A Secret Life: Blog 4

As Ryszard Kuklinski continued his cooperation with the CIA, David Forden, codename Daniel, was given an option to move to Vienna and become the Chief of Station. The move would put him out of the Gull, codename for Kuklinski, case. Daniel decided to go alone. Once Daniel had removed himself from the case, the CIA found that they had a significant problem on their hands. They soon realized that, “With Daniel now stationed in Vienna, it would be impractical for him to continue the highly personal correspondence with Kuklinski…the CIA felt it was too risky to stop them [the letters], and the agency did not want even to suggest to Kuklinski that Daniel was no longer at Langley, for fear it would concern or distract him. The Soviet Division thus assigned a group of officers…to produce letters under Daniel’s name,” (165). The CIA has decided that instead of threatening the continuation of the correspondence with Kuklinski, that they would lie to him, or at least keep the truth from him. This fits in with the society first rule that has been exhibited throughout this story. Now it does seem a little shocking that they would essentially flat out lie to one of their best sources because if he were ever to find out, the consequences could be disastrous. However, I’m sure that Kuklinski would have made the same choice if the roles had been reversed due to his belief that the needs of the many come before the needs of the few. On March 22, 1979, Kuklinski learned of the death of his close friend Barbara Jakubowska. She had been a close friend of both Kuklinski and his wife, Hanka. Along with the death of Barbara, Hanka had developed, “arthritis and back pain, which had been diagnosed as spinal degeneration, had forced her to quit her job as a factory bookkeeper,” and “Bogdan had gone to trial in the case involving the pedestrian he had struck. He was convicted, fined, and received a suspended sentence of one year,” (170). These incidents were greatly disturbing to Kuklinski but this did not alter his cooperation with the CIA. In fact, he sent seventy documents with more than 800 images. He wrote to “Daniel” about Barbara’s death, and told him that whe was buried at Wolski cemetery, only 50 meters away from where he had first met the Americans. He wrote, “‘Passing by there, I feel at this moment my only encouragement that our road, which had its good beginning at this very spot, has still not ended,’” (171).
The idea that family and personal issues are lower on the scale than societal issues is shown again when he wrote to Daniel in September of that year, “‘I see ahead many unattained goals, both the great ones related to Polish aspirations for liberty, and the lesser ones pertaining to family and myself,” (177). Kuklinski has straight out told us once again, that his own personal issues have less importance to him than the issues involving the liberation of his country.

A Secret Life: Blog 3

Ryszard Kuklinski has now been feeding information to the CIA under the noses of the Soviet Union for almost 3 years now and the choices that he has been making are tremendous. Among other things, he has had to turn down higher positions so that he can stay in a contactable state for the CIA. Instead of focusing on leveling himself, in a chance to get access to more important documents, he is playing it safe and deciding not to take any chances to allow the CIA to remain uninformed while the Soviets create plans to commence a “Hot war”. Kuklinski has also been “caught” on a couple of occasions creating evidence for or taking packages from the CIA. When he was taking pictures of classified materials, a man walked in on him and after the man left the building and ran to wherever, “Kuklinski considered taking his life: He had his pistol and his pill,” (107). About 4 months later, Kuklinski received a car drop from the CIA and was immediately caught in the headlights of another vehicle. He managed to escape his pursuers, and in his next letter to the CIA, he asked if he should carry a gun on him during the car exchanges. The CIA responded to him, “Although the decision is one only you will be able to make if circumstances ever require it…we suggest that any other possibility for escape and flight should be preferred,” (116). In both of these cases Kuklinski kept to his morals and kept his sense about him, telling himself that it wasn’t worth killing himself on a presumption, and that using force against government officials will only prolong and intensify any attempt to get him and his family out of Poland.

