Police Shouldn t Be Allowed For Search A Cell Phone Of...

Student Professor Course Date OUTLINE Title: Police shouldn’t be allowed to search a cell phone of anyone they arrest without a warrant. Thesis: The basic right to privacy and with it the unfortunate antithesis of the barbaric act of police in searching through a cellphone of anyone they arrest without a warrant. 1. Introduction a) The importance of privacy. b) Thesis statement. 2. Overview of warrants a) The process of issuance of warrants. b) Why warrant is necessary. 3. The right to privacy a) The original aim of formulating rights to privacy. b) The limits to the privacy. 4. Exceptional cases a) Why warrantless search can be conducted. b) Examples of such cases. 5. Cellphone exceptionality in warrantless search a) The Supreme Court ruling in favor of the warrant requirement for mobile phone searching. b) Implication for the future. 6. Conclusion The police shouldn’t be allowed to search a cell phone of anyone they arrest without a warrant. Introduction Every citizen has a fundamental right to privacy and this is enshrined in the constitution. The event of losing privacy is a chilling experience similar to being laid naked in public. This situation mainly occurs when police arrests a suspect and searching everything, even the unnecessary private belongings in the name of conducting investigations. The common intrusion to personal information nowadays is seizure of cell phone by the police in arrest cases (Stephens et al. 31). The awareness of ones right to privacy and

The Diffusion Theory Of Society - 1790 Words

In today’s society we have made remarkable advances and discoveries that truly leave us in awe; however, we tend to forget about the roots of this tree and what nourished it to become who we are now, in other words, our history. The scientist, historians, and archeologist have worked for centuries trying to discover our origin to gain the knowledge that will answer a vast amount of questions. One of the most mysterious topics are the native Americans, and how they came to America, which is known to be by the diffusion theory. Although, there is many other theories or hypothesis this is one of the most well-known, according to the evidence. The diffusion theory happened about 40,000 years ago, also known as the straight crossing. In this event it is thought that all humans are originally from Africa, then later spread throughout the world. The way the Native Americans crossed to America from Africa is that they went through the† Bering Bridge† a natural bridge between Alaska and Siberia, which now is gone due to the warming of the planet. As time progressed people migrated towards what is known in present day as the United States. However, due to the Ice Age the Native Americans moved to the southern states that include, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and also Mexico. Another interesting fact is that there is other supporting evidence that says other peo ple traveled to Mexico or Central America by way of vessel. The reason behind this conclusion is because there wereShow MoreRelatedThe Evolutionary Social Theories ( Teggart ) Essay1051 Words   |  5 Pagesobserved many similarities in the traits and the material culture among different societies. As said by the founder of the ASW (Anthropological Society of Washington) in 1895: â€Å"Even among peoples geographically far apart, often being different forms of mankind, we find phrases, arts, industry, social styles and customs, folk-tales, beliefs and Gods, and even literatures very much alike† (O. T. Mason, 1895a: 14). Societies or cultures were consequently classed according to their ‘advancement’ these classesRead MoreBertalanffys Systems Theory vs. Everett Rogers Diffusion of Innovation Theory1256 Words   |  5 PagesSystems theory versus diffusion of innovation theory Discuss the relationship between Bertalanffys systems theory and healthcare delivery in the U.S. Ludwig von Bertalanffys systems theory was not created as a healthcare-specific theory, although Bertalanffys concepts have been extremely influential in the medical field. Simply put, his theory is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Von Bertalanffy was not a biologist but he believed that the biological principles of cellularRead MoreThe Impact of Systems Theory and Diffusion of Innovation Theory on Healthcare1224 Words   |  5 PagesSystems theory versus diffusion of innovation theory: How both have impacted the field of healthcare The foundational concept of systems theory is as old as Aristotles statement that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But when the biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy created the concept of general systems theory (GST), he was reacting against a powerful contemporary emphasis within his field which stressed reductionism rather than a holistic perspective. He fathered an organismicRead MoreSecondary School Vs. Vocational Education835 Words   |  4 Pages Arnold, 2007). This literature however, pays little attention to the diffusion of learning. In contrast, sociological institutionalism and diffusion theories suggest that IOs disseminate their beliefs making governments and societies internalize them as global norms. These norms adopt a â€Å"taken-for-granted† character and become unchallenged (Finnemore, 1993; H. D. Meyer Rowan, 2006; J. W. Meyer, 1977). Yet, these theories do not address what happens when the beliefs of IOs radically change andRead MoreCrime