The difference between right and wrong - blog 6

In the documentary film, The Cove by Louie Psihoyos, the case against dolphin slaughter is evident and well presented.  Although the two perspectives between the Japanese and U.S., are not equally broadcasted, I feel that it is a strong and extremely important issue that people all across the world should be aware of. This argument of not killing dolphins is most definitely a convincing argument. By the Japanese refusing to speak and/or clarify their wrong actions puts them in a deeper hole that they cannot get out of.  In technical terms, there is no obligation for one to explain any unethical actions, however if those type of people such as the Japanese, want to be left alone and not constantly harassed, the smart option for their benefit would to at least give their side to the issue. Overall, I feel that the un-acceptable and vulgar information should be released to the public, despite how horrific it may be.  The absurd  and gruesome actions need to come to an end. If the Japanese cannot speak and explain themselves, it furthermore adds in to the fact of how there is no significant and strong enough reason to continue on killing so many dolphins.

One would come to think that if both sides to an argument are not presented, that it wouldn’t be a convincing argument.  However for this case scenario, the Japanese were given the opportunity to speak and explain themselves as to why they are killing so many dolphins and why they are so secretive about where and how, yet they chose otherwise.  The defiance in the faces of the Japanese fisherman and inappropriate attitude sets the scene making the viewers of this film even more furious with their actions.  Their attitudes are portrayed as though everything has to be their way or no way. Each year approximately 23,000 dolphins are killed in Japan, some survive and are used for training although the vast majority are slaughtered and killed slowly.   Babies are lost and separated from their parents and some unfortunately witness their own family and friends being killed. Within seconds the water goes from blue to deep musky red and bodies gradually disappearing.  The site of this all happening is horrific and difficult to watch, although as terrible as it is, I feel it is important for it to be incorporated with the documentary and shown to as many people as possible.  It is an issue that is getting way too much out of hand and the more people that could help support and save the dolphins, may increase the chance of dolphins being saved.  

Artistic Perceptions vs. Narratives

On a warm sunny day, some people find it relaxing to lay in the grass and take in the fresh air from the breeze. The grass swaying back and forth with patches of dandelions spread throughout the area. Gazing at the sky as the clouds move faster and faster. After closing ones eyes, the mind goes off with its own thoughts and imagination of what could be happening. Yet one of the best parts about this process is that for each thought that comes to mind, it is suitable for the individual.  Every individual is different and your own imagination portrays a viewing habit that is far from ordinary. The film Koyaanisqatsi  by Godfrey Reggio was produced in 1983 and focused on many different aspects in one.  Lacking a plot, dialogue and characters the film allows the viewers to be mesmerized and successfully uses artistic abilities with video shots and music combined to attract attention. 

In contrast to narrative films, Koyaanisqatsi, in my opinion, is a film that catches attention in a silent way.  Many narratives in the beginning of their movies have catchy music  and scenes that are relatable such as a school or neighborhood setting.  However, in this film the idea of people living in technology almost makes us technology.  The meaning behind Koyaanisqatsi refers to the crazy life, which is best illustrated in this visual film. In the beginning of the film, natural scenes are displayed as the music swiftly goes along.  A slow motion shot of sand dunes are shown as the line patterns and shades of light and dark catch the eye and are relaxing and so unpopular that it catches the viewers attention even more. 

The music as well, is used in the film to help transition the shifty images. Images such as those of nature like the simple scenery of nature to the ugly trucks and what technology has developed into.  Without the music, I feel the film would be displayed poorly and the strong points of transition and beauty would be misinterpreted. The artistic abilities used in this film are significant although, with art the total is much greater than the sum of the parts. All of the parts compiled together through out the film take part in making it eye popping.  Yet the overall effect is what I feel is most significant in the film.  

After opening your eyes from gazing off in the field of grass, the thoughts and images in your head are clear as day and will only stay fresh in the mind for a certain amount of time.  Those imaginations and unique thoughts were best captured by Reggio in his film Koyaanisqatsi which make the film eye catching and different than others. Due to all of the beauty and distinct ways of getting a point across makes this film allow the viewers to naturally think in a different way than viewing a narrative film. 

