Friendswood Blog Post 4: Blame

Blog Post 4: Pgs. 167-228

 How does Hal use blame to protect Cully and himself? What is Hal trying to protect himself from?

        When Hal is notified that Cully is involved in a fight, he knows that this will most likely mean Cully will be off his high school football team. Hal knew that Cully was fully aware of what was at risk and still decided to make a poor decision. However, he does not leave Cully to be accountable for his actions, he immediately blames his inadequate church offerings, "If only he'd had more money to give as an offering to the church, if he could only show his devotion better."(228). He believes that..."he must have had a good reason.."(228). Since Hal lives through his son, he refuses to see his son for who he really is. Hal fears that his son will make all the wrong decision like he also did,; he is protecting himself from having to relive his own failures. His desperate hope in his son is a reflection of his inability to let go of his own past. He uses blame to vent the feeling of fear and blame.

                                          

Discuss Dex’s mother’ reaction to learning that perhaps Dex attended the party. Who does she
blame? What does her response reveal about her character?

        Dex's mother has complete trust in her son. Although she has no idea that Dex attended the party, she tells other parents who insist on blaming Willa for the outcome of the party that men need to take accountability for their action, even when tempted. His mom holds Dex in high esteem and uses him as an example when she says, "My Dex knows how to control himself, no matter what present he's offered"(180). She out-rightly places blame on the males involved in the rape incident; she believes "...boys need to learn that not everything comes to them--they're not entitled"(179). Dex's mom justifiable believes that everyone needs to own up to their actions, and not passively push blame on others. In this case, Dex's mom sides with Willa because she views Willa as the victim. She refuses to sit back and allow the other parents in the meeting to deface Willa's person while simultaneously allowing the perpetrator to be portrayed as innocent. This reveals that Dex's mother is impartial and honest. She is also bold and out-spoken about matters that she is passionate about. This portion of the novel allows readers to assess the character of Dex's mother. Readers are able to conclude that she may support her sons decision to befriend Willa.


Dex begins to befriend Willa. Is his friendship genuine? Why does he befriend Willa? Does he
blame himself for what happens to her?

         Dex chooses to befriend Willa as he learns the details of what occurred at the party. After his friend, Weeks, tells him that Willa was drugged by Bishop, "Dex didn't want to be part of lying about Willa. He knew they'd tricked her somehow..."(176).  Dex wants to know the truth and decides to distance himself from the lies. He knew the rumors that were spreading throughout the school did not accurately depict what had actually occurred that day, "He started to put pieces together, things he'd overheard in the locker room , and his defense of Willa felt  even more crucial--as if it would prove something to himself."(210); Dex is not genuine in befriending Willa because he does it to make up for not being aware of her victimization at the party. Dex knows that befriending Willa will assist in uncovering the truth from the day of the party. He feels guilty by association and does blame himself for not doing more. He needs to prove to himself that he is better than the guys that drugged and raped Willa; He wants to shift the blame he feels.

Works Cited

Steinke, Rene. Friendswood. Riverhead Books.

Friendswood Blog Post 3: City Hall and EPA

Friendswood Blog Post 3: pgs. 63-94

1. Discuss the perception of City Hall officials to Lee.  How do they treat her?  What quotes support this?  Are they fulfilling their responsibility to protect?  

2. Discuss the response of the EPA to Lee.  What is their response to her?  What quotes support this?  Are they fulfilling their responsibility to protect?


City Hall

            Lee portrays the councilmen as the typical public official who puts up the facade of  having  compassion for and interest in civilians, when really they are just engulfed in their own agendas and self interest. Lee sees through the pretense of the councilmen. At the beginning of the city hall meeting, the lead councilmen is said to be  "surveying them all from above with that thin smile"(87). Lee is constantly dismissed by the mayor and council--"It was rare that she managed to get her concerns on the agenda anymore, but during the time set aside for other business at the end, she could usually say a few things about her research before adjournment, and maybe two or three out of thirty people would listen"(87). Lee is not granted ample time to be heard by those who are in position to serve others. The mayor expresses his frustration with Lee because she is the only one that actually wants him to show accountability for the state of Rosemont--" We're very familiar with your work...And we've established that there was no container on the site the day after you supposedly took those photographs"(90). The council out-rightly discredit Lee's evidence and ignore their duties as leaders of the town--it is easier and convenient to build on a lie rather then dig up the truth.

