Leave Your Name at the Border
Eugenio Reyes; Cowboy or Vaquero? Rancher or Ranchero? This is the set of questions I ask myself as Manuel Munoz, or possibly Manny, pictures in his essay, Leave Your Name at the Border, the cowboy hat yielding, Mr. Reyes. A gentleman described as older in appearance from an era from time gone by is the very image I imagine as well. This of course is due to the traditional usage of his name usually reserved for first generation “Mexicans”.
As a female voice mentions Eugenio Reyes’ name over the airport intercom, Munoz immediately considers the possibility of the women’s race because of the manner in which she says it in such an “anglicized” way. Munoz’s inquisitiveness is duly in part to his awareness of the sense of cultural loss with each passing generation of Mexicans now living in the United States and becoming more assimilated to American culture. The Spanish language, specifically the pronunciation of Spanish names, are often the casualty of separation from this culture versus the culture originated in Mexico or “de alla”-over there.
Munoz speaks of family members who were given American versions of their name in an attempt to “blend in”. “Concepcion was Connie. Ramon was Raymond. My cousin Esperanza was Hope”, Munoz states. His explanation of the names caused me to think of actors Martin and Charlie Sheen. Martin, whose real name is Ramon Estevez and Charlie, whose real name is Carlos Estevez both anglicized their names for Hollywood purposes. Emilio Estevez, Martin’s son and Charlie’s brother kept his original name.
Munoz gives further evidence to the sense of cultural loss sharing in the fact that unlike the previous generation who learned to only speak Spanish, he came from a generation that grew up bilingual. It’s intriguing to see how cultural assimilation progressed even further as Munoz’s generation serves as a bridge in family gatherings as translators between the older and younger members of the group. Munoz points out that “You can tell who falls into which group: Estella, Eric, Delia, Dubina, Melanie.” Each name labeling the level of assimilation or lack there of.
The imaginary “clash” that takes place in Munoz’s mind when the women at the airport and Eugenio Reyes would have met is tremendous because of the real scenario it lays before the reader. Here Munoz gives us two individuals, both of same decent, one old and one young, yet complete opposite and only one who has adapted to the culture in which they both live. Unfortunately, this encounter never took place to solve this mystery. A left unanswered for a later time. Perhaps there may have been too much of a communication gap.
As a female voice mentions Eugenio Reyes’ name over the airport intercom, Munoz immediately considers the possibility of the women’s race because of the manner in which she says it in such an “anglicized” way. Munoz’s inquisitiveness is duly in part to his awareness of the sense of cultural loss with each passing generation of Mexicans now living in the United States and becoming more assimilated to American culture. The Spanish language, specifically the pronunciation of Spanish names, are often the casualty of separation from this culture versus the culture originated in Mexico or “de alla”-over there.
Munoz speaks of family members who were given American versions of their name in an attempt to “blend in”. “Concepcion was Connie. Ramon was Raymond. My cousin Esperanza was Hope”, Munoz states. His explanation of the names caused me to think of actors Martin and Charlie Sheen. Martin, whose real name is Ramon Estevez and Charlie, whose real name is Carlos Estevez both anglicized their names for Hollywood purposes. Emilio Estevez, Martin’s son and Charlie’s brother kept his original name.
Munoz gives further evidence to the sense of cultural loss sharing in the fact that unlike the previous generation who learned to only speak Spanish, he came from a generation that grew up bilingual. It’s intriguing to see how cultural assimilation progressed even further as Munoz’s generation serves as a bridge in family gatherings as translators between the older and younger members of the group. Munoz points out that “You can tell who falls into which group: Estella, Eric, Delia, Dubina, Melanie.” Each name labeling the level of assimilation or lack there of.
The imaginary “clash” that takes place in Munoz’s mind when the women at the airport and Eugenio Reyes would have met is tremendous because of the real scenario it lays before the reader. Here Munoz gives us two individuals, both of same decent, one old and one young, yet complete opposite and only one who has adapted to the culture in which they both live. Unfortunately, this encounter never took place to solve this mystery. A left unanswered for a later time. Perhaps there may have been too much of a communication gap.
Disaster Relief
With the recent events of Hurricane Sandy taking place, government’s role in disaster relief has been at the forefront of much discussion on the topic. Specifically, the case for or against “big” government is being politicized during this election year. Some say timing is everything, and such might be the case of the ironic timing of Sandy just a week prior to the 2012 Presidential Election. There has been much opinion editorialized recently in the media.
Many are using Sandy to make the case that Big Government is a necessity to public safety and relief efforts. However, the case is being carried further to discredit Mitt Romney’s belief that the federal government needs to hand more power over to the individual states. One of the more popular publicized critiques of Romney’s politics in relation to big government and disaster relief is that of The New York Times’ editors. In their recent article, “A Big Storm Requires Big Government”, the Times’ editors state that, “Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of “big government,” which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it.” The editors further make the claim that, “Many (republicans) don’t like the idea of free aid for poor people, or they think people should pay for their bad decisions, which this week includes living on the East Coast.”
I feel Sandy’s relief efforts are being used by certain media groups such as the New York Times to manipulate the public in support for the necessity of Big Government.
The statement that Romney wants to eliminate national disaster relief is a farce. And to make the erroneous statement that Republicans think that people on the East Coast are paying for their mistakes is appalling. To state clearly, government does not have to be big in order to be able to provide for the citizens in major catastrophic disasters. To state otherwise is fear mongering at its best.
