Freedom To Marry – Proposal Essay 4th Draft

Freedom to Marry

    Imagine how you would feel if it was against the law for you to marry the one you love, if you were shut out of hospital rooms for not being what hospital administrations define as family, to be denied for FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) when your loved one is sick. Many Americans are struggling with these issues today and that needs to be rectified. I propose to abolish the ban on gay marriage in the United States, and more specifically repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally holds marriage to being between one man and one woman.

    Of the fifty states in the U.S., only five allow gay marriage and only three of the remaining forty-five states recognize same-sex unions from those states. Gay couples who don't reside in states that allow same-sex marriage face tremendous hardships and prejudice every day. There have been numerous news reports of partners and their adopted children being kept from their loved ones hospital bedsides in their last hours of life. In the real life example of lesbian couple, Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski, Karen was kept from Sharon for nearly four years after Ms. Kowalski was left severely injured when a drunk driver struck her car. Sharon lost the ability to walk or speak more than a few words at a time and required constant care. Ms. Thompson sought a court order for guardianship but Ms. Kowalski's parents opposed the petition and obtained sole guardianship. They used that power maliciously by forbidding all contact between the two women and moving Sharon to a facility hundreds of miles away from Karen. It was not until a re-evaluation of Ms. Kowalski's mental competency that Ms. Thompson was finally able to visit her partner again. The prolonged injustice and anguish both women endured is one of the many examples of why this discrimination needs to come to an end (Stoddard).

The gay marriage movement is often compared to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Less than fifty years ago, it was against the law for black people to attend school with white people, and for black and white to marry. In 1967, sixteen states still had laws in place against interracial marriage until the Supreme Court ruled that such laws were unconstitutional (Cruz, Berson, 2001). When I was growing up people would say there is no way in my lifetime would our nation have a black president. I remember thinking, "Why?" In History class, I learned the terrible prejudice the African American race went through and I hoped one day those who said we would never see a black president would be proven wrong. In 2008, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States and history was made. It's amazing how far we as a nation have come; but how can those with the power to change this not see gender inequality is just as bad as racial inequality?

I struggle with those who speak out against gay or same-sex marriage. I wonder how they would feel if they were told they couldn't protect their family and loved ones with an elementary right due to having a certain color of hair. New law: "Blondes shall not be allowed to marry (other blondes)." It seems rather silly when you look at it like that, doesn't it? Doesn't every person deserve the right of freedom of choice? Shouldn't every person be able to have the exact same rights no matter the color of their hair, height, religion, race or sexual orientation?

According to the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers, "Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. The institution of marriage offers social, psychological, and health benefits that are denied to same-sex couples. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state reinforces and perpetuates the stigma historically associated with homosexuality. Homosexuality remains stigmatized, and this stigma has negative consequences. California's prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples reflects and reinforces this stigma". They concluded: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage." (In Re Marriage Cases, 2007)

How can it change? We start with the small things—reducing prejudice against the gay community, educating the masses, using media in a positive fashion to reflect on the plight of so many. We also must be looking at the large picture, though, and that is ultimately to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act that was signed in by former President Bill Clinton. If the government wants to define marriage according to constitutional amendments, I propose a special task force called Freedom to Marry be appointed by the government. The aptly named taskforce will have six months to research and prepare the Marriage Equality Act to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

The language disclosed in the Marriage Equality Act will be gender-free and non-discriminatory. The Marriage Equality Act will contain specific language giving gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, including but not limited to, health, medical, tax, federal, social security and death benefits. Freedom to Marry will form education workshops in cities around the United States and create a website to which supporters will be directed. The website will disclose the newest and greatest in the initiative, containing clear and concise information on how to create enough support to pass the Marriage Equality Act to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Prior to voting on the repeal it is required for any representative casting a vote to sit in a workshop for a minimum of one hour with no electronic devices and no assistant. The workshops will have five to seven couples in each workshop and it will be an open forum question and answer session. The representative is required to ask each couple a set of five questions and record their answers. The representative must show evidence of attending the workshop with their handwritten report stamped by the Freedom to Marry taskforce prior to voting. If the representative fails to show proof of attendance at a workshop, he/she will not be allowed to vote. If the representative chooses to vote "No" on the repeal after meeting with the workshop, he/she will be required to revisit the gay couple(s) why he chose to deny them the right to marry.

