Assassination Footage of JFK

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

In class, a few days back (was it this week? I forget; nevertheless, whenever it happened) we were shown the Kennedy assassination footage. It was the first time that I was seeing this footage (keep in mind, I had already read Delillo's narrative at this point). From Kennedy’s initial wave to the public, the first shot, and the bloody head shot, everything was so unexpected. I was prepared for to see it, I thought, but I was wrong. Dellio was spot on about the narration. He narrated it exactly like the Zapruder film. Everytime it replayed, I kept rooting for Kennedy to duck down or something and miss getting hit. Every single time, even though I knew nothing could change it, still. Here’s the difference between Delillo’s work: when I was reading Delillo, I wanted Lee to not miss. I was rooting for Lee to get that anti-Castro, and no longer be a bird. And this is the what I hate about the Zapruder film: I’m in no man’s land now. I don’t know who to root for and why (make sure to help me out with that in the comments below guys, if you’re still reading). Video games used to be fun when I got awesome headshots. But when I saw an actual one, it shook me back to reality completely.

Mr. Mitchell mentioned in class the effect of Frame 313 and how it’s the key frame and cause of debate in the conspiracy theories; I totally understand why that Frame was hidden from the public for over a decade after the assasination. That is the scene where the blood from Kennedy’s head comes rushing out, a really horrifying seen. I let out a little gasp, I remember vividly, everytime I saw that Frame-- it just has that aura to it. And Delillo has been trying to build (not even trying, just saying has built would be correct, I think) this aura from the beginning of the book, with the dated and placed chapters (may I add, yes I will, I never knew Lee had traveled so far internationally like that (isn’t that rare for that time period?)).  

Meanwhile and interestingly, in other news, I just came across this CNN video relating to letters from Jackie Kennedy (it’s interesting, I have found stuff relating to the books that we have read all semester in some way on the recent headlines on CNN. Coincedence, or is the damn NSA?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/05/13/lead-dnt-foreman-jackie-kennedy-letters.cnn.html

John Wilkes Booth

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

In class today, we were talking about conspiracies and I mentioned the Lincoln assassination, so I would like to expand over it now. Most sources and facts prove towards the following: John Wilkes Booth (the killer of Lincoln: fact) was never caught by the U.S. Government. (Now I would like to take this time to apologize: Mr. Mitchell said in class “This is a theory, right”, and I think I said “No, it’s factua…--”. Ok, so its not a fact, because for it to be a fact, there needs to be no speculation. But, the “fact” that John Wilkes Booth was executed by the U.S. Government, as it says, is also not a fact, because all the evidence that is present, points towards the fact that it is not a fact, in fact.)

Let me start out with the most obvious claim, that everybody who believes this “theory” (come on, it’s fact) uses. There have been many attempts by various groups of people, including the newschannel History.com , the Smithsonian Institute , even the Booth family to use modern technology to figure out the truth. The method: to exhume the body of John W. Booth or to use artifacts which Booth used to obtain DNA samples, by which they can solve the mystery in a second (they will solve the mystery because they can compare the person that the U.S. Government shot with John Wilkes Booth’s brother, and if they match, then the U.S. Government caught the right guy. If they don’t, well then you know.).  The problem: they have to obtain permission from the U.S. Government to do this. Every single court case that has been put up has been denied. Even the National Museum of Health and Medicine in Maryland (where remains of Edwin Booth, his brother, and John Booth exist) denied the Booth family’s request. The question on everyone’s mind is ‘why is the U.S. Government not wanting anybody to look into this? Are they afraid that they killed the wrong guy? Or are they afraid, that the people will discover that the U.S. Government lied to them, that the U.S. Government knew that they killed the wrong guy?’ Do you know the irony between Edwin Booth and Lincoln? Edwin Booth actually saved Lincoln’s son Robert’s life, unknowingly albeit. But when he got to know, he was proud, as state many recounts. And ironically, his brother, a few months later, killed Lincoln. But that’s another story altogether.

