Rebuttal To Vanessa--> Should Child stars be held as Role Models?

In Vanessa's opening statement of the debate, Should Child Stars Be Held as Role Models for Audiences their age?, she argued that child stars are the influence to young children, therefore, they should be required to be role models.

The post repeatedly address the importance of fulfilling the expectations of the child stars' audience. I believe that we may be able to give expectations to child actors when they are on set and in the career of acting, but we may not give them expectations when they are off set and living their own lives. This is important because they can be less stressed. The audience shouldn't be the ones running the actors' lives. Although the behavior of actors' off set affect the audience as well, they are no longer in the career zone so even if they are acting bad, I believe they have the right to. I am not encouraging bad behaviors, it is that the actors can act however they want- bad or good in their lives. This is the freedom that everyone has (if they don't break the law).

Vanessa said: " She [Miley Cyrus] showed up in an issue of Vanity Fair, she dated men that were over the age of 18 while she was still a minor, her music videos are too provocative and she pole danced at the 2009 Teen Choice Awards. All this behavior is something that parents would not approve of their child viewing. As for Demi Lovato, she ended up going to rehab for cutting herself"

The children viewing Miley Cyrus' bad behaviors is possibly unavoidable, if we want to be fair to both the actor and the audience. Miley and the audience both are able to decide whether what she did was appropriate or bad. We must take into consideration that Miley is also a teen, she's at an age where she wouldn't think before she acts- a phrase that many teens go through because they're not mature yet. Miley can judge her own behavior and the audience too can be influenced in a good or bad way, on the way that they chose to view it, dependent on other factors of their lives as well that contributes.

Also, I think Demi Lovato's incident may be just an unfortunate event in her life. She has possibly messed up, so we should know that actors are under stress as well. Sometimes they don't think before they act, just like normal people. If we do not even allow them to mess up, they have no freedom to act freely.


This idea of no expectations for child actors is risky, but it is the only way to be fair to the actors and to the audience. 

Napoleon's and Squeeler's way of Speech

In Animal Farm, the hard fight for equality was eventually taken over by the tyrant pig, Napoleon. Squeeler, a very persuasive speaker, is one of the biggest factors that helped Napoleon drive out Snowball and take control of Animal Farm.

Squeeler often tries to plant false memories into the 'lower animals' minds. He is skilled at painting his lies vividly and with every little detail that the animals become convince that the event did occur. Squeeler puts a small significant part of a true event in his lie to conjure up a confusing mixture of truth and lie. He often addresses the animas as "comrades". He uses words formally, as in a respectful manner, in order to make the animals comfortable and put their trust in him. Furthermore, he always includes that the pigs are that brainworkers and emphasizes their work dramatically. He even convinced them of allowing the pigs to consume all the batches of apples, all the gallons of milk, and sleep in beds y connecting the safety of the 'lower animals' to the absolute power of the pigs. In desperate times, he refers to Napoleon as the leader, which mostly catches the loyalty in Boxer. Boxer is an extremely obedient, hard-working animal. By influencing Boxer, it influences others easier because Boxer's hard work and nobility is respected. The 'lower animals' tend to follow one another's point of views, if one agrees, the others eventually follows. Squeeler is able to cover up the injustice Napoleon and the pigs with higher power committed. Here is an example:

" Comrades!... Do you know what the real reason was? Snowball was in league with Jones from the very start! He was Jones' secret agent all the time. It has all been proved by the secret documents which he left behind. To my mind, this explains a great deal, Comrades. Did we not see for ourselves how he attempted- fortunately without success- to get us defeated and destroyed at the Battle of Cowshed?" (89).

Squeeler's voice proves to be one of Napoleon's greatest protections because throughout the story, Napoleon never actually speaks. What he has to say is narrated, instead of by quotation marks of the works of the words he is actually saying. It is hard to tell whether Napoleon is as an influential speaker like Squeeler or not. When Napoleon and Snowball have debates, Snowball always won. The author never writes out small passages from Napoleon's speeches, like he does for Snowball and Squeeler's speeches. After Snowball was expelled and Napoleon obtained the ultimate control of the farm, people began to listen to him more. His ideas were carried out not because he is persuasive, but because he uses fear to threaten the 'lower animals'. Moreover, since he is now known as the leader, the others' respect him more. His main tools are the menacing dogs. The 'lower animals' did not have the intelligence to acknowledge the threats by Napoleon yet because Squeeler always back up Napoleon's actions. He explains Napoleon's ideas to others persuasively so the animals do not feel the injustice Napoleon is committing. In the part where Snowball was driven away by Napoleon's ferocious dogs,

" Napoleon, with the dogs following him, now mounted on to the raised portion of the floor where Major had previously stood to deliver his speech. He announced that from now on the Sunday-morning Meetings would come to an end. They were unnecessary, he said, and wasted time."

