Final Blog

Compare and Contrast Gatsby and Tom. How are they alike? How are they different? Why would Daisy choose to stay with Tom?

Sometimes the best decision to make, is not the best decision for the person who has to decide. Sacrifices have to be made to keep everyone happy, even if it means sacrificing the dreams of a lifetime. In the book The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald a rich, sophisticated goddess is being fought over by two gorgeous and very wealthy men, one whom happens to be her husband. Tom Buchanan is a very ignorant and cocky man who doesn't treat Daisy with the respect she deserves. Gatsby is a very shy and timid man around Daisy and most of the "old rich" people, but he has an unconditional love for Daisy that will always be remembered.

Gatsby and Tom are both very rich men, but received their money two completely different ways. Gatsby grew up a poor boy on a farm, who had to work hard for his money doing jobs such as clam digging and salmon fishing on the south shore of Lake Superior. While Tom's family has always been rich. Gatsby came into all his money illegally by bootlegging, but he won't admit it. Instead he makes up lies to try to convince people that he's an innocent, intelligent mad educated at Oxford. Tom and Gatsby are alike in more ways then one. Gatsby and Tom had the same ignorant attitudes when they were younger. Gatsby got girls all the time, he was a handsome man. Tom was a football player who had the looks and the money. Except Tom hasn't changed, even as a married man. Yet, Gatsby has changed since he met Daisy, of course Daisy didn't have the same effect on Tom as she did Gatsby.

Gatsby and Tom both love Daisy, but in unique ways. Daisy is a possession to Tom, he loves her because she fulfills his "perfect" American life. Yet, Tom is an unfaithful, liar who doesn't care about Daisy's feelings. He sleeps with many random girls, when he has a beautiful wife and daughter at home. Daisy is a fantasy to Gatsby. Gatsby's whole heart is devoted to Daisy and he would never do anything to hurt her. Gatsby has waited for Daisy ever since he was shipped away into the military, and now that he has all the material things she would need he's come to receive her love once again. Tom has always had Daisy and knows he always will, he has no thought in his mind that Daisy will leave him, he wouldn't cheat if he thought that.

Even though Daisy is in love with Gatsby she will remain with Tom, because of respect. Divorce was looked down upon in the 1920's, but that's not the only reason. Gatsby has a lot of money, but because he's new rich he's not respected as the people are in East Egg. He doesn't know how to spend his money and how to act rich. He's criticized by the "old rich" and looked down upon as immature and wild, and his eccentric parties don't help. Even Daisy is surprised by the people who come to his uncivilized parties. Daisy would never leave Tom and her "American Dream" to live with someone in West Egg and have her reputation destroyed.

Gatsby and Tom are definitely unique but opposite character's who tend to be exaggerated by the author. Gatsby wouldn't be able to live without Daisy or without hope of being with Daisy. When Tom doesn't care if he's with Daisy or with a girl off the street, as long as he's married to Daisy. Daisy will always stay with Tom, because it was how she was brought up, even if it means pretending she's in love with someone she's not.

How is our understanding of culture and society constructed through and by language?

Our understanding of culture and scoiety is reflected by the way we speak. There's slang, snootiness, bad grammar,a dn accents. The way you speak tells the person more about you the you would think.

For example, if you have bad grammar it shows that you aren't educated. Also, the way your voice comes out if it's sharp and your answers to questions are short and mean sounding it may show that you're not a very friendly person. But, if you speak with kindness and with a large range of vocabulary it gives off a very sophisticated look.

The way you speak definitely tells someone about your culture, but so does the way you dress. By just speaking to someone you can tell where they are from or what their nationality is or how educated they are. Accents are amazing and they are hard to immitate if you are not around someone who has an accent. They make you unique and informs people about your past. Language tells more about your past then now or your future. One of the reasons for this is becuase you learn how to speak when you're young and it stays with you forever and it's very hard to break your talking habits and begin new ones.