Kuklinski’s ethics are what make him do what he is doing. In one of the first letters that he wrote to the CIA he said, “In the beginning I asked myself If I had the moral right to do this…It was a dilemma, my moral dilemma, but I became convinced that I not only had the right, I had the moral obligation,” (xv). He is convinced that what he is doing is the right thing to do, no matter what evidence may arise to the contrary. Although, he is willing to sacrifice his life to save the society, he is still greatly concerned about his family. The CIA wrote to him saying, “We have pledged to assist you and the members of your family in any adversity, to the very best of our ability, and we would like to be in a position to honor that promise,” (111). Kuklinski asked the CIA to allow safe passage to the west for his family, and possibly himself, if the need should arise. Kuklinski has not only put society before family, but he has made the ultimate sacrifice and placed society and family above his own life. His request for a suicide pill was made so that, if a problem should occur, he would be able to die a hero rather than live in shame. Also, his death would put his family out of harm’s way. Kuklinski’s morals and ethics have been strengthened to the point that he would take his own life for the good of the family and for society.

On The Waterfront

In the movie, On the Waterfront, many characters have to learn to deal with ethical and moral dilemmas, and while they may think that this is not important in the beginning, their choices and beliefs can be easily swayed by strong cases to each side. Many characters have to make choices such as Doogan’s promise to the father that he would testify against the mob, and Edy telling her father that she wasn’t going back to the convent. But the main dilemmas that occur come through the eyes of Terry. While many individuals have varying views on the definitions of traitor and whistleblower, Terry is the only person who truly changes their beliefs. Throughout the movie Terry is being swayed by the beliefs of Johnny, Charlie and the mob and by the beliefs of Edy and the father. The mob tries to tell Terry that a traitor is someone who would testify against them and that a traitor’s life would be worse than hell. However, Edy but mainly the father finally persuade Terry that a traitor is truly someone who turn their backs on the least of men, thus on God, in order to gain for their self. This message hits hard at home when Terry talks to Charlie about how he could have been somebody and not a bum. The mob convinced Terry to throw a fight against someone who he could have beaten, because they had money on the other guy. Terry tells Charlie that Charlie should have looked after him, since he was his baby brother. But instead, Charlie took the low road, gave up on his brother in order to have money, power and influence. Terry realizes that he can’t let the mob control others the way that they controlled him. So, he decides to go on the offensive and take them down in court. We see throughout the movie, with the character of Terry, that while beliefs may never leave one’s mind, they can be quickly and easily changed by any slight event/motive.

So, my personal beliefs do not match up to well with the mob's (thankfully) but I would generally agree with the idea's that the father is trying to put across. I say that a “tattle tale” is someone who gets others in trouble even when what they are doing isn’t hurting anybody. When you give information on the mob, or a bully on the playground, you aren’t being a “tattle tale” you are standing up for the right morals. However, if that bully is climbing over the fence and leaving the playground and you tell on him, them you should be considered “tattle tale” because he didn’t do anything to harm you. Now, what that bully might be doing may not be morally correct, it is not your place to fix all that is wrong with the world. As I have been told many times before, “keep your nose out of other people’s business”. I personally would probably keep an eye on them and if they did anything really bad I would tell a person of authority. (That is, these days I would. In elementary school, I was the school’s “tattle tale” and I wouldn’t let anyone do anything bad. If anything ever went wrong, I would tell a teacher immediately.) You might say I was a jerk, but I believed that I was helping those kids stay out of trouble. However, I would eventually take it too far, and a kid would get mad at me and…ya…you don’t need my life story… Overall, while standing up for what you believe to be the right thing is usually good, I’ve learned from personal experience that when you get too involved in other people’s business, it never ends up well for a "tattle tale".

Mrs F's first,and hopefully last, question on All My Sons

Question: As we read/discuss All My Sons, consider how many of the characters make choices on how to act depending on whether it benefits their family or society. In your blog post this week, discuss how characters in the play decide what is more important (needs of family or needs of society). Please cite examples from the play to support your answer (1 paragraph). In your second paragraph, discuss your personal opinions on the matter. When is it appropriate to put the needs of your family before society (and vice versa)?

