Times sure have changed. The dedication of young protestors has dropped dramatically. It's almost sad seeing a bunch of youthful minds actually think it's appropriate to delay what they "think" and "say" is important with other things.
When you're dedicated to something you think is a number one priority, you don't schedule it on your chore list. That purpose becomes you chore list. When something is extremely important to you, you're not afraid to drop everything else and stand up for what you believe in.
I know the article was focusing on strikes against war, however I looked at this piece as something that can be viewed in a wider expansion. When we find something that we have a strong opinon on, we produce true loyalty. We know nothing will stand in our way of doing what we think is right.
Not to boast, but I know I'm without a doubt one of these people. Unfortunately, I don't see that many other people like this. Susan Lampert Smith is right, the youth today is too distracted by their iPods, Xboxes, Facebook, cell phones, etc. They think whatever makes their day easy and fun is the best way to go. But who here reading this can say they're not afraid to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty?
If you have something you know you think is important, don't be afraid to stand strong. Fight for whatever it is you believe in and you think is right. That is what the men and women of America have been doing for us all these years. And I for one am most grateful.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
From War Books to Reality.
The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien is an unbelievably written novel. I say this even though I am not a fan of war books. Evidently, The Things They Carried is a war book. So if even I, a person who does not read war books, actually likes this novel, it must be an interesting piece of work. The best reason I like this story is because it's real. It is written by someone who actually played a part in the story. Most war books I've heard of are usually just stories that only relate to war. But I've never come across one that actually tells the lives of real people, real fallen soldiers, real battles. That is why this book makes me worry about the real world, today.
War has been around for God knows how long. War is vicious, war is inhumane, war is merely a battle that no one can win. War usually starts between different groups of people. But then, without hesitation, those groups get larger, and larger, and larger until almost everyone is involved. It's almost like a game of chess: certain pieces are moved for certain strategies. But no matter what, the pawns always go first. Usually the pawns are looked at as less important pieces. This is because pawns can't do that much in comparison to the other pieces like the knights, the bishops, the king and the queen. But what if those pawns had lives? What if they had families? Are they more important now? Or are they still just pieces we as the players use as sacrifices for a better strategies?
Why am I comparing chess to war? Simple, because in my opinion, ever soldier out on the field in war is just a pawn that is being used so the king stays safe. I find it funny how the ones who start the war are usually observing in the back and waiting until the battle of the day is over. Oh sure, some of the pawns may not come back, but that's okay as long as they took out some of the other player's pawns. Another reason I'm comparing chess to war is how the pieces/soldiers have no say in where they go. Being drafted is just like being the pawn in the game of chess. Think about it, you're in the front line of the battle, you are most likely going to get killed/taken off the board by another piece, you have no control of where you are going because someone else is guiding you, and you have no choice but to move because you are in the front line of duty. This is just like when soldiers get drafted into war. The only difference between soldiers and chess pieces are that the chess pieces aren't alive and when the game is over they are capable of getting right back on the board. When soldiers get knocked out of the game, they stay out, and they can never come back.
Chess may be a game of fun and intellect, but war is only violent and nearsighted. When a player wins a game of chess, all the opposing side has to do is put their pieces back on the board. But in war, no matter if you win or lose, the pieces you lost can never come back. So please, don't make our men become our pawns. Because they will always get killed off first.
War has been around for God knows how long. War is vicious, war is inhumane, war is merely a battle that no one can win. War usually starts between different groups of people. But then, without hesitation, those groups get larger, and larger, and larger until almost everyone is involved. It's almost like a game of chess: certain pieces are moved for certain strategies. But no matter what, the pawns always go first. Usually the pawns are looked at as less important pieces. This is because pawns can't do that much in comparison to the other pieces like the knights, the bishops, the king and the queen. But what if those pawns had lives? What if they had families? Are they more important now? Or are they still just pieces we as the players use as sacrifices for a better strategies?
Why am I comparing chess to war? Simple, because in my opinion, ever soldier out on the field in war is just a pawn that is being used so the king stays safe. I find it funny how the ones who start the war are usually observing in the back and waiting until the battle of the day is over. Oh sure, some of the pawns may not come back, but that's okay as long as they took out some of the other player's pawns. Another reason I'm comparing chess to war is how the pieces/soldiers have no say in where they go. Being drafted is just like being the pawn in the game of chess. Think about it, you're in the front line of the battle, you are most likely going to get killed/taken off the board by another piece, you have no control of where you are going because someone else is guiding you, and you have no choice but to move because you are in the front line of duty. This is just like when soldiers get drafted into war. The only difference between soldiers and chess pieces are that the chess pieces aren't alive and when the game is over they are capable of getting right back on the board. When soldiers get knocked out of the game, they stay out, and they can never come back.
Chess may be a game of fun and intellect, but war is only violent and nearsighted. When a player wins a game of chess, all the opposing side has to do is put their pieces back on the board. But in war, no matter if you win or lose, the pieces you lost can never come back. So please, don't make our men become our pawns. Because they will always get killed off first.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Legalizing Marijuana
It took me a while, but I finally gathered enough energy to blog about my choice essay.
I know the essay wasn't written by the Grammar King, but I still found it to be quite interesting. True, not only did he lack proper sentence structure, but he also failed to cite his sources. It wouldn't surprise me if the young man was actually on marijuana when he wrote that essay. Still, the essay was informative and interesting nonetheless.
Personally, I think marijuana should be legalized. But don't think I'm a pot head just because I think that. A question I wasn't able to ask because we ran out of time was would only people who actually smoke marijuana want it legalized? I say no, because there are people in this country who actually think people have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies. They may think whatever it is the people are doing may be wrong, but they still have the right to commit the act.
When we go into all the facts and statistics about marijuana, they really aren't as bad as other stuff like cigarettes and alcohol. The difference between cigarettes and marijuana is marijuana messes with your brain cells and make you all loopy. Cigarettes do nothing but harm you. At least they people who are high actually feel good. That may not be the greatest defense, but it is the most simple one.
Alcohol is, in my opinion, the most dangerous of the three. Alcohol messes with you mind, your body, and your emotions. Alcohol can cause a person to lose total control of their surroundings. At least a person on marijuana is aware of what they are doing. True, their judgment may not be the greatest, but at least they don't lose total control. The side effects of both marijuana and alcohol are very different. Marijuana makes you tired and lazy. It only screws up your memory when you are under the influence of the drug. So people who say marijuana makes you stupid, they are only right when people abuse the drug. Of course, alcohol is just the same. When you become an alcoholic, you are putting yourself in way more danger than just becoming lazy and slow. When a person drinks too much, they typically experience a hangover. They puke, they have the headache from hell, and their body basically goes to crap. Once again, after marijuana wears off, the worst is they are extremely tired.
I could go on with more information about why marijuana should be legalized, however I only wanted to explain my basic ideas. Why should it be illegal when there are some things out in the world that are considered much worse? So tell me, would you want cigarettes illegal? How about alcohol? Or do you think they should all be legal? Personally I think they should all be legal because people have the right to screw up their own bodies and lives. However, if they abuse the stuff then I have a problem because they could potentially be putting others in danger. So please, if you drink or smoke, be safe and try to use your best judgment. Because there is such a thing as having enough.