Where is the Respect? (Portfolio 4)

Freedom of speech, thoughts and religion serve as common examples of freedom’s that we as citizens have in the United States.  However, when focusing on freedoms in a religious sense, respect is majorly significant. All throughout the United States there are mosques built and used by many of the muslim citizens.  Yet a muslim leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf feels that it is absolutely necessary to have a mosque built close to Ground Zero.  Rauf is known as a man of “peace” and strongly thinks that by building the mosque in this particular spot, will bring the U.S. and Muslim worlds together.  Additionally, Rauf has a friendly relation to another man, Faiz Kahn, who makes strong accusations that the happenings of 9/11 were not due to the muslims, but was the United State’s fault.  In an interview from the show “60 Minutes” on September 30, 2001, Rauf had stated “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened”.  In that same interview Rauf was asked to clarify the statement he had made and he basically tells us how we have been accessories to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world and “ In a direct sense, Usama Bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.”  As a citizen in America, this is an extremely important issue that needs to be given attention.  The site of 9/11 is no joke; those who lost their lives that day should be honored and given respect.  There is no good enough reason to have to mess with a sacred area and start unnecessary controversies. The idea of respect needs to strongly be reiterated for this case scenario. This is a crucial topic to discuss, but furthermore, I feel that we should not be allowing these Muslim leaders to interfere with the U.S. memorial grounds.  Especially when individuals such as Kahn come into play and feel that it was America’s own fault.  It is acceptable to question the idea of building the mosque by the 9/11 site, Although, it is unacceptable to argue and stand 100% for the construction of the mosque while not knowing the real facts behind what really happened on 9/11. 

Citizens in the U.S. have their opinions and heart felt instincts, where as descendants from the muslim community have different thoughts.  Throughout the past month, the issue began ‘small’ and has built up to a more complex topic.  The main two debates that this problem has broken down to are how it is wrong to put the mosque near Ground Zero and that the fact that this is America and people living here are given the rights to preach their religious views and feelings. Both are excellent and significant points, however, I am siding with the first debate. The fact that building a religious monument near a place that was once attacked by the Muslims themselves shows lack of respect towards citizens who have been personally affected, as well as the country itself. From the article “New York Mosque Controversy Fires Up National Campaign” by fox news states that:

On September 11, they declared war against us. And to celebrate that murder of 3,000

Americans, they want to build a monstrous 13-story mosque at Ground Zero.  A mosque

at Ground Zero must not stand.  The political class says nothing. The politicians are doing

        nothing to stop it.  But we Americans will be heard. Join the fight to kill the Ground Zero

        mosque.

      Just the thought of the proposition in building the mosque is a horrifying site to imagine. The lack of consideration and not being open minded about such a serious issue is wrong.  Everyone is different and have different mind thoughts but there needs to be a meeting point for each side of the debates to meet half way. The way that this whole controversy is going down is in the most unorganized way possible not offering many choices besides a yes or no.  If it were up to me to make the final decision,  I would say no and tell Rauf to go find another site to put his mosque up at, since there are plenty in the U.S. to begin with.

Unfortunately for this case, the idea of respect needs to be constantly reminded.  Since this issue began there has been a descending amount of respect portrayed.  Rauf continues to be inconsiderate and only stick with his mindset of the mosque being a positive aspect.  Furthermore, he attempts to make up for the single minded thought coming off as selfish by saying that not only the muslims feel it would be a good choice, but it could settle feelings for both the Muslims and U.S. citizens by bringing the two world’s together.  Discussing this particular topic of respect are where the most bias-like and vulgar statements lye. One of the most primary points as to why people are against the construction of the mosque are due to their personal feelings.  Nearly 3,000 people have died and family members and friends feel it is necessary to honor those lost.  As a display of major disrespect and shock, Mayor Bloomberg sides with the inconsiderate Muslim leaders.  In an article published by the fox news team, Mayor Bloomberg states how:

The government should never, never be in the business of telling people how 

they should pray or where they can pray. We want to make sure that everybody

from around the world feels comfortable coming here, living here and praying

the way they want to pray.

