Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Hope
In the ghetto, I would think the only virtue that you’d want to practice is hope. It’s the only one that would get you by, because nearly all the rest of the virtues involve some kind of sacrifice on the person’s part. In the ghetto, exemplified by the characters in Random Family, life is less about helping others than just trying to survive.
Hope was at first a beneficial force for Jessica, like it always starts out. She had the dream that one day should would be whisked away by her knight in shining armor. Her mother warned against it, yes, but she couldn’t shake away the hope. Hope is one of those things you cant shake off once you have it. Jessica kept on hoping she then met Boy George. Boy George, rich, handsome, a cool car, was abusive to Jessica, who became his main girlfriend. “Main” is a fairly loose term, because he still went out with other women, and that apparently didn’t make him any less abusive, nor did it make Jessica any less hopeful about their relationship. She didn’t leave, she didn’t lose hope when she should have, which is a mind boggling logic because she was clearly in deep anguish. She immersed herself in the tub sometimes to wash off the blood that George drew. But at no point did she stop to think that maybe George didn’t love her, that her hope was now unfounded. It would be insanity to believe such a thing, because this is how she saw her father treat her mother. Her mother and father had to be in love.
Cesar didn't begin to hope until he landed himself in prison, when the future made itself immediate through Mercedes and Nautica. It seems that only the characters who held the future, in any shape or form, in high regard where the ones who hoped. The young Cesar didn't have much planned outside just living the current day. The author never said that his only hope was to see the next day, it can be implied. And this hope was not the beneficial or destructive kind. It was the kind that made him survive. When he landed a spot in prison, his hope to get out and be with his daughters was what kept him going. In the later chapters, his hope to be with Mercedes became his "lifeline" as the author put it.
Hope for Coco seems like the only really positive aspect of her life. Amidst her frequent housing change, her bickering with Frankie and her girls, her episodes when she wound up hitting her girls, she never stopped hopping that in the future there'd be a day where she could support her family to the fullest. In the recent chapters, she has been doing so. Coco has taken up high school again to get her GED and hopefully with it, a stable job. She set up her daughters and even the sickly Pearl for an education, and despite the occasionally enormous dump along the way (like when Coco's car broke), she never, ever said "I give up" to herself or to her daughters. The only time that her hope ever degraded her, however not to a critical state, was her hope that she would give Cesar a son; it would be her ticket to having Cesar forever. But as fate had it, and long story short, Cesar married Giselle. Coco's hope for a better future might even be characterized by how she unselfishly gives people in need of assistance the assistance they need. Especially at Thorpe, she gave away things and funds she needed for the family; the same occurred at Corliss Park, and again when they moved back to the Bronx. It's true that maybe the people themselves didn't have much hope for the future, but Coco did to an extent, or else she wouldn't be giving them anything because she wouldn't care what happened to them. I think that of all the characters, Coco is one of the few who's hope never really brought her down.
Hope was at first a beneficial force for Jessica, like it always starts out. She had the dream that one day should would be whisked away by her knight in shining armor. Her mother warned against it, yes, but she couldn’t shake away the hope. Hope is one of those things you cant shake off once you have it. Jessica kept on hoping she then met Boy George. Boy George, rich, handsome, a cool car, was abusive to Jessica, who became his main girlfriend. “Main” is a fairly loose term, because he still went out with other women, and that apparently didn’t make him any less abusive, nor did it make Jessica any less hopeful about their relationship. She didn’t leave, she didn’t lose hope when she should have, which is a mind boggling logic because she was clearly in deep anguish. She immersed herself in the tub sometimes to wash off the blood that George drew. But at no point did she stop to think that maybe George didn’t love her, that her hope was now unfounded. It would be insanity to believe such a thing, because this is how she saw her father treat her mother. Her mother and father had to be in love.
Cesar didn't begin to hope until he landed himself in prison, when the future made itself immediate through Mercedes and Nautica. It seems that only the characters who held the future, in any shape or form, in high regard where the ones who hoped. The young Cesar didn't have much planned outside just living the current day. The author never said that his only hope was to see the next day, it can be implied. And this hope was not the beneficial or destructive kind. It was the kind that made him survive. When he landed a spot in prison, his hope to get out and be with his daughters was what kept him going. In the later chapters, his hope to be with Mercedes became his "lifeline" as the author put it.
Hope for Coco seems like the only really positive aspect of her life. Amidst her frequent housing change, her bickering with Frankie and her girls, her episodes when she wound up hitting her girls, she never stopped hopping that in the future there'd be a day where she could support her family to the fullest. In the recent chapters, she has been doing so. Coco has taken up high school again to get her GED and hopefully with it, a stable job. She set up her daughters and even the sickly Pearl for an education, and despite the occasionally enormous dump along the way (like when Coco's car broke), she never, ever said "I give up" to herself or to her daughters. The only time that her hope ever degraded her, however not to a critical state, was her hope that she would give Cesar a son; it would be her ticket to having Cesar forever. But as fate had it, and long story short, Cesar married Giselle. Coco's hope for a better future might even be characterized by how she unselfishly gives people in need of assistance the assistance they need. Especially at Thorpe, she gave away things and funds she needed for the family; the same occurred at Corliss Park, and again when they moved back to the Bronx. It's true that maybe the people themselves didn't have much hope for the future, but Coco did to an extent, or else she wouldn't be giving them anything because she wouldn't care what happened to them. I think that of all the characters, Coco is one of the few who's hope never really brought her down.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Line Inbetween
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/health/13waist.html?_r=1&ref=fitnessandnutrition&oref=slogin
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
ghetto chance of it
"Chance was opportunity in the ghetto, and you had to be prepared for anything."