The need for family is unbelievable. Family has always been an important institution throughout history. But while family may be something that you need to keep intact, making sacrifices to the good of society is not a fair way to keep your family together. In fact, it usually tears families apart. Arthur Miller shows us, in his play All My Sons, through potential and actual consequences that needs of family cannot be an excuse for overlooking the rules of society.
One’s actions have consequences that have been set by society, and there is no reason to overlook those rules, not even family. In All My Sons, Sue Bayliss is the wife of a doctor, Jim Bayliss, and they are neighbors to the Keller family. When Ann breaks the news to Sue that she and Chris are engaged, Sue is glad but she has a personal request of the new couple. Sue wants Ann and Chris to move away. She told Ann,
“I’m very serious. My husband is very unhappy with Chris around…My husband has a family, dear. Every time he has a session with Chris he feels as though he’s compromising by not gibing up everything for research…He’s driving my husband crazy…and I’m at the end of my rope on it!” (44-45).
Sue is upset that Jim wants to help society instead of focus on his family. She disregards the fact that Jim could discover something important and save lives, to focus solely on the fact that her children need a father; one who can support them and not spend too much time working. While the consequences of Jim’s potential consequences are great they do not compare to the decision that Joe Keller made when he allowed the cracked heads to be shipped out and then blamed it all on his partner, Steve Deever. Joe told his son, Chris, “For you, a business for you!” (70). Joe’s focus on family is so extreme that he was unwilling to stand up to the consequences that he deserved simply because he committed the crime to help his family. Sue and Joe have a common bond in their love for their family, but they are willing to allow society to suffer in order to keep their family intact. So they decided to overlook the rules of society simply because their family would have been harmed.
The sentence above bugs me. If you commit a crime your family will be harmed, emotionally and physically, no matter what you do. This idea that Joe and Sue have could eventually escalate into the thought that you can do whatever you want and ignore the consequences all because you “did it for your family”. For heavens sake, Joe Keller, MAN UP!! You allowed faulty parts to be shipped from your store, you “didn’t think that they would be installed”, you essentially provided the instruments for the death of 21 young men who were serving their country in the war. Whatever you say, you screwed up. So admit it and deal with the consequences that society has. Go to jail. Do the right thing; unless you’re not man enough to take the blame, of which you accused Steve. I believe that Joe is using his family as his excuse for the mistakes that he made. I also, even though it sounds horrible, believe that Joe Keller’s suicide was a copout on his part. He couldn’t face what he had done. He couldn’t look anyone in the face and tell him or her that he had made a mistake and that he would take the consequences, so he shot himself. Now, I agree that it is sad that Joe killed himself, but it comes as a larger problem to me that he did so because he couldn’t handle the pressure society had put on him. When someone relies on his family, or uses them as an excuse, to get themselves through every hard spot in life is the sign of a weak individual. I believe flat out that society’s rules cannot be overlooked for the needs of the family.

A Secret Life: Blog 2

Chapter 3 started of with the CIA's expression of joy towards the knowledge that Kuklinski was able to offer them. Kuklinski sent a letter to the CIA saying that he "wanted to be sure he was not taken alive and asked for 'a pill, which would help me to resolve the matter in a critical moment'" (67). Gull, Kuklinski's given code name, was asking for a suicide pill and he reiterates this desire in later conversations, saying, "he would rather die the death of 'a silent hero' and not confess any details..." (86). Kuklinski realizes the gravity of his situation and that he cannot give away any hint towards his secret dealings. His efforts would hopefully reward his country in the end, and he needed the pill so that, if the time was necessary, he could end his life quickly and painlessly.
The rest of this section focused on techniques that the CIA developed to be able to pass on packages of importance to their agents, or double agents, without those agents being caught and "extinguished". The CIA needed techniques to keep Kuklinski alive and the basic techniques of safe drops and invisible ink were starting to fail. This was due to tightened security by the secret service in Poland, East Germany, and the rest of the Soviet territory. These methods that were developed by David Forden and they included the brush pass and car pass. The brush pass was when a CIA employee brings a package under something such as a raincoat and distracts any possible onlookers by shifting the coat to the other arm as he hands off the package to the agent. Forden's main job was to find the routes of the SB and KGB, the Polish and Soviet secret service. He found patterns that did not suit the brush pass and thus developed the car pass. “Forden had notice as he drove around Warsaw that the SB tended to stay sufficiently behind him that if he made a right turn, there was a short gap before he saw the SB car make the same turn. Within that gap, he felt, there was enough time to make a quick handoff to a source through the car window” (81). These passes were made successfully to Kuklinski and other agents in Poland shortly after it was authorized. These were the precautions that Gull and the CIA were taking to make sure that Gull would survive for the longest period of time without being found and, most likely, executed. They had individuals specifically designed to drive in a car with American plates and moniter the SB and KGB's patterns.
This is the extent to which the CIA went to keep Kuklinski safe and operable, and it's pretty amazing.

