A Continuation of the Week of the Classic Author

Dickens wrote one of my favorite books, Great Expectations, and this is why I read the article. It was interesting to read about his personal life, especially about how his relationships with women may have effected his writings. I agree with the author that his young female heroines seemed to be rather one dimensional, while the older women had some grit to them. I never knew that he was a philanthropist in a sense, he opened a shelter for women in need. It's funny to me that he tried to help the very thing he never understood, mostly people try to forget about what they do not understand.

The author wrote this article for anyone who is interested in Dickens beyond his writings. Anyone who does not enjoy his works probably would have skipped over this one. The author makes no outside references to anything, she solely focuses on Dickens. The author also seems to enjoy him very much, as she opened the article with “(n)o writer better mastered the novel’s delicate calculus of art and entertainment than Charles Dickens.” She constantly praises him throughout the text, even when talking about his faults, she mentions something positive about him right after them. The purpose of the article was to talk about a new book about Dickens, but the author seemed to use it more as an opportunity to talk about her love for Dickens the man.

The Article:

http://entertainment.salon.com/2011/10/30/charles_dickens_the_secret_life_of_a_literary_giant/

Outside Reading

For my Outside Reading, I shall be exploring the literary work of The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.

To Be or Not to Be...Written by Shakespeare??

Shakespeare was an amazing playwright, who wrote some of the best known and most inspiring plays that we still read and act out today. If he actually wrote them. Or at least, that's the latest conspiracy going on. There's this new movie coming out, called Anonymous, which basically tells the story about who truly wrote all the plays and poetry that William Shakespeare is accredited with. Skeptical? As am I. As is the author of this article, who got an early screening of the movie. I think that it is a silly thing to accuse Shakespeare, a long dead man, of not writing all of the literature with his name stamped on it. Don't we have better things to worry about these days, rather then try to figure out who wrote some really great literature. The point of such old classics is that they are actually here, and survived history.

Not that it isn't important who wrote it, but why go looking for trouble? Wouldn't someone of the Earl of Oxford who in the movie, writes all the plays and such but doesn't put his name on them because they were scandalous at the time, want the royalties and have said something right after his death? Someone would have known and tried to get something out of it for themselves. With a huge scandal like that, there is money to be made for someone.

The author of this movie review clearly did not enjoy the movie itself, let alone the topic. She called it hard to follow, saying that you cannot explain Elizabethan politics properly in a blockbuster movie. Other then that, the author also seemed to disagree with the movie topic, blatantly calling it a “conspiracy”. She even uses a bit of logos in it, saying that there were “50 plus” people who have been favored to write the things Shakespeare has gotten the credit for. The logic there is solid, being that if that many people have been said to have done it, how can we truly have any real idea of the history? As the author put it “The problem with history is that sometimes it just doesn’t play, and as a great man once observed, the play’s the thing.”

The article:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/26/was_shakespeare_really_shakespeare/singleton/

Occupy Hollywood!

What attracted me to this article you all ask? Oh, well, that is, uh, perhaps the large picture of Johnny Depp right under the title. I love Johnny Depp. I am a Johnny Depp junkie. Pirates? Awesome, except for the fourth one, which was indeed pushing it. What's Eating Gilbert Grape? I bet you have never heard of it, but it's something you should see. Nightmare on Elm Street? Yes, he was in that. I think he was actually Freddy's first victim. And I am anxiously awaiting my chance to go see the Rum Diary. Also, the dude was Jack Kahuna Laguna in Spongebob. I can't hate him after that one, even if he is a overpaid movie actor who is very much apart of the 1%. This article was not about Johnny Depp specifically, but rather how the movie industry also needs reform. I think that makes sense, but honestly we as citizens chose to go spend our money on those type of things. I think that's different then needing to use a bank to hold all your money in or big corporations with a huge wealth distribution problem. Johnny Depp and most Hollywood actors, and sports players are all over payed. But isn't Hollywood all about being over the top and extravagance?