    The world is full of inequality, but once the United States abolishes the ban on same-sex marriage, it will be one less inequality that we suffer. My proposal to repeal the ban on gay marriage specifically found in the Defense of Marriage Act is sound and a fix for the oppression the gay community faces when it comes to their rights to marry. Just as Obama was voted into the highest office in the land so shall the ban on same-sex marriage be abolished. It will happen.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Berson, B. C. (2001, Summer). Organization of American Historians. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from The American Melting Pot? Miscegenation Laws in the United States: http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html

In Re Marriage Cases, S147999 (Supreme Court of the State of California 09 26, 2007).

Stoddard, T. B. (n.d.). Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from Miami-Dade College|Kendall, English Department: http://faculty.mc.edu/dmcguirk/ENC2106/stoddard.htm

 

Process Journal: Proposal Essay (see below for actual Essay)

    When we received the assignments for both the Analytical/Response Essay and Proposal Essay at the same time, I immediately gravitated to the Proposal Essay. I knew immediately I would want to write on the inequality the gay community struggles with on a daily basis, more specifically the ban on gay marriage on a federal level. Of course immediately gravitating to a subject doesn't mean it would be easy to write about, which I soon learned.

As I started writing the paper I would feel my ire growing at the prejudice and inequality of the matter. I didn't want to come across as angry or condescending to the reader. It seems so obvious to me, but I want to be persuasive in my paper. I overloaded my email account with articles from the databases on equality for the gay community. I read numerous articles on both sides of the issue. I was overwhelmed by all the articles I read and highlighted. I wasn't sure where to go from there. I really struggled with a solution. It's too simple to me. The ban just needs to be abolished. I think my solution is sound and would be a great solution for the issue. Holding those in power responsible for their actions puts in on a personal level and I have great hope for our nation's responsibility to be a nation of equality.

    I eventually began to feel the writing come to me, and sat down only a couple days before first draft is due to write the paper. Usually by first draft I've revised my paper about six or seven times. I really put a lot of effort into my writing and I want it to be great. I sent it to my usual team of proofreaders for some feedback. While not all of the readers agreed with my opinion and proposal they were able to give me great pointers on cleaning up the sentences. I feel my first draft all the time is sloppy in itself. It takes a lot of hard work to get to a second draft for me.

    I am more comfortable in this essay quoting sources than I was in the Response Essay. The Response Essay was the first time I was quoting sources in about fifteen years, so I wasn't quite sure initially how to paraphrase or quote portions directly. We had examples of it, but I still wasn't comfortable. I really like the quotes I was able to bring in and the information I was able to gather for the paper.

My inspiration for the essay is Ellen DeGeneres. Ellen "came out" on her TV sitcom in the 90's and was the recipient of a backlash that lasted years. She is now the only talk show host that could rival Oprah and married to Portia de Rossi, whom she married before Proposition 8 was voted in to effect on November 4, 2009. Ellen is amazing in her compassion and her talk show is a delight. When she announced on her show that she and Portia were getting married, I cried with happiness for her. There are millions of "Ellen's" in the world that do not have the rights they should have.    

I am happy with the essay I'm handing in and glad it's one more down to the Final Portfolio. I want to excel in college, in every class. I can be classified as an overachiever and I'm okay with that. I look at how much value I'm receiving in college at age thirty two that my fellow students at age twenty have no appreciation for. This paper was something I feel passionate about and I hope the reader can see and appreciate that.

Right to Marry (Proposal Essay)

    Imagine how you would feel if it were against the law for you to marry the one you love, if you were shut out of hospital rooms for not being what hospital administrations consider family, to be denied for FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) when your loved one is sick. Many Americans are struggling with these issues today and that needs to change. I propose to abolish the ban on gay marriage in the United States, and more specifically repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally holds marriage to being between one man and one woman.

    I recall when I was growing up that people would say there is no way in our lifetime we would have a black president. I remember thinking, "Why?" In History class, I learned the terrible prejudice the African American race went through and I hoped one day those who said we would never see a black president would be proven wrong. In 2008, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States and history was made. The ban on gay marriage can be compared to the civil rights issues prior to the 1960s. It is quite a prevalent issue of inequality.

Currently only a handful of states in the U.S.A. allow and recognize gay marriage. Gay partners who don't live in states that allow same-sex marriage face tremendous hardships and prejudice that heterosexual couples would never have to worry about. There have been numerous news reports of partners and their adopted children being kept from their loved one's bedside in their last hours of life. In the real life scenario of Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski, Karen was kept from Sharon for nearly four years after Ms. Kowalski was left severely injured when a drunk driver struck her car. Sharon lost the ability to walk or speak more than a few words at a time and required constant care. Ms. Thompson sought a court order for guardianship but Ms. Kowalski's parents opposed the petition and obtained sole guardianship. They used that power maliciously by forbidding all contact between the two women and moving Sharon to a facility hundreds of miles away from Karen. It was not until a reevaluation of Ms. Kowalski's mental competency that Ms. Thompson was finally able to visit her partner again. The prolonged injustice and anguish both women endured is one of the many examples of why this discrimination needs to come to an end (Stoddard).