So what was John Wilkes Booth’s identity afterwards, you must ask, and when did he die? His identity was John St. Helen, who committed suicide in 1903, 38 years after the assassination of Lincoln. I won’t go into much detail, but let me explain to you why I say so. A comparison in photos of the two people show striking resemblance. Moreover, in 1931, six physicians in Chicago examined the body of John St. Helen and described that Helen had a broken left leg, a scared eyebrow, and a crushed right thumb-- all these rare characteristics, Booth had too, and that is a real fact.

Here is a link, which rightfully gets at this point. It observes all the angles. Read it, and read on other articles. Remember, the U.S. Government has a long, very long, history of being corrupt and lying to its people. Think about it yourself. And then, leave a comment below and tell me what you think. Mr. Mitchell asked this question in class about the Kennedy assassination. Do you think that what the Government has provided us is the reality? Or is there more to it then that? Or are you in the IDK area?

Rufuss

Monday, April 14, 2014

One of the most striking moments in Kindred, for me, was the transformation of Rufus from a happy-to-go boy to an adult. It just happened. Dana went back to 1976, and came back, seeing Rufus an adult of 25 years (she was 27 at that point). Time literally “flew by” (hah see what I did there?). Rufus, as he has grown, has contrary to Dana’s hopes, turned into a “normal” person. He has not turned into someone who is kind to his slaves and liberates them-- all the things that Dana wanted Rufus to do, he exactly doesn’t do them. He misused his powers (or in the case of the South, used, hence “normal” person) to rape Alice, and then later attempt to do the same to Dana. At first, very clearly, Dana is a mother like figure to Rufus, and he asks advice from her over Alice, and much more. But with their ages being almost similar, and upon the suicide Alice, we see a transference of power and love: Rufus moves his love from Alice to Dana. He is desperate and being the type of person he is, he used to getting whatever he wants, whenever he wants (that’s why he’s Rufuss).  On that note, we can also see a similarity with “power” between Kevin and Rufus. While it is true that Rufus and Kevin are vastly different in terms of their views of Dana and Alice, and the fact that they have completely opposing backgrounds, the basic similarity is that both Rufus and Kevin want the upper hand in their relationships: while for Rufus it is more extreme in that he is rapping Alice, Kevin’s is more subtle, when he is making Dana to type up  his work. Both wish to obtain power in their relationship. My biggest problem with Rufus is that he understands, he knows that rape is a horrifying act and yet he keeps doing harm, and then regrets what he did after he did it. The last thing, therefore, that I can say about Rufus is that while he has a somewhat understanding of morality, he choses not to keep up with it (unlike his father), and he is a selfish and brutal person.

Initial Thoughts on Kindred

Sunday, March 23, 2014

First of all, Kindred is a different read for me. Unlike the other novel we have read that had time travel (Slaughterhouse-five-), this book addresses much more serious topic--slavery. While at times it seems very clear that Dana, the character who is suppose to represent a person we can connect to (being from “present-day”), is like us, the problem comes to be the time period when this book was written. Kindred was published in 1979 (and set three years earlier, at the bicentennial year 1976), so when Dana goes to research about slavery, she goes to a library. While the readers of today might have thought, Wait, why isn’t she just looking it up on the internet; she can’t, because the internet doesn’t exist to the public in the late 1970s. So at times there is some confusion, because the way that book is written, we have to put ourselves in the perspective of an American in the late 70s.    

One of the things that I don’t actually like about this book is the lack of characters. The lack of minor characters is causing me to fail to actually relate to some of the moments in the book. A good example is when Dana sees Alice's father getting beaten for sneaking into her house. The detailed description provided is meant to bring out the realism, but I don’t know, I just don’t feel connected: “Then the man's resolve broke. He began to moan--low gut-wrenching sounds torn from him against his will. Finally he began to scream. I could literally smell his sweat, hear every ragged breath, every cry, every cut of the whip. I could see his body jerking, convulsing, straining against the rope as his screaming went on and on.” (36)

Obviously, this is an inhumane act, but the story just doesn’t particularly sound interesting to me, probably because we haven’t learnt much about Alice’s father as of now. Another reason for this, I think, is that the book is going way to slow for me. Wheater is the fictional aspects, or the aspects of utmost detail, I am bored with the “slowness” of the chapters. They seem to have a cycle: really interesting beginning, slow middle, and then cliffhangers at the end (so Butler keeps us hooked, but in a bad way).