The author aimed this article at everyone reading anything about the real OWS. There is some logos in there, with many statistics stating exactly how much people are over payed in Hollywood. To support this hypothetical boycott, the author implies some serious pathos by saying “If we put the price of a movie ticket toward helping someone in need? You can text REDCROSS to 90999 to donate $10, right from your phone. What if we gave that ticket price to Donors Choose, to help a school fund a dream project or get needed supplies? What if, instead of spending an hour watching “NCIS,” for which Mark Harmon will earn $13 million this year, we spent that hour working with the local outpost of Habitant for Humanity?” This makes a lot of sense to me, but will that stop me from dragging my sister along to see The Rum Diary this weekend? Sorry, but no way.

The article:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/its_time_to_occupy_hollywood/singleton/

A Smarter Car?

The electric car has always seemed to be, at least to me, the automobile of the future. With gas prices painfully high, and the whole fumes into the atmosphere issue, electric cars seem more and more appealing. This article was about a guy who made a documentary called “Who Killed the Electric Car?” in 2006, and the same man has a new documentary entitled “The Revenge of the Electric Car” which is playing in select hipster theaters right now. The article has three main players in the war to create the best electric car, Chevy's Volt, Nissan's Leaf, and the new company Tesla Motors car. I would like to ask, where is the Toyota Prius in all of this? Wasn't that the hip electric car that started it all a while back, and doesn't Toyota have around four different types of Prius' for sale these days, including one to rival a SmartCar in lack of size? I think he should have definitely mentioned those folks.

The author was mostly informative during this article. He stated a lot of facts, and gave the good and bad side to the electric car. The article is meant for a wide audience, as there is a lot of background information on the car companies and their CEO's and what direction he thinks the companies are headed in. He also companies the two documentaries made, and presents the information in an unbiased way. But he does make a sort of peculiar remark - “My 7-year-old son, who knows more about this issue than I do, forcefully disagrees with Paine on that one.” I thought was an odd thing to say. It sort of made the author sound like he didn't really know what he was talking about. It was a strange thing to put in there.

The article:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/revenge_of_the_electric_car_why_the_automakers_went_green/singleton/

Cohen, the dirty Hippie

The only reason I finished reading this article was because my Father made this silly little chuckling noise when he saw the focus of this article's name , which is Richard Cohen, at the top of the headline and mubled something about not reading anything by him. So I had to read something by this Cohen man because my Dad didn't want me to, because that's how it works. And I sort of regret it but it also made me laugh because he was so silly. Here, read one, I dare you.

The purpose of this article was to talk about Richard Cohen and a sort of realization he had about the government. The author has some clear, blatantly stated opinions on the guy, saying “Richard Cohen, the universe’s worst opinion columnist...” and also “I wouldn’t expect a man who’s had a political column at Washington primary newspaper for 35 years to actually know anything at all about what he writes about, ever.” This article was aimed at people who knew Cohen's writing and shared the same opinion about him, as proved by the snarky, sarcastic tone of much of the artivle. Clearly the author was mostly just mocking Cohen the whole time, and I found it absolutely hysterical.
The article:

http://www.www.99.salon.com/2011/10/11/richard_cohen_is_a_dirty_hippie_now/singleton/

Thinking Rationally About Religion

       Religion is a very delicate subject to talk about, and I think it takes a lot for people to openly express their opinions on it, as no matter what they believe, someone out there is going to disagree with it. So I have a plethora of respect for anyone who is going to write about it, and I applaud this author. As an atheist myself, I thought the author made a very good point about religion. Apparently the author is in some sort of written on-line magazine fight with another guy, and this article was his rebuttal to the other debtor's thoughts. The other guy, whos name is Richard Dawkins, said that all people who are religious are “non-thinkers”. Personally, I find this to be condescending, ignorant and just plain ludicrous. Sure a few have gone crazy with religious power, take Hitler for example, and yes I laugh at how silly I think people are when they talk about how they think God will see them through something- side story, my cousin said that to me the day I took my driver's license road test and I laughed in her face while receiving a nasty look from my aunt. But may people have been able to think scientifically and rationally while also remaining religious (the author mentioned Al Gore in the article to make this point).