It is unfair and unjust for any person in the United States to be denied the same rights as the person next to them, no matter their sexual orientation. America is so advanced in comparison to many other countries, so why are we living in The Stone Age when it comes to Gay Marriage? What is the hold up? The United States has an extremely high rate of divorce; approximately 50% of all first marriages end in divorce, so why should heterosexuals be making the decision on whether any person should be able to get married?

According to the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers, "Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. The institution of marriage offers social, psychological, and health benefits that are denied to same-sex couples. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state reinforces and perpetuates the stigma historically associated with homosexuality. Homosexuality remains stigmatized, and this stigma has negative consequences. California's prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples reflects and reinforces this stigma". They concluded: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage (In Re Marriage Cases, 2007)."

 

Christians frequently quote the words of Jesus: "Judge not lest you be judged" (Luke 6:37). According to this verse, isn't God the only who can judge? So why are religious leaders up in arms in regards to this issue and turn a blind eye to the fact they are condemning others for being different? The government should bear in mind that they have voted to remove "God" from our schools, and there have been lawsuits filed to remove God from money and the pledge of allegiance. If this country is truly based on church vs. state, why are the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community and proponents for Freedom to Marry still fighting this battle? I think it is a shame that I live and love in this great country of ours and there is still so much short-sightedness. Just think less than fifty years ago, it was against the law for black people to go to school with white people, for black and white to marry. In 1967, sixteen states still had laws in place against interracial marriage until the Supreme Court ruled that such laws were unconstitutional (Cruz, Berson, 2001). It's amazing how far we as a nation have come; but how can those with the power to change this not see gender inequality is just as bad as racial inequality?

I morally struggle with the righteous that speak up against gay or same-sex marriage. I wonder how they would feel if they were told they couldn't protect their family and loved ones with an elementary right due to having a certain color of hair. New rule: "Blondes shall not be allowed to marry (other blondes)." It seems rather silly when you look at it like that, doesn't it? Gay couples are not demanding priests or pastors to marry them against their own set of values and beliefs. What they want is the opportunity to be treated just like the heterosexual couples sitting next to them in the restaurant. Doesn't every person deserve the right of freedom of choice? Shouldn't every person be able to have the exact same rights no matter the color of their hair, height, religion, race or sexual orientation? I do not look at this controversial issue of gay versus straight, instead viewing it in the eyes of what's right and wrong.

How can it change? We can start with the small things, reducing prejudice against the gay community, educating the masses, use media in a positive fashion to reflect on the plight of so many. We should also be looking at the large picture though and that is ultimately to revise the Defense of Marriage Act that was signed in by former President Bill Clinton. If the government wants to define marriage according to constitutional amendments, I propose a special task force of those in the LGBT community to be assigned by the government and an amendment to the Defense of Marriage Act be researched and prepared to be passed. I admire that five states in our nation so far have allowed gay marriage and three others recognize those unions when performed in states that currently allow it, but that's not good enough. This was made a federal issue and needs to be revised on a federal level.

I propose the special task force form education workshops in cities around the United States and create a website to which supporters can be directed. The website should disclose the newest and greatest in the initiative to abolish the ban containing clear and concise information on how to create enough support to pass the amendment to abolish the ban on the federal level. I do not feel the Defense of Marriage Act needs to be fully re-written; it would take a simple amendment prepared by those in the special task force to be signed in by the President specific to how the government defines marriage. The language in the amendment should be gender-free and non-discriminatory.

Prior to voting on the amendment it will be required for any representative casting their vote on any government level to sit with a group of gay couples who want to get married. It will be urged that each representative leave their prejudices at the door and place themselves in the couple's shoes, asking questions and engaging the couple in serious questions as to why they should have the same rights of any American. If the representative chooses to vote "No" on the amendment after meeting with the couple, he/she will be required to tell the gay couple(s) why he chose to deny them the right to marry.