 Afterwards,

"Four young pokers in the front row uttered shrill squeals of disapproval, and all four of them sprang to their feet and began speaking at once. But suddenly to their feet and began speaking at once. But suddenly the dogs sitting round Napoleon let out deep, menacing growls, and the pigs fell silent and sat down again" (69).

Should child actors in shows marketed for young audiences be expected to serve as role models for people their age?

The main and most important reason that child actors should not be required to be role models is because it would strip the actors of their freedom.They should be treated like normal children. Normal children obtain requirements to how to present themselves from the teachings of their parents. Child actors' parents and the actors themselves should be in control of their own presentation. But, of course, this argument also depends on what the specific expectations for child stars are.

Many says that child actors like Miley Cyrus are bad influence on other children. Miley Cyrus has released photos when she behaved inappropriately in the way she dressed and her behavior. There is no denying that children would defiantly follow this behavior, but I still believe an actor have the right the act a way that is tolerable to the actor and the actor's parents. Celebrities already do not have much freedom with the paparazzi following their every footsteps and now they will have less freedom. Although she is a bad influence, stripping her of her freedom to act would be unfair to the actor. 

Everybody has done something bad, either by accident or on purpose. Actors' mistakes and faults are magnified and the results are painful to endure when everyone turns against you. Even though Miley Cyrus has committed something inappropriate for teens her age, she should be given the opportunity to learn from her mistakes, just like others are too. Furthermore, if Miley had not learned from her mistakes and committ it multiple times over, who are we- the audience, to tell her to stop? It is true that our youngsters are influenced by her, but they are also influenced by many other kids at school. Similarily, we cannot march up to classmates who are not physically harming your children, and tell them to stop dressing the way they are. It is their decision and their freedom to act as inappropriate as they desire. However we want to regulate the bad actor, we are in no control and should not be. Miley Cyrus may soon enough look back and realize that she was out of control back then and was a bad influenced to many, or she could continue the way she is and possibly get involved in worse things. It is her path, and she chooses it. Just as we choose our own paths as well. We may influence her choice, but we may not give her expectations to follow.

Political Power in relation to Animal Farm

In your opinion, does political power corrupt the people who attain it? Also, how do you think George Orwell would answer this question? Use quotes from  the first two chapters to support your answer.

As human beings, I believe political powers are most likely to be abused in the hands of those who attain it. Leaders involved in the high branches of government, those who have more abilities than others, have a great advantage towards gaining more power than before. Of course, I believe that political power do not always corrupt those who attain it. It depends on many factors of their character- like, how easily they are influenced...etc. 

What an individual would do with power is greatly involved in whether they have a strong sense of equality. Although every leader obtains their own view of an equal government (For example, some leaders may think that certain rights are allowed to be excluded because the benefits are much higher to everyone, and is better for the greater good.), there is a range of what is tyranny and what is not. The most general mark of tyranny is selfishness to only one or one group of people. A non-corrupt government needs leaders with strong minds in which selfishness cannot be crept into by temptations or in any other forms. Selfishness is in everyone. Since it is more difficult to take out this virtue to most people, I give the assumption that more than 60%of those who attain political power would take advantage of it.

George Orwell, the writer of Animal Farm, seems to believe this view as well. The story continues as expected. After Old Major's inspirational speech and his quick death, the animals took action and succeeded in driving humans out of the farm. The pigs were the leaders immediately without any debate because it seemed natural that they should take the lead since they sparked the revolution after Major's death and they were the ones with most knowledge. The pigs with their important roles began to abuse their power. With their power of persuasion and speech, everyone was under their order, at least in the beginning. They separated themselves from the others, and were categorized as superior, "The pigs did not actually work, but directed and supervised the others." The pigs did not mean to create an equal government and is already showing signs of selfishness in the first few days.