Dis placement And Diffusion Of The United States1078 Words   |  5 PagesAbstract Crime displacement and diffusion is a major concern in the United States. Crime neither seem to be increasing nor decrease throughout the years. Displacement brings more consequences and can occur when a harm is produced by displacement crime before the intervention. There are three theories that help explain why crime are committed, who are targeted and how to prevent from being a potential target. Being aware of your surroundings is extremely important. Analyzing offenders, victims andRead MoreThe Tipping Point By Malcolm Gladwell1471 Words   |  6 PagesMany phenomena exist within the world; whether it be the butterfly effect, the small world theory, or even the laws of gravity, these entities shape reality. In the book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell analyzes an effect he coins the â€Å"tipping point†. The â€Å"tipping point† essentially is the point at which small, seemingly insignificant changes become significant enough to cause a large and often times im portant change . Throughout the text of this novel, Gladwell explores this notion more in-depth;Read MoreLiterature Review On Adolescent Identity Development1141 Words   |  5 PagesIn this report, I will analyze the works of the Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development, James Marcia’s Identity Status Theory, as well as the products of other researchers, such as William James and James Cote, who took these theories even further (Adelson, 1980). I am particularly interested understanding what needs to be adjusted in developmental theories for unrepresented populations, in this case sexual minorities. The report is outlined by theoretical foundations, themes in literatureRead MoreThe Theories of Health Promotion1775 Words   |  7 Pagespublic and individual health (Definition of Health Promotion, NDI). Behavioral Theories of Health Promotion Social Learning Theory In Social Learning Theory people are agentic operators in their life course, not just on-looking hosts of brain mechanisms orchestrated by environmental events. Environmental issues appear in three forms, imposed environment, selected environment and constructed environment. The theory subscribes to a model of emergent interactive agency. Bandura (1999) describesRead MoreCompare and contrast the developmental life span theories742 Words   |  3 PagesBronfenbrenner wanted to focus on the process of development rather than concentrate on isolated variables. Most developmentalist focus on nature and nurture in the development of children. Bronfenbrenner’s theory is based on a child’s state of affairs and circumstances. The key idea in Erik Erikson’s theory is that the individual faces a conflict at each stage which may or may not within that stage. Erik Erikson was a psychologist who was most famous for coining the phases of identity crisis. AccordantRead MoreThe Colonizers Model of the World1435 Words   |  6 Pagesthe rationale for their acceptance has been forgotten or rejected†Ã¢  ¸. Quotes above urge the error with Eurocentrism, and that Eurocentrism, fundamentally, is not a theory, but a mere perception. In the article, Blaut analyzed reasons and factors that contributed to Eurocentrism and how Eurocentrism gained its power through diffusion in order to clarify his statement of â€Å"Eurocentrism is quite simply the colonizer’s model of the world.†Ã¢  ¹. And he definitely was successful proposing his idea. Europeans

Mel Brooks as Jewish Comedian free essay sample

Mel Brookss membership in the elite club of Jewish comedians is essentially impossible to dispute. The question is whether or not his comedy is atypical. Satirizing Jewish history and klutzy old Jewish men is normal for Jewish comedy. However, Dont be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party, is something that you would not expect to hear in typical Jewish comedy (The Producers). Defined broadly, there are two forms which Mel Brookss Jewish humor takes. The first form is to discuss specifically Jewish topics in a funny way. will writing service hull This is evident in The Producers and in the Inquisition scene from History of the World, Part I. The other form is to use certain aspects of Judaism for comedic value. This form, is typically used by Brooks as a means for a quick laugh as opposed to a major source of plot definition, and is most apparent in such scenes as that with the Yiddish-speaking Indian in Blazing Saddles. While exploring Brookss types of Jewish humor, this paper will limit its scope. Only four of Brookss films will be discussed in this paper-The Producers, Blazing Saddles, History of the World, Part I, and To Be or Not To Be. These films were chosen because the quantity of Jewish content in all of them is considerably more than in his other films such as Young Frankenstein or Silent Movie. The four films chosen do an excellent job of portraying the complete range of the types of Jewish-related humor, which Brooks uses. To understand Mel Brooks identity as a specifically Jewish comedian it is important to understand how Jewish he actually was. Melvin Kaminsky was born as the youngest of four brothers in a crowded New York City apartment to Kitty and Max Kaminsky. He grew up in a very Jewish area were on Saturdays, the shops were closed, the pushcarts parked, and Yiddish replaced with Hebrew in over seventy orthodox synagogues. However, Brooks himself spent his Saturdays enjoying matinees at the Marcy Theater. He