It is a difficult enough to deal with “outsiders” who did not experience the tragedy of 9/11 and continue to make accusations, however for a citizen, let alone the mayor, to take the side of those “outsiders” strikes even more harshly than any other individual.   Additionally to the many people feeling as though they are being disrespected, it comes off as if the muslim leaders are trying to make a celebration of the mosque being built.  Another statement from the fox news team states how “The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process.  Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the city of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.”  I agree one hundred percent with this statement and feel that in order to be a part of the American society, respect is something to be earned and accepted; in which this case the respect we once had, is now gone. 

While this controversy continues to be swayed back and forth in the decision making process, there is another issue that is being created that is crucial; the true reason for building the mosque on Ground Zero.  Some of the innocent Muslim-American citizens are beginning to feel embarrassed by the statements and actions by their “leader”, Rauf. Furthermore, some come to find themselves feeling confused about their place in the United States due to others wanting the government to question how the mosque will be paid for etc.  Rauf claims how the questioning of the mosque leaves muslims questioning their place in American politics and civil life.  However, they are statements like these which serve as proof as to how Rauf continues to disregard the proximity of this issue and act as if he does not know.  Rauf is a member of an organization which is called the Cordoba Initiative.  The objective of this group are for Muslims to try and improve their relations with those living in the west.  Yet due to this membership of Rauf’s, his readings and writings begin to fake people out leaving the innocent citizens who are living in the United States to feel embarrassed and question “Why are you doing this to us?”.  Many citizens are satisfied and grateful for the mosques that they have built, although it leads to the major question, why is it necessary to build a huge mosque near ground zero? The controversy continues to expand as it builds off of the minor issue of affecting how the muslims feel in the United States.  As interviewed multiple times, the same answer had come from Rauf leaving interviewers and the public striving to figure out the true meaning behind this all.  When asked for his reasonings as to why he feels the mosque should be put up, he simply doesn’t have one.  The best answer anyone can get is how he wants there to be peace and leave everyone to not be upset about the proposition.  In this strong and serious scenario, he is everything but correct as he continues to lack support of this major case.

Overall, this issue of the mosque possibly being built by Ground Zero is one that I am hoping will die down and not actually be put into effect.  Perspectives come from all different angles but this case, I feel, is one that needs to be focused solely on the single point of respecting American citizens.  No matter how many days, months, or years it has been since 9/11, there will never be a single person not trying to heal from the tragedy that occurred.  Rauf and his friend Kahn need to step down and realize what they are getting themselves involved with by trying to make such a huge mistake in our country.  Not only would this be a huge mistake but the fact that Kahn does not even know the true facts of 9/11 saying that it was the United States fault, is wrong on so many levels.  Who has the audacity to stand in front of millions of people with this proposition of building this religious Muslim church near Ground Zero when they have been the ones who attacked us?  There are plenty of mosques throughout the United States and I will confidently stand 100% against the proposition of this mosque. 

Works Cited

Rosen, James, Fox News. “New York Mosque Controversy Fires Up National Campaign”. Foxnews.com. N.P. 02, Aug. 2010. Web. 03 Sept. 2010.

Fox News. “Who Is New York Mosque Imam?”. Foxnews.com. N.P. 20 Aug. 2010. Web. 08 Sept. 2010.

Associated Press. “New York Mosque Fight About More Than Real Estate, Imam Says”. Foxnews.com. N.P. 01 Sept. 2010. Web. 16 Sept. 2010.

O’Reilly, Bill.  “Evidence NYC Mosque Imam Associated With Radical Muslim”. Foxnews.com: Video Talking Point Commentary.  13 Sept. 2010. Web. 21 Sept. 2010.

O’Reilly, Bill. “Say Goodbye to Proposed Ground Zero Mosque”.  Foxnews.com: Video Talking Point Commentary.  15 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Sept. 2010.

Associated Press. “NYC Mosque Imam, Wife Have Police Point Person”. Foxnews.com. N.P. 04 Oct. 2010. Web. 05 Oct. 2010.