"Anything" does not necessarily mean a good thing. What may end up being an opportunity for one in the ghetto could mean someone else getting the end of the stick. Unfortunately that is exactly what happened in the first two chapters. Every character introduced up to this point leaped far and hard towards that opportunity, only to be washed asunder by their very own actions. You had to be prepared for anything.
Jessica jumped for several opportunities. She jumped for Puma,
"Anything" does not necessarily mean a good thing. What may end up being an opportunity for one in the ghetto could mean someone else getting the end of the stick. Unfortunately that is exactly what happened in the first two chapters. Every character introduced up to this point leaped far and hard towards that opportunity, only to be washed asunder by their very own actions. You had to be prepared for anything.
Jessica jumped for several opportunities. She jumped for Puma,
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Water Dilemma
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/health/research/29perc.html?ref=health
“Drinking a lot of water is supposed to be healthy, but there is apparently little scientific support for the belief.” Whoa. Now that turns a lot of things on its head. I am an avid reader of health magazines, namely that of Men’s Health. I have frequently seen studies pertaining to water and its benefits. All of them were convincing. So, all the studies were a load of bullcrap? Or the review of the clinical records were a bit off?
Several claims of waters were attacked by this article. The article says that water has no effect on weight gain. Contrary to this, I have read that drinking about 8 cups of water a day, for a year, helps your body burn approximately 17400 more calories a year (nearly 5 pounds). The article says that the knowledge that water removes “toxins” from the body is baseless. Contrary to this statement, I read about several accounts of men who have taken a supplement of amino acids, specifically Creatine, and ended up with Kidney Stones because of their lack of adequate hydration.
In the February 2008 issue, there were two articles that talked about the benefits of water. According to “German research” and the study author Jens Jordan, M.D., your metabolism will increase by about 24 percent after drinking a glass of cold water. In another study, by the University of Connecticut, they found that men who were hydrated before they lifted heavy completed 17 percent more repetitions per every set than those who were not. That kind of increase can make a huge difference in your gains for your workout. So apparently, these clinical records are calling these studies false, though apparently studies are meant to mimic the conditions of a clinic.
These researchers should really come to an agreement. True, though water seems to be beneficiary, “under normal circumstances, drinking extra water is unnecessary,” as the Dr. Stanley Goldfarb says in the article. For the purpose of being generally healthy, I don’t see why anyone would need to overdo it on the water. If you’re not thirsty, you’re basically drinking enough water. But I’m not one to say, the researchers are. Who is right?
“Drinking a lot of water is supposed to be healthy, but there is apparently little scientific support for the belief.” Whoa. Now that turns a lot of things on its head. I am an avid reader of health magazines, namely that of Men’s Health. I have frequently seen studies pertaining to water and its benefits. All of them were convincing. So, all the studies were a load of bullcrap? Or the review of the clinical records were a bit off?
Several claims of waters were attacked by this article. The article says that water has no effect on weight gain. Contrary to this, I have read that drinking about 8 cups of water a day, for a year, helps your body burn approximately 17400 more calories a year (nearly 5 pounds). The article says that the knowledge that water removes “toxins” from the body is baseless. Contrary to this statement, I read about several accounts of men who have taken a supplement of amino acids, specifically Creatine, and ended up with Kidney Stones because of their lack of adequate hydration.
In the February 2008 issue, there were two articles that talked about the benefits of water. According to “German research” and the study author Jens Jordan, M.D., your metabolism will increase by about 24 percent after drinking a glass of cold water. In another study, by the University of Connecticut, they found that men who were hydrated before they lifted heavy completed 17 percent more repetitions per every set than those who were not. That kind of increase can make a huge difference in your gains for your workout. So apparently, these clinical records are calling these studies false, though apparently studies are meant to mimic the conditions of a clinic.
These researchers should really come to an agreement. True, though water seems to be beneficiary, “under normal circumstances, drinking extra water is unnecessary,” as the Dr. Stanley Goldfarb says in the article. For the purpose of being generally healthy, I don’t see why anyone would need to overdo it on the water. If you’re not thirsty, you’re basically drinking enough water. But I’m not one to say, the researchers are. Who is right?