    The world needs to rid itself of inequality. Perhaps it's a dreamer's dream, but every day we see instances of inequality in this world we live in. My proposal to abolish the ban on gay marriage is sound and would be a fix for the oppression the gay community faces when it comes to their rights to marry. Just as Obama was voted into the highest office in the land so shall the ban on same-sex marriage be abolished. It will happen.

Works Cited

Berson, B. C. (2001, Summer). Organization of American Historians. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from The American Melting Pot? Miscegenation Laws in the United States: http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html

In Re Marriage Cases, S147999 (Supreme Court of the State of California 09 26, 2007).

Stoddard, T. B. (n.d.). Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from Miami-Dade College|Kendall, English Department: http://faculty.mc.edu/dmcguirk/ENC2106/stoddard.htm

 

 

 

Spring has Sprung!

Gosh, I've been bad about writing regularly. I should be better. I used to write Blog in every week in my calendar planner, but I haven't done so in weeks.... So note to self: Start writing a reminder in my calendar planner :).

I'm currently watching The Office when Jim and Pam have their baby and it's quite distracting and very funny. I really should get up, take a shower, clean house, do some more homework but first blogging.

Things at school has been going really well. In Spanish I had a 96% at midterm, but then a couple students asked if I turned in our first quiz from our prior professor and I said no, so I turned it in and received an additional 10 bonus points! I am so excited as I really work hard in all my classes and of course am minoring in Spanish!

March 23 was my parents 20th anniversary. April 3 we are having a lunch at their house. It was Mandi's idea, and a brilliant one at that!

Saturday was Mandy's 30th birthday and party. It was a lot of fun! We went to Cowboy Up in Mendon. I've never been there before. We ate at the Smokehouse portion and then went into the bar. There were so many people there, couldn't believe it... and the line dancing was amazing.... I felt photogenic for once so that was nice and got some great pictures of David and myself.

Yesterday morning we had breakfast with my parents at Ryan's, then we went to Redamak's for dinner (with David, Debbie and Blythe). It was my first time at Redamak's and my friend, fellow student, Shariann waited on us. We relaxed last night and watched Old Dogs, Hachi and Time Traveler's Wife. Old Dogs was just okay, definitely corny at times and very few laughable moments. Hachi was the best of the night and I cried at least the entire last half. The devotion of the dog was amazing. The Time Traveler's Wife was a way better book than a movie. The movie was good and the actress playing Claire (who also played the lead in Notebook) is awesome. The movie was like a fast forward version of the movie, it wasn't terrible but I'd rather read the book. The book was by far better!

Well I'm off to write stuff down for my oral exam in Spanish tomorrow, then have Algebra today and the twins come home tonight!

Process Journal: Analytical Essay

    I would say the easiest part of writing in English 101, for me, so far has been the Process Journal. I tend to think as if I'm writing a letter to my brother, or perhaps an e-mail to my sister; lamenting on the woes, trials and tribulations I've been through with each essay, and superbly thankful yet another assignment is behind me. I am a perfectionist by trait and expect it from myself as well as others. I become frustrated with the lackadaisical work of others.

    This essay has been no different than the others in regards to the laughable what is supposed to be a second draft. I suppose that I must re-write and re-think a paper at least a million times to get it "just so." This essay was the same, although I found it even more difficult to begin as the reading was incredibly dry. I am an avid reader, by nature or birth, and enjoy reading for pleasure as well as knowledge. I really had to force myself to read Paul Goodman's essays. I would spend time heavily highlighting words and phrases that I did not understand. I respect the man from what I read about him on Wikipedia and other sites, however I strongly feel he would've reached many more people if he was just a tad less wordy. Of course he may think that would be a form of "selling out."

    My first choice regarding his essays to write on was "Banning Cars from Manhattan." I really liked the essay until we were in class and I obviously had gleaned only what I wanted to from the essay. What fascinated me about the essay was the runaway thoughts of cities or burroughs like Manhattan, downtown Chicago and other densely populated cities without cars. It's a wonderful thing to imagine. I dread driving into Chicago; the horrendous traffic jammed along the highways and extremely aggressive, and in my opinion, dangerous, drivers. I contemplated how many more people would be alive on September 11, 2001, if emergency vehicles didn't have to concern themselves with traffic woes. But alas, I missed Paul Goodman's idea of creating Superblocks and creating individual authority in each. All I could think of after that was, "What a mess that would be!" We have too many people in power as of now; most of them corrupted, either by the money or the power.