EPA
            One would think that the EPA--an institution with one of their primary goals being to 'protect human health and the environment' would go to any length to assure the lives of  the citizens in Friendswood are secure; even if that meant obtaining outside evidence, administering extensive test, or admitting to an error. Innocent lives should be considered undeniably more pressing than the value of a property. The representative of the EPA at the City Hall meeting in Friendswood, Ms. Dawson, was shocked that anyone would dare attempt to combat her decree of safety in Rosemont. As Lee began to present her compiled evidence, she was met with disapproval from Dawson-- "The women held up her hands to stop her, 'Excuse me?'"(89). Dawson responded as if challenging authority was treason. As if  someone simply stating that the Rosemont site was not a threat to human life is supposed to hypnotize Lee like it did the rest of the councilmen. When asked to provide an address other than that of the general EPA, Ms. Dawson was reluctant in her demeanor.  She "held her face very still, then calmly blinked her eyes. 'I will do that'"(90). Dawson grudgingly agrees to examine the evidence Lee presents. Although Lee is passionately attempting to save the lives in her community, her efforts are viewed as a burden to the lackadaisical individuals who should be concerned, as it is the main goal of what is supposed to be their livelihoods.



The following video is an interview with a former employee and whistle blower of the EPA. The interviewee tells of the unethical practices of the EPA.

Works Cited:

Steinke, Rene. Friendswood. Riverhead Books.

“US Environmental Protection Agency.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/.

Friendswood Blog Post 2

Who should speak? The citizens of Friendswood? An esteemed Institution? Why?

When is it permissible to dissent?

Often times people are paralyzed by fear to think or act differently from the majority. It takes courage to speak out about the matters one believes in or the people one cares about when no one agrees with them.  However, being vocal about cases of poison in a community, rape, or any other serious matter is essential and need to be brought to light by those willing to be the voice of reason and truth.

 In the case of Friendswood, it is the job of those who know the truth to speak out. It is out rightly the responsibility of the EPA to speak out on the toxins that have infiltrated into the community. But who will speak out when those in power do not protect the powerless? It then becomes the job of the victim to assure that they are heard. In the small town of Friendswood, the knowledge of birth defects and chance of contamination is known by members of the community, but most choose not to speak out. Lee is the dissenting voice who is willing to sacrifice herself for the truth.  Lee has no support and is the only one in town who refuses to believe the EPA’s reports and also act on her beliefs-- she is attempting to tell her truth.

In comparison, East Chicago residents have a similar plight, as their soil has been infected with lead. According to The New York Times article by Abby Goodnough, “the homes in this area are north of a huge former U.S.S Lead smelting plant”, however the residents were not notified of the severity of the contaminated soil until this July. Although the EPA took measures to test and remove soil from the nearby plant and neighborhood and did find “hot spots”, it took them several years to actually begin to take action, all while residents were left blind. The mayor ultimately decided to dismantle the complex and move residents out.  In this situation the EPA failed the people of this community. The mayor, however, presented with the facts, made the decision based on his belief of the truth. It is up to everyone to live by their truth regardless of what the majority or those superior to you have to say.

In the same fashion, the Stanford rape victim told her truth regarding her attacker. When she woke in a hospital bed to bruises and doctors, she had limited facts and knowledge of what happened to her the night before, as she was intoxicated. According to the BuzzFeed article by Katie J.M. Baker, the victim was rescued by two graduate students. Those two students had an obligation to themselves to save the victim and chase down the attacker. They had an obligation to tell the truth. Identically, the victim also had to fight years to even prove her assault to be valid. Even when the institution did not speak out in support of the case and the defendant attempted to invalidate her claims because she was intoxicated, she insisted on keeping her case alive. The victim had to be persistent in order to be heard.

Ultimately, everyone has the duty to not shy away from what they believe is the truth. Even when not many people agree, it takes a dissenting voice to create change.  In all three of these cases, speaking out against the majority was necessary for smaller voices to be heard and uncovering the truth.