Ellen Goodman Article

I don't believe our thriftiness will last as long as the recession, it will last longer. I believe the recession will change most people's spending ways, same as after the depression in the 1920's. With the people now aware of the results spending so much and continuously raising the stock markets as well as prices; they won't waste as much money. I do believe the stock market will go up again, but it will be a slow acsent.

After the recession people won't have very much money to spend, they will be to concentrated on getting out of debt. Most people will try to pay off all their debts with the money they have left first before they think about going and buying new "toys". The people that are movie stars and rich feel guilty for wasting their money on unimportant things, maybe the recession will stop unnessecary spending and hopefully the rich may start donating their excessive amounts of money to those who don't have as much.

My family has always saved up money, but we save our money in mutual funds, which is a problem. But, my family also doesn't expect to take it out anytime soon. So as long as the stock market doesn't crash, and eventually goes up with in the next twenty years we should be okay. But, since we have always been saving and my dad is very strict with money and never wastes it on unnecessary things, I don't think this recession will change our spending ways much.

Distilling the Big 3 to 1

I don't agree with Naughton's idea of combining the three largest American car companies into one. This new change will lose millions of jobs. Nuaghton quotes " In 2002, billionaire investor Wilbur Ross agreed to buy up bankrupt LTV Steel, setting off a merger frenzy that saw 17 companies shrink down to three, while financial results reversed from a $1.1 billion loss in 2003 to a $6.6 billion profit in 2004. Ross used the bankruptcy courts to renegotiate labor contracts and hire back a fraction of the workers." I believe this example will work if we combine the companies, but I also believe it will work if they just stopped making so many cars. I believe they should be forced to restructure. The cars that haven't been selling and don't get good gas mileage, shouldn't be made anymore. I believe if we kept all the cars that still sell and are economic friendly then we can keep GM, Ford, and Chrysler separate and still have their names on their cars. Just make each company smaller instead of combining them. They don't have to stop making them all together just make less of them. If they sold every single car they made they would make a profit no matter how many cars they made. If they make too many cars then they'll definitely lose money. And if decreasing the number of vehicles they make doesn't work then maybe we should combine them. If they would not make and put in the car lots 2009 cars in July of 2008, they would have more room for other cars that aren't being sold. They just need to slow down the car making process. Also, American models need to make cars that are economic friendly and get good gas mileage. Naughton state's that it will take until 2011 to match foreign competition. That reason is only because gas prices increased and Toyota's that aren't even hybrid can get around 35 mpg. You wouldn't be able to find that in a Ford. Toyota's also make their cars more sturdy in the inside and not so breakable. Americans need to stop making cars so quickly and redesign them to be more sturdier, nicer cars with good mpg. They should have hybrids, but they should also have just regular cars that get good mpg without having to spend 50,000 dollars on them. Or I guess they could make cars that are designed to break down right after your 5 year warranty is up so people will be forced to buy new cars. Anyways I don't believe the economy will respond in a positive way if all three brands are combined to one. How are people who hate Fords and love Chevy's supposed to buy a car when the names combine? I personally believe that they should make fewer, more dependable cars, and stop making all the cars that haven't sold in the last 2 years.

The Great Gatsby

Nick Carraway is a poor man who lives in a welathy neighborhood. He comes from prominent family and is well-educated, fopr he graduated from New Haven in 1915. His cousin's Tom and Daisy are very wealthy, and they get along well, although Nick does get annoyed by them and their somewhat snooty attitudes. Daisy and Tom know of Gatsby who lives right next to Nick, yet Nick has never really confronted him. But after Nick Carraway had dinner and a talk with his cousins he decides to say hi to Gatsby, but he realized Gatsby wanted to be alone. Nick describes Gatsby as a man who he would usually hate everything about, yet he says "Gatsby turned all right in the end." This shows that Nick could have pre-judged him and just thought he was a snooty rich person like his cousin's and the rest of his family, without trying to find the good things about him until later on.