Weiser, Benjamin. A Secret Life. 1st. New York: PublicAffairs, 2004.

A Secret Life: Blog 1

Imagine being the individual that decided the fate of the world. Well, even though he didn’t know it, Ryszard Kuklinski was that individual and the biography A Secret Life, is the story of his life. This biography was written by Benjamin Weiser and his primary source for the information contained in this book are the CIA records of conversations that took place in the early 1970s between CIA agents in Western Europe and Ryszard Kuklinski. Mr. Kuklinski was born in 1930 and was a lieutenant colonel with the Polish General Staff, when he decided to make the leap and contact the United States to help him. He had lived most of his life in an occupied Poland. Whether it was the Nazis or the Soviets, he didn’t care, all he wanted was for his country to become a free nation and rebuild what had been taken from them during the occupation of their country. Kuklinski stated throughout his face to face conversations with CIA agents, Lang* and Henry*, two important beliefs. First off, he was not coming to the United States for help; he was merely enlisting this great power to his side in his personal fight against Communism. Secondly, that he had been wondering for many years whether or not coming to the US was immoral, or unpatriotic. A Secret Life, by Benjamin Weiser, is the story of an individual who had one goal, and the two beliefs that led to his goal would be first he would need the help of a greater power than himself, and he asked himself is this truly the best option to help him achieve the goal of liberating his country and founding a new, free Poland.
Kuklinski knew that he would need a great power on his side if he were to have any chance at overthrowing the Soviet Union, who was currently occupying Poland, but he also struggled with the decision about whether or not he should even consider moving forward with his dream. After all the goodwill of his entire nation rested on how well he performed in his goal, and if he were to fail, the entire country of Poland would be lost forever. In the words of Kuklinski himself, slightly paraphrased by Benjamin Weiser,
[H]e did not see himself as an American spy or mole; he always felt that he had acted on behalf of his own country, and that he had in effect “recruited” the United States to work against Poland’s Communist leadership and the Soviet Union. ‘In the beginning I asked myself if I had the moral right to do this,’ he said. ‘I was Pole. I understood that Poles should be free and that the United States was the only country that might support the fight for freedom for Poland. On the other hand, I was providing so much important information, and there always will be this question of whether a human being has this right, based on his own individual decision, particularly if the interest of the whole country and maybe the lives of millions are involved. It was a dilemma, my moral dilemma, but I became convinced that I not only had the right, I had the moral obligation,’ (xv).
This quote showed jumped out at me because we are supposed to be discussing moral dilemmas and issues, and this is exactly what Kuklinski is saying. If Kuklinski had come to the conclusion that putting the lives of millions in jeopardy was too big of a risk to take, the Cold War would probably have erupted into not a Hot War, but a scalding, scorching, end of the world, judgment day, extremely Hot War. In fact, the simple truth is that, if Kuklinski had not acted in this way, I would not be able to write this. Not because he no longer was an important figure, but because there would be no more Earth. So, Kuklinski did follow through with his plan and we know in hindsight that simply continuing with his ambition was able to save the world from complete and utter destruction.

* These names were changed to protect the identity of the agents.

