Romeo and Juliet: Why Youthful Rashness is completely evident

     Throughout the play of Romeo and Juliet, there are many instances of young love. Many will argue that the Romeo and Juliet loved each other so much, it has to be true love, but it is quite evident that their love is in fact youthful rashness. These two sides of the debate both pose an interesting point on how lines 3-5 in act 2, scene 3: "Come what sorrow can, it can not countervail the exchange of joy that one short minute gives me in her sight." This line, although possibly translated as a mutual joy, hence exchange, is, even if mutual, a mutual superficiality.

      In the play, Romeo falls in love with Juliet at first sight. What is a fact, and not all that true love mumbo jumbo, is that when you fall for someone without getting to know them is because they are handsome or pretty. Also, both Romeo and Juliet are so blinded by their irrational love that they can not see its consequences to other people. It indirectly killed both Tybalt and Mercutio, and banished Romeo from Verona as a result. Everybody around them that knows about their love seems to think it is rash too. Friar Lawrence sincerely believed that Romeo and Juliet were not truly in love, but in love with the thought of love. When one is too blinded by love to see that there is nothing blinding them, they are not being truly in love.

     In response to this incident, I am shocked by the gross misinterpretation of the love that Romeo and Juliet feel for each other. Romeo clearly only likes and wants Juliet because he needs to have a pretty face to take his mind off Rosaline, and Juliet only likes Romeo because she wants the side of him that looks and acts overly romantic. This is because both are in love with the illusion of their love, but will not give up this illusion for the sake of sense. This is all too present in our world, where all many teenagers care about in someone is their body, and Romeo and Juliet provides us a cautionary tale.Youthful love taken seriously is a harm to not only yourself, but others, and, will most likely not end well.

3rd Quarter Synthesis Reading Response "Runaway Jury"

The struggle between the power and resistance in John Grisham's  Runaway Jury is intense, and up until the very end, you are actually unsure who is the power, and who is the resistance! (SPOILERS AHEAD) Runaway Jury is a story about a trial on cigarettes, in which a widow is suing big tobacco for her husband's death with lung cancer. But behind the scenes, a jury consultant named Rankin Fitch, and his team are watching every move, and only juror number 2, Nicholas Easter, and his accomplice Marlee, have any chance of preventing Fitch from single-handedly deciding the verdict. Grotesquely, the power struggle in the shadows is slowly creeping into the light throughout the book, and the hideous faces of the power and resistance are revealed.

Using textual evidence, in the first half of the book it seems pretty clear that Rankin Fitch is the power, and Nicholas and Marlee are the resistance. For example, when Rankin Fitch is first observing everyone in jury selection, he takes account of their every move. Rankin Fitch is in a way asserting his power upon all of the jurors. In fact in my opinion this is a way to make him feel as if he is the one in charge, and that he calls the shots, so he definitely is seeming to be the power. Also, There is a subplot in which the trial is going on, and the Plaintiff seems severely underfunded compared to the defense, and it seems pretty bleak for them so far. Truly, in this case, It is obvious that the Big Tobacco defendant is the power, and the plaintiff is the resistance. And to think, as it says in the book, that this is the most formidable opponent that the Tobacco industry has ever faced. Sadly the resistance's resources are numbered, and because of Fitch, so are their days.

But, farther on in the book, the line between power and resistance blurs. Yes, Nicholas Easter starts quietly asserting more and more power over Judge Harkin, the judge in this specific trial, and starts taking advantage of the judge, unbeknownst to Fitch. In fact, it seems, now that more information is revealed, that Easter and Marlee have some qualities that are similar to the qualities that the power typically has. Indeed Fitch is afraid that he doesn't know anything about Easter and Marlee, and he should be. And even more so, towards the end of the book, Nick and Marlee start becoming the power. And When Fitch realizes at the end that he had been played all along he is furious at defeat, and will not under any circumstance accept even second place. Indeed, Fitch from this point onward, is clearly the resistance, and he is wondering where he went wrong. Truly, Fitch's cockiness killed him.

Yes, the power and resistance struggle is mostly obscured from vision to people both in and out of the book. Indeed, it is a tug-of-war battle between Fitch and Easter, and Easter at first doesn't flex his muscle, and even went along with Fitch for a while, then smacked Fitch hard in the face. Although the power and resistance struggle in this book is at first very subtle, towards the end comes up with a vast wealth of resources, showing the depth of the struggle all along.

Cross-Dressers of the Civil War: NF Reading Response

Women throughout most of history have been looked on as people not fit for soldiers, but 150 years before the United States combat ban was lifted, many women were already fighting in the U.S. army. Yes, Veronica Majerol's article Cross-Dressers of the Civil War in this month's Upfront magazine, showcases that. For example, some of the women fought to be close to loved ones, others because the army paid well, yet others because they believed strongly in the cause that they fought for. Women of all backgrounds fought for both sides in the american civil war, and they statistically served even better than the men who fought. But, the path was treacherous, as the slightest hunch or injury could lead to your expulsion from the military. Nevertheless, many women bravely served their country in the American Civil War.

Back in those times, women were looked down as people fit only for work around the house. But, as the author says, the women fought, no matter the cost. Yes, women in the civil war became "free" from their cliche feminine obligations; as one female soldier said "I am as independent as a hog on ice". In fact, they were shown to work better than the men, as in the article, it is stated that "14 percent of women were promoted compared with 10 percent of men." Indeed, Majerol did a very good job of showing that the women fought long and hard for both what they wanted, and what they believed in. She strongly shows how the women were so inspired in the struggle for all reasons.

In response to this story, I am very surprised how many women were willing to risk life, limb, and honor for a cause that was not mandatory. Up until very recently, women really weren't represented fairly in the armed forces. There were many willing to pay the ultimate price for that which they held dear. Historically, it is clear that women could have fought well, simply there was no scientific evidence proving that women could be soldiers. There was and is no reason for women to be any lesser than men in the armed forces, and I believe that now, with the combat ban on women finally lifted, women are represented fairly by the U.S..