The Worst Ads on TV

Q: Do you agree or disagree with Stephen King? Should drug companies be allowed to market perscription drugs directly to consumers? Why or why not? Be specific.

I agree with Stephen King that drup companies should not be able to sell their product directlt to the concumer. I believe if they want to sell their prescription drug then your doctor should be the only one authorized to give it to you, after an appointment. Some people may not like this idea because doctor visits can be expensive and time consuming, but if you are willing to spend enough money for the over-priced drugs with hardly any information on them, you will most likely be better off seeing the doctor first. For one, the drug may not be the most affective drug out there for your porblem. There may be a more effective, less expensive, and less risky drug to take. For another, a lot of the prescriptions that are being advertised are new drugs without any guarentees, and a lot of side effects. When the list of side effects is the longest part of the add, it's probably not a very good drug, unless you would like to buy more drugs to take away from the pain of the side effects. Third of all, America is all about being drug free, and if marijuana and alcohol are looked down upon, then why are all the other "prescription drugs" okay and perfectly normal. For all you know, the medicine you're taking has the same effect of a couple of shots of whiskey will have or a couple of hits from a natural herb. Those drugs are probably more safe then half the stuff being advertised on television. Yet all the drugs on tv being advertised are legal...? If you are not willing to see your doctor to get the best prescribed medicine for your particular symptoms then you shouldn't be willing to buy what ever sounds good off the tv or internet, only unless you're willing to pay for all the side effects, including death or embarrassment, depending on what type of drugs you decide to take.

Samuelson/ depression?

The article "Is This A Replay of 1929" by Robert J. Samuelson describes the situation of the current economy compared to the economy during the Great Depression. Samuelson believes that the economy is not nearly as bad as it was in 1929, and it's not possible for economy to be that bad again, so there is no need for panic. The reasons we were in the Great Depression and the reasons our economy is so bad right now are two completely separate situations. Although they do have some similarities, the differences are the things we need to focus on.

There is no need for panic, because the United States has already suffered 10 recessions since the 1940's, and each recession lasts on average 10 months. The two worst recessions lasted for 16 months with an unemployment rate of 9% and 10.8%; right now our unemployment rate is at 6% so we still have a ways to go to even compare to our past recessions, not to mention the tremendous unemployment rate in 1929. This is nothing our economy hasn't seen before and will not be able to control. Another example is the stock market, also having 10 bear markets in the past. The average stock market decline was 31.5% and we are currently 30% below the peak reached in 2007. Which is by no means good, but it is still a drastic difference from when the stock market dropped 90% beginning the Depression.

The debt from the 1920's resulted from war and an excessive amount of borrowing, similar to the problems today. But unlike now, Americans borrowed for cars, radios, and appliances; Today most of the borrowing is for houses or against inflated home values. Yet, the federal government is more in control and more powerful then it was back then. Based on the government's spending, it provides better stabilization for our economy, but because government officials moved to fast and panicked, unlike the officials in the 1920's, our crisis still remains. The national debt is what holds our economy together, it's something that can be controlled, and based on the facts, America will be out of recession within the next year.

Colleges =]

The two colleges that I'm thinking about are Fresno State University and Humbodlt State University. i've been planning to go to Humboldt for a while now, becuase all my relatives live over there and they have a great nursing progam. Their website was very thorough and the cost isn't too bad. Plus they give out 5,000 scholarships every year, and they have a form you can fill out on their website to see how many apply to you. If I went to Humboldt state I would have a place to stay off campus, yet very close to it. I would also have two different hospitals available to me so I can do my internship with. I'm not positive I want to major in nursing, but they have business majors as well which I think would be good to get in to. They also have spanish as a minor which I would like to persue.