I know the essay wasn't written by the Grammar King, but I still found it to be quite interesting. True, not only did he lack proper sentence structure, but he also failed to cite his sources. It wouldn't surprise me if the young man was actually on marijuana when he wrote that essay. Still, the essay was informative and interesting nonetheless.
Personally, I think marijuana should be legalized. But don't think I'm a pot head just because I think that. A question I wasn't able to ask because we ran out of time was would only people who actually smoke marijuana want it legalized? I say no, because there are people in this country who actually think people have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies. They may think whatever it is the people are doing may be wrong, but they still have the right to commit the act.
When we go into all the facts and statistics about marijuana, they really aren't as bad as other stuff like cigarettes and alcohol. The difference between cigarettes and marijuana is marijuana messes with your brain cells and make you all loopy. Cigarettes do nothing but harm you. At least they people who are high actually feel good. That may not be the greatest defense, but it is the most simple one.
Alcohol is, in my opinion, the most dangerous of the three. Alcohol messes with you mind, your body, and your emotions. Alcohol can cause a person to lose total control of their surroundings. At least a person on marijuana is aware of what they are doing. True, their judgment may not be the greatest, but at least they don't lose total control. The side effects of both marijuana and alcohol are very different. Marijuana makes you tired and lazy. It only screws up your memory when you are under the influence of the drug. So people who say marijuana makes you stupid, they are only right when people abuse the drug. Of course, alcohol is just the same. When you become an alcoholic, you are putting yourself in way more danger than just becoming lazy and slow. When a person drinks too much, they typically experience a hangover. They puke, they have the headache from hell, and their body basically goes to crap. Once again, after marijuana wears off, the worst is they are extremely tired.
I could go on with more information about why marijuana should be legalized, however I only wanted to explain my basic ideas. Why should it be illegal when there are some things out in the world that are considered much worse? So tell me, would you want cigarettes illegal? How about alcohol? Or do you think they should all be legal? Personally I think they should all be legal because people have the right to screw up their own bodies and lives. However, if they abuse the stuff then I have a problem because they could potentially be putting others in danger. So please, if you drink or smoke, be safe and try to use your best judgment. Because there is such a thing as having enough.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Bad to the Bone!
Ah bullies, whenever I think of the cliched image of bullies I think of the big thugs with the leather jackets, torn jeans, red bandanas, stupid facial expressions, and the ever-so-popular quote "Gimme your lunch money, nerd!"
Was that a bit over the top? Well, that paper sure was. I understand where the writer was coming from. However, I found it to be a bit biased. I kept getting the vibe that this person was/is a constant target of bullies back in middle school or high school.
The paper would have been more effective if they spent more time talking about something other then WHY bullies are bullies. Because even the statements they were making weren't that great. They made it sound like all bullies face the same problems: they get bad grades, they have bad families, yah-de-yah-de-yah-da.
The paper was weak and a bit pointless, but it was interesting in its own way. It made me reminisce about middle school. Yah know, when everyone was dramatic? God, you couldn't pay me to go back to those days...
Was that a bit over the top? Well, that paper sure was. I understand where the writer was coming from. However, I found it to be a bit biased. I kept getting the vibe that this person was/is a constant target of bullies back in middle school or high school.
The paper would have been more effective if they spent more time talking about something other then WHY bullies are bullies. Because even the statements they were making weren't that great. They made it sound like all bullies face the same problems: they get bad grades, they have bad families, yah-de-yah-de-yah-da.
The paper was weak and a bit pointless, but it was interesting in its own way. It made me reminisce about middle school. Yah know, when everyone was dramatic? God, you couldn't pay me to go back to those days...
Do I Need A Halo or Horns For Saying This?
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi.
I am 100% with Gandhi on that quote.
It took me a while, but I finally have time to talk about the religious discussion we had. However, I'm going to be talking about my own personal beliefs. So if you don't want to read the thoughts of an inquisitive teenager, then by all means fly...fly far away from here.
Both my parents were raised Catholic. They were born in the 50's (don't let them know I told you) which some of us know was a time where going to church was just an ordinary thing. Both my parents say they are still Catholics/Christians. They believe in God, Jesus, Heaven, etc. However, I have never seen them go to church. Which tells you that I have never gone to church. We don't mainly because of schedules and other reasons.
I was the only one in my family who was not baptized (my brother had a joke saying that's why I'm so evil). I believe in God, I believe in Jesus Christ, I even believe there is something beyond this life that awaits all of us. However, I do not believe in a lot of things the church, Christians, catholics, and even the bible preaches.
The bible was made by men. So many men wrote in that book it's ridiculous. But did anyone ever think about what kind of men wrote that book. They all say they wrote through the voice of God. But anyone can say that. Is it possible some writers of the bible used their power to write corrupted stories just to secretly spread their prejudice/discriminatory beliefs?
When it comes to mentioning hell (which neither I or my parents believe in) I stay very true to my beliefs. I would like to say that I think hell and the devil were only written about to scare people. Back then, the world was a very destructive place. So people wrote about a very dark and painful world that awaits anyone who sins against God. This was just a tactic for people to start being more humane. Unfortunately, that plan backfired because nowadays people are accusing others of being evil and devil-worshippers. Anyone remember witch trials?
I'm not going to get too into this topic, because I could go on forever. All I'm saying is, I believe we (some, not all) want to believe in a heavenly being that is watching over us because we are always seeking for comfort. For me, believing in God and Jesus Christ is something I do to feel safe and hope that the world will someday become a better place. I believe in the God that is all loving and forgiving, not the God that spends his entire time destroying people. I mean, lets be honest, who wants to believe in an angry God? (Rhetorical question)
I am 100% with Gandhi on that quote.
It took me a while, but I finally have time to talk about the religious discussion we had. However, I'm going to be talking about my own personal beliefs. So if you don't want to read the thoughts of an inquisitive teenager, then by all means fly...fly far away from here.
Both my parents were raised Catholic. They were born in the 50's (don't let them know I told you) which some of us know was a time where going to church was just an ordinary thing. Both my parents say they are still Catholics/Christians. They believe in God, Jesus, Heaven, etc. However, I have never seen them go to church. Which tells you that I have never gone to church. We don't mainly because of schedules and other reasons.
I was the only one in my family who was not baptized (my brother had a joke saying that's why I'm so evil). I believe in God, I believe in Jesus Christ, I even believe there is something beyond this life that awaits all of us. However, I do not believe in a lot of things the church, Christians, catholics, and even the bible preaches.
The bible was made by men. So many men wrote in that book it's ridiculous. But did anyone ever think about what kind of men wrote that book. They all say they wrote through the voice of God. But anyone can say that. Is it possible some writers of the bible used their power to write corrupted stories just to secretly spread their prejudice/discriminatory beliefs?
