Beatles Album Cover: Abbey Road

Writing 3















Above is the Beatles 1969 album cover to Abbey Road.





When the instructions were first given out for this assignment I knew exactly what image I wanted to analyze. Thinking about connecting concepts like symbolism and hidden meanings to images I knew a perfect candidate for my study, The Beatles! The Beatles late album cover of Abbey Road showed the 4 band members walking across a normal London street (as pictured above). This would look to most people as just a regular band shot album cover showing the band members in plain day fashion simply strutting across the street. The fact is besides indeed being one of the Beatles albums cover, this image also has its hidden meaning. If you know the controversial myth of the idea that Paul McCartney died in a car crash midway through the heart of the Beatles era, only to be replaced my a similar look-alike then this image reveals much more. Back to the image let’s examine each band member and his significance to this theory…….

- First in line John Lennon (Guitarist/Vocals) is shown wearing a polished white tuxedo outfit which is supposed to symbolize a priest or preacher taking part in Paul McCartney’s funeral.

- Next in line is Ringo Starr (Drums) is dressed in a black suit which is supposed to symbolize his role as the friend in mourning at McCartney's funeral.

- Then you have Paul McCartney (Bass/Vocals) who is dressed casually in a normal navy and white suit. The significant thing about Paul in the picture is he is the only one holding a cigarette that looks almost like a gun (symbolising that he is dead).

- Last in the picture you have George Harrison (Guitar) who is dressed in a blue jean jumpsuit which is meant to symbolize the grave digger at Paul McCartney’s funeral.

If you are familiar with the Beatles and the “Paul is Dead” myth than you can appreciate how easy this picture is to understand. The Beatles left many other "clues" through way of songs (some intentional and unintentional), pictures, and actions. Alot of these other "clues" left behind to support the popularity of the myth were much more harder to pick up on and understand. For example another clue was hearing the words "Paul is Dead" muttered on the fuzzy end of a song recorded on a scratchy record.


Back to the image, what is the most obvious detail to pick out of this image when examining Paul McCartney? Is there anything he is doing in the picture that makes him different from the others? Look at his feet and footing. He is the only member leading with his right foot. Why is this, I don't know but it does make him different from the other three. Also as if it's not obvious enough, he doesn't have any shoes on! I highly doubt this is a fashion statement even though it was the late 60's. Coincidence or is there truth behind these unusual characteristics?


I don’t ever think the world will determine this myth to be concretely fact or fiction. Personally I think its better off that way. The controversy of this myth totally help build the Beatles excitement, uniqueness, and on going popularity. But there are many different pieces of information that could leave a person to believe that this is a sham or a uncovered event in music history. I guess you can decide for yourself…..

If by chance you are interested in the Beatles and want to learn more about the "Paul Is Dead" myth, here are some links to other Beatles clues made visible on the internet.

"Paul Is Dead" The Rotten Apple 1

Is Paul McCartney Dead?

America the Beautiful, Right?

Writing 2

Its pictures like this one that show just how beautiful people around the world think America is.























"Proud to be an American" is a famous quote that most people living in the United States would probably have no problem acknowledging proudly. But there are others who half much different opinions. Alot of people don't know the outlook in which foreigners have on the great country we live in. Also many people don't know the true identity America puts out when assuming its social status as a country. This post will hopefully open a few eyes to the mighty, righteous country we all know and love.

Say the country of the United States existed as a human being. What kind of person would this person be? What characteristics would he/she have? Most people might use words like tall, strong, courageous, polished, supportive, etc. This truly is the view most Americans have on their nation as a country among other countries. The quarterback, the CEO, the sheriff these are some identity's America might take on. But what about characteristics such as power hungry, arrogant, uneducated, and snobbish. How would these ideas on Americans sit with our own people? Below is a video documentary exploring ideas on America's identity through opinions of both U.S. citizens and people from other countries. You will quickly learn that we all don't have the same positive image of the United States and it doesn't at least look like we are gaining any popularity.