Inspirations and more

          Most often, my inspiration for either a topic for an essay, a drawing, or a goal would come along, but it goes away too quickly. What drives me to work and create something is either inspiration or an inescapable must-get-an-A attitude. But most preferably would be an inspiration. My inspirations are short-lived, sometimes wiped out by overload of work, tiredness, impatience, too high expectations, mistakes, or simply by doubt. I love Bany's perspective of inspiration. She says: 

"My inspiration is what helps me keep on going, thriving through my life, and makes me have a sense of motivation in my actions. People should try to be more open to inspiration. Sometimes it can come from the, most unexpected places. Inspiration should not be taken for granted. don't take someone Else's work and get the credit. Let it make you think of something you can do or give you an idea of what you want to do." - The Incredible Bany

          I like the idea that inspiration is the beginning of a creation and builds on more and more, creating a masterpiece in the end. I have the problem of having multiple inspirations, then having no time to commit to both or being indecisive. Sometimes, I doubt whether the inspiration would work or whether it is the best one. Possibly, letting whatever inspiration comes first to take over will be best. I am always amazed at great writers, or inverters, where do they get their inspirations from? As I think more about it, inspiration can be anything- from a simple object in everyday life to a rare life-changing experience. There is no need to witness a famous event to create something fabulous. That means, everyone is capable of creating something excellent. Anyways, great blog Bany!

          

Sweaters!!

          I dislike any characteristics of winter. On a typical winter day the sky is abnormally gray, with pale clouds hovering- preventing light from the sun. It is like the light from a lamp is turned to the lowest possible level and a morose feeling comes to me. The volatile whether is annoying and picks the worse time for a storm. Whenever I am wearing a puffy jacket, the clouds agreeably make way for the sun to shine on my heated jacket. When I strip off my jacket, the clouds close up and send the winds to further the discomfort.

           Rain just makes everything worse. School becomes a messy slop, especially with the gooey goose poop littered on campus. There is no point wearing anything nice because the rain would ruin it anyways. Every step in winter allows puddles to splash, rain from the ceiling to drip on heads, clothes to damp from the raindrops covering surfaces, and just sticky, cold, and wet everywhere, with no control over stopping it.


         In the middle of this misery, somewhere a spark flew this winter... and I found one thing that I love about winter (besides Christmas). Sweaters! It may be a bit abnormal, but I believe sweaters are what make winter durable. They are like a cup of steamy hot chocolate with melting marshmallows on a stormy night. On the After Christmas Sales, we bought home some soft comfy sweaters, with different colors and everything. Something about the loose cotton texture- plain but nice. I am so pleasured by sweaters, I should start a sweater collection. Nonetheless, it definitely brightens the winter days. 

        

Will you have a better life if you graduate from an elite college or university? Why or why not?

There were two great pieces that persuaded me, but they I am persuaded by two pieces that puts forth opposite views. Until last year, I would have been convinced by "Numbers Favor Top Schools" by Richard D. Kahlenberg. First, Kahlenberg began by reminding us of the amount of effort we are using to fight for a higher education. The value of education equals a better trajectory in life. Why else would we boycott? Beginning with a widely known riot brings me to reality. It is a very credible way to start. Further on, he shows us that school is not only about education, but the people you will meet, who are as ambitious as you are. In the end, I found a flaw that made me disagree with him. He says: "Finally, selective and wealthy institutions offer unparalleled access to the leadership class in this country." He names a list of government leaders who attended elite colleges. I realized, Maybe going to an elite school would be fantastic if one wants to go into leadership, but for other careers it may not matter at all. Without any further research, this view seemed the most reasonable to me in previous years, but last summer we read a piece about elite schools that changed my mind.

David W. Breneman's piece, "Graduate School Matters More", was definately more comforting by relieving stress. His three points were: elite schools are not perfect for everyone and depends on personality, just as long as the college gives enough academically to allow students to succeed onto their professional school of choice after undergrad school, and finance consideration. I favored his second point most because he does not say that any college is alright, but a college that gives enough quality education is great- showing that working hard is still necessary. We need to look at the college's characteristics, instead of just the name is Breneman's view. He compares picking a college to a marriage, "Too many variables are involved to base the decision solely on the factors that a news magazine has selected to rank colleges. No one would pick a spouse in such a manner."