When it comes to mentioning hell (which neither I or my parents believe in) I stay very true to my beliefs. I would like to say that I think hell and the devil were only written about to scare people. Back then, the world was a very destructive place. So people wrote about a very dark and painful world that awaits anyone who sins against God. This was just a tactic for people to start being more humane. Unfortunately, that plan backfired because nowadays people are accusing others of being evil and devil-worshippers. Anyone remember witch trials?
I'm not going to get too into this topic, because I could go on forever. All I'm saying is, I believe we (some, not all) want to believe in a heavenly being that is watching over us because we are always seeking for comfort. For me, believing in God and Jesus Christ is something I do to feel safe and hope that the world will someday become a better place. I believe in the God that is all loving and forgiving, not the God that spends his entire time destroying people. I mean, lets be honest, who wants to believe in an angry God? (Rhetorical question)
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The N Word
Like the word, the discussion in class today was pretty ugly. It seemed almost everyone had a strong, adamant opinion on the subject. In this blog, I will not be talking about who I agree with, or who I disagree with. All I'm going to say is what I think. So if you'll just sit back and listen, I'd appreciate it.
The word nigger is an insulting word. But it is not just insulting to blacks, it can also be insulting to anyone else who hears the word itself. The truth of the matter is, using a word like nigger is just a way of showing people that you lack and sense of decency or respect for others. Oh, and by the way, that statement works for ALL slurs. Whether the word is racial, sexual, or just down right crude, it is still an ugly word nonetheless.
Even though I'm not going to get much into what everyone was saying in class today, I will mention a memorable quote of Cody's: "The word has so much mud on it". By this, I believe Cody was getting at "nigger's" dark past. The word back then, and even today, is used in such a negative way. The word is just vile and lacks so much class I personally think only the lowest, most insensitive, disrespectful, cretin would find it as a useful word in their vocabulary.
Some people will find this cheesy because we are all aware of what the world is like, but why can't we all just get along? I know, a little too "Make love, not war!" for my taste, but so what? It may not be considered human nature, but I think it would be best if we tried to be accepting of everyone. Whether they are black, white, Asian, Mexican, gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, democrat, republican, moderate, Christian, Buddhist, atheist, lover, fighter, left handed, right handed, etc. Honestly, there is no point in hating and judgin a person just because they're different.
The word nigger is an insulting word. But it is not just insulting to blacks, it can also be insulting to anyone else who hears the word itself. The truth of the matter is, using a word like nigger is just a way of showing people that you lack and sense of decency or respect for others. Oh, and by the way, that statement works for ALL slurs. Whether the word is racial, sexual, or just down right crude, it is still an ugly word nonetheless.
Even though I'm not going to get much into what everyone was saying in class today, I will mention a memorable quote of Cody's: "The word has so much mud on it". By this, I believe Cody was getting at "nigger's" dark past. The word back then, and even today, is used in such a negative way. The word is just vile and lacks so much class I personally think only the lowest, most insensitive, disrespectful, cretin would find it as a useful word in their vocabulary.
Some people will find this cheesy because we are all aware of what the world is like, but why can't we all just get along? I know, a little too "Make love, not war!" for my taste, but so what? It may not be considered human nature, but I think it would be best if we tried to be accepting of everyone. Whether they are black, white, Asian, Mexican, gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, democrat, republican, moderate, Christian, Buddhist, atheist, lover, fighter, left handed, right handed, etc. Honestly, there is no point in hating and judgin a person just because they're different.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
I Want to Be My Best
It doesn't take much to know that I want to become an excellent writer. I want to find my circle and become the best I can be. I know it'll take a lot of time an effort, but I'm willing to work at it. All I have to do is stay determined and focused on my goals.
At the end of Junior year, we had to start signing up for the classes we wanted to take in 12th grade. Being someone who loves to take English courses, I signed up for almost everything I could. Most of my school schedule for this year is filled with English classes. I'll pretty much be living on the second floor of the school. The reason why I want to take all the classes is because I want to see which ones I perform best in.
Writing has been a passion of mine since 6th grade. I started off with poems. I found them to be easy, yet expressive. If I were to look at the poems I wrote over six years ago, I probably would have cringed. Overtime, I started working on short stories. I found them to be both more entertaining and challenging than my poems. Still, if I were to look at my oldest work, I would be even more horrified.
Nowadays, I try to take classes like AP Comp. to become the best I can be. My goal is never to be the best in the class, mainly because some of the students in this class are so talented I become insecure. But don't worry, I'm not looking for pity or support.
One thing I'm confident in saying is that I am getting better: both as a writer and a learner. Don't get me wrong, though, I still have a ways to go.
At the end of Junior year, we had to start signing up for the classes we wanted to take in 12th grade. Being someone who loves to take English courses, I signed up for almost everything I could. Most of my school schedule for this year is filled with English classes. I'll pretty much be living on the second floor of the school. The reason why I want to take all the classes is because I want to see which ones I perform best in.
Writing has been a passion of mine since 6th grade. I started off with poems. I found them to be easy, yet expressive. If I were to look at the poems I wrote over six years ago, I probably would have cringed. Overtime, I started working on short stories. I found them to be both more entertaining and challenging than my poems. Still, if I were to look at my oldest work, I would be even more horrified.
Nowadays, I try to take classes like AP Comp. to become the best I can be. My goal is never to be the best in the class, mainly because some of the students in this class are so talented I become insecure. But don't worry, I'm not looking for pity or support.
One thing I'm confident in saying is that I am getting better: both as a writer and a learner. Don't get me wrong, though, I still have a ways to go.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
My Fear of Going Against My Standards
Ever since I was little, I never had a problem with voicing my opinion. If you ask me about the kinds of things I believe in, I'll proudly respond. I've never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in. However, I always worry about the possibility that I might have to go against my beliefs in order to get what I want. Confusing?
Okay, I basically don't want to be one of those people who has to shut up and stay silent about the issues they believe in. There are all kinds of different ways a person can be forced to keep their opinions to themselves. Some people are threatened, others are bribed, and some are even converted to the other group's opinion.
Personally, I have never been threatened, bribed, or converted by someone else. I have never faced a situation where I felt like I should keep my opinion to myself. Even though some people have tried to argue with what I believe, I have never faltered or given into them. Is this stubborn? I don't think so. I find me holding my beliefs and my standards to be brave.
Nowadays, there are certain opinions I make where I actually have to fight for my rights. I don't think anyone should be told what they believe in is wrong, unless what they believe in is corrupted and harmful to others. I don't think it is right for someone to call someone else "stupid" or "nearsighted" just because they don't agree with you. I think it's better for you to state your beliefs and standards despite what anyone else thinks. I just hope no one ever tries to get in my way.
Okay, I basically don't want to be one of those people who has to shut up and stay silent about the issues they believe in. There are all kinds of different ways a person can be forced to keep their opinions to themselves. Some people are threatened, others are bribed, and some are even converted to the other group's opinion.