married a non-Jewish woman and allowed his son, Max, to be baptized only as long as he was allowed to have a bar-mitzvah. When asked by the media if he wanted his wife to convert he replied She dont have to convert. She a star! (Yacowar 10-14). Before discussing the films, it is crucial to identify a recurring theme in Brookss work-Germans and, more specifically, Nazis. He had a brief military career in World War II with very little combat experience, and he actually ended up being the entertainment coordinator for the army. Yacowar analyzes Brooks later feelings towards Germans as subconscious frustration because of his inability to actually fight the Nazis (Yacowar 17). In an interview he was asked about his obsession with Germans, and he replied: Me not like Germans? Why should I not like Germans? Just because theyre arrogant and have fat necks and do anything theyre told as long as it is cruel, and killed millions of Jews in concentration camps and made soap out of their bodies and lamp shades out of their skins? Is that any reason to hate their f-king guts? (Yacowar 32) Brooks has mocked Germans in various works such as in Your Show of Shows and on the Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks at the Cannes film festival audio recording. Regardless, of the origin of his interest with Nazis, if one looks at enough of his work, one cannot help but notice that this theme is an obsession for Brooks (Yacowar 34-35, 48). Mel Brooks made his first feature film, The Producers, in 1967. It is about a Jewish Broadway producer (Max Bialystock) who convinces his Jewish accountant (Leo Bloom) to finance a guaranteed to fail play with the idea that they would take the profits and run to South America. The guaranteed to fail play, Springtime for Hitler turned out to be a huge success. The two main characters both represent completely different Jewish stereotypes and the third area of Jewish interest in the film is the role of Germans both in the play and the ex-Nazi author, Frank Liebkind (Altman 39). Max Bialystock (played by Zero Mostel) is obviously not a first generation American because of his name and his accent. Although he never does anything specifically Jewish, he is still Jewish so it is relevant to look at his relationship to Jewish stereotypes. In his book, Telushkin discusses the tradition of having big and lavish bar mitzvahs, he says that the Jewish tradition has few curbs to halt such excesses(74). It is interesting to see how Bialystock chooses to live in almost poverty. Although he is so poor that he says Look at me now-Im wearing a cardboard belt, he also wears a reasonably nice jacket, has a leather coach, and keeps every old ladys picture in a decent frame. Later in the film, when he gets a lot of money, he spends it on a chauffeured car, a sexy secretary, lavish offices and new clothes, rather then spending it on new office equipment or investing it for future financial security (Telushkin 83). Leo Bloom, the accountant (played by Gene Wilder), represents the opposite stereotype from Bialystock. He represents the meek Jew, the Jew-as-doormat. In the beginning of the movie, he walks in on Max trying to get some money from an investor (he catches them lying on top of each other) and is so surprised and in shock that he has to be told to say oops (The Producers). This fits right into the stereotype of Jews as remorseful and ashamed of their sexual desires (The Poducers). Bialystock fulfills the other stereotype of Jewish men who have been portrayed as sex-hungry animals in many jokes. Blooms choice of career is also known as a Jewish career. In the end, he, like Bialystock, ends up fulfilling one of the most basic stereotypes of Jews-he gives in to his greed (Telushkin 93). There are also many small Jewish references in the film. There is an ignorant, and very gay, director named Roger DeBris, who directs Springtime for Hitler and has a familiar Yiddish term in his name (Telushkin 86-87). Also, in the beginning of the movie Bialystock has a funny dialogue with his landlord and it is the only part of the movie in which religion is involved. Bialystock: Murderer, thief, how can you take the last penny out of a poor mans pocket? Landlord: I have to, Im a landlord. Bialystock: Oh lord, hear my plea: Destroy him, he maketh a blight on the land. Landlord: Dont listen to him-hes crazy (The Producers). When one hears the conversation, with the Landlord speaking in a Jewish accent and Bialystock calling out at the heavens, sounding like an abused Jewish mother, it is a lot funnier and the Jewish element is a lot clearer as well. Brooks message in this movie has been largely debated. Lester D. Freidman thinks, Bialystock and Bloom fail to find their flop because they underestimate their audiences deadened sensibilities (173). Brooks is trying to point out that the shock and horror that everyone should view the holocaust in, is mainly a Jewish mindset. In the movie, he made two perfect Jews, and their perfection caused them two have a mindset that was different from the rest of the American public. Therefore, the movie is about more than a pair of corrupt showmen. It is about the segregation of Jews. Bailystock and Bloom are not yet Americans, they still carry a separate identity. In 1974, Brooks came out with Blazing Saddles which is much less Jewish than The Producers. The movie is about a town with a corrupt Attorney General who wants take over the town. The townspeople get the governor to send a new sheriff to restore