Blog 4 (option 2)

       Imagine a jungle burst into flames, everything is a wreck, flames everywhere, trees burning, explosions constantly going off.  It is almost as if the world is coming to an end and it is being watched as it all comes down to nothing. The excerpt from a song plays as the image of everything is burning down, “wilderness of pain, all of the children are insane”. Yet there is a peaceful but contrasting scene overlapping the rage of fire and uncontrollable madness: the uncertain silence.  As the burning woods continue to light with shades of deep orange and bright yellow, Francis Ford Coppola successfully grabs the attention of the audience in his movie, Apocalypse Now. As the men from the U.S. Military approach the jungle, dead bodies hang from all over and the “citizens” stare at the few incoming soldiers as if they are ready to pounce at any given moment. Between the soldiers uncertainty of what they are getting involved with and the savages’ intense actions, leave me to believe that Coppola chose Vietnam as a setting to help illustrate the contrasting lifestyles and gradually depict the change after living there for a short amount of time.  

Throughout the movie, there are numerous scenes which best depict the art and contrast between the different lifestyles.  The savagery and scenery of the jungle brings in the audience and comes off like eye candy.  The filthy environment and appearance of the people add on to the eerie feeling that is continuously being added onto.  The design and creativity of the transformation from a U.S. soldier to one of the savages from the jungle, are shown smoothly.  Coppola’s creativity with the darkness, zooming, and mood catch the moment perfectly allowing the audience to feel as though they are there.  Additionally to the effects, Coppola uses the idea of aiming the camera directly in the face of characters to make the scenes more personable.  Multiple scenes have been narrated in this fashion, although a specific one had stuck out and caught my attention the most.  On the steamboat as the soldiers are on their way to see Kurtz, the steamboat driver had turned around to find his friend shot to death and bleeding profusely. The site that we see is his face looking straight at his friend lying there, however this is where Coppola uses his creativity in making the angle of the dying man us, as if we are the man dying and being brought directly into the scene. 

Due to Coppola’s unique and creative ways of using art, it allows the audience to come together and be brought into the movie.  Apocalypse Now gains positive qualities which allow more people to become interested and appreciate the work and effort put into making the movie. 

As Coppola distinctively makes the important scenes stand out most to the audience, it all comes together almost as if it is natural.  Displaying the contrast between the Soldiers and the savages and how each of them act and change can be a complex topic to deal with but the artistic features make it eye catching, and simply to the point. 

Respect or Selfishness? (Portfolio Essay)

The issue of racism is always a common topic discussed when talking about history.  However, the strength and motivation one has to publicly display their personal thoughts on racism, is not so common. Chinua Achebe demonstrates this strength in his article An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. In Achebe’s article, it primarily focuses on one main point: Racism.  Since Racism is such a broad statement, it can easily be broken down by the multiple perspectives and various experiences in which people undergo.  Particularly, Achebe begins with his offense towards Joseph Conrad’s views, although he gradually gets more off track.  For one to have a strong opinion is one thing, but to attack the author and not the authors work, takes it to a new level.  Achebe disregards any evident statements that are not offensive from Conrad’s work, and continues to make harsh accusations. He states “Whatever Conrad’s problems were, you might say he is now safely dead” (Achebe 345). Achebe feels that it is fair to judge and condemn the work of Conrad, when it was done in the late 19th century.  Whereas years later, Achebe then writes his views and overlooks the consideration needed to understand the views. Although Chinua Achebe strongly draws attention to the racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, his main argument is warped.  He disregards Conrad’s literary strengths, makes havoc accusations, refuses to complete any used quotes, and most importantly, tries to apply the current standards to a fictional novella from the late 19th century. 

As mentioned, Achebe anachronistically applies contemporary standards to a nineteenth century piece of fiction.For most writers who take part in writing articles that give their perspectives on other novels, tend to have a common topic they all refer to.  Credibility is what brings most critics together and be able to either make an argument or agreement about the specified topic. For the case of Chinua Achebe, he feels that he has every right to strike at Conrad’s novella.  Achebe himself coming from the African culture, had taken the words straight to heart as he relates them to his own experiences in Africa.  The thoughts and descriptions Conrad had discussed had come off as offensive and ludicrous in Achebe’s eyes.  He best puts it as “Quite simply it is the desire-one might indeed say the need-in Western psychology to set Africa up as a foil to Europe, as a place of negotiations at once remote and vaguely familiar, in comparison with which Europe’s own state of spiritual grace will manifest” (337).  It is evident how Achebe feels and how it is unfair that Europe uses Africa as a way to make themselves feel better, as well as using them as slaves to do their work. From his perspective it is only fair to protest against Conrad’s thoughts, which are rarely noticed as others read Achebe’s response.  Perspectives are all around whether they are wanted or not and can make the argument more intriguing. Perspectives also can significantly persuade the thought of others to something completely different. In the eyes of most reader’s the personal background of certain individuals can easily be forgotten.  Thus when other critics of Achebe’s work go off on how they feel, they lack knowledge in knowing about his lifestyle and relation to the African culture itself.  