I'm thinking about Fresno, because I've been in Ag for the last 2 years and they have a wonderful Ag program and have majors for pre-vetinary studies. I also know two really close friends that live in Friant by the lake, that I will be able to visit. Plus it's right next to a lake and I love the lake, I think it would be so much fun to go out with friends to the lake and hangout on weekends. I believe that mroe scholarships would apply to me at Fresno then at HUmboldt just becuase of my Ag experience, but they don't have a major in nursing. So I'm taking ROP Nursing next year and if I like it enough to persue it in college then I will most likely go to Humboldt, but if I dont like it I will think about being about and going to Fresno.

Fresno is a larger city then Arcata which worries me, becuase I have nver lived in the city before. It also has 22,000 students while Humboldt has around 8,000. So I'm undecided, but my best friend and I have been planning to go to Humboldt for a while now, and her sister is a freshmen there this year. I love Humboldt's campus it's so pretty, with the forest right next to it. Plus I'm familiar with the town since we visit often. Fresno, I only visit once a year and it's usually Friant we go to not the actual city.

What are the common issues in the Declaration, The Iroquois Compact, and Patrick Henry’s Speech to the Virginia Convention?

The common issues in these documents are over peace, freedom, and their rights as citizens. In , Patricks Henry speech he is stating that they will do anything they can to be free of England even if it means fighting them. Jefferson adressses all the laws England has forced on them that the country doesn't agree with. One of the major issues being taxes, especially the tax put on tea which was usually drank three times a day. The Iroquios state "If any man or nation outside the five nations shall obey the laws of the Great Peace and make known their known their disposition to the lords of the Confederacy, they may trace the roots to the obediant and promise to obey the wishes of the confederate council, they shall be welcomed to take shelter beneath the Tree of the Long Leaves." Both the colonies and the nations does not want someone intruding and telling them what to do, the want to have the power to let whoever they want into their nation. The coloines do not want all the criminals from England being shipped their to destroy their land. Just as the Iroquois do not want people taking or settling on their land with out their permission.

Patrick Henry's speech and the declaration were very similar. They both adressed the freedom they wanted from England, and expressed their rights. In Henry's speech he talks about freedom of speech and all the issues Great Britain gave us. In the declaration Jefferson lists all the problems as well explaining why they need to be independent. They both talk about how each country and its people have their own individual rights, this is also explained in the Iroquois Compact. All three speeches are about liberty.

Which Book Did I Prefer and Why?

Every summer I love to lay out in the sun get a nice tan and read. This summer I was required to read three books: Snow Falling on Cedars, East of Eden, and One Writers Beginning. My favorite book out of the three would have to be Snow Falling on Cedars. I enjoyed the romance, the mystery, and at the same time being informed on how racism played a large part on the west coast.

Romance is the component in books that draws you in and makes you want to stay up and read until you find out how it ends. In Snow Falling On Cedars, Ishmael and Hatsue kind of have a Romeo-Juliet thing going on. At a point they both love each other, but they can't be together because of their different races. How they secretly meet hiding their relationship from the rest of the world is very intriguing. It makes you wonder, if they are going to be caught, will they run away and be together forever, or will she turn him down and marry someone else? Of course she realizes she doesn't love him anymore and marries her parents choice. It's not how I would've wanted it to turn out, but it helps make the story.

Murderer's always make the best mysteries. Yet in the book it turns out that there was never a murder, but we don't know that until the end. Suspense is also a key to a great book, and Snow Falling on Cedars definitely has suspense. When Carl Heine is found dead in his cargo net on the side of his boat under the water with a gash in the side of his head, everyone assumes it was a murder. Then throughout the whole book they're trying to find evidence and trying to prove poor innocent Kabuo non-guilty. Yet, Kabuo doesn't have a good enough alibi. The sheriff doesn't know what to believe, and Ishmael is trying to find more clues to prove Kabuo innocent.
Then Ishmael finally finds the ship records and times at the light house for the night of the accident, which is the proof Kabuo needs to keep from prosecution. But does Ishmael want to keep Kabuo around and have Hatsue and him continue their life, while he is still lonely and craving her affection? He apparently wants Hatsue to be happy, because he ends up telling her about the important information and saving Kabuo.