order. He sends Sheriff Bart who is a black man with Gucci saddlebags on his horse. The townspeople end up working with the new Sheriff to defeat Hedley Lamarr (the attorney general) and his band of hooligans. Jewish topics are in the film as occasional funny parts and not as major parts of the plot. The funniest and most recognizable part of the movie where Judaism is involved is Sheriff Barts recollection of how his family got to the west. According to the Sheriff, strange Indians attacked their wagon. Brooks, who plays the Indian chief, allows Bart and his family to go, he tells his tribe, Zeit nishe meshugge. Loz em gaien†¦Abee gezint. Which basically means, take off. Some feel this is Brooks trying to get some cheap laughs by using Yiddish, but Friedman points out that it is comically appropriate that the Wests most conspicuous outsider, the Indian, should speak in the tongue of historys traditional outsider, the Jew (77). Other than this reference, Blazing Saddles use of Judaism is really little more than an occasional punch line. When Hedley Lamarr is looking for a way to get the citizens of Rock Ridge to leave, his associate recommends killing the first-born male child in every family, to which Lamarr replies-too Jewish (Blazing Saddles). When Mongo (a gigantic ruffian) comes into the saloon, someone in the background says Gottenew (Oh God! ), another Yiddish term (Yacowar 110). Not surprisingly, Mel Brooks finds a way to squeeze Germans into a movie set in the late 19th Centurys Wild West. In the finale of the movie, Lamarr recruits an army of lowlifes. In the army there is a small group of German soldiers who spend much of the fistfight sitting with a Ms. Lily von Shtupp (a not so talented lounge singer) singing the same war song heard in The Producers (Blazing Saddles). Finally, the Indian on many movie promotional materials (including the video cover) has the Hebrew for kosher for Passover inscribed in his headband. Strangely enough, these relatively small Jewish references got the attention of the Jewish Film Advisory Committee, whose director, Allen Rivkin, spoke to a writer about the offensiveness of the Jewish material. The writers response was, Dad, get with it. This is another century(Doneson 128) Blazing Saddles is a movie of the second type identified. It does not deal with specifically Jewish topics. It does, however, use Jewish topics as a way of forwarding the plot and the comedy. Whether the critics were right that Brooks was just using Yiddish because he found it funny, or if he was using it because he wanted to make a point about racism and exclusion, what is most important is that he actually used Yiddish, instead of something more expected (Yacowar 110). 981s History of the World, Part I, falls somewhere between The Producers and Blazing Saddles in its level of Jewish content (Freidman 236). The movie, is basically, a quick tour through history going from the discovery of fire to the French Revolution. Within the movie, there are two skits that are specifically of Jewish interest (Moses on Mount Sinai and the Spanish Inquisition. ) In the Old Testament, God identifies himself as the Lord , and asks Moses if he can hear Him. Mel Brooks, in a robe and white beard says Yes. I hear you. I hear you. A deaf man could hear you. When Moses tells the people of the new laws, he says, The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given onto these 15 [crash] 10, 10 Commandments for all to obey. Although Moses obviously had to be Jewish, one wonders why he had to be so klutzy a comic. In Rome, Gregory Hines, playing Josephus, a slave who is not sold in the auction, attempts to get out of being sent to the Coliseum where he would be lion food. His excuse is that the lions only eat Christians, Christians, and I am a Jew-Jewish person. To prove this, he starts singing Havah Negilah and gets the entire crowd to join him. He even tells the slave trader to call Sammus Davis Jr. (after calling the temple and the rabbi). Eventually, the trader looks down his pants, to prove he is not Jewish (History of the World, Part I). Empress Nympho, Caesars wife, is a strange cross between a J. A. P. and a sex maniac. She has a classic Jewish mother accent and uses Yiddish occasionally-Well shlep him along, for example. Towards the end of the movie, Brooks calls a courtier of Louis XVI a petite putz (History of the World, Part I). This is obviously a strange place to hear Yiddish, unless the intent is comic effect. Finally, though, the most outrageous scene, and the one that some Jews have found quite objectionable is the one about the Spanish Inquisition. It should be noted that Brookss portrayal of the Inquisition as being directed against Jews is historically inaccurate. It was really directed against heretical Christians. Because of this inaccuracy, it is safe to assume that Brooks wanted to put this scene in as a Jewish note into his film, as he did with the other films discussed. The Inquisition scene is filmed in a medieval dungeon. It starts by introducing the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada (Mel Brooks) with Torquemada-do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada-do not beg him for forgiveness†¦. Lets face it, you cant Torquemada [talk him outta] anything, then the music starts. One of the lines in the song is A fact youre ignoring, its better to lose your skullcap with your skull, which is emphasized by two old Jewish men in stocks singing oy oy gevalt. After a few descriptions of the