Weiser, Benjamin. A Secret Life: The Polish Officer, His Covert Mission, and the Price He Paid to Save His Country. 1st. New York City: PublicAffairs, 2004.

Outside Reading...It's amazing!!!

I decided that this week, I wouldn't have look around on the internet. Instead, I am going to write about the book(s) that I am reading. I am currently awaiting my turm on the library's waiting list for Superior Saturday, by Garth Nix. Superior Saturday is the 6th of 7 books in the Keys to the Kingdom series. The series centers around Arthur Penhaligon. A normal kid who happens to come across the first key, which allows it's possesor to complete control over the lower House. The House is a mysterious universe that exists parallel to our own and has some correlations to our world, such as the prophecy that states that the human who comes in possesion of the first key will be the Rightful Heir to the entire realm of the House. Arthur faces a lot of opposition throughout his quest from the 7 "demons" who split up the House when the Architect, the creator of the House, disappeared. These "demons" are Mister Monday, Grim Tuesday, Drowned Wednesday, Sir Thursday, Lady Friday, Superior Saturday, and Lord Sunday, which happen to be the names of the 7 books in the series. Awesome series. Read it.

My second series is the Alex Rider series. However "kiddish" it may be, it tells a great story about a teenage spy for the British Secret Service. Alex hates this obligation but is continually forced back into the service by a form of blackmail, such as sending his only guardian, Jack, back to the US. Alex has been all over the world, from the Caribbean, helping out the CIA; to China, fighting local gangs; to the Alps, stopping a cloning system; to outerspace saving the entire US eastern seaboard from a falling "space hotel". Another great series. Read this too.

The third series that I'm currently reading is the Gatekeeper series (Necropolis, the final book, came out today!!!!!!!!! This may be the highlight of my week. It's been a really boring week.) The series, and the Alex Rider series, is written by Anthony Horowitz. In this series, 5 children from across the world are reincarnations of the original 5 heroes. They have to stop the Old Ones from taking over the world. The Old Ones were trapped by the original 5 heroes underneath the Nazca lines in the Nazca Desert. In the last book, Necropolis, the Old Ones have taken over Beijing and renamed it Necropolis, City of the Dead. Beijing is the city that the 5th hero happens to be living in, so I'm really excited for my chance to read the book. Another great series. Read this too.

The book I'm actually reading right now is Inkdeath. This is the third book in the Ink series by Cornelia Caroline Funke. (The first is Inkheart, and the second is Inkspell.) This series is about a Mo and Meggie who have the power to read characters in and out of stories. This book starts out in the world of Inkheart, a book written by Fenoglio. (Ya, I know, the main characters are in a book, Inkheart, in a book, the actual "Ink" series? Yes.) Mo has assumed the role of the Bluejay, a robber who has bound death in a book for the Adderhead, the bad guy. However, this book ensures immortality, but also ensures eternal aging. So, the Adderhead is trying to catch Mo and make him change the book. This is another great series. And guess what, read this too!

I know this is a lot of books to read because counting all the previous books in these series you have to read...7+6+4+3=...20 books. So, read them anyways. You won't regret it.

A picture

So here's my picture. I hope it makes up for our dismal performance in class today.

Composititon: The picture is of the stairs in my house leading up from the basement. The steps are in some light and the line between the shadow and light creates a leading line that leads our eyes throughout the picture, from the light stairs to the dark door.

Camera Angle: The picture is taken from a low angle to show the door as an ominous obstacle that we wouldn't want to have to approach. (My dad thought that it was a high angle and it seemed like you were descending into the abyss.)

Camera Distance: The picture is a medium shot because the door is shown with the surroundings that lead up to it. It's kind of a close shot because you see the stairs and the door and nothing else. It depends if you consider the subject of the picture to be the stairs and the door, or only the door.

Lighting/Shadows: The beginning of the stairway is in the light, but the shadows gradually creep across the stairs and soon the whole top of the stairs is shrouded in a dark, menacing, gloom.