Personally, I have never been threatened, bribed, or converted by someone else. I have never faced a situation where I felt like I should keep my opinion to myself. Even though some people have tried to argue with what I believe, I have never faltered or given into them. Is this stubborn? I don't think so. I find me holding my beliefs and my standards to be brave.
Nowadays, there are certain opinions I make where I actually have to fight for my rights. I don't think anyone should be told what they believe in is wrong, unless what they believe in is corrupted and harmful to others. I don't think it is right for someone to call someone else "stupid" or "nearsighted" just because they don't agree with you. I think it's better for you to state your beliefs and standards despite what anyone else thinks. I just hope no one ever tries to get in my way.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
How I Write
Let me start off by saying that even though I write for pleasure, I'm still a total amateur. Despite the fact that I write almost all the time, whether it be short stories, poems, etc., I still make plenty of mistakes. In a way, I find making mistakes to be a good thing. I could never learn how to improve my writing skills if I don't have someone looking over my shoulder and making comments.
I'm not sure which kind of writing style works best for me. By that I mean I'm not sure if I make less mistakes when writing stories with dialogue compared to essays and other writing projects that need to follow certain rules. But I definitely know which one I prefer. Writing on my own time is much easier/enjoyable for me because I'm allowed to express my thoughts and creativity. Even though I can express an opinion in an essay, I'll never be able to say I have the same amount of time to think over what I just wrote. When writing something freely, I can always go back and review it. Homework assignments are a different story because there are due dates and required techniques involved.
Anyone who knows me well enough will easily agree with me when I say I try to press as much grammar into my speech as possible. I do this because I try to sound as educated as I can. I don't like using much slang in my speech because I feel like I'm dumbing myself down. However, I'm not sure how well I apply my grammar skills in my writing. Yes, no doubt I try to be as grammatically correct as possible; but I do slip up sometimes. Hey, I'm human.
So as a writer, I am always aiming for improvement. It takes me multiple trys to get certain things right. But like I said, I'm proud that I'm not perfect. I find joy in discovering new techniques in order to write better. I'm not ashamed to be an amateur writer, but I still wan't to someday become a great one.
I'm not sure which kind of writing style works best for me. By that I mean I'm not sure if I make less mistakes when writing stories with dialogue compared to essays and other writing projects that need to follow certain rules. But I definitely know which one I prefer. Writing on my own time is much easier/enjoyable for me because I'm allowed to express my thoughts and creativity. Even though I can express an opinion in an essay, I'll never be able to say I have the same amount of time to think over what I just wrote. When writing something freely, I can always go back and review it. Homework assignments are a different story because there are due dates and required techniques involved.
Anyone who knows me well enough will easily agree with me when I say I try to press as much grammar into my speech as possible. I do this because I try to sound as educated as I can. I don't like using much slang in my speech because I feel like I'm dumbing myself down. However, I'm not sure how well I apply my grammar skills in my writing. Yes, no doubt I try to be as grammatically correct as possible; but I do slip up sometimes. Hey, I'm human.
So as a writer, I am always aiming for improvement. It takes me multiple trys to get certain things right. But like I said, I'm proud that I'm not perfect. I find joy in discovering new techniques in order to write better. I'm not ashamed to be an amateur writer, but I still wan't to someday become a great one.
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Liars' Club
For my non-fiction book I read Mary Karr's "The Liars' Club". Let me just say, before I start talking about the actual book, that I have the highest respects for Miss Karr. This book is a powerfully written memoir based off her own childhood. At first, I assumed it was going to be a typical book about a little girl who might learn a life lesson by the time I turned the final page. Surprisingly, she learned/experienced more things than I personally think a seven-year-old girl should have to.
Throughout a good duration of the book, Mary Karr spends her time in Groves, (she calls it Leechfield) Texas in 1961. She lives with her two years elder sister, Lecia, (pronounced: Lisa) her father, an oil refinery worker, and her mother, an amateur artist/drunk.
In the beginning, I was afraid I was never going to get through the book because it didn't exactly leap off the page. Like most books, it introduced all its main characters and explained their backgrounds. To be honest, I don't think I got into the book until chapter two or three, where she, her sister, and her mother are trapped in a car that is ambushed by thousands of locusts.
But later on, the book started to turn grim. Mary Karr spends a lot of her time talking about the process her grandma was going through while experiencing cancer. I knew I was in for details when she described the odors of mustard gas, and the sight of her grandmother's blackened stump that used to have a leg where the cancer lived. By chapter four, I think, her grandmother had died. Mary herself was the first to find her grandma dead in the bed. She didn't say anything; she only waited for her mom to walk in the grandmother's bedroom to find her lifeless body sprawled out along the bed sheets.
Speaking of Mary's mother, she was quite a tormented character herself. Of course, she only claimed to be tormented by life because she always blamed her husband, Mary and Lecia's father. In the beginning of the book, we learn that Mary's mother has never really been satisfied with the man she's been with. She would sleep around with a guy, say she loved him, got wasted like no other, blamed the man, and then bailed. Mary Karr never let go of the subject that her mother and father were always fighting. The mom would get drunk, blame everything on the dad, go berserk, then they would just shut up until the next chapter. Mary Karr always mentioned how her mother threatened to leave her husband, but never committed.
It wasn't until about chapter ten I want to say, where the family took a trip to Colorado. By the end of the trip, her mother said she wasn't going to leave. Mary's father said he had to go back to Texas, so that was the end of their marriage. The girls decided to stay with their mother, mainly because they knew she would never be able to survive without someone watching over her.
Personally, I found that to be an unfortunate responsibility for two little girls. Then again, I figured it would be best the parents split up because before the family went to Colorado, they spent Mary's birthday fighting. The fight was so extreme, Mary's mother tried to kill the family by almost driving the car over a bridge, in spite of hating her husband.
After the parent's split up, the chapter wasn't even finished. Mary still had to mention that her mother had found some hard-drinking bum named Hector. I remember the end of that chapter very well. Mary's mother saying all sunny, "Say hello to your new daddy!" and the girls response, literally, "Oh, sh%$!"
I'm not going to get too detailed with the section of the book where the girls spent their time in Colorado with their drunken mom and their low-life "step-father". All I'm going to say is the girls decided to leave their mom and go back to their dad after she pulled a gun on Hector and threatened to kill him for being such a "useless sonofabitch". (this is literally how the book spelt out son-of-a-bitch).
Mary Karr's father was definitely my more favored parent in the book. He always called Mary "Pokey" as a nickname. Even Mary and Lecia favored their father more, I believe. I felt bad for the dad because I kept getting the vibe that he wished his daughters never had to see and experience the things they did during their parents' fights.
In case you thought this book couldn't get anymore uncomfortable, you're dead wrong. The whole children witnessing one-too-many fights was just the tip of the iceberg as I read this novel. Okay, most of you might agree with me that a lot of kids these days lose their virginity at some point in their teens. But how would you react if I told you Miss. Karr lost her virginity to a teenage boy, on some cushioned ground in a garage, at the age of seven? Well it's true; Mary Karr was taken advantage of by a thirteen year old boy. She definitely didn't shy away from description during the experience, either.