actual torture which individual Jews suffered, he points out that nothing is working, send in the nuns. The nuns perform a synchronized swimming routine in which Jews are sent down a chute into a pool to be dragged under by nuns. At the end of the scene, seven nuns are standing on a menorah with sparklers on their heads, while the chorus, led by Torquemada, sings, Come on you Moslems and you Jews. Weve got big news for all of youse. Youd better change your points of views today. Cause the Inquisitions here, and its here to st ay. When Brooks was criticized for this scene he replied: Nothing can burst the balloon of pomposity and dictatorial splendor better than comedy†¦. In a sense, my comedy is serious, and I need a serious background to play against†¦. Poking fun at the Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada, is a wonderful counterpart to the horrors he committed (Friedman 236). This would make History of the World, Part I comparable to The Producers in its satire of Hitler, and makes Blazing Saddles also comparable through its satirical treatment of racism. If one still thought that Brooks made History of the World, Part I with only good intentions, one should also consider the treatment of Jews and Germans in the ending of the film. The promo for History of the World, Part II includes scenes such as Hitler on Ice, and Jews in Space, in which Jews are in a space craft singing Were Jews out in space. Were zooming along protecting the Hebrew race†¦. When Goyim attacks us, well give em a slap. Well smack em right back in the face. It definitely seems that History of the World, Part I is a combination, (just as the others movies discussed are) of exploitation for easy laughs and of exposing the evils of the tyrants who have tormented the Jews throughout history. In To Be or Not To Be, Mel Brooks plays Fredrick Bronski, the head actor in a Polish stage revue, around the time of the Nazi annexation of Poland. His wife, Anna Bronski (Anna Bancroft) falls in love with an Air Force lieutenant working in the Polish platoon of the RAF. The main focus of the movie is how they make fun of, get around, outwit, and ultimately escape the Nazis. This movie is actually a remake of an older film, but it still has a distinctively Mel Brooks feel. The main target of Brookss satire is the head of the Gestapo, Colonel Erhardt (Charles Durning) who is a babbling fool. For example, when on the phone, he says What? Why? Where When? When in doubt, arrest them, arrest them, arrest them! Then shoot them and interrogate them. [pause] Oh you are right, just shoot them. Soon after this, he is led to believe that the shoot first policy led to the deaths of two useful figures and after asking what idiot formed the policy, he got mad at Shultz, his assistant, for reminding him that he made the policy. Later on, he has this exchange with Shultz: Erhardt: What idiot gave the order to close the Bronskis theater? Schultz: You did, sir. Erhardt: Open it up immediately. And once and for all stop blaming everything that goes wrong on me (To Be or Not To Be). After being warned to stop making jokes about Hitler, Erhardt promises, No. Never, never, never again, [emphasis added] strange words to hear from a nazi. Although this movie is not about Jews, there are a few Jewish characters and encounters. Bronski hides a Jewish family in his theaters cellar and during the course of the movie, theyre number increases. At one point, the intelligence agent goes to the theater to find his lover, Bronskis wife. The Jewish women hiding there tells him You know that big house on Posen Street? Well dont go there, its Gestapo headquarters, before actually telling where she was staying (To Be or Not To Be). At the end of the movie, they dress up all the Jews hiding in the cellar (closer to 20 than the 3 who originally hid out in the cellar) as clowns to have them run through the aisle (in the middle of a performance for Hitler) to a truck to safety. One old lady panics in the aisle, surrounded by Nazis. To save the old lady, another clown runs up to them and pins an oversized yellow star, yelling Juden! , this causes an enormous laughter from the Nazi audience. To stall the Gestapo, Brooks dresses up as Hitler, and listens to a Jewish actor perform the Hath not a Jew eyes speech from Merchant of Venice. To Be or Not To Be appears to be Brookss final way of coping with his lack of combat in WWII. While he has The Producers make a play in which they portray the Nazis comically, the ultimate message is that the two Jews in the movie still find them to be patently offensive, and therefore, worthy of some form of respect. In To Be or Not To Be he makes the Nazis into purely comical characters, and this is a step further than Brooks went in The Producers. However, this simply may be because at the point of To Be or Not To Be, Brooks was well into his career as an established moviemaker, so he had more freedom to be offensive. Unfortunately, To Be or Not To Be ended the golden age of Mel Brooks movies, at least from a specifically Jewish point-of-view. His later films make only small mentions of Jewish topics. An example of this is Spaceballs, a parody of Star Wars where the main characters have to save a princess from Planet Druidia (Funny, she doesnt look Druish) from the evil Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) (Spaceballs). The only Jewish reference in the movie were playing off the theme of the Druish princess and a short scene with Mel Brooks as Yogurt, a reinterpretation of Yoda as an old, Jewish man. Brooks also renamed the Force from Star Wars to something more ethnic-the Schwartz. Although these Jewish references may be equal to the Yiddish-speaking Indian in Blazing Saddles, it is too big of a stretch to link a deeper meaning to them as can be done in his earlier films. In the Big Book of Jewish Humor, Jewish humor is defined as having these five qualities: 1. It is substantive in that it is about some larger topic. 