Of course the editors didn’t mention the fact that Romney is actually for federal government providing aid during large catastrophic events. That would prove a flaw in their stance. It’s federal government’s role in smaller localized events that he has addressed during his campaign. The more FEMA is involved in such events the less it’s able to provide relief in large-scale catastrophic events. Matt Mayer explains that “as FEMA is burdened by administering more than 100 new declarations per year, it doesn’t have time or money to focus on being prepared for catastrophic events, which is why seven years after Hurricane Katrina, FEMA still lacks key capabilities, according to the Government Accountability Office.” Mayer further states:
The federal government cannot do everything or be everywhere. By properly delineating roles and responsibilities, we can make sure that FEMA is prepared for the big events like Hurricane Sandy and gets states back in charge of dealing with and paying for the routine natural disasters that occur in their jurisdictions year after year. Big storms do require big government, but little storms don’t. Knowing the difference is the key to getting out of the fiscal mess we are presently in.
Unfortunately, Big Government’s role has created an ever-increasing avalanche of dependency in America. “It’s important, though, to remember that the only reason voters or politicians place so much faith in Washington is that they can scarcely remember a time when the federal government wasn’t the rescuer”, says Amity Shlaes in her article Disasters Create Bigger, Not Better, Government. This article title says it all, bigger doesn’t always mean better, but hey, after all bigger is the American way.
Many are using Sandy to make the case that Big Government is a necessity to public safety and relief efforts. However, the case is being carried further to discredit Mitt Romney’s belief that the federal government needs to hand more power over to the individual states. One of the more popular publicized critiques of Romney’s politics in relation to big government and disaster relief is that of The New York Times’ editors. In their recent article, “A Big Storm Requires Big Government”, the Times’ editors state that, “Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of “big government,” which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it.” The editors further make the claim that, “Many (republicans) don’t like the idea of free aid for poor people, or they think people should pay for their bad decisions, which this week includes living on the East Coast.”
I feel Sandy’s relief efforts are being used by certain media groups such as the New York Times to manipulate the public in support for the necessity of Big Government.
The statement that Romney wants to eliminate national disaster relief is a farce. And to make the erroneous statement that Republicans think that people on the East Coast are paying for their mistakes is appalling. To state clearly, government does not have to be big in order to be able to provide for the citizens in major catastrophic disasters. To state otherwise is fear mongering at its best.
Of course the editors didn’t mention the fact that Romney is actually for federal government providing aid during large catastrophic events. That would prove a flaw in their stance. It’s federal government’s role in smaller localized events that he has addressed during his campaign. The more FEMA is involved in such events the less it’s able to provide relief in large-scale catastrophic events. Matt Mayer explains that “as FEMA is burdened by administering more than 100 new declarations per year, it doesn’t have time or money to focus on being prepared for catastrophic events, which is why seven years after Hurricane Katrina, FEMA still lacks key capabilities, according to the Government Accountability Office.” Mayer further states:
The federal government cannot do everything or be everywhere. By properly delineating roles and responsibilities, we can make sure that FEMA is prepared for the big events like Hurricane Sandy and gets states back in charge of dealing with and paying for the routine natural disasters that occur in their jurisdictions year after year. Big storms do require big government, but little storms don’t. Knowing the difference is the key to getting out of the fiscal mess we are presently in.
Unfortunately, Big Government’s role has created an ever-increasing avalanche of dependency in America. “It’s important, though, to remember that the only reason voters or politicians place so much faith in Washington is that they can scarcely remember a time when the federal government wasn’t the rescuer”, says Amity Shlaes in her article Disasters Create Bigger, Not Better, Government. This article title says it all, bigger doesn’t always mean better, but hey, after all bigger is the American way.
Kool-Aid Man
Anyone who has ever made a good pitcher of Kool-Aid knows you can’t do so without a large amount of sugar. The more sugar, the better tasting the Kool-Aid. Ironically, the company image is represented in the infamous Kool-Aid Man who just happens to be rather rotund in the midsection and everywhere else. So, with my subvertisement, I hope to bring out the obvious that often goes unnoticed. He’s big! With this reality coupled with the knowledge that sugar leads to obesity, one might think twice about consuming Kool-Aid.
What better way to express this message than to put it around bellies. Not just any size bellies, but big ones. These t-shirts will only come in really large to enormous sizes which will drive home the point even more when viewed on the outcome itself. What better way to create belly envy. With Kool-Aid Man’s help you too can get big like him.
I decided to use "Kool Beans" font (Kool-Aid font) and the iconic face of Kool-Aid Man on the traditional red background used by Kool-Aid . Not only is red the traditional color, but it is a color that grabs the eye. People say that red cars get more tickets because cops see them easier, so why not apply that same method to a t-shirt. One might find a particular symbolism with the red shirt and the consequences of consuming large amounts of sugar. It is becoming more known that obesity caused by sugar consumption leads to Diabetes, a blood disorder. A hidden message of greater risk coupled with our not so friendly pal, Kool-Aid Man.
What better way to express this message than to put it around bellies. Not just any size bellies, but big ones. These t-shirts will only come in really large to enormous sizes which will drive home the point even more when viewed on the outcome itself. What better way to create belly envy. With Kool-Aid Man’s help you too can get big like him.
I decided to use "Kool Beans" font (Kool-Aid font) and the iconic face of Kool-Aid Man on the traditional red background used by Kool-Aid . Not only is red the traditional color, but it is a color that grabs the eye. People say that red cars get more tickets because cops see them easier, so why not apply that same method to a t-shirt. One might find a particular symbolism with the red shirt and the consequences of consuming large amounts of sugar. It is becoming more known that obesity caused by sugar consumption leads to Diabetes, a blood disorder. A hidden message of greater risk coupled with our not so friendly pal, Kool-Aid Man.