Despite the arguments and questions, Achebe has the wit to use his creative writing skills and use them to describe a character from Conrad’s work, and relate that character to Conrad himself. Going from fiction to nonfiction, Achebe collapses the two and states how “Marlow seems to me to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence-a feeling reinforced by the close similarities between their two careers” (342).  As stated, he feels that Conrad had created a character almost like an avatar to go through the motions of being in the Congo and criticizing everything in sight.  Little does Conrad or any other visitors know, that perspectives are key when dealing with an issue that can easily be brought up for argument. 

Although Achebe has a single respectable point in his criticism, he carries many flaws.  Throughout the presentation of the article, Achebe levels damaging accusations which intertwine with his failure to fully quote Conrad. He takes his hurt feelings and any existing anger out in an immature fashion.  Achebe is most definitely a defensive and pessimistic man, as he takes the small excerpt from Conrad’s novella, “Mistah Kurtz-he dead” (Conrad 69) and feels that he is using that tone and language as offensive. Achebe continues and accuses him of presenting it that way just to mock the cannibals language, as well as their “grunts” and incapabilities to speak properly.  After venting his offense towards Conrad, he furthermore states how “In the case of the cannibals the incomprehensible grunts that had thus far served them for speech suddenly proved inadequate for Conrad’s purpose of letting the European glimpse the unspeakable craving in their hearts” (Achebe 341).  All that is recognized is how there is a problem with almost every statement made when Conrad is explaining the experiences in the Congo.  Achebe’s argument grows more weak as his article goes on, as he begins to not criticize Conrad’s work, but Conrad himself.  Achebe himself has the audacity to write an essay and dig too deeply into the authors character rather than discussing the novel.  Immaturity is a word that can be used to describe Achebe’s actions, as it also counts as an additional flaw created by himself.

What much of the argument comes down to are how Achebe’s accusations with Conrad’s writing during an appropriate time, were “wrong.  As mentioned, perspectives are a major factor while giving opinions and criticizing work from others.  In almost any situation, there are multiple sides to a story, sometimes two, sometimes more.  However, there are two main points that are broken down when discussing Heart of Darkness and the criticizing article to go with it.  Many readers go against Achebe and feel that it is unfair that he attacks Conrad when his novella was written during a time where African Americans were viewed differently and the idea of slavery was still around.  Those remanding people who defend Conrad, I agree with. In my opinion, if I am reading a story that takes place in a time and/or area I have not been around before, I would be able to capture the story more and appreciate the literature.  Whereas if the writer had just blatantly wrote how this and that happened with no tone or description, how would the reader be able to take in what is being read?  This significant point is disregarded by Achebe as he goes on to say:

Can nobody see the preposterous and perverse arrogance in thus reducing Africa to the role of props for the break up of one petty European mind?  But that is not even the point.  The real question is the dehumanization of Africa and Africans which this age-long attitude has fostered an continues to foster in the world.  And the question is whether a novel which celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race, can be called a great work of art.  My answer is:  No, it cannot. (344)

It is suitable for someone to have their opinion and their own perspective on a topic, but it is key to be able to have an open mind before completely settling with one’s own judgement.  Achebe does not  that Conrad’s objective was to not insult anyone but to simply portray the realistic views.  By the constant points being stated about Conrad’s work being offensive starts to ruin the argument in the article and make it less appealing.