2. It, in many cases, has a point-the appropriate response is not laughter, but rather a bitter nod or a commiserating sign of recognition. 3. It is anti-authoritarian, in that it ridicules grandiosity and self-indulgence, exposes hypocrisy, and†¦. is strongly democratic. 4. It frequently has a critical edge which creates discomfort in making its point. 5. It is unsparing-it satirizes anyone and everyone (Novak and Waldoks xx-xxii). Telushkins definition of a Jewish joke is much simpler. He says it must express a Jewish sensibility (16). To Bernard Saper, a uniquely Jewish joke must contain incongruity, a sudden twist of unexpected elements (76). Christie Davies, points out that people such as Jews, who belong to a minority or peripheral ethnic groups tell jokes both about the majority group and about their own group, and they may tell more ethnic jokes about their own group (and find them funnier) than about the majority(29-30). Are the four films discussed within these definitions? Brooks movies definitely fit the Telushkin test of expressing Jewish sensibility, weather it is through how he attacks the Nazis or the andom Yiddish expressions that he uses. A lot of Brooks humor is also incongruous. For example, having a Nazi say never again, fulfills Sapers requirement. Brooks films have a lot of ethnic jokes in them, which deal with Jews or Jewish topics. Brooks probably put these jokes in his movies because he found them funny, therefore fulfilling the Davies test. The definition in The Big Book of Jewish Humor is harder to fit because it is in greater detail. However, the films that were discussed fit them well. Many of Brookss films are substantive in that he deals with racism and Anti-Semitism in almost all of his movies. The point of his films may not be so sharp that when people see them they automatically feel bitterness toward someone, but his movies are definently not pure slapstick which fulfills the second part of the definition. Brooks never attacked Jewish leadership but his films are anti-authoritarian because he clearly attacks government officials such as the Nazis and the Grand Inquisitor. Since there is constant controversy about Brooks films there is always potential for discomfort to arise. Finally, Brooks leaves out nobody from his satire-Nazis, cowboys, and 15th century Spanish Jews are all satirized and made fun of in these films. Even though some of his scenes or individual jokes are not typical Jewish humor, he is a Jewish comedian who, most importantly, makes Jewish jokes. Brookss movies represent the classical paradox in Jewish humor and Jewish experience between: first, the legitimate pride that Jews have taken in their distinctive and learned religious and ethical tradition and in the remarkable intellectual eminence and entrepreneurial and professional achievement of individual members of their community, and second, the anti-Semitic abuse and denigration from hostile outsiders whose malice was fueled by Jewish autonomy and achievement (Davies 42-43). The greatest lesson that Brooks has to teach American Jews of today is the expansion of our boundaries. Through his use of Jewish humor to topics which where previously considered off-limits, he allows his viewers to cope with painful parts of history which they may not have been able to cope with in the past. Brooks describes his role as a comedian by saying, for every ten Jews beating their breasts, God designated one to be crazy and amuse the breast beaters. By the time I was five I knew I was that one (Friedman 171-172). He explains that his comedy derives from the feeling that, as a Jew and as a person, you dont fit the mainstream of American society. It comes from the realization that even though youre better and smarter, youll never belong (Friedman 172). Mel Brookss experience is very similar to that of every American Jew, and his comedy speaks uniquely to the American Jew. So, even Brookss most offensive work is rooted deeply within both typical Jewish Humor and the modern Jewish experience. The greatest lesson that Brooks has to teach American Jews of today is the expansion of our boundaries. Through his use of Jewish humor to topics which where previously considered off-limits, he allows his viewers to cope with painful parts of history which they may not have been able to cope with in the past. Brooks describes his role as a comedian by saying, for every ten Jews beating their breasts, God designated one to be crazy and amuse the breast beaters. By the time I was five I knew I was that one (Friedman 171-172). He explains that his comedy derives from the feeling that, as a Jew and as a person, you dont fit the mainstream of American society. It comes from the realization that even though youre better and smarter, youll never belong (Friedman 172). Mel Brookss experience is very similar to that of every American Jew, and his comedy speaks uniquely to the American Jew. So, even Brookss most offensive work is rooted deeply within both typical Jewish Humor and the modern Jewish experience.

