St. James Food Pantry: How Homeless can Occur Essay -- hunger, poverty,

â€Å"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.† Helder Camara What is hunger? According to dictionary.com, hunger is feeling of discomfort or weakness caused by lack of food. A person that has no shelter, love and food is considering being homeless. This makes their demand for food and shelter high. Poverty, for centuries has been look over in the United States of America, and for America to have one of highest poverty rates, it is a disgrace. It is a disgrace because America is one of the wealthiest countries, therefore; the government has the resource, in order for poverty not exists at this caliber. By going to St. James Food Pantry, it showed me that poverty in America is still being overlooked. Since the semester started, I have been volunteering at St. James Food Pantry located on 29th and Wabash which serves the 60605 and 16 zip codes. As an African American female, being a part of society middle-low class, I was shock to see that it was other races especially Asians, coming into the facility for help. I was shock to see Asians coming into the facility because in the media African Americans are the ones depicted to need assistance not Asians. However, volunteering at St. James showed that all races need help, not one more than other. Walking into the food pantry, one will immediately be welcomed by the secretary or volunteer coordinator, Ben. The staff at St. James is friendly and aware of their client’s needs. They bring a since of hope and love to the community in which the government has overlook the demand of hunger their citizens face daily. St. James Food Pantry was not what I expected it to be. It is small-quaint building on the corner o... ... comparing their clients to the people in different community’s s there is a significant difference in class inequality. Not able to support themselves or family shows the differences in class because to support living a person needs money. In majority money is the main aspect in determine class difference. Being in a society where people only care about themselves shows why there is a disparity between the have and have not’s. In the healthcare field, people need to demonstrate an altruism behavior because they service the people. Going to St. James showed me that I need to be more humble in order to be a successful RN. St. James Food Pantry helps their client to build life skills so they can be able to function in today’s society. As I volunteer more at St. James, I hope to receive more direct contact with clients and understand how homelessness can occur.

Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 and Joan Littlewood’s Oh! What a Lovely War Essay

Compare the ways in which figures of authority are portrayed in Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 and Joan Littlewood’s Oh! What a Lovely War. Both Catch 22 and Oh! What a Lovely War are satirical comedies looking at the absurdity and tragedy of war. Being satires, they serve to expose the flaws in wartime situations and in doing so often develop criticisms of authoritative figures. Both texts approach the portrayal of authority in slightly different ways; being a play, Oh! What a Lovely War has a lot more scope for portraying its characters visually and aurally, whereas Catch 22 must work within its boundaries as a novel. Both texts employ humour to portray characters of authority; whereas Littlewood’s play is more focused on dark humour, Heller uses his own brand of absurd irony throughout the novel – this humour is central to most techniques used in both pieces of literature. Both texts were written in the 1960’s, (Catch 22 was published in 1961 whilst Littlewood’s play was performed two years later) an era synonymous with the development of youth culture and radical change. Although Catch 22 was initially snubbed by many of its critics, the novel found its readership amongst the emerging generation of men and women who were fiercely opposed to the Vietnam war. Littlewood did not face the same hostility in 1963 when Oh! What a Lovely War was first shown to the public. Performed by the Theatre Workshop – a company she had co-created – the play was warmly received by the audience and critics alike. Despite their different reactions, both texts were on the cutting edge of anti-war sentiment and continue to be modern classics. Although the texts focus on different wars and different perspectives (Littlewood’s play explores World War One from a primarily British perspective and Heller’s novel is an American outlook on World War Two) their main themes are similar. Both texts are exploring the tragedy of war, the utter absurdity of it, the thirst for power and money war brings, and the ignorance of authoritative organisations. Figures of authority are numerous in both pieces, and do not only include the upper ranks (such as Generals, Field Marshalls and Colonels) but also the representations of business and religious organisations, for they too can be viewed as having ‘authoritative’ roles in society, especially in wartime. One technique used by both authors is a demonstration of the lack of communication between commanding powers. Littlewood’s portrayal of the allied army leaders is very effective in signalling how inefficient they are at communicating with one another. The French General Lanzerac and British Field Marshall ‘French’ do not even speak the same language, and French’s unwillingness to do so reveals the total futility and worthlessness of their meeting: Aide: Do you think I ought to organise an †¦ interpreter? French: Don’t be ridiculous Wilson; the essential problem at the moment is †¦ the utmost secrecy.