    I was quite stumped and discouraged with this essay. I asked my writing support to read the essay and maybe give me some ideas that would get the blood flowing and the fingers typing. No such luck. It was the weekend before first draft was due and I determinedly sat in front of my computer and wrote. My first draft was complete crap. Even the friends that I have had reading my drafts and suggesting changes thought so. My lovely boyfriend found an amazing website regarding actual 1940's history and I was delighted. It pushed me in the right direction.

    Over Spring Break I took a break. It's well deserved and felt almost not right to work on school work on my Spring Break. I worked on the essay briefly Wednesday and it was Sunday before I really gave it the attention it deserves again. I have moved a couple paragraphs around, and around again; corrected grammatical errors found by myself and my crack reviewing team of wonderful friends, family and peers. I am very happy with what will be considered my "2^nd Draft." It may take me hours upon hours to write a paper it may take others an hour or two to do, but we all have our processes and this is mine. I am comfortable with that. I really enjoy writing. I have always thought of myself as a quick-witted and funny conversationalist and I want that to come through in my writing.

    

Analytical Response Essay

Ignorance?

In Paul Goodman's "The Chance for Popular Culture", he claims that culture and art are mass-produced and media-induced attractions, never quite filling and leaving people with an empty feeling inside which creates a desire for even more unfulfilling art. He suggests, "People are excessively hungry for feeling, for stimulation of torpid routine, for entertainment in boredom, for cathartic release of dammed-up emotional tensions etc." (Goodman). He writes of an endless cycle of attaining a sliver of enjoyment out of an "art" and then craving more as it does not fill the emptiness inside.

According to Paul Goodman, "An art-hungry public is not unfeeling; in fact the Americans are too vulnerable because of their passivity (and ignorance), so that small novelties effect crazes and fads" (Goodman). Fads are the absolute best. It's amazing how quickly they circle; I remember the 80's being, well the 80's; high heels and skinny jeans, big hair and flashy make-up, plaid shirts and leggings. I would grow frustrated with french-rolling my pants just right and trying to control my wayward hair and achieve full hair height with teasing. It's made its return in 2010 and I laugh out loud seeing kids looking just as I looked in my formative years. I look at the prior decade fondly and am decidedly thrilled to hear an 80's song I was desperately tired of after playing it until my cassette warped.

Paul Goodman also states that there is too much "art", and despite that, Americans are still hungry for more. I agree that art in most aspects is mass-produced. Magazines that tell us what to read, watch, do and look like spill-over racks at every grocery store. Radio stations play the popular songs over and over until it's burned into the audiences' brains. Movies with the same theme over-populate our theatres. Millions of dollars are spent at the theatres. Trailers shown in thirty-second increments become the biggest inducement to the American public to see the newest and best. Many times I have walked out at the end of a movie thinking I must have seen a thousand movies just like it. I now take that into consideration before I go to the theatres, routinely waiting for the DVD release.

Television with its reality shows, talk shows, Hollywood gossip news giving fifteen minutes of fame for people like the Octo-mom confirms Paul Goodman's statement, "he cannot fail to see that the stupid and preposterous are rewarded" (Goodman). It amazes me that people with no talent and no self-worth become famous and are on the same level next to hard-working and dedicated artists. Media-induced "news" of celebrity scandals, hook-ups and break-ups have created an obsessive fascination by many of the American public.

In this, the twenty-first century, the United States is overcome with excess. Anything can be found with the power of internet. The available opportunities can be overwhelming. With so much available to everyone, sometimes appreciation can be lost for simple as well as extravagant things. Many become contented with life and move along in that path never seeking outside of the realm of their comfort. And there are those who are daredevils, adrenaline rush junkies always looking for the next inspiration.

As I researched the era in which the essay was first published I became continually more puzzled as to the cause of Paul Goodman's dissatisfaction. I recognize names, famous television and radio shows, music, dances and movies. It looks to me that the 1940's may have been the start of the "greats." Movies like Casablanca and Fantasia were made; dances emerged such as the jitterbug, a lively toe-tapping dance; patriotism rang through America and pregnant women proudly showed off their protruded stomachs with drawings of "Kilroy was here" (Goodwin). Rhythm and blues were introduced with names that ring through to this decade such as Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday. In the 1940s, radio was what television is to us today. It was a lifeline of the American public, broadcasting news, music and entertainment. Television became more popular after the war ended and by 1951, 17 million television sets had been sold (Goodwin).

The article's tone conveys an embittered Paul Goodman who seems to feel his good work is going to waste as no one appreciates it, other than a small following of like-minded folks. He apparently does not understand that while he may have his pleasures, others may not be of the same taste. I believe that everyone has their own taste. I don't think he's fair to the culture in passing judgment on everyone with his generalizations. There are always going to be "Stepford" wives or drones of some kind, followers and not leaders. However I do not agree that our chance of having culture is based on whether or not we agree with Paul Goodman.