Janies Journey Through Marriage free essay sample

In her first marriage, the man she was with was everything that Nanny Crawford wanted him to be. Logan Killicks was a farmer with 60 acres of his own land, his own money, and big house all to himself. Logan Killicks equaled protection to Nanny [Page 15], and that’s all that she wanted for Janie. Since Nanny had endured being raped as a slave and getting pregnant, and the baby that became Janie’s Mom, Leafy, turned out to get raped to and become lost to the world, Nanny wanted nothing but the best for Janie. She did not want Janie to have to endure those things, and she was going to make sure by setting Janie up to marry Logan Killicks. Logan had been watching Janie grow up, and he noticed how beautiful she was becoming so he mentioned marrying Janie to Nanny long before she brought it up to Janie [Page 13]. We will write a custom essay sample on Janies Journey Through Marriage or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Janie was just what Logan needed. She was young, pretty, and she would do well inheriting his land after he died. Although Janie was marrying Logan for protection, Logan was marrying Janie from her looks, making her out to be a trophy wife. But the key that both Logan and Janie were missing in the thought of their marriage was love. Janie was not even interested in Logan at all. He was just as old as her Grandma, since Nanny Crawford refers to him as â€Å"Brother Logan Killicks† [Page 13]. Janie felt that the reason why people married was because they loved one another, but since her marriage happened because of other circumstances, she thought the love would eventually come [Page 21]. After they finally married, of course Janie was introduced to intercourse for the first time, making her sexually mature. That is her first walk into womanhood. But she also came to the realization that marriage does not bring love after a month and two weeks of marriage [Page 23]. This shows her maturity of how relationships work, while also marking her second walk into womanhood. After this conclusion, almost a year into her marriage she came to a greater realization. Janie wanted her pear tree, which symbolized everything that love should be [Page 11]. Logan was not her pear tree. After almost a year, the newly wed attitude died down and he began treating Janie as his equal, expecting her to do work around the farm just like he did [Page 26]. Their relationship began to be like that between a parent and a child. He told her what to do and she was expected to do it. It also did not help that Logan was so much older than Janie; it reestablishes this parent and child bond. After Logan began acting this way, Janie did not stay long. She met Joe Starks, her second husband, on the road beside her and Logan’s home one summer day, and he seemed to fulfill the goals Janie had in mind for her life. Once she saw it fit, Janie left Logan, and ran away to marry Joe. Logan was the only man Janie ever left. Mr. Joe Starks was a business man and the epitome of a go getter. He met Janie on the side of a road because he was on his way walking to be a â€Å"big voice† in a black-owned town called Eatonville in Florida [Page 28]. He was a â€Å"man wid principles† [Page 29] and he wanted to show Janie how a lady should be treated. He was older than Janie like Logan, being 10 years her senior. Janie and Joe Starks marriage can be described as all for show, deeply suppressing, and all about Joe Starks. From the moment Joe met Janie, he described her as â€Å"a pretty doll-baby made to sit on de front porch and rock and fan yo’self and eat p’taters dat other folks plant just special for you. Once he ran off with Janie, he made it so. He showered her with clothes of silk and wool [Page 33] and made sure he instilled in her that she was a princess. When Janie ran off with Joe, she was running off to achieve her own goals in Joe’s. To Janie, Joe seemed to be a man that could make things happen. Fortunately, he turned out to be exactly that. It did not take long for things to happen once Janie and Joe made it to Eatonville. He immediately became mayor of the town, and with the money he ad come with he made improvements to everything he thought needed it [Page 36-38]. It did not take long for him to achieve his goals. Janie had everything she could possibly want, but her most important goal was not reached in Joe’s. Janie wanted her pear tree; she longed for real love, and she actually seemed to love Joe. She even gave him a pet name which was Jody [Page 29]. Again unfavorably for Janie, she did not receive all her goals in this marriage. As Jody’s power began to increase as mayor, this need for dominance spilled over into him and Janie’s marriage. He spoke for Janie [Page 43], he secluded her from the townspeople saying that with his big voice made a big woman out of her [Page 46], and he even started making Janie wear a head scarf because he did not like the attention that Janie got from her long, beautiful hair [Page 49]. Janie knew this was never what she wanted out of her husband; she had not expected this from Joe. He only got worse as time went on. They were married for over 17 years, and as they both aged, Joe began to get evil with Janie. He even hit her in public at the town’s store when Janie put him in his place about the way he had been treating her [Page 80]. Jody’s