If that wasn't bad enough, the sexual activity didn't stop for her at such a young age. During her time in Colorado, she was taken advantage of by a much older man. But they didn't engage in intercourse, no, more like oral sex. I can remember cringing while reading this part of the book; mainly because Miss. Karr once again didn't shy away from description. I swear, I felt like I was reading an erotic novel during those two pages of description. Yes, two pages of describing the point of view of a nine-year-old girl giving some guy oral.
Lecia's most interesting experience in the book was when she got attacked by I think either an octopus or a jellyfish. While she and Mary were hanging out at the beach, her leg was snagged by some kind of creature of the deep. The tentacles that wrapped around her leg supposedly stung her like no other. This was the one time during the book where Mary had to be the strong one. It was sad, I believe, because the younger sibling usually looks to the big brother or big sister for guidance, just as Mary looked at Lecia. But this was the one time where she had to try to play big sister.
Mary's personality as a child was very hardened by the tough life she lived at home. It says how she would never shy away from using swear words; and she never cared about the consequences of constantly getting into fights. However, she did have a very intelligent side as well. In the beginning of the novel, it said she was very good at beating upper classmen at chess.
Like I said, when I started reading, "The Liars' Club" I was afraid I would never get through it. I don't read a lot of non-fiction novels. Mainly because I like reading stories that are completely made up by the author. I think I do this because the make-believe world is always more compelling to me. Of course, this book, based off the real life experiences of a seven/nine-year-old girl, can be just as unbelievable and breathtaking as any fictional story. I highly recommend this book, because I never gave away the ending of the story (which Mary Karr said made even her cry). So if you aren't hesitant with reading stories that you thank God you can't relate to, then pick up "The Liars' Club", because it's a real trip.
Throughout a good duration of the book, Mary Karr spends her time in Groves, (she calls it Leechfield) Texas in 1961. She lives with her two years elder sister, Lecia, (pronounced: Lisa) her father, an oil refinery worker, and her mother, an amateur artist/drunk.
In the beginning, I was afraid I was never going to get through the book because it didn't exactly leap off the page. Like most books, it introduced all its main characters and explained their backgrounds. To be honest, I don't think I got into the book until chapter two or three, where she, her sister, and her mother are trapped in a car that is ambushed by thousands of locusts.
But later on, the book started to turn grim. Mary Karr spends a lot of her time talking about the process her grandma was going through while experiencing cancer. I knew I was in for details when she described the odors of mustard gas, and the sight of her grandmother's blackened stump that used to have a leg where the cancer lived. By chapter four, I think, her grandmother had died. Mary herself was the first to find her grandma dead in the bed. She didn't say anything; she only waited for her mom to walk in the grandmother's bedroom to find her lifeless body sprawled out along the bed sheets.
Speaking of Mary's mother, she was quite a tormented character herself. Of course, she only claimed to be tormented by life because she always blamed her husband, Mary and Lecia's father. In the beginning of the book, we learn that Mary's mother has never really been satisfied with the man she's been with. She would sleep around with a guy, say she loved him, got wasted like no other, blamed the man, and then bailed. Mary Karr never let go of the subject that her mother and father were always fighting. The mom would get drunk, blame everything on the dad, go berserk, then they would just shut up until the next chapter. Mary Karr always mentioned how her mother threatened to leave her husband, but never committed.
It wasn't until about chapter ten I want to say, where the family took a trip to Colorado. By the end of the trip, her mother said she wasn't going to leave. Mary's father said he had to go back to Texas, so that was the end of their marriage. The girls decided to stay with their mother, mainly because they knew she would never be able to survive without someone watching over her.
Personally, I found that to be an unfortunate responsibility for two little girls. Then again, I figured it would be best the parents split up because before the family went to Colorado, they spent Mary's birthday fighting. The fight was so extreme, Mary's mother tried to kill the family by almost driving the car over a bridge, in spite of hating her husband.
After the parent's split up, the chapter wasn't even finished. Mary still had to mention that her mother had found some hard-drinking bum named Hector. I remember the end of that chapter very well. Mary's mother saying all sunny, "Say hello to your new daddy!" and the girls response, literally, "Oh, sh%$!"
I'm not going to get too detailed with the section of the book where the girls spent their time in Colorado with their drunken mom and their low-life "step-father". All I'm going to say is the girls decided to leave their mom and go back to their dad after she pulled a gun on Hector and threatened to kill him for being such a "useless sonofabitch". (this is literally how the book spelt out son-of-a-bitch).
Mary Karr's father was definitely my more favored parent in the book. He always called Mary "Pokey" as a nickname. Even Mary and Lecia favored their father more, I believe. I felt bad for the dad because I kept getting the vibe that he wished his daughters never had to see and experience the things they did during their parents' fights.
In case you thought this book couldn't get anymore uncomfortable, you're dead wrong. The whole children witnessing one-too-many fights was just the tip of the iceberg as I read this novel. Okay, most of you might agree with me that a lot of kids these days lose their virginity at some point in their teens. But how would you react if I told you Miss. Karr lost her virginity to a teenage boy, on some cushioned ground in a garage, at the age of seven? Well it's true; Mary Karr was taken advantage of by a thirteen year old boy. She definitely didn't shy away from description during the experience, either.
If that wasn't bad enough, the sexual activity didn't stop for her at such a young age. During her time in Colorado, she was taken advantage of by a much older man. But they didn't engage in intercourse, no, more like oral sex. I can remember cringing while reading this part of the book; mainly because Miss. Karr once again didn't shy away from description. I swear, I felt like I was reading an erotic novel during those two pages of description. Yes, two pages of describing the point of view of a nine-year-old girl giving some guy oral.
Lecia's most interesting experience in the book was when she got attacked by I think either an octopus or a jellyfish. While she and Mary were hanging out at the beach, her leg was snagged by some kind of creature of the deep. The tentacles that wrapped around her leg supposedly stung her like no other. This was the one time during the book where Mary had to be the strong one. It was sad, I believe, because the younger sibling usually looks to the big brother or big sister for guidance, just as Mary looked at Lecia. But this was the one time where she had to try to play big sister.
Mary's personality as a child was very hardened by the tough life she lived at home. It says how she would never shy away from using swear words; and she never cared about the consequences of constantly getting into fights. However, she did have a very intelligent side as well. In the beginning of the novel, it said she was very good at beating upper classmen at chess.
Like I said, when I started reading, "The Liars' Club" I was afraid I would never get through it. I don't read a lot of non-fiction novels. Mainly because I like reading stories that are completely made up by the author. I think I do this because the make-believe world is always more compelling to me. Of course, this book, based off the real life experiences of a seven/nine-year-old girl, can be just as unbelievable and breathtaking as any fictional story. I highly recommend this book, because I never gave away the ending of the story (which Mary Karr said made even her cry). So if you aren't hesitant with reading stories that you thank God you can't relate to, then pick up "The Liars' Club", because it's a real trip.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed
There were three things going through my mind when I started reading this essay: 1. I wasn't sure if this was going to be about feminism or a sex addict. 2. When I found out it was about feminism, I feared I was going to be reading an essay written by some negative hippie woman from the 1960's who will never be satisfied until all men are on leashes. 3. When I realized the essay is over two centuries old, I was afraid I wasn't going to get through it because it would be old and outdated (not to mention long).
