have seen fear "pull Heaven down’’ and bring forth destruction amongst people. The McCarthyist fever which one gripped America post World War II saw reputations trashed and careers ruined as “any man who was not reactionary in his view was open to the charge of alliance with the Red Hell.” In his role, the megalomaniacal senator Joseph McCarthy did nothing but exploit the fears of his fellow American people, a few of difference, a fear of being undermined by a subversive communist regime “allied with Lucifer”.  The radical right wings were so afraid of being undermined, that they began undermining themselves as they left people no choice but to “name names” in order to themselves. As the paranoia and hysteria ensued, hearsay evidence was treated much like spectral evidence was back in Salem during the witch hunts, in that people were now guilty and prosecuted until they admitted to the accusations and named other ‘witches’.

Of course, McCarthy’s reign of terror soon came to an end, as he was dismissed for a fraud when Edward R. Murrow stood up for core American values and proved to the country that there was nothing to be afraid of, that difference should be welcomed and that we may ‘’disapprove of what one says, but we shall defend to the death of one’s right to say it’’.
Now, sixty years on, a similar dilemma seems to be afflicting us, here in Australia. The government’s recent decision to deny all boat people asylum in Australia and appeal to the fears of a xenophobic society in order to win the ‘redneck vote’ is detrimental for the very stability and order of good governing. Fear is concomitant with conflict, and we must show no fear and come to our senses immediately.

We are being told blatant lies of our country being swamped with immigrants, and we face a situation only too reminiscent of the Mccarthyist era. What is there for us to be afraid of?
With 20 million people in Australia, why should we be so fearful of a few hundred more joining us? Does it not concern you that they are in dire need of our help? As Harper Lee’s Atticus Finch once said “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it”. Do we not sympathise for someone who has risked life and limb to live the Australian dream?
They too are scared, and they need our help.
It is time we stopped our “mawkish shows of patriotism” on Australia day, completely crushing diversity and segregating the indigenous and immigrant population.

Until we realise that it is our fear which causes conflict and that we are clouded with the miasma of deception from a government which is exploiting us, chasing for the redneck vote in order to stay in power, we face the prodigious danger of becoming the jingoistic country of the modern world, a country so afraid of change that it has isolated itself from the rest of the world and formed its own theocratic society.

It was with great relief last week to see backbencher Chris Pearce dissuade from his party’s radical views and cross the line. Whilst he was condemned by his part and demonised by the media as “Un-Australian” and a “traitor”, the public must remember that “dissent does not mean disloyalty”. Chris Pearce demonstrated solidarity , much like John Proctor, the protagonist of Playwright and HUAC victim Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible as he cast aside fears of losing his “good name” and preserved his core values, values which lie somewhere deep within contemporary society but which are shadowed by confusion and fear.

Only yesterday, did Chris Pearce “denounce these [debates]” during the second reading speech of the bill which would see all asylum seekers suffer the ignominy of being rejected by a “land of golden soil” and of “opportunities for all”. As nine other fellow backbenchers followed Pearce’s lead, a sense of fairness in our legal and political seemed to be restored.
The government has a ‘predilection for minding [our] business’. It is becoming corrupted by ‘’not power, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it’, as said by human rights activist and Burmese Revolutionary leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Her wise words resonate amongst our higher ranks as the government is fearful of losing the upcoming election. Whilst we fear for our contemporary lifestyle which we believe is being undermined, we must cast aside our preconceived misconceptions if we wish not to be branded as the fools of the modern world – a redneck country pandering to our fear of difference.
Come to the realisation that change is not bad, and furthermore, not imminent, just because of a few asylum seekers.
Come to this realisation before we are
“in blood,
 Stepp’d in so far that, should [we] wade no more,
Returning we as tedious as [going on]”.
“There is a prodigious danger of [letting our fears get the best of us] … I fear it, I fear it.”


finish.

[Dr.Lecter]

In the past, we have seen fear "pull Heaven down’’ and bring forth destruction amongst people.

Would Times Magazine really say that? They are an unbiased publisher with no religious connections.

[nacho]

In the past, we have seen fear "pull Heaven down’’ and bring forth destruction amongst people.

Would Times Magazine really say that? They are an unbiased publisher with no religious connections.

yea still experimenting with form,
ill change that to "MITE" or something more fitting

[Dr.Lecter]

When writing this in the exam for example, do you think it is necessary to add the inverted commas when quoting passages from The Crucible? My references to the set text are usually weaved in with my evidences/ideas which may explicitly epitomize the events from The Crucible for example. Your direct quoting - does it work? What have markers said about it? I'm wondering if I can introduce the set text in a more effective manner.