pride, materialism, and urge to dominant had turned him into a cold, bitter old man that was on his dying bed with kidney problems [Page 85]. This was the only time Janie had to tell him about the independence she had longed for during their marriage [Page 85]. She knows that Jody was a good husband in the aspects that he provided for her and had power. These were the things that Nanny Crawford had wanted for her. However, Janie the things she wanted which were love and independence in love. She also gained wisdom from her and Joe’s long time together. Janie did not have to leave Jody to get out of this marriage, because he died immediately after she told him all the problems she felt had been in their marriage. Janie’s second marriage left her widowed, but a couple months after Joe Starks death Janie found her next husband. His name was Vergible Woods, but he was also known as Tea Cake. Janie and Tea Cake’s marriage was everything that she ever wanted for marriage to ever be. It is crazy how everything she wanted comes after she had been through two marriages. If Nanny Crawford were to be the judge of Tea Cake, he would be everything that she wanted Janie to stay away from. He was a young 28 year old marrying Janie at 40, he did not have much money or a big, nice place to stay, and he was a gambler with the little money he had. He was a huge variation from the two other husbands Janie had. The biggest difference he had was that he had complete and undying love for and from Janie. Tea Cake had walked right into Janie’s life, almost similar to how Jody appeared, except he had no real purpose of appearing except cigarettes from the Stark Grocery Store [Page 94-95]. From there Janie and he let time get away from them while playing checkers [Page 95]. Their time full of flirting ended with Tea Cake helping Janie close up the store and walking her home [Page 98-99]. Unlike Janie’s other relationships, she had a strong chemistry between one another. They spent spontaneous nights at Janie’s house making dinner and going fishing together [Page 102-103]. After spending time with one another, Tea Cake confessed that Janie had him caught [Page 105] and he wanted to be with her. Like the other husbands, Tea Cake did like Janie for her looks [Page 103-104], but he did not treat her unequally from him. He just wanted to do anything he could to make her happy. He was a man that did not have much to look after to his name, so unlike the others he had room to make Janie his prime priority. Then when Janie was finally up to it, the both of them moved to the Everglades together [Page 116]. A little while after getting there, Tea Cake wronged Janie by stealing her money, and leaving her for two days with her worrying that she had made the same mistake as Annie Tyler [Page 119]. When he finally came back, he had gambled Janie’s money and won more money than Janie had come with [Page 122]. He made up for his seemingly wrong doing for the likes of Janie. With his actions, Tea Cake showed real love. The other husbands showed care, because that was what a husband should do for his wife. Tea Cake once said, â€Å"God made it so you spent yo’ ole age first wid somebody else, and saved up yo’ young girl days to spend wid me. † [Page 181] and this statement is very true. The freeness of feeling between her and Tea Cake was like two young lovers. The naivete in the way they ran off with each other also marks young love [Page 117]; they were so spontaneous and uninhibited. No one telling them they were wrong could break them apart, not even Phoeby [Page 114]. One similarity between the marriages that is not so good is the fact that the relationships changed for the bad over time. After the huge storm on the mucks [Chapter 18], Tea Cake got sick with rabies and his health deteriorated fast. Janie and his relationship ended up getting lost in a sickness that affected his brain; that is about the only thing that ever affected them for good as a couple. Janie had to kill him to protect herself [Page 184], and after going to trial, being found innocent, and going back to Eatonville she is full of wisdom. Her Nanny said that, â€Å"I’ve been to de horizon and back. Now Janie could say the same about herself. Her and Tea Cake’s marriage finally gave her the love she had always wanted in life just before she got too old to experience it. Part II: Even though Tea Cake was the love of her life and she had to bury him herself, if Janie had to pick another man to be with I really do not think she would look for the same things she had looked for in marriage. In old age, she would turn into a woman version of Logan Killicks in a way. She would look for someone that she could be ok with taking care of her as she got old, someone to keep her from being lonely. After Tea Cake, she would not have the need to love again. Tea Cake had that position filled and he always will, alive or dead. Her next husband would be more of a practical companion that she could grow old comfortably with. Not saying that she would not care who she married next, but she would not treat them how she treated her other husbands. She would not be eager to get that loving attention that she craved. Therefore, her next husband would not have to be overly caring towards her. Janie would go back to her â€Å"old time days† with her next husband, and her â€Å"young days† would forever stay with Tea Cake.