(p21) In this scene the obsession with secrecy over commonsense negotiations shows us how inefficient the allied army authorities are, and the analogy of the different languages spoken serves to demonstrate the complete lack of communication amongst authoritative powers that hold the fate of thousands in their hands. In the same way, Catch 22 looks at the problem of communication within the upper ranks. The call General Peckam receives from Ex P.C Wintergreen – the sole words being ‘T.S. Elliot'(sic) – has no hidden meaning but is interpreted in an absurd way; â€Å"Perhaps it’s a new code or something, like the colors of the day. Why don’t you check with Communications and see if it’s a new code or something or the colors of the day?† (p45). This sentence also shows us some insight into General Peckam’s intellect, which doesn’t seem to be substantial – demonstrated by the repetition and imprecision of speech. Another example of these communicative difficulties is the case of Major Major who receives documents to sign, which have his signature already. The squabbling within the upper ranks is evident in both texts and serves to show us the pettiness and idiocy of figures of authority. There are many instances in Catch 22 where the Generals are engaged in sneaky tricks against one another. General Dreedle’s hatred of his son-in-law Colonel Moodus for example, inspires him to keep a beautiful nurse just to torment him with, and the ‘Great Loyalty Oath Crusade’1 is started by Captain Black in an attempt to avenge himself on Major Major (who gained the promotion Captain Black was waiting for). Similarly in Oh! What a Lovely War, the Belgian, British and French army officials are at odds with one another. The Belgian army are in a sorry state, the French are angry at the British, and the British refuse to believe they have any responsibility in the war; ‘We’re not here under any obligation’ French persists in telling Lanzerac. The heated discussion only ends when Lanzerac is offered a medal on behalf of the King of England. This gesture pleases the General, who ‘kisses French on both cheeks’ and leaves, suggesting that the upper ranks of the army are only interested in recognition and promotion. This is a very powerful notion in Catch 22, in which key characters such as Colonel Korn and Colonel Cathcart will do everything in their power to be promoted. Cathcart says of his ambition: â€Å"What else have we got to do? Everyone teaches us to aspire to higher things. A general is higher than a colonel and a colonel is higher than a lieutenant colonel. So we’re both aspiring† (p450). One of the most important aspects of both texts is how different the experience of war is for the upper ranks and the ordinary men. The inability of authoritative figures to understand the realities of war and their cruel, seemingly deliberate ignorance in many situations is demonstrated in a number of key scenes. An important example of this in Oh! What a Lovely War is on pages 50/51 where a commanding officer reveals his detachment from ordinary trench life, and his unawareness of the death that surrounds the men every day; â€Å"Ye Gods! What’s that?† he asks the Lieutenant upon encountering a German limb that holds up the parapet, immediately telling the men to get rid of it as soon as possible. The Sergeant’s response reveals how clueless those in authority are to the brutalities of war: â€Å"Heads, trunks, blood all over the place, and all he’s worried about is a damned leg†. This warped, uninformed sense of priority and general detachment is evident in Catch 22, especially within Colonel Cathcart’s storyline. Heller’s novel is jumbled chronologically, but one dependable indication of time is the number of missions the men are forced to fly under Cathcart’s orders, which steadily increases as the story progresses. What is simply a number for the colonel is a very real death threat to the men of his squadron, many of whom reach the target just as the missions increase. Cathcart raises them for purely selfish reasons – he hopes to gain recognition for his squadron’s record and receive a promotion. The Colonel’s constant cry of â€Å"Doesn’t he know there’s a war going on† when Yossarian refuses to fly further missions is one of Heller’s brilliant lines of absurd irony, as it relates directly to the figures of authority in the novel. They seem to be playing an insane game, unaware of how t heir actions affect the men – they themselves don’t realise they’re fighting a war. Other instances of differences between upper and lower rank men can be found in both texts. The final scene of Oh! What a Lovely War portrays the men as lambs to the slaughter at the order of their glory-obsessed officer, and we find them shouting â€Å"Baaa – baaa – baaa †¦Ã¢â‚¬ (p86) as they advance towards the guns. In Catch 22 the Colonels are amazed that the ordinary men worship the same God as them, and after the revelation from the Chaplain refuse to believe it saying â€Å"What nonsense!