There was one thing I especially had an opinion on from this article. When Mary Wollstonecraft mentioned how women are treated as the lesser sex, I remembered during her time, women didn't have the same rights as men. Even today, in some places of the world, women have less rights and privileges.
Later on I thought back on my idea of Mary Wollstonecraft being some feminist from the psychedelic era. She mentioned how everything about women is "needless" unless they are beautiful. A lot of women nowadays believe that is how they are treated, today.
Personally, I think women wouldn't find themselves treated like that by men if they themselves stopped flaunting their looks. Some women don't realize that they will never be treated seriously if they don't dress seriously. Now I'm not saying women have to wrap up every inch of their skin in order to be respected; but more so they should stop thinking they only need to use their outer beauty to get men's attention.
Another part of the paper I found interesting was that (stereotypically), men have to teach women how to do stuff because they never got a proper education. I couldn't help but laugh because it sounded like men have to program women's brains like robots. This is not the case, seeing as even without an education, women have the capability of making up their own minds.
There was another part of the essay where Miss Wollstonecraft said women degrade themselves. By this, they make themselves more attractive so men give them some attention. This, once again, is not men's fault. Sure, I'll admit, some men are total tools and only pay a woman any attention when she's dancing on a pole (too blunt?). But there are also men who actually care to hear what women have to say.
You see, sometimes women get the idea themselves that they have to be sex symbols in order to be appealing. But really, all they have to do is socialize with men that can relate to them. Seriously, it's a lot easier, I'm sure, for some girls to want to talk to a guy with the same interests and hobbies then put on a short skirt.
There was one thing I especially had an opinion on from this article. When Mary Wollstonecraft mentioned how women are treated as the lesser sex, I remembered during her time, women didn't have the same rights as men. Even today, in some places of the world, women have less rights and privileges.
Later on I thought back on my idea of Mary Wollstonecraft being some feminist from the psychedelic era. She mentioned how everything about women is "needless" unless they are beautiful. A lot of women nowadays believe that is how they are treated, today.
Personally, I think women wouldn't find themselves treated like that by men if they themselves stopped flaunting their looks. Some women don't realize that they will never be treated seriously if they don't dress seriously. Now I'm not saying women have to wrap up every inch of their skin in order to be respected; but more so they should stop thinking they only need to use their outer beauty to get men's attention.
Another part of the paper I found interesting was that (stereotypically), men have to teach women how to do stuff because they never got a proper education. I couldn't help but laugh because it sounded like men have to program women's brains like robots. This is not the case, seeing as even without an education, women have the capability of making up their own minds.
There was another part of the essay where Miss Wollstonecraft said women degrade themselves. By this, they make themselves more attractive so men give them some attention. This, once again, is not men's fault. Sure, I'll admit, some men are total tools and only pay a woman any attention when she's dancing on a pole (too blunt?). But there are also men who actually care to hear what women have to say.
You see, sometimes women get the idea themselves that they have to be sex symbols in order to be appealing. But really, all they have to do is socialize with men that can relate to them. Seriously, it's a lot easier, I'm sure, for some girls to want to talk to a guy with the same interests and hobbies then put on a short skirt.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
Before I even started reading this essay, I was entranced by it. The title itself actually made me question my own thoughts on Google. Is it making me stupid? Or is it making me lazy? By that I mean, is it forcing me to use it as my only resource for information?
Nicholas Carr seemed to talk more about the Internet in general than just Google in this essay. This, thankfully, did not disappoint me because it expanded my thoughts and questions I had earlier when I thought he was only going to talk about Google.
In a way, I think he's right about our reliance on the Internet. For instance, I'm a teenager who uses the Internet everyday. It's not like I lack a life, but more so I want to either learn stuff (simple stuff that I wonder about) or I want to stay in contact with my friends and family. The Internet is sometimes considered a gateway, if you will, that opens us all up to a world where we can access infinite knowledge. But if this is true, then why is Mr. Carr proposing that it lowers our intelligence?
He brought up an interesting topic earlier in the essay about how Scott Karp, a blogger, confessed that he no longer reads books even though he is a literary major. Mr. Karp admitted to using the Internet more often because he is able to learn information within minutes rather than spend hours in a library searching for a book with the same information. Personally, even though I found this example to be interesting, I also found it to be a bit unrelated to stupidity.
Nicholas Carr started giving me the idea that we as people become more "lazy" than "stupid" when using the Internet. It is a much quicker source, so why not use it? But then again, are we being fair to those librarians?
Before I even finished the essay, I came to my own conclusion on this topic: the Internet for people is usually a form of entertainment more than it is a way of obtaining information. Sure, we can learn about stuff by using the Internet just as much as we can with books; but there are only a select few of people who can get the same joy out of reading on their own as they can chatting with their friends on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, AOL, MSN, etc. When people use the Internet for these purposes (Not judging them if they do or not. I know I talk to friends on Facebook) rather than grasp knowledge about the world, they are basically finding a substitute for the television. In fact, I kind of wished Nicholas Carr would have written an essay focused all about watching T.V. I know I would have found that to be even more fascinating.
At the end of the essay, I couldn't help but laugh when I connected the dots and realized that a man writing about how the Internet is making us stupid is actually using the Internet to have us see it. I found it cool because it was almost like he knew people would only get a glimpse of his opinion by using the very source he was griping about. Ironic, isn't it?
Nicholas Carr seemed to talk more about the Internet in general than just Google in this essay. This, thankfully, did not disappoint me because it expanded my thoughts and questions I had earlier when I thought he was only going to talk about Google.
In a way, I think he's right about our reliance on the Internet. For instance, I'm a teenager who uses the Internet everyday. It's not like I lack a life, but more so I want to either learn stuff (simple stuff that I wonder about) or I want to stay in contact with my friends and family. The Internet is sometimes considered a gateway, if you will, that opens us all up to a world where we can access infinite knowledge. But if this is true, then why is Mr. Carr proposing that it lowers our intelligence?
He brought up an interesting topic earlier in the essay about how Scott Karp, a blogger, confessed that he no longer reads books even though he is a literary major. Mr. Karp admitted to using the Internet more often because he is able to learn information within minutes rather than spend hours in a library searching for a book with the same information. Personally, even though I found this example to be interesting, I also found it to be a bit unrelated to stupidity.
Nicholas Carr started giving me the idea that we as people become more "lazy" than "stupid" when using the Internet. It is a much quicker source, so why not use it? But then again, are we being fair to those librarians?