I look at videos like the one above and see how common this trend of antagonizing the American citizen and his or her values is becoming. It seems the stereotype of "stupid American" is becoming more and more popular. Why is this? Are Americans really as dimwitted as they are portrayed to be? Maybe some foreign assumptions are right. I bet most American citizens could discuss their favorite reality television show well before they could name the name of the British Prime Minister. In that sense do Americans pay more attention to entertainment than they do politics and important current events happening around the world? The answer to most average blue-collar citizens is sadly yes! I feel some Americans feel no reason to stay up to date on what is happening around the world because hell, we live in America the greatest country in the world, why is that important to me? We have a sense of security as Americans that is for obvious reasons good to have, but might be affecting our ethics negatively.

Maybe the reason why some Americans are so out of touch with whats going on in the world is because we feel actions and events taking place around the world have no or minor affect on us as people. While I guess some could dignify that idea I really don't think that is correct. Millions of people from the Middle East paid huge amounts of attention to the U.S. 2008 Election because the individual who next assumes office could majorly affect their life in several different ways. The fact is, is that the role the U.S. plays in worldwide dilemmas crucially affects the outcome of the situation to many different countries. Our actions as a country most having to due with government affect different countries in different ways, to some this can be highly beneficial or highly discouraging. This role we play in this "worldwide theatre" is very important and demanding, but reviews aren't always so supportive of our cause.

After reading this post I hope I have maybe opened your eyes to the realities on the American image. I'm not saying after reading this you should have a negative outlook on your country. Just always remember that everyone has their successes and flaws.



So what is America? What do we stand for? Are we a land of sinners, or saints?
Well, who knows? Definitely not us.

Boondock Saints Movie Trailer

"Morality is a personal matter and society should not force everyone to follow one standard"

Writing 1

I'm writing this essay to analyze and try to correctly interpret the quote above. So indeed what exactly does this statement mean? Is the quote a punchline for people that might not always jump on the conformity bandwagon? Or should it be considered a universal guideline? I don't think evaluating the statement is based on agreeing or disagreeing. I believe the meaning behind text lies in how you interpret the idea as a individual.

From a personal standpoint I couldn't agree more with the statement. Society shouldn't force everyone to assume a certain moral standard. But lets all be totally honest; does society and the world we live in influence what people think to be a social standard? Of course It does. I think it always will and nothing can change this. Peoples moral standard and reasoning will always be influenced by the society they live in because it is nearly impossible to live without interacting and being apart of some human society. Simply the life we live and the things we are influenced by and grow up around will always influence our morality because it is oddly enough, all we know. To go along with that statement I don't think society is the absolute sole thing that influences us as human beings. What about what makes us, us?

I think the culture we grow up in and the environment we live in has a major impact on our personal views of morality. If this statement wasn't true than everyone everywhere would agree on just about everything. Since its obvious we don't live in a perfect world we know that's not the case. Those characteristics are what make us unique as different people. Anything from our ethnicity, religion, geographical location, government type, etc can all affect how we judge things as being moral or immoral. For instance the way most American females dress walking down a warm city street are far different from the way most middle eastern women choose to clothe themselves. In our country walking down the street in a pair of tight fitted jeans and a tank top would be regarded as being normal, while if a woman from the middle east wore the same clothes in her home country it wouldn't socially accepted the least bit. This is a simple example of how cultural complexity and differences directly shapes our social standard.

It also comes to my attention that many stereotypes are derived from peoples social differences. Take for instance the ongoing stereotype that Europeans are more sexually outgoing and comfortable. Is that a misconception or is it that sex in Europe is regarded more casually and commonly than it is other places around the world. Someone from a country where sex is kept more quiet and "in the box" would probably agree. While people that live in Europe with this point of view would simply claim this trait to being a way of life. This is one of my favorite stereotypical assumptions. How many times have you heard the claim that someone that does not like chinese food simply doesn't like it because they do not trust that they know what they are eating? Maybe they might think that they are eating dog, cat, or maybe horse. Well this stereotype is simply because it is true that in some places in China its socially accepted that some animals like dog or cat are perfectly fine to be served with fried rice and a egg roll. Obviously we have different views here in the United States while across the sea that culinary concept is a relatively normal way of life.

So after expressing my ideas the conclusion about the idea that society should not force everyone to follow one standard is, no society should not force people to follow a certain moral standard but sure enough it does. If you think about it people are basically brutally forced by the society they live in to follow a certain moral standard. Because what if people choose to object and not conform to societal standards of being normal? What kind of person are they? Are they weird, unmoral, incorrect? Or are they just following a different moral standard than everyone else?

First Day Blog

First Day Blogging