† â€Å"Does he expect us to believe that?† and â€Å"Chaplain, aren’t you stretching things a bit far now?†(p407). A noticeable aspect of both texts is the portrayal of other key figures of authority – primarily those of big business and religion. Where Littlewood is severely critical of both, Heller holds some sympathy for his character the Chaplain (a representation of religion). Common to both writers is a disgust toward capitalists who exploit war for their own commercial gain. The munitions manufacturers in Oh! What a Lovely War are introduced on stage as members of a shooting party, an ironic analogy highlighting the part they play in the destruction of so many young men. They discuss the ‘peace scares’ that threaten their income, and congratulate one another for their inhuman schemes in money making: Britain: German chappies were caught on their own barbed wire?†¦.Dashed clever. (p46) In the same way, the character Milo Minderbinder in Catch 22 exposes the lack of morals and boundaries capitalism creates in wartime. His collaboration with the enemy goes unnoticed due to his profit-making, and he even ends up bombing his own men and planes as part of a German contract; ‘If I can persuade the Germans to pay me a thousand dollars for every plane I shoot down, why shouldn’t I?'(p273) he tells Yossarian. The forces of religious belief in Littlewood’s play are greeted with hostility as tools for the war propaganda machine, who support the war effort rather than fighting for the rights of the soldiers; Chaplain: †¦ it is no longer a sin to labour for war on the Sabbath†¦the Chief Rabbi has absolved your Jewish brethren from abstaining from pork in the trenches. (p77) Religion is portrayed in a slightly more sympathetic light in Heller’s novel. The Chaplain is the only character who really connects with Yossarian, and his efforts to help dissuade the Generals from raising the number of missions proves a real commitment and solidarity to the squadron. He is rejected from the Officer’s Hall and treated disrespectfully by the Colonels, showing us that even Christianity is powerless in the face of such frighteningly stubborn authority. Another key theme of both texts is the portrayal of war as a game, or as something frivolous and light-hearted by those in authority. The very form of Oh! What a Lovely War is as a musical show, with song and dance. Key song titles include ‘I’ll make a man out of you’ and the grand finale track ‘Oh it’s a lovely war’ which paints the text as a Broadway extravaganza rather than a harrowing look at battle. This technique is very effective in creating a bitter and attacking tone towards authoritative powers – especially considering the nature of the opening scene. In a circus like frenzy the MC brings on the players of the ‘war game’; France, Germany, Austria, Ireland, Great Britain and Russia. This structural difference between the play and Catch 22 means that Oh! What a Lovely War parodies authority more consistently. Littlewood constructed the play as a ‘show’, so the ability of characters in power to undermine the seriousness of war is endless. ‘The War Game’ is a classic example of this, as is the ‘grouse-shooting party’ which consists of munitions manufacturers from the key nations involved in war. Other techniques were available to Littlewood – lyrically bitter songs and the use of slides as an accompaniment to the speech, which both served as attacking forces against the power of authority in the play. Examples of this can be found in song titles such as ‘If the sergeant steals your rum’ and ironic lyrics like ‘with our old commander, safely in the rear’ in the hymn ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’. The use of slides and the ‘newspanel’ is used on many occasions as a reinforcement of the ignorance seen in authoritative men such as Haig: Newspanel: BY NOV 1916 †¦ TWO AND A HALF MILLION MEN KILLED ON WESTERN FRONT Haig: I thank you, God; the attack is a great success. (p78) They are also used comically to outline the stupidity of the Generals: British Admiral: †¦ Have you got a plan? British General: Of course. Slide 5: A blank British Admiral: Yes, I thought so. (p6) In a structural sense, the techniques available to Heller with which to parody authority are much more limited. In a novel, all character representations are formed with literary descriptions and cannot rely on visual or aural aids like a play. His technique of storytelling is not as varied or spectacular as Littlewoods, but the effects of his bizarre plots are as successful in criticising authoritative powers as the use of slides and song in Oh! What a Lovely War. Colonel Cathcart’s ‘bombing pattern’ is a sufficient example of this and bears comparison with the ‘War Game’ approach by Littlewood. Disregarding the fact that men are risking their lives on the insane bombardier missions they are forced to fly, Cathcart’s sole concern is whether their bombs create an