History of Photography and Film

Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, photography didn't start as it is now? I'm just kidding, if you seriously thought that photography hasn't evolved just like everything else then you ... umm...ya... nevermind. Anyways, my parousal of the Internet has led me to an article that tells about just that, the evolution of photography. This article was written to tell about the emergence of film and photography in our culture. “Photographic imaging”, a fancy-shmancy way of saying photography began a long, long time ago. The Camera Obscura was a box that allowed light to enter and create images. When photographers placed silver coated glass plates into those boxes, the chemical reaction, blah, blah, blah… You get the idea. Photography was born! This “camera” took a long time to set up, take the picture, develop the picture and what not; they were also taking pretty bad pictures, “crude” as the article says. So many photographers in later generations decided to find a way to simplify the process. Machines came out that developed pictures faster. The bulky “cameras” became smaller and easier to manage. Also, the camera came out of the studios and into the hands of the public. This is possibly one of the greatest public technological releases ever. World War II saw an evolution of cameras to a more similar model to today’s. The single lens reflex allowed for better focus and greater range of distance. Finally, we had the instant camera. Released to the people in the 1960’s by Polaroid. This was believed to be “idiot proof”. It had everything from the “permanent electronic flash” to an “automatically controlled shutter speed” along with better focus and lighting. This new realm of photography got its time to shine during the Vietnam War. The popularity that it experienced was so great that every home owned at least one camera. Cameras now a days come in all sorts of varieties, and which the computer, printer, and Internet, we are now able to share photography like its original pioneers would never have imagined. As the article says, “Photography has come out of the darkroom and onto the CD Rom” (3).

Works Cited:
"History of photography and film." eSSORTMENT. 2002. Pagewise. 23 Oct 2008 .

Death for Life?

In my most recent navigation of the World Wide Web, I managed to come across a very interesting bit of new Buddhist traditions. In Nakhon Nayok, Thailand, an individual experiences a temporary death and is soon reborn with completely new karma, as if they were a completely different person. This ceremony is called the coffin ceremony. A 39-year-old woman from Bangkok has been applying for a visa to the Netherlands, but has not yet received her wish. Well, after her temporary death she prayed again and, along with all the other individuals who died and were reborn, got her wish. So, these people sort of contemplated a temporary death and after a long slumber, awoke a completely new person. I believe that I may have heard that somewhere before. Perhaps these lines from Siddhartha, “Perhaps he had really died, perhaps he had been drowned and was reborn in another form…this Siddhartha was somewhat changed, renewed” (91). Siddhartha, the savior of these people, contemplated and may have done the exact same thing that they have just started doing. So, has this tradition that recently commenced in Thailand really that new? Didn’t Siddhartha try it over 2400 years ago? Either way this story relates to our school experiences by showing that Siddhartha’s “practices” are still being followed or “reborn” today. I hope you enjoyed my presentation of my weekly browsing of many completely irrelevant stories and occasionally, as shown here, some relevant ones from the Internet.

"In latest Thai fad, a taste of death brings hope for better life." The Buddhist Channel. 11 Oct 2008. AFP. 11 Oct 2008 .

Mrs F's first,and hopefully last, question on the Odyssey

2. Is Odysseus a hero of modern times?
His lies, pride and murderous ways can be considered metaphors for larger, universal truths. Or perhaps in these modern times we need to redefine what we want in our heroes.