Watergate
"I deeply regret that this situation has arisen, because I think that the Watergate tragedy is the greatest tragedy this country has ever suffered. I used to think that the Civil War was our country's greatest tragedy, but I do remember that there were some redeeming features in the Civil War in that there was some spirit of sacrifice and heroism displayed on both sides. I see no redeeming features in Watergate." - Senator Sam Ervin
To compare the scandal to the Civil War – this was serious business. He does make a point, that in this unfortunate event in America’s history, there really was no “redeeming feature” in it. The president superseded the people, plain and simple. He also lied to their faces, and the courts’ too. There was no sacrifice found in this case, unless you consider the image of the president, which he put on the stakes himself. It was a selfish sacrifice, its purpose being to secure his seat in the White House after his defeat in the 1963 elections. Sore loser. As big as the elections are, and as important the seat of President is, I think he should’ve kept in mind that the position is meant for people who give a damn about their country and not the so much just the power.
I had no idea the five men found in the Watergate building were all Cubans. All Cubans. It’s odd, because the nation was just inching out of the Cold War, and now here we have these Cubans trying to infiltrate (actually they did already) a government building. I have no doubts this was done on purpose. They were apparently well-off Cubans, with prestigious jobs. Was this actually one of the precautions set by Nixon and his advisors incase the plan went to go wrong? Blame the Cubans who were stereotypically communist for breaking into the democrats headquarters during the time nearing the elections?
To compare the scandal to the Civil War – this was serious business. He does make a point, that in this unfortunate event in America’s history, there really was no “redeeming feature” in it. The president superseded the people, plain and simple. He also lied to their faces, and the courts’ too. There was no sacrifice found in this case, unless you consider the image of the president, which he put on the stakes himself. It was a selfish sacrifice, its purpose being to secure his seat in the White House after his defeat in the 1963 elections. Sore loser. As big as the elections are, and as important the seat of President is, I think he should’ve kept in mind that the position is meant for people who give a damn about their country and not the so much just the power.
I had no idea the five men found in the Watergate building were all Cubans. All Cubans. It’s odd, because the nation was just inching out of the Cold War, and now here we have these Cubans trying to infiltrate (actually they did already) a government building. I have no doubts this was done on purpose. They were apparently well-off Cubans, with prestigious jobs. Was this actually one of the precautions set by Nixon and his advisors incase the plan went to go wrong? Blame the Cubans who were stereotypically communist for breaking into the democrats headquarters during the time nearing the elections?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Bernstein and Woodward
Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward were two lucky guys. You can give them credit for amassing a hefty amount of headlines drawing links between the coming elections and the Watergate burglary, and for pursuing it. You can’t give them complete credit though, because they only uncovered enough to say there were parallels. They didn’t have enough information to make any direct, conclusive statements about the scandal, until of course, they found “Deep Throat.” If he didn’t give them the insider on what was going on with the Nixon campaign, Nixon would not have been put into the motions of impeachment. Still, after they got that information, I can begin to acknowledge their efforts again. After their breakout story on October 10th, 1972, the pressure was on. The rest is history.
Yeah, they were lucky. But if they didn’t accidently stumble on the scandal, it would’ve gone on longer. There would be far less pressure on the party if Bernstein and Woodward weren’t on their tails. If they weren’t cornered by the two journalists, I wonder how history would be affected, if at all. I say “if at all” because I don’t see why the FBI or someone loosely involved with the government or group wouldn’t catch on. The discovery might come late, but Nixon could still be charged for it. Lucky that the guys found it out when they did, soon enough to quell it before the elections. In Bernstein’s words: "At the same time, we were in the right place at the right time and did the right thing." Couldn’t agree more.
They were definitely dedicated to their jobs though, and went far to get this story. Both started with their journalism careers pretty early. Carl started as a copy boy when he was 16, and stayed in the journalism field up to the scandal. Woodward, I was surprised to find, didn’t start as a journalist but as a marine. When he left, he considered law school and was accepted into Harvard; he did not attend. Instead, he steered to journalism. I was also surprised to find that Woodward was so dedicated to improving his ability as a journalist (he was turned down by the Post at first) that he continued to interview people and recon for info beyond his working hours, meaning, he wasn’t getting paid for it. That’s some powerful motivation. The same that probably drove him to follow the scandal.
Yeah, they were lucky. But if they didn’t accidently stumble on the scandal, it would’ve gone on longer. There would be far less pressure on the party if Bernstein and Woodward weren’t on their tails. If they weren’t cornered by the two journalists, I wonder how history would be affected, if at all. I say “if at all” because I don’t see why the FBI or someone loosely involved with the government or group wouldn’t catch on. The discovery might come late, but Nixon could still be charged for it. Lucky that the guys found it out when they did, soon enough to quell it before the elections. In Bernstein’s words: "At the same time, we were in the right place at the right time and did the right thing." Couldn’t agree more.
They were definitely dedicated to their jobs though, and went far to get this story. Both started with their journalism careers pretty early. Carl started as a copy boy when he was 16, and stayed in the journalism field up to the scandal. Woodward, I was surprised to find, didn’t start as a journalist but as a marine. When he left, he considered law school and was accepted into Harvard; he did not attend. Instead, he steered to journalism. I was also surprised to find that Woodward was so dedicated to improving his ability as a journalist (he was turned down by the Post at first) that he continued to interview people and recon for info beyond his working hours, meaning, he wasn’t getting paid for it. That’s some powerful motivation. The same that probably drove him to follow the scandal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)