aesthetically pleasing pattern from the air – ‘We didn’t get the bridge’ he tells Milo whilst recalling a previous mission, ‘but we did have a beautifu l bomb pattern. I remember General Peckam commenting on it’. (p†¦ The episodic form of both texts may disrupt the sense of progression, but it is noticeable that the tone of both pieces of literature changes as they near completion. The bitterness towards authority increases, and humour is more often interspersed with moments of seriousness and tragedy. In Act Two of Littlewood’s play, a moment of chaos reaches a serious climax with the juxtaposition of Haig and the British General’s telephone conversations against a background of men singing ‘They were only playing leapfrog’. The two men speak simultaneously in broken sentences until Haig’s final comment ‘No, you must reserve the artillery; we are using too many shells’ is uttered at the same time as the General’s last words, ‘Night has fallen. The clouds are gathering. The men are lost somewhere in no man’s land.’ This uncharacteristically sombre moment is shocking and serves to signpost the ignorance and inhumanity of Haig in times of crisis. In a similar way the absurd force of bureaucracy in Heller’s novel borders on seriousness when Don Daneeka is recorded as killed and remains dead due to the power of paperwork. His presence in the novel is a tragic reminder of the madness of war, and his character becomes a living ghost, ‘the sacks under his eyes turned hollow and black, and he padded through the shadows fruitlessly like an ubiquitous spook†¦then, only then, did he realize that, to all intents and purposes, he really was dead.’ (p366) The endings of both texts leave the reader with a slightly different outlook of authority and war. Whereas Oh! What a Lovely War finishes as it started, with a grand song in the traditional musical style, Catch 22 is much more subdued and understated. Both endings tell us something about the intention of the author, and of their opinion on the subject of war and authority. Littlewood wants to leave the audience feeling embittered and slightly outraged at the notion of the Great War as a show, in order to demonstrate the atrocities committed by those in authority against the ordinary men. The final songs ‘Chanson de Craonne’, ‘ I don’t want to be a Soldier’, ‘And when they ask us’, and ‘Oh it’s a lovely war’ express both comic elements (‘I’d rather stay at home †¦ and live off the earnings of a lady typist’) and the tragic undertones that run throughout the play (‘I don’t want a bayonet in my belly’). Although these final songs are more preoccupied with the tragedy and futility of warfare, their tone is still bitter towards commanding powers – such as the King and the Generals – who promised them a ‘lovely war’, and described the life of a soldier as the ‘cushiest job’ they would ever have. The cause of this great tragedy is clearly explained in Littlewood’s play as a direct result of the ignorance and greed of commanding powers, in particular the European Empires and Haig, along with his circle of title-seeking aristocrats. Within the play there are other specific objects of blame; firstly the British Generals, Field Marshall French, and the British Aristocracy. Other possible areas of criticism lie in the portrayal of religion, and of the capitalists who profited from the war. Oh! What a Lovely War is a text very much favouring the ordinary soldiers, all of whom are represented as decent, kind-hearted, and spirited young men. These soldiers are the victims of authoritative powers, they are the lambs going to slaughter, and the grouse at the shooting party. Littlewood is not vague or subtle in her attack of the commanding men, and portrays them as idiots, fat cats and cowards. She intends to show us that they were the main cause of madness in wartime, and that t hese men of authority should be held to blame for the destruction of a generation. The conclusion of Catch 22 is quite different, and ends with the spontaneous attempt by Yossarian to run away from the military base. Heller’s ending is a very interesting final act of defiance for his character, against the powers of authority in the novel. Despite having an easy route out of the air force – a simple but dishonest deal with Colonel Cathcart and Colonel Korn – Yossarian chooses to reject it. The presence of Nately’s whore at the very end of the novel, who unsuccessfully tries to stab him, is perhaps an indicator that Yossarian is making the right choice in escaping from the madness and corruption of ‘bureaucracy’ (the main authoritative force in Catch 22). The specific targeting of key characters is evident in Heller’s novel as it was in Oh! What a Lovely War, with the Colonels and Generals (Cathcart, Korn, Dreedle and Peckam among others) being the main hosts for criticism. However, I believe there is a difference between both texts regarding the role authoritative figures play in war. Whereas Littlewood shows us that the commanding men create the chaos due to their own callous stupidity, in Catch 22 the madness of war seems to be a character unto itself. Although the commanding officers are idiotic and dangerously selfish, this insane wartime logic