A hero is not necessarily one who is remembered specifically or one who receives praise for his/her works. A hero is someone who does what is right even if it means putting themselves in danger. In this case Odysseus can be recognized as a hero who puts himself at risk to save others, his companions on his journey, or his family. However, a hero also does not lie and receive personal gain through deceit. A hero in today's society is someone who does what he can to try and preserve life and peace in the world. Odysseus is a lying, and deceitful individual who also shows kindness and mercy when the time calls for it. So Odysseus is a hero by his era's standards, however in modern times, although he may be able to slaughter many, many of the firefighters, who rescued individuals from the wreckage caused by 9/11 and are therefore considered to be heroes, but that would not make him a hero, it would simply make him a jerk that who be universally disliked.
Odysseus is a hero by the standards shown in The Odyssey. He always remained true to his cause and never permanently fell into the lap of any of his distractions. In Homer’s time period a hero was someone who could manipulate their way through any obstacle and cut down any individual in his (or her) path. This is exactly where Odysseus’ brains and brawn came into play. He used trickery to force Circe to release him, and he used his brawn to conquer the suitors in the final battle. When Odysseus came to the Circe’s island, he and his men were famished. They ate and slept for two days straight. On the third day, Circe welcomed them in and after they had all ate their fill; she turned them all into pigs. Odysseus felt guilty and he knew he needed to get his friends back. So, he devised a plan, with the help of Hermes and his magic herb that repelled Circe’s magic. When Hermes gives Odysseus the herb, Homer says, “With that the giant-killer handed over the magic herb…and Hermes showed me [Odysseus] all its name and nature.” When Circe attempted to charm Odysseus, Odysseus tells his listeners, “But I, I drew my sharp sword sheathed at my hip and rushed her fast as if to run her through—She screamed…” (239-40). Odysseus shows his side of heroism here with one, his compassion, and two, his trickery and deceit. He feels very upset and as though he needs to get his shipmates back. So, Odysseus does have a soft side as well as his sly, tricky, and clever side.
This side is shown when he uses trickery, the herb that he received from Hermes, to overcome Circe’s will. Hermes and Odysseus devised a plan to allow Odysseus to defeat Circe, and have his comrades returned to human form. His comrades do die, however, during one of the many obstacles they still had to face. However, Odysseus was to fight the final obstacle on his own. Odysseus uses his “brawn” side to fight the suitors. When he was fighting the final battle in the halls of his house, Odysseus commands, “Friends! Now it is for us to hurl at them [the suitors], I say, into this ruck of suitors! Topping all their crimes they’re mad to strip the armor off our bodies!” (447). And Homer tells us, after the slaughter of the suitors, “Odysseus scanned his house to see if any man still skulked alive, still hoped to avoid black death” (451). Odysseus shows courage when he calls for himself, Telemachus, the cowherd and the swineherd, to attack some of the finest men in all of Ithaca. He also shows how he isn’t a hero when he scours his whole house, just to see if someone is trying to escape him. He could have just dealt with not killing 1 or 2 of the suitors. Also, heroes don’t go around killing people, even if those people are threatening their family. They get rid of them, instead of killing them. So, although Odysseus may be a hero by the standards shown in his era, the heroes that we want today are not ones who simply kill or trick people in their way.
Odysseus is shown as a strong, independent character and those are some qualities that we want in our present-day heroes. However, Odysseus also lies and does not trust anyone. These are traits that are not shown in our present-day heroes. Heroes these days are just expected to be some of the nicest people you have ever met. They should always tell the truth and trust everyone they meet. This just goes to show that Odysseus is not, and cannot be, a hero by our standards. When Odysseus is living on Calypso’s island and Zeus makes her give up Odysseus, she tells Odysseus,
“ ‘No need, my unlucky one, to grieve here any longer…now I am willing, heart and soul, to send you off at last…And I myself will stock her [the raft that was to be built] with food and water…’ …Odysseus shuddered at that and broke out in a sharp flight of protest. ‘Passage home? Never. Surely you’re plotting something else, goddess, urging me—in a raft—to cross the ocean’s mighty gulfs’ ” (157-8).
Calypso is finally offering Odysseus what he has been longing for the whole time he’s been on the island. She is willing to help him get off her island, and immediately he becomes skeptical. If a modern hero was trapped on an island in the middle of nowhere and was offered a way to leave, he would thank his hostess and kindly accept the offer, instead of questioning the hostess and being hostile to someone who is offering their help. So, Odysseus is a questioning individual who doesn’t trust anyone, least of all someone who as kept him captive.
Earlier during his journey, Odysseus was held captive by another magical creature, Polyphemus the Cyclops. Odysseus lies to the giant one-eyed monster and although it may have worked and he did escape his pride, which is not a trait that is shown in many modern heroes, gets in the way. As he is escaping on his ships, he yells back to Polyphemus, “Cyclops—if any man on the face of the earth should ask you who blinded you, shamed you so—say Odysseus, raider of cities, he gouged out your eye, Laertes’ son who makes his home in Ithaca” (227). In response, Polyphemus prayed to his father, Poseidon, saying, “…grant that Odysseus…never reaches home. Or if he’s fated to see his people once again and reach his well-built house and his own native country, let him come home late and come a broken man—all shipmates lost, along in a stranger’s ship—and let him find a world of pain at home!” (228). Odysseus’ pride leads him to taunt Polyphemus, and in the end, the Cyclops’ prayer makes him lose all his possessions, his shipmates; his ship and almost lose his life many times. This pride is not a welcome attribute to many common heroes of today. Pride makes one unhealthy and makes them think that they are better than everyone, which was Odysseus’ thought when he yelled to the Cyclops.
Finally, present day heroes are not deceitful, they may fight battles, but they don’t massacre every last enemy soldier. They are trusting and they are not laden with pride. So, do we need to change our thoughts on what a hero is? NO!!!!! Our heroes may get massacred by Odysseus’ kind, but in today’s society, a kind, caring, trustworthy and modest hero is the kind that would be accepted versus one who is deceitful, massacring, prideful.