In the end, we can only analyse the point of the novel. The point of Kindred, from what I can tell as of now, is to witness the social context where an adult man and woman have no rights, as well as imagine the various situations that this economic system allows for. But, with the speed at which this novel is going, as well as the fact that “present-day” is set in 1976, I am simply not able to connect.  

Fate/Free will-Update

I got an idea to describe Billy's fate in class, so I thought I would share it. When a cocunut falls from its tree into the ocean (so the tree lets go of its fruit), then which river it will go in, which land the fruit will be planted on to pulp a new tree (and even if it is lucky enough to survive), is completely dependent on the fruit and its destiny. This is fate. Similar, to this is Bily's case. Fate carries Billy from one time spectrum to the other.  

End Reflections of Slaughterhouse-five

Slaughterhouse-five is an interesting novel, but I liked it primarily because of its new and enriching concept-- never before had I seen an idea of this constant time traveler (time traveler sort of implies that Billy is in control of time, he actually isn’t) and this awe-struck me. Although it was this very thing that had me confused for a long time, I think that that it served well to the purpose of the book. While Vonnegut’s style is disjointed into small vignettes, restraining from a fully coherent and well developed narrative, which at the beginning made it seem to like Billy was crazy. However, as the book progressed, the message was clear that this was how the human brain works-- everybody dreams, daydreams, fantasizes, remembers, and analyses.

I would also like to spend some time talking about the writing style. When I read a book, I prefer to go for fiction because you tend to have a lot of dialogue and not a whole lot of jargon mess to sort through (come on, thats reserved for things like poetry, not books). People write really exquisite and long sentences which I just hate. That is why, when I first read Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, I liked it so much -- short and sweet, and gets the point across. The same thing can be seen in Slaughterhouse-five: while the concept is a bit hard to grasp, the writing is brief, yet moist with irony. For example on page 60 (this is Slaughterhouse-five), when Billy is not able to find the steering wheel, the narrator says, “He was in the backseat of his car, which was why he couldn't find the steering wheel.” The ironical frankness of that is what I enjoy. Vonnegut gets the point across in the quickest way possible, and I love him for that. While I was reading Mumbo Jumbo or Ragtime, it felt like the narrators were these tough, introvert type of people (if I were to sit in a room with them, I would feel lonely), whereas, Vonnegut’s narration is more simplistic, which is why I am able to connect.  

Overall, I think that Slaughterhouse-five has been the most thought provoking book so far this semester, as well as engaging. While I was not able to connect to many of the problems that Billy faced, I was reminded of many proverbs while reading his experiences. For example, when Billy works together with the Germans to escape, that reminded me of the famous proverb “if you want to take refuge by the river, make friends with the crocodile.” So it goes.    

Free-will and Billy in Slaughterhouse-five

In Slaughterhouse-five, free will is repeatedly questioned. Billy tells us, from his experience at Tralfamador, that everything is inevitable -- fate and destiny are already written and nobody can change that. In fact, when we are told of Billy a little bit in chapter two “Billy first came unstuck while World War II was in progress. Billy was a chaplain's assistant in the war. A chaplain's assistant is customarily a figure of fun in the American Army. Billy was no exception. He was powerless to harm the enemy or to help his friends. In fact, he had no friends. He was a valet to a preacher, expected no promotions or medals, bore no arms, and had a meek faith in a loving Jesus which most soldiers found putrid.” Clearly Billy is not a good soldier, certainly not liked by his soldier-mates. He preaches-- to soldiers who don’t even believe in his religion. After learning that destiny is unchangeable, Billy does not care about anything, and spends the rest of “time” analysing minute things that a normal adult would simply not look at.

One way that we can understand this is by the idea of proofreading. What is proofreading, and why do we proofread? We reread our work, after completing it, to catch any errors that we didn’t see the first time, or that we thought were correct, but turns out they were incorrect. These are the terms in which we must understand Billy, he is “reanalysing” the world in a different manner, viewing things from a different point of view, because he has already achieved everything in life. Death or life are no longer a boundation to him, and as he moves through the time spectrum, he is oblivious to the obvious things, and is rather interested in just defining life and what it is to be human. This is why we learn history (literally the story of man; his-story), as to not commit the same mistakes as before.