Yeah But It's Still ARMED ROBBERY

Quite frankly, I am rather disturbed by the mental state and perspectives of our class. While I have always expected to find the deranged and unstable in AP English, because it becomes clearer everyday that one must possess certain delusions about their own intelligence in order to believe they can conquer Ms. Serensky and AP English, I have never questioned their priorities and values until now. Well, they always say with great brilliance comes great insanity, or do they? Perhaps I fashioned that quote from nothing with the sole purpose being to further my point; but then again would not such an imagination foster your belief that I am mad? Yet I am rambling and off topic, now to return to my original point... Oh yes, I need not look past the first of the short fictional stories to base my argument, for my belief manifested during our discussion of "The Second Bakery Attack" by Haruki Murakami. Ms. Serensky posed the question "was it wrong for them to attack the bakery?" And at first I thought to myself, does this matter truly necessitate discussion!?! Although, as I tuned in to my peer's responses, I sat back flabbergasted. The question I deemed unworthy of debate actually sparked a raging one amongst my classmates. I could not believe it, especially when I heard the overwhelming majority arguing that if the attack eased the couple's minds, then they had no problem with the act! WHAT!? If not for common courtesy and a simple lack of desire to argue on that certain day, I would have derailed my peers! As I listened to them use quotes such as "our hunger... vanished" to support how much the deed benefitted the man and his notoriously criminal wife, I wanted to scream - "DO YOU ALL NOT REMEMBER THAT THEY COMMITTED ARMED ROBBERY?" (9). Being the advocate of self-sufficiency and capitalism that I am, you may seem appalled that I am thinking about the handful of McDonald's employees whom the couple forever traumatized. "Ah, they took action and simply sought to improve their lives." Yes, however they did it at the expense of the well-being and mental state of others! Furthermore, I am taken aback by the author's refusal to condemn these people one of which has clearly practiced the act before. Murakami seemingly justifies it with his description of their contentment: "drifted back to where I belong" (9)! Yes I can somewhat understand they "needed" to do the crime to mask underlying marital issues, however I cannot excuse the illegality behind it. They deserve a prison sentence and should have a "gun wobble" in their direction to feel the terror they selfishly imposed upon innocent individuals (7). I apologize to those I have contested, but I fundamentally oppose supporting or rationalizing their horrendous act of "redemption." I would have preferred to orate this in class, however I do not believe time nor Ms. Serensky would have condoned such a rant.