Before I even finished the essay, I came to my own conclusion on this topic: the Internet for people is usually a form of entertainment more than it is a way of obtaining information. Sure, we can learn about stuff by using the Internet just as much as we can with books; but there are only a select few of people who can get the same joy out of reading on their own as they can chatting with their friends on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, AOL, MSN, etc. When people use the Internet for these purposes (Not judging them if they do or not. I know I talk to friends on Facebook) rather than grasp knowledge about the world, they are basically finding a substitute for the television. In fact, I kind of wished Nicholas Carr would have written an essay focused all about watching T.V. I know I would have found that to be even more fascinating.
At the end of the essay, I couldn't help but laugh when I connected the dots and realized that a man writing about how the Internet is making us stupid is actually using the Internet to have us see it. I found it cool because it was almost like he knew people would only get a glimpse of his opinion by using the very source he was griping about. Ironic, isn't it?
Skunk Dreams
When I began this essay, I'll admit I had high hopes. It seemed like such a peculiar story when the author, Louise Erdrich, started it off by telling us that she was lying in a football field as a skunk crept its way onto her. I thought to myself if I was in that situation I would be afraid of the skunk spraying me. Since I've never smelled a skunk's stench, I wouldn't know what to expect, and that is what fascinated me during the beginning of this essay.
Unfortunately, I couldn't help but find the story to go down hill from that point on. Louise Erdrich started jumping around so much, I had to re-read the paragraphs just to make sure I didn't lose track of where she was going with this essay. When I realized the problem wasn't me, and more so her sprawled out writing style, I felt reluctant towards reading on.
At one point, I started to get the feel she was a little obsessed with the whole fence ordeal. The barbed wire description fortunately encouraged me into reading on. I think it was because even though her main direction with the essay seemed a bit sloppy, she had a nice talent with description. But that pro became a con much faster than I expected. She started dragging on and on about trees, wildlife, etc. so much I had to roll my eyes. I'm always up for a writer to add in description, but when the description is so detailed it pulls the reader away from the main focus of the story, the whole paper goes down.
I will admit I did like how she was getting at being bored with a place that incarcerated so many animals after visiting one too many times. It reminded me of times when I used to go places for fun, but after spending too much time at those places, they started to loose their spark. When the spark of a "special" place starts to fade, the whole point of going to that place becomes utterly pointless. So I will applaud Miss Erdrich for using tactics that make the reader consider relating to her personal story.
The really interesting part of the essay was when she crossed paths with the wild boar. Naturally thinking, I assumed the boar was going to be the conflict in the story. The part where (at the time I hypothesized) maybe she would have a near-death experience with this boar. I predicted this on the soul reason for her comparing death and dreaming. Since the essay is called "Skunk Dreams" I thought this was going to be the part where she would almost die. Grim, I know, but it was just a theory; which, by the way, I wasn't disappointed to be wrong about. The boar just drifted off, which made it seem less wild than it was described as to being. I think that part was to remind the reader that they are reading about a dream-like experience.
In the end of the essay, Miss Erdrich said that if she could be any animal in the world, it would be a skunk. At first, when she mentioned this, I felt like she was telling us her answer to some quiz she was taking. Yah know, "If you could be any animal in the world, what would you be, and why?" Well she explained her reason: because skunks are fearless, brave, and do not fret over being captured. This, the author believes, is a sign of not fearing death itself. Of course, what I don't think she realizes is that death isn't afraid of the skunk either, because death does not have a sense of smell.
Unfortunately, I couldn't help but find the story to go down hill from that point on. Louise Erdrich started jumping around so much, I had to re-read the paragraphs just to make sure I didn't lose track of where she was going with this essay. When I realized the problem wasn't me, and more so her sprawled out writing style, I felt reluctant towards reading on.
At one point, I started to get the feel she was a little obsessed with the whole fence ordeal. The barbed wire description fortunately encouraged me into reading on. I think it was because even though her main direction with the essay seemed a bit sloppy, she had a nice talent with description. But that pro became a con much faster than I expected. She started dragging on and on about trees, wildlife, etc. so much I had to roll my eyes. I'm always up for a writer to add in description, but when the description is so detailed it pulls the reader away from the main focus of the story, the whole paper goes down.
I will admit I did like how she was getting at being bored with a place that incarcerated so many animals after visiting one too many times. It reminded me of times when I used to go places for fun, but after spending too much time at those places, they started to loose their spark. When the spark of a "special" place starts to fade, the whole point of going to that place becomes utterly pointless. So I will applaud Miss Erdrich for using tactics that make the reader consider relating to her personal story.
The really interesting part of the essay was when she crossed paths with the wild boar. Naturally thinking, I assumed the boar was going to be the conflict in the story. The part where (at the time I hypothesized) maybe she would have a near-death experience with this boar. I predicted this on the soul reason for her comparing death and dreaming. Since the essay is called "Skunk Dreams" I thought this was going to be the part where she would almost die. Grim, I know, but it was just a theory; which, by the way, I wasn't disappointed to be wrong about. The boar just drifted off, which made it seem less wild than it was described as to being. I think that part was to remind the reader that they are reading about a dream-like experience.
In the end of the essay, Miss Erdrich said that if she could be any animal in the world, it would be a skunk. At first, when she mentioned this, I felt like she was telling us her answer to some quiz she was taking. Yah know, "If you could be any animal in the world, what would you be, and why?" Well she explained her reason: because skunks are fearless, brave, and do not fret over being captured. This, the author believes, is a sign of not fearing death itself. Of course, what I don't think she realizes is that death isn't afraid of the skunk either, because death does not have a sense of smell.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Talk Of The Town
To be quite honest, when I started reading this essay, I thought Adam Gopnik was talking about the Columbine High School Massacre. "The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing." That line opened me up to an uncomforting feeling. But when I read on and understood it was about gun control, I got a little reluctant to read on. I personally don't have much thought on the subject, so I feared my blog was going to end up dry and dull. But then I said, "What are the positives and negatives of this topic?"
The essay thankfully opened up to a very bizarre mentioning of a mentally ill person purchasing a gun. I remember making a 'what-the-French toast' face when reading that part. How can a mentally ill person even buy a gun? At work, one of my co-workers, who is a bit mentally ill, isn't even allowed to help customers sign up for a new store card. My thoughts almost instantly were that the seller of the gun was one of the following: dumb as a mule for not learning information about the customer, was working their last day on the clock and didn't care who they sold a gun to, or sick themselves and wanting to see public chaos. Knowing some people today, I would have to guess they fell under the first category.
When reading about several other countries raising the bar on gun control after having some troubles of their own, only to successfully decrease the numbers of shootings, I guessed it would be only positive for the U.S. to follow in those other countries' footsteps.
When Susan Sontag chimed in with her preaching about war, our "robotic president", and the troubles with our government, I instantly labeled her as a nag. Surprisingly, I wasn't sure why. Maybe it was because her writing was a little too preachy for my taste. I can't stand people who spend all their time making ironic comments about other people when they themselves aren't doing jack squat. Then again, I don't know Ms. Sontag, so I can't say she hasn't tried to make changes with this issue.