affects most of the ordinary men – except for Yossarian and the Chaplain. A good example of this is near the end of the novel when Aarfy – one of the men in the squadron – rapes and kills a young girl. wYossarian’s utter horror when he discovers the scene is elevated further with the arrival of the police, who arrest him for being in Rome without a pass, completely ignoring the dead body on the pavement. Aarfy’s explanation ‘I hardly think they’re going to make too much of a fuss over one poor Italian servant girl, when so many thousands of lives are being lost every day’ seems to bear a lot of truth. The infuriating authority figures in this novel and the foolish stunts they are engaged in appear to be more a product of war madness than a cause of it. Therefore, although both texts portray figures of authority in similar ways, their intentions are fundamentally different. Littlewood blames the commanding individuals and glorifies the men who were sacrificed under ridiculous orders. Heller looks beyond these small but powerful characters to a greater evil – the madness of war and the insane chaos it creates in all; Colonels, Generals, Capitalists and even ordinary soldiers. 1 The Great Loyalty Oath Crusade was created to divert attention towards Captain Black and thus gain him a promotion – the men must swear an oath of allegiance ‘to get their pay from the finance officer†¦to have their hair cut by the barbers.’ (p125)

Juvenile Incarceration Linked to More Crime

Juvenile offenders who are incarcerated for their crimes are more likely to have significantly worse outcomes in their life than youngsters who commit the same crimes, but receive some other form of punishment and are not incarcerated. A study of 35,000 Chicago juvenile offenders over a 10-year period by economists at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management found substantial differences in outcomes between kids who were incarcerated and those who were not sent to detention. Those who were incarcerated were much less likely to graduate from high school and much more likely to wind up in prison as adults. A Deterrent to Crime? One might think that it would be a logical conclusion that teens who commit crimes bad enough to be incarcerated for will naturally be more likely to drop out of school and wind up in adult prison, but the MIT study compared those juveniles with others who committed the same crimes but happened to draw a judge who was less likely to send them to detention. Approximately 130,000 juveniles are incarcerated in the United States each year with an estimated 70,000 of them in detention on any given day. The MIT researchers wanted to determine if jailing juvenile offenders actually deterred future crime or it disrupted the childs life in such a way that it increases the likelihood of future crime. In the juvenile justice system, there are judges who tend to hand out sentences that include incarceration and there are judges who tend to mete out punishment that doesnt include actual incarceration. In Chicago, juvenile cases are randomly assigned to judge with different sentencing tendencies. The researchers, using a database created by the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago looked at cases in which judges had wide latitude in determining sentencing. More Likely to End Up in Prison The system of randomly assigning cases to judges with different approaches to sentencing set up a natural experiment for the researchers. They found that juveniles who were incarcerated were less likely to return to high school and graduate. The graduation rate was 13% lower for those who were jailed than offenders who were not incarcerated. They also found that those who were incarcerated were 23% more likely to end up in prison as adults and more likely to have committed a violent crime. Teen offenders, especially those around age 16, were not only less likely to graduate from high school if they had been incarcerated, but they were also less likely to return to school at all. Less Likely to Return to School The researchers found that incarceration proved to be so disruptive in the juveniles lives, many dont return to school afterward and those who do go back to school are much more likely to be classified as having an emotional or behavior disorder, compared with those who committed the very same crimes, but werent jailed. The kids who go to juvenile detention are very unlikely to go back to school at all, said MIT economist Joseph Doyle in a news release. Getting to know other kids in trouble may create social networks that might not be desirable. There could be a stigma attached to it, maybe you think youre particularly problematic, so that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The authors want to see their research duplicated in other jurisdictions to see if the results hold up, but the conclusions of this one study seem to indicate that incarcerating juveniles does not act as a deterrent to crime, but actually has the opposite effect. Source Aizer, A, et al. Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital, and Future Crime: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges. Quarterly Journal of Economics February 2015.