Rice Concedes Error on Libya; G.O.P. Digs In

In the article "Rice Concedes Error on Libya; G.O.P. Digs In," Republicans criticise her for stating that the attack in Benghazi was a  "spontaneous protest gone awry," and not a terrorist attack.  They also say that when the post of Secretary of State becomes available, they would rather vote for John Kerry than her. The author wants us to know that she was not aware that the attack was terrorism, but even so, she tried to imply it. However, the F.B.I. made her change her speech. Therefore, the public statements may not have been her fault.

The author wants us to think that she is innocent, and that the Republicans criticising her (mostly Senators McCain and Graham) are incorrect and just looking for ways to insult the Obama administration.  He does this in numerous ways. He constantly quotes the Republicans, but in ways that make them seem unreasonable and a tad ridiculous. He subtly mentions ties that the Republicans have to our ever- so popular ex- President Bush. He also states things in a very "attack and defend" kind of way. First he writes what they think she did wrong, then he writes what they think, and then he writes what her defenders think. In this way, the Republicans are made into soounding awfully wrong.

I, though knowing that the piece is subtly manipulative, agree with the author. I think that any information that they should have had, but didn't, is the fault of the intelligence agencies, and that anything she wanted to say, but didn't is the fault of the F.B.I.  However, I think that these agencies were working on the behalf of their country and did what they could, considering what they had at the time.  And the Republicans' arguments about her were biased and unreasonable. They were so desperate to insult the White House, that they scrutinized her every move and said that, in an interview, she acted badly because she left a word out. I think that so far, she's been doing a fine job in a difficult job, and that the recent actions weren't her fault. If I were a senator, I'm not sure who I would vote for-- I'm right now very satisfied with Hilary Clinton.

The Catcher in the Rye

     The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger, has an odd yet symbolic title. It relates to how Holden, the main character, is scared of growing up.
    
     However, the title doesn't even come clearly into play until the sixteenth chapter, where a boy is singing the song "Comin' Thro' the Rye." This song is by Robert Burns, and is about, bluntly enough, two stangers having a one night stand in a rye field. Holden doesn't really know this, and it becomes a central theme.This song appears later in the book as well, when Phoebe asks him what he wants to do with his life. He sees an image of a "Catcher in the Rye," where there's a field of rye full of childrenwith a nearby cliff.
   
     He would pull falling children back into the rye, and off the scary cliff. This signifies growing up and how Holden, the main character in the book, does not want kids to grow up. He has a bad and weary adulthood, though he is not a full-fledged grown up, and is scared of the world and things he doesn't understand.
 
     He's scared for the kids, too. Maybe he shpuldn't be. I think he's using his own life to model the lives of kids around him. Though he has their best interests at heart, perhaps kids do not need to be "catched." But then what is the point of Holden's life anyway?

     Phoebe, Holden's little sister later points out that he has misheard the song anyway. He thought a line was "if a body catch a body comin' thro' the rye," when it wasn't. It was "when a body meet a body comin' thro' the rye." 

Everything is Illuminated, By Jonathan Safran Foer

     In Everything is Illuminated, by Jonathan Safran Foer, a young Jew named Jonathan Safran Foer heads to Ukraine to figure out his grandfather's past and hopefully, find traces of a woman named Augustine who reportedly saved his grandfather's life from the Nazis. I am not finished with the book, but from what I've read I have come to understand that one of the main themes in the book is the past, and remembering it.  

    The book often indicates that though we search for the past, we may not be pleased with what we find. That that past can be confining, can hold you down. There is a part in the book where the people of Trachimbrod, the Ukrainian town Jonathan's grandfather is from,  get so absorbed in the past that the line between then and now starts to blur and peoples' lives are stirred up.

     Lista, the more-than-slightly senile old woman who is the last survivor of Trachimbrod and unofficial guardian of the town, indicates that she would rather be dead than live with the memories she has when she says that the survivors of the town are not lucky. She dislikes her "job" as guardian instead of being glad to hold such a very signifigant position.
 
     Also, Grandfather has issues with his past as well. He'd been involved in the war (WWII) and has such scarring memories of it that he tries to forget them. He almost ignores these memories.

     Ignoring the past vividly contradicts with the other side of the theme-- learning from your past. The entire reason Jonathan goes on this adventure in the first place is find out about his grandfathers' past, and through it, find out and learn about himself. 

    I think that Jonathan Safran Foer tries to have us know that everything has a good and a bad side, and the past is no exception. He wants to to see the irony-- that Jonathan goes on a quest to discover what everyone else is trying their very best to forget.