In "The Radical Individualism of Paul Goodman", Richard Wall (referring to Paul Goodman) writes, "he was the prototypical starving artist, discouraged and marginalized, only just making ends meet with his poetry, his fiction and his essays." (Wall) Artists will always suffer for their work. Hence the cliché of the "suffering artist." Some artists will be lost in the shuffle while others will rise to fame as I scratch my head wondering if that's really supposed to be considered "art." How many times have you been in a museum trying to figure out what a painting is? The appreciation of true art; museums, places of interest, historical places, can sometimes lose its allure when instead a family can spend a week at a waterpark, amusement park or other larger-than-life attraction.

For an intellectual well-respected and renowned man in his circles I am surprised by Paul Goodman's generalizations in regards to culture and the arts. Intelligence includes the ability to see and appreciate that people have different tastes. I also think that he could have reached countless more people without being so abrasive and wordy. It is a more effective method of getting the point across directly and in a way people can understand. I attempted to read more of Paul Goodman's work and was as lost as I would be if I was blindfolded and dropped off in the middle of nowhere.

I think Paul Goodman was very narrow-minded and short-sighted. The essay shows a complete lack of appreciation for what America and the rest of the world was recovering from, viewing horrific war images and absorbing terrifying news for years. The entire world was sucked dry for most of the early 1940's from World War II. According to Sue Goodwin in American Culture History 1940-1949, "To show the raw emotions, art became more abstract, was chaotic and shocking in an attempt to maintain humanity in the face of insanity" (Goodwin). Paul Goodman made good points in regards to mass production art, but I feel most of the essay is about his angst of being a starving artist; a written lashing of the culture that did not heartily accept his work.

Works Cited

Goodman, Paul. "The Chance for Popular Culture." Essay (1949): 79-87.

Goodwin, Sue. Lone Star College - Kingwood. 9 7 1999. 3 3 2010 <http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade40.html>.

Wall, Richard. LewRockwell.com. 28 02 2003. 3 3 2010 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/wall10.html>.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VACATION!

Whoa I haven't wrote in my blog for a couple weeks!

The last couple weeks have been busy and fun ones. The last weekend of February David, the kids and I traveled to St. Joseph, MI and went to the Children's Museum. What a blast! The kids absolutely loved it and it was a fun day all around!

Saturday March 6 David and I went to BestBuy as I got a reward certificate for $65 and I bought Super Mario Bros. for the Wii as well as some ink and a battery charge pack for the Wii. David and I stayed up super late playing Super Mario Bros.... well super late for us, like 12:30 am..... It is a blast!!! We both suck at it, but it is still a great time!

We've been staying at Grizzly Bear Lodge in Starved Rock, Utica, IL since Sunday this week. It has been so much fun!! Tonight is the last night we are here... tomorrow morning we head for home and the twins are going to Scott and Jessica's through Monday when they will start their regular week with me. Blythe is going to stay at my mom's on Thursday while David and I travel to a surprise location for him!

These last couple days have been wonderful! Sunday evening we got here, unloaded and went into the waterpark and then over to Enchanted Forest, amusement park and rode a lot of rides such as the Tilt A Whirl and a carousel, a snake type child rollercoaster. Monday we went to the waterpark first thing in the morning and then hiked to three waterfalls in Starved Rock. We went to dinner in Peru, IL and came back for more waterpark/amusement park fun. Today (Tuesday) we waterparked in the morning after breakfast, then hiked to a couple more waterfalls, had a quick lunch/dinner in Ottawa, IL then came back for amusement park/waterpark.

My favorite memories of this trip will be the Lazy River races between David and Johnny and me and the girls; after hiking to the first waterfall which was kind of icy and have Gracie start chanting to herself "Stay calm, Gracie"; John dancing in Jalepenos (restaurant) during lunch; Blythe finally going on the Tilt A Whirl; Blythe keeping a journal of everything we did; all of us going on a rollercoaster that I normally wouldn't ride on; sleeping in til 9 am; spending quality time with David and my children.

I'm planning on coming back over Mother's Day weekend so that we can hike while all the waterfalls are flowing.... the kids really enjoyed walking through the forests, sandstone and jumping over creeks. I'm so very happy that we did this!

I'll post soon after David's surprise and definitely intend to be better about writing in this blog twice a week!