Among all of the different issues and criticisms that come from Achebe’s work, racism is the bond that keeps all the thoughts and harsh incentives together.  Although his personal perspectives had caused a controversy with Conrad’s work, he was still able to demonstrate his strengths as a writer himself. The way Achebe tries to apply current standards to a fictional novella from the late 19th century is the most common argument discussed among the majority of readers.  As personal as the topic may be, it is important to have an open mind to the statement before making judgements about another’s work.  Achebe continues to immaturely disregard any positive qualities of Conrad such as his literary strengths and turns the story around by attempting to pinpoint him by not fully quoting from Heart of Darkness.  The offensive shots at Conrad and immature actions in response to the novella, are unacceptable.

Works Cited

Armstrong, Paul B.,Ed. Heart of Darkness New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.

Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” Armstrong 336-349, 2006.

Works Cited (blog 3)

Works Cited

Rosen, James, Fox News. “New York Mosque Controversy Fires Up National Campaign”. Foxnews.com. N.P. 02, Aug. 2010. Web. 03 Sept. 2010.

Fox News. “Who Is New York Mosque Imam?”. Foxnews.com. N.P. 20 Aug. 2010. Web. 08 Sept. 2010.

Associated Press. “New York Mosque Fight About More Than Real Estate, Imam Says”. Foxnews.com. N.P. 01 Sept. 2010. Web. 16 Sept. 2010.

O’Reilly, Bill.  “Evidence NYC Mosque Imam Associated With Radical Muslim”. Foxnews.com: Video Talking Point Commentary.  13 Sept. 2010. Web. 21 Sept. 2010.

O’Reilly, Bill. “Say Goodbye to Proposed Ground Zero Mosque”.  Foxnews.com: Video Talking Point Commentary.  15 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Sept. 2010.

Associated Press. “NYC Mosque Imam, Wife Have Police Point Person”. Foxnews.com. N.P. 04 Oct. 2010. Web. 05 Oct. 2010.

Respect or Selfishness? (Blog 3)

In the United States, there are a lot of freedom’s that we as citizens are able to have.  Freedom of speech, thoughts and religion serve as common examples.  In addition to the rights that we have, respect plays as a strong role in our society.  On September 11, 2001 the respect we once had, was gone, as our twin towers were crashed into and collapsed on the ground.  Now, nearly a decade later, the proposition of constructing a mosque near the ground site of September 11th is taking place.  Multiple controversies are being produced and an x amount of bias statements are being put forth.  The well known ‘leader’ of the mosque, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a religious individual who is additionally referenced to as a man of peace and feels that in building the mosque, it could be viewed as a monument good for both the U.S. and Muslim worlds.  A major issue, addressed by Bill O’Reilly, is the true meaning behind all of this.  O’Reilly discusses how “It is acceptable to question the idea of the mosque, however, it is unacceptable to argue the point of building the mosque on the site of 9/11 when you do not know the real facts behind what really happened” (Frauenheim).   I find this to be a significant topic for many reasons.  The perspectives coming from so many different angles allows others to rethink or stick with their true feelings.  Citizens in the U.S. have their opinions and heart felt instincts, where as descendants from the muslim community have different thoughts.  Throughout the past month, the issue began ‘small’ and has built up to a more complex topic.  The main two debates that this problem has broken down. First, how it is wrong to put the mosque near the site due to the fact that it shows lack of respect towards citizens who have been personally affected, as well as the country itself.  And Secondly, the idea that this is America and people living here deserve the rights they are given to preach their religious views and feelings.  Both are excellent and significant points, however, I am siding with the first debate.   In an article from fox news, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) state “ The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process” they continue, “ We believe the city of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found” (Frauenheim).  I support this statement 100% and feel that if Muslims are or want to be a part of the United States, then they need to accept the feelings and emotions that we as a country will undergo. Tolerance should swing both ways, and in this case Muslims should be sincere and understand how in this instance, tolerance should sway towards the United States since the Muslims are the ones who had attacked us.  All over America there are mosques built and used, the point that is most bothersome is how Rauf does not have a reason for building this mosque right by ground zero, his best attempt to clarify is that he is a man of peace and wants everyone to be happy.  I strongly disagree and feel that no ‘outsider’ should be in charge of building something of his religion onto a sacred part of our American grounds that were attacked. Rauf’s lack of respect for the United States shines through as clear as day, as he feels that the U.S. laws can be manipulated to bring in other outside religions and thoughts.  In this strong and serious scenario, he is everything but correct.