Her focus was on the U.S. of having some kind of "superpower". Not sure at first what she meant by that, I immaturely thought she was comparing ol' America to the Man of Steel. Then I managed to realize she was saying America thinks we're on top. (By which I mean we're on top of all the other countries.)
This made me start to see America as a self-absorbed child--or maybe even a sheltered, self-absorbed child. Our country is always hearing about only itself. Yah don't believe me? Go watch the news and realize we only hear about how great our country is. I personally have nothing against America, I just understand we don't get much knowledge about how the rest of the world is doing unless it involves us.
Even though learning about ourselves and how our country is growing each day is important, it might not be such a bad thing to understand everyone elses' status so we can learn and understand this big rock we call Earth.
The essay thankfully opened up to a very bizarre mentioning of a mentally ill person purchasing a gun. I remember making a 'what-the-French toast' face when reading that part. How can a mentally ill person even buy a gun? At work, one of my co-workers, who is a bit mentally ill, isn't even allowed to help customers sign up for a new store card. My thoughts almost instantly were that the seller of the gun was one of the following: dumb as a mule for not learning information about the customer, was working their last day on the clock and didn't care who they sold a gun to, or sick themselves and wanting to see public chaos. Knowing some people today, I would have to guess they fell under the first category.
When reading about several other countries raising the bar on gun control after having some troubles of their own, only to successfully decrease the numbers of shootings, I guessed it would be only positive for the U.S. to follow in those other countries' footsteps.
When Susan Sontag chimed in with her preaching about war, our "robotic president", and the troubles with our government, I instantly labeled her as a nag. Surprisingly, I wasn't sure why. Maybe it was because her writing was a little too preachy for my taste. I can't stand people who spend all their time making ironic comments about other people when they themselves aren't doing jack squat. Then again, I don't know Ms. Sontag, so I can't say she hasn't tried to make changes with this issue.
Her focus was on the U.S. of having some kind of "superpower". Not sure at first what she meant by that, I immaturely thought she was comparing ol' America to the Man of Steel. Then I managed to realize she was saying America thinks we're on top. (By which I mean we're on top of all the other countries.)
This made me start to see America as a self-absorbed child--or maybe even a sheltered, self-absorbed child. Our country is always hearing about only itself. Yah don't believe me? Go watch the news and realize we only hear about how great our country is. I personally have nothing against America, I just understand we don't get much knowledge about how the rest of the world is doing unless it involves us.
Even though learning about ourselves and how our country is growing each day is important, it might not be such a bad thing to understand everyone elses' status so we can learn and understand this big rock we call Earth.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
About Me
Hello,
I'm Kevin Dobosenski.
One thing about me that you should all know is that only I could receive the memo midway through summer vacation that we had to do summer homework.
In my defense, it was not because I'm lazy, but because I moved to a different place in McFarland right after the school year ended and no one was ever informed of this, so I never got the news. (I never even got my report card or school schedule until mid July after I called).
Aside from that, I have more interesting (though not as humorous) stuff to blog about.
I really like anything that has to do with the literary arts. Hence why I'm looking forward to AP Comp. Some call me crazy for wanting to do this class willingly but that's only because they're not fans of English courses. I, however, will be taking a lot of English classes my senior year. So many I'll practically be living on the second floor of the building.
I'm really fascinated with writing, mainly because I've sort of considered myself as an amateur writer since 6th grade. I'm not the best but I love doing it. I guess you could say its the only way I can express creativity, since I'm a terrible artist, musician, etc.
Most people who know me have described me as: rude, sarcastic, notorious, obnoxious, and rebellious. But hey, we can't all love our distant relatives and neighbors.
But people who KNOW me describe me as: rude, sarcastic, notorious, obnoxious, and rebellious, but in a good way.
To list off the other stuff I'm into like most people who blog about themselves, I would have to say the following: I'm not into most stuff introduced to teenagers here in the twenty-first century. I'm into classic music (The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Ramones, Joan Jett, Sex Pistols, Nirvana, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Nine Inch Nails, etc.) I have never appreciated hip-hop, rap, pop, etc. because it's not my style. Of course I'm not judging anyone who is into that music, because I believe they are entitled to listen to whatever they want to. I like hanging out with my friends but at the same time I prefer to spend the day by myself. I don't discriminate against the television. When it comes to my style, I'm into the whole Converse, ripped-jeans, band-t's, hoodies, etc. I prefer going to stores on State Street because the mall lately is lame. Everything stores there sell stuff that is too expensive when the clothes aren't even that great. I used to shop at Hot Topic for band-t's once in a while but that store has become infested with Twilight merchandise, which only leads to crazy fan girls. (Gag)
Okay, I think this blog was long enough for you to kill five minutes. I hope my services are welcome.
Looking forward to the school year to start, (only because I've been sitting around long enough for weeds to grow on me).
Sincerely,
Kevin Dobosenski.
I'm Kevin Dobosenski.
One thing about me that you should all know is that only I could receive the memo midway through summer vacation that we had to do summer homework.
In my defense, it was not because I'm lazy, but because I moved to a different place in McFarland right after the school year ended and no one was ever informed of this, so I never got the news. (I never even got my report card or school schedule until mid July after I called).
Aside from that, I have more interesting (though not as humorous) stuff to blog about.
I really like anything that has to do with the literary arts. Hence why I'm looking forward to AP Comp. Some call me crazy for wanting to do this class willingly but that's only because they're not fans of English courses. I, however, will be taking a lot of English classes my senior year. So many I'll practically be living on the second floor of the building.
I'm really fascinated with writing, mainly because I've sort of considered myself as an amateur writer since 6th grade. I'm not the best but I love doing it. I guess you could say its the only way I can express creativity, since I'm a terrible artist, musician, etc.
Most people who know me have described me as: rude, sarcastic, notorious, obnoxious, and rebellious. But hey, we can't all love our distant relatives and neighbors.
But people who KNOW me describe me as: rude, sarcastic, notorious, obnoxious, and rebellious, but in a good way.
To list off the other stuff I'm into like most people who blog about themselves, I would have to say the following: I'm not into most stuff introduced to teenagers here in the twenty-first century. I'm into classic music (The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Ramones, Joan Jett, Sex Pistols, Nirvana, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Nine Inch Nails, etc.) I have never appreciated hip-hop, rap, pop, etc. because it's not my style. Of course I'm not judging anyone who is into that music, because I believe they are entitled to listen to whatever they want to. I like hanging out with my friends but at the same time I prefer to spend the day by myself. I don't discriminate against the television. When it comes to my style, I'm into the whole Converse, ripped-jeans, band-t's, hoodies, etc. I prefer going to stores on State Street because the mall lately is lame. Everything stores there sell stuff that is too expensive when the clothes aren't even that great. I used to shop at Hot Topic for band-t's once in a while but that store has become infested with Twilight merchandise, which only leads to crazy fan girls. (Gag)
Okay, I think this blog was long enough for you to kill five minutes. I hope my services are welcome.
Looking forward to the school year to start, (only because I've been sitting around long enough for weeds to grow on me).
Sincerely,
Kevin Dobosenski.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)