        The author's main point in writing this was to disagree with Dawkins. His main point was that religion is not a bad thing unless it starts to hurt people. Obviously this text was written with a big biased in mind, and it could even be an attempt to convince people of his side of the argument. The audience in mind was probably anyone with any sort of opinion on religion, so that is a large portion of the population. The thesis was the very last sentence of the article, “We need to try to understand each other in respectful ways. To that end, I believe that we should make room for both spiritual atheists and thinking believers.” Respect of other's belief's seems to be the best way to handle religion these days.

The article:

http://life.salon.com/2011/10/10/atheists_believers_respect/singleton/#comments

Jones is Jonesing

This article was of particular fascination to me. The Jim Jones murders/mass suicides have always been interesting to me, as with any sort of cult like society. I find psychology extremely intriguing, and I can easily see myself becoming a psychiatrist someday. This article provided me with a lot of information I did not know about the People's Temple and their leader. For example, I thought Jones was always crazy and wanted to lead a cult, but according to this article, Jones took a drug train ride that helped him get to Crazyville. Another thing that stuck out to me- “They would become the largest number of American civilians to die in a single, non-natural disaster until 9/11, yet Jonestown is less well-known than, say, the Manson Family murders to many people born since 1980”. I agree with the latter half of that statement and the former was new, somber information to me. Why is this so little remembered in our times?

The author recognized with her statement about Jonestown being “less well-known” by presenting a background information on the People's Temple and Jim Jones himself. The author was clearly writing for a very general audience. The article was unbiased and informative (the article was actually written in relation to a book about Jonestown) until the author took a stance on the topic in her final paragraph saying “It all began back when Jim Jones told himself that for the sake of social justice, it would be OK to fake a few “miracles.” Each new act of deception or bullying simply amplified that leeway a little more, infecting the whole community. For Jones, the power to do good mutated into power for its own sake. Jonestown is the darkest reminder of how, when the ends are allowed to justify the means, the means become an end in themselves.” I think she has a very valid point there.

The article:

http://entertainment.salon.com/2011/10/10/a_thousand_lives_what_really_happened_in_jonestown/singleton/

Finishing School Journal Entry

The most useless thing I've ever learned is anything beyond the basic fundamentals of Algebra I, and bits of Algebra II. And everything I've learned in Pre-Calculus thus far has made me think many times a day "What's the point of this?" I mean, if you're planning on being a mathematician, then by all means you should definitely be learning it all. But I have no intentions whatsoever of doing anything during my life that would involve such complicated and unpleasant equations. So why, dare I ask, must I learn it? So I sit every day 6th period learning about minutes and degrees and seconds and radians and degrees and wasting my time when I could be doing something more productive. Perhaps sleeping, for I consider that a better use of my time. In Europe, the upper schools have students focus on areas that they plan on using in their careers after they graduate. I don't see why we shouldn't adopt this system as well. It would better plan people for college and help them finish it earlier. And then I wouldn't have to do math anymore. Everyone wins!

The NYPD Sponsered by JPMorgan Chase?

        The title of this article is what attracted me to it, out of fright and disgust. The fact that the police force would accept private donations from companies that are in the midst of being widely protested against is just plain scary. No, JPMorgan Chase did not give a gift made entirely of monetary currency, but they sent the NYPD expensive technology, such as patrol car laptops. As a pro-OCW lawyer being interviewed for the article put it, “(t)his gift is especially disturbing to us because it creates the appearance that there is an entrenched dynamic of the police protecting corporate interests rather than protecting the First Amendment rights of the people...” From what I gather, besides a better distribution of wealth among large companies, OWS also hopes to halt political corruption through the means of private donations by the leaders of large companies such as JPMorgan Chase. Isn't that the same thing that's happening with the donations to the NYPD? “Here's some money, now during any protests against us, act accordingly” is what that says to me. It is indeed, disturbing.