There has always been Racism in the world, it is inevitable. When World War II began it was found every where on the West Coast between the "whites" and the "japs". Because of this racism, there were many consequences. Carl and Kabuo could never have a good friendship. When Kabuo gave Carl a fishing pole, he was so happy, but his mom made him take it back because it was unruly. Then when Kabuo's parents were gave a piece of land for working so hard, they were only able to claim it as their own for a short time, because of the war. Many Japanese had to fight for America and many were sent to camps, they had a few hours to pack everything they could into one suitcase and leave. When Kabuo finally returned along with all the others, his land was taken away from him. Carl Heine passed away and his wife, who had strong dislike towards the Japanese refused to give Kabuo the land his parents worked for many years. She even refused to sell it to him after he raised more than enough money. Then when Carl Heine's death occurred, everyone figured it must have been Kabuo. He knows how to use a gun because he fought in the war, and he just talked to Carl Heine Jr. about the land that morning. The fact that this book tells about the racism people try to hide and cover up, makes it real, and interesting.

This book was the easiest and most interesting book to read. I love books involving court rooms and lawyers, the setting of the book was in a courtroom. With all the good story tellng componets this book contained, It was my favorite and will be remembered for possibly a very long time.

Large Hadron Collider

If there is a chance of creating a black hole and destroying the Earth, then I don't understand why scientists would even do an experiment like this. So there must not be a very big chance of destroying the Earth. On the other hand, I can't see how they can do this experiment without causing any damage at all to Earth, whether its in the long run or immediate. Why is it such a big deal to know where we came from? Why are we spending billions of dollars to know what makes up atoms. When we do figure it out, what will be next? More life threatening experiments? I disagree with this experiment, why put all of Earth in danger for finding this out?

After Benjamin Franklin somewhat invented electricity, yeah things are easier and faster, but was it for the better. Now we have to worry about global warming and polluting the Earth, will this experiment if successful lead to more problems? Our society is moving too fast, we need to slow down and appreciate everything we have not try to keep making things "better". We should just let nature takes it toll and go along with it, and not try to mess with anything we don't know everything about.

I dont think we should be risking millions of lives, the existence of all mankind, and billions of dollars in order to find out more about atoms. It doesn't make any sense to me.

In What Ways are Ishmael and Adam alike?

Ishmael and Adam are alike in several ways. They both fell in love with a girl that they couldn't stay with forever. Adam met Cathy and she stayed with him until she was healthy enough to get away, and Ishmael met Hatsue at a very young age and he was in love with her, yet Hatsue couldn't stay with him because she was Japanese and was destined to marry a young Japanese man. Both of the women that they loved did not return the love, Cathy had no feelings for Adam and Hatsue had feelings for Ishmael but she did not love him. They both never saw the person they were in love with. Ishmael and Adam never moved on and found another love, they continued to think about them everyday for the rest of their lives. The two of them, had people telling them that they need to move on and find another wife, yet it was impossible.

Both men were very kind-hearted and always meant well. For example, Ishmael was helping Hatsue and Kabuo in the trial with printing positive things about the trial in the newspaper and trying to make people see that Kabuo was innocent. He did this for Kabuo, even though he stole the love of his life away from him. Then Adam ended up giving half of his inheritance from Charles death to Cathy with no problem at all. He could have hidden the money from her, and she would have never known, but something in him made him go up to the disgusting whorehouse to see Cathy and show her the will.

Another similarity was that both Adam and Ishmael had father's who played a big part in their lives. Ishmael respected his father, yet he didn't want to take over his father's job as a reporter. But, his father really wanted him to take over his job, so he did. Adam also didn't want to become the soldier his dad wanted him to be, yet he became a soldier just like his dad. Both the men, were in a war and both died with a scar from a bullet wound.