How to choke under pressure

Well, I have seen many examples of choking under pressure, and one of them was in a novel. It's a classic, you may have heard of it, it's called The Iliad. The Trojans were on the brink of bringing home the victory, but they failed against all odds. Also, 2 nights ago, some of us diehards were neglecting our homework to watch another heart-wrenching choke brought to us by our Minnesota Twins. Ah, those good ol' Twinkies. Half a week, just like in the Iliad, after sweeping our way into first place, or right up against the brinks of our enemy's ships, we managed to lose 2 of 3 against the lowly Royals, or in The Iliad, to Patroclus, and have the final blow be delivered by the White Sox, the Trojans got KO'd by Achilles. Which by the way should have been expected after all, everyone associates Achilles with one's Achilles' heel, and the White Sox have the article of clothing that covers one's heel. So, Homer really predicted this gut-wrenching defeat from way back in Ancient Greece. Anyways, the difference here is that, unlike the Trojans, the Twins haven't all been massacred, haven't had their wives forced into slavery by the White Sox, and their children are still alive and well, not being thrown off a cliff. So, for any other fellow Twins fans out there, I know this is unfortunate, but we shall live on to fight next year's Achaeans, and then we shall be victorious.

Work Cited:
Nystrom, Thor. "Chill of missed opportunities lingers." THIS IS YOUR STATE, THIS IS YOUR TEAM, THIS IS TWINS TERRITORY. 01 Oct 2008. MLB.com. 1 Oct 2008 .

Used Cigarette Butts

So earlier today I was browsing the internet for interesting tidbits of info from online newspapers, cause that's obviously what I do in my spare time, and I came across a Damian Hirst auction at Sotheby's. Among the 223 items up for bid there is a golden calf that has been dumped in fermaldehide and decorated with 18-carat gold horns and hooves. It's going for more than 20 million dollars, what a waste. However, even more interesting is the collage of used cigarette butts, that's right they're used, selling for 27,000 dollars. That's the only non-election/economy/Palin/politics story that I happened to come across during my daily parousal of the day's news.

Also, did anyone else get blocked by the website when they logged on for the first time after creating their account. I got blocked because they though I was spam.

Anyways, that's that for today.

Shubert, Atika. "Artist Gambles with Auction." Video - Breaking News videos from CNN.com. 09 Sep 2008. CNN.com. 16 Sep 2008 .

My Opening Blog

Hey I'm Chris

This is my new blog for my 10th Grade Enriched English class. This is my first blog ever so this is probably going to look kind of awkward to any of you usual bloggers. I will try to post insightful discussion topics an average of once a week. So, I hope you have fun reading and answering my great insights into many different versions of great literature.

Have Fun!
Chris