      The author of this article seemed to agree with what I was thinking. The article was written for those who have been following the movement, as the author did not really explain much about the basis of OWS.The author even furthered the conspiracy by stating “Keep in mind that’s just a single year’s worth of donations. As a private non-profit, the New York City Police Foundation does not have to release detailed donor information, so we don’t know of the the full scope of Wall Street money flowing into the NYPD.” This made the author's opinion quite clear in my mind; that stuff like this needs to end. 

Here's the article: 

http://news.salon.com/2011/10/07/the_nypd_now_sponsored_by_wall_street/singleton/

 

Procrastination

     If you say you've never procrastinated something, anyone else would call you a lair. Everybody procrastinates sometimes, the ones who make a habit of it are the ones with the real troubles. This very minute I could be called a procrastinator, with my second blog entry that's due Sunday still not done on Sunday night at about 9:00, with Spanish and a bit of Physics homework still to go. Sigh. Well, I guess there's now a Theory of Procrastination by a Professor at Stanford. It states that there's two kinds of procrastinators, effective ones and useless ones. Effective ones spend their procrastinating time doing things that also have to get done but are apparently more enjoyable. Useless ones just do things like surf the interwebs. I think that's a irrelevant Theory really, because either way you aren't getting what you should be getting done over with, which leads to stress, and stress leads to a shorter life span. Effective or not, I think procrastination is what it is, that is to say a very bad habit which seems to be unbreakable.

         The author has a good idea about who her target audience is, which is her fellow procrastinators. I think the main purpose of this article is not really to make putting stuff off okay, but to make those "effective procrastinators" feel a bit better about themselves. The author gives the man who wrote the Theory of Structured Procrastination ethos by saying "...listen to Perry, after all he won a prize. And even though he was procrastinating his hardest, he still manages to be a professor of Philosophy at Stanford."


The article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/2011/10/02/ignobel-prize-winner-the-power-of-effective-procrastination/

When Prosecution Becomes Persecution

       We've all seen it. A new episode of some version of Law and Order (my favourite being SVU), the criminal is brought into justice and has their first meeting with the prosecution. The hot shot lawyer stands up above the sitting criminal, lays down the severity of the crimes committed, and ominously describes the amount of time the wrong doer will be serving in jail for their offenses. Then the prosecutor sits down and stares the suspect in the eye and offers them the golden ticket-- a plea bargain. Say you're guilty and you'll serve a fraction of the time you normally would if you go through a trial and get a guilty sentence. Works almost every time right? Well, this isn't just another one of Hollywood's exaggerations and glorification of the life of a crime fighter. Plea bargains happen a lot, perhaps more than they should. It prevents a criminal from going through their rights as an American citizen, the right to a trail and a sentence by a jury of their peers. It can also give someone a significantly shorter  jail time than they deserve. However, it can also save money on trials and paperwork.

In the article, the author is very clear about his opinion on plea bargains, stating that Prosecutor's "...objective—which, in theory, should be justice," has changed so that their "...goal(s) (are) simply convictions, whether just or not." He thinks that the bargin is just an escape from jail time. The author then offers an example of how Prosecutors make bargains seem like a better option for criminals to get their convictions without a possibility of loosing. The case in question focused on a low level player in and organized crime case, and he opted for a traditional court trial, while his bosses went for a bargain. The man was found gulity, and the prosecutors on the case suggested an absurd amount of jail time for him, while his bosses got a fraction of that. The prosectuors clearly wanted to make an example of this man and encourage bargains, and the author agreed with this thought stating, "Let’s do the math: prosecutors were recommending a sentence for a marginal figure in the scandal of eight to ten times that given to its ringleaders. Why was he “not entitled” to a more lenient sentence? For one reason: he insisted on his right to trial by jury." After reading this I think that if Prosecutors are going to abuse the Plea Bargain, maybe they shouldn't be able to give them out without approval by some other unbiased third party. But the thing that got me was what the author stated in his final thoughts "Far more troubling are those cases where an innocent person enters into a guilty plea rather than risk a longer sentence after trial."

The article: http://harpers.org/archive/2011/09/hbc-90008255