When And How I learned to Read

When I was really little around 2 or 2 1/2 years of age my mom would always read stories to my brother and I would listen, but when my brother left and my mom would try to read to me I would take the book away from her and tell her "No, I read it myself". I would then make up words, and sometimes I would get frustrated because I couldn't read the correct words and I knew I was wrong plus with my brother yelling at me to give the book back to mom because he didn't like my story, made me give the book back to my mom for her to read. Then I would either go to bed or leave because I was upset, but sometimes I would stay and listen some more. She always read Dr. Suess books, The Little Golden Books, Curious George, Clifford, and I Can Read books. The Dr. Suess books were my brother's favorite. Plus we had a Dr. Suess movie that we would watch. I started reading around the age of four, right before I began kindergarten.

Once in Kindergarten, I learned the alphabet through zoo phonics and would practice at home. I soon began reading the small ryhming books, such as "The Cat and the Rat." Those were fun to read. Then in the beginning of second grade I read my first chapter book, That Doggone Dog, with only one or two pictures, and I began to spell larger words such as "sentence". The book took me about a week to read, now I can read it in about an hour. After that book I began reading the Magic Tree House Series. Once in third grade I began the Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone which took me about a month to read, but I aced the AR test. And all those fictional books read for enertainment had prepared me for the AP World History Book which I read all of last year and other non-fictional text books. As well as novels involving a lot of history and information.

My Favorite Book

I have never read a book that I have not enjoyed in some way, so I find this question quite difficult to answer. One of my favorite authors is Mary Higgins Clark, but I have so many favorites of her's, such as The Lottery Winner, Weep No More My Lady, The Cradle Will Fall, plus many more. Yet I also have a love for the Harry Potter series, mainly because it is a different style of book from what I tend to read. I don't usually go straight for the books about wizards and sorcerers when I walk into the library. But the book I'm going to tell you about today is a book similar to the Harry Potter books, and it is called Midnight for Charlie Bone.

I love Midnight for Charlie Bone becuase it's a book of many different feelings. There's sadness involved, becuase he lost his father at a very young age and wants to desperately find him. There's evil involving all of his aunts, his father's sisters, who all have magical powers that are used agaist him. Then there is love from his mother and grandmother, who are always caring for him and trying to keep the evil of his aunts away from him. There is also enchantment since Charlie is a wizard and ends up going to a school that contains other's with similar powers. Last but not least there is mystery, in the first book Charlie has a quite vivid image of his father being alive, yet we never find out what happened and if his aunts had anything to do with it.

This is also a book about friendship, Charlie had only one good friend with a big dog before he went to the unique school. After he went he met around five really good friends who were always willing to help him. Some of his friends could change the weather and make a giant storm which I thought was amazing. The types of powers, even if they were just musical talent, that the author came up with were very unique and creative.

I have a very vivid immagination, and when a book sparks my immagination I enjoy it very much. This book definitely did that, that is why it is on my top for my favorite books!

Blog 3

One of the themes is "The freedom to choose between good and evil." Do you think this modifies the Cain and Abel story? Why or Why not?

Since the book East of Eden is somewhat a parallel of the Cain and Abel story, I belive the Cain did have a choice not to kill Abel, he was not predestined to do it. For example, Charles could have easily killed Adam that dark night if he wanted to, but he didn't. I believe it was his choice, there was evil inside of him boiling up and raging against every good thing he knew, and he had to wildly contain himself and his actions in order not kill his brother. He could have been predestined to kill his brother, and he could have fought the predestination off with the love he had for his brother buried deep in his heart, that he was only able to express for him after the jealousy of his father was not there.

Another example is Adam's sons Cal and Aron. Cal had the evil inside of him to kill his brother, it was how well he was able to contain that evil that made him not a bad person. Aron was physically stronger than Cal, Cal even said in the book how he wouldn't dare to hit his brother, becuase he was afraid of his strength. Yet Aron was weaker mentally and had less evil inside of him then Cal, so it was easier for Aron to be good. Cal had enough will power to fight the urge to kill his brother, unlike Cain. Cal wanted to desperately be good and to be loved, this is what drove him to not kill his brother out of jealousy. He had a choice to be good or evil and he chose to be good. Charles also chose to be good, after his many times of trying to kill his brother out of rage he realized once Adam was gone how much he loved him. It was easier to love his brother when there was no jealousy involved.

For these reasons I belive Cain did have a choice. To take the wrong path or take the good path, I believe he did have eveil in him, maybe more eveil then good. Yet he didn't have the will power to make the little good inside of his heart to overcome the evil in his soul. Leading to the death if his brother. He had to have some good in his heart in order for the whole world not to be evil today. So why did the evil overcome the good?

Free will v. Chance

In the books East of Eden by John Steinbeck and Snow Falling on Cedars by David Gutterson there are many different examples of free will and chance.

When the war began, Kabuo Miyamoto had no choice but to pack everything in one suitcase and go to war. He was a kind person and didn't like to fight and kill people, but he had no free will duringt hat time period, same as all the other chinese that had no free will in the United States in the early 1900's.

When Carl Heine gave Kabuo's parents part of the land he owned, that was free will. It was his choice to give the much deserved chinese a piece of land, since they have been working his land for many years. Yet, Etta much disapproved this act of kindness, and as soon as she got her chance when Carl Sr. died and the japanese were off to war she sold their land. Yet it was chance, when Kabuo arrived from the war and wanted to buy his own land back he could not have it. And it was chance, when shortly after trying to persuade Carl Heine Jr. and his wife Susan Marie Carl Heine mysteriously died at sea, being found in his fishing net. It was the sheriff's and everyone in the town's free will to immediately accuse Kabuo Miymaoto. Since he was chinese and they did know how to fight in the war, he obviously had wanted the land bed enough to kill Carl Heine, a childhood friend....right? That's what everyone assumed.

Then in East of Eden, it was not Adam's will to go into the army it was his brother's. Yet his dad made him go into the army and did not let his brother, Charles, for unknown reasons. Also it was not Cathy's choice to go to California, she told Adam many times that she didn't want to go, but he never really listened to her. There are so many examples of free will and choice in these two books, it would take forever to name them all. I believe there are so many examples to show you how Americawas different it the old days, to show you that we haven't always had the freedom we have today.

Maegen's 1st Blog!!!!!!!=]

Do you agree with Steinbeck's premise that there "are monsters born in the world"?

I don't agree with Steinbeck that there are monster's born into this world, because I believe everyone has good in them, even if they don't like to show it. He bluntly states that there are physical monsters born into this world, and believes that if there can be physical monster's why can't there be mental ones. I don't agree with his statement about phyically disabled people being monster's. Just because they're aren't the same as everyone else, does that really make them monster's? I don't think so, it's not always a bad thing to be different.

But, on a different point of view there has been a lot of serial killers in the world, I myself don't believe I have ever met one, but who knows. I don't see how anyone could kill multiple people on purpose and still have a soul or conscience. I believe anyone who can physiclaly kill someone else for no reason thats not on drugs or being hypnotized has no heart or love to give, either that or they are insane. Even if they did have a bad childhood, nothing could make a mind so hateful and evil if they had any good in them before that. Like Cathy, from East of Eden, she just hated her parents and saw the bad in everybody for no reason, she had a good home and a good life, but that had no effect on her actions. I do believe that aprents do play a very important part and role in your life, but if you are born evil nothing else will matter, that's just how your mind thinks. Yet, some people are able to overcome the evil, like Cal Trask, and want and try his best to be good. Some people have to try harder than other's to be nice and do the right thing, to some it comes naturally, and to other's it doesn't.

As you may I have noticed, I changed my mind during the writing and thinking. The first paragraph is what I know and live by with my everyday experiences the second is based on what I've heard on the news and read in the papers. Maybe someday I'll come across a soul who doesn't have a conscience, so I can witness what I've said in the second paragraph. I truly do believe that some people are born nicer then others but monster's....who knows?