The beginning of the movie was rough to say the least. I found myself getting quite worried that the movie would be terrible and make me want to fall asleep. Thankfully the movie got way better as it went along. I didnt really like the credits in the beginning of the movie it just felt super weird. I also didnt like that at some parts the movie was quite confusing, there were parts that just threw me for a loop. Some of the scenes are a little too over dramatic and cheesy like when Scotty faints off the stool in the beginning. I like that the film has some mysterious aspects to it and that the music adds effect to what is going on in the scene. I feel like the addition of Midge in the film is crucial because she seems to be almost jealous of Madeline and Scotty. I think the acting is actually pretty good for how old the film is. They portray the story pretty well. I also like the sense of mystery thats added by having Madeline look at the portrait and the grave. I feel like those scenes make the movie good. I predict that Midge is going to somehow interfere with Madeline and Scottys “relationship”. She seems quite jealous and upset over what is going on because she at once was engaged to Scotty. Scotty was sent to follow Madeline for his friend since that was his wife, but instead hews hitting on her and trying to pick her up. Scotty will probably end up with Madeline in the end because it seems as though they have a special relationship. Overall I would say that the film is decently interesting, it could be a lot worse. I feel like the more you watch it the more it draws the viewer in. I expected the movie, based on the beginning, to be a lot worse than it is so im thankful that it is actually intriguing.
Breaking down the poem by sentences and interpreting its meaning as a class through the presentations really helped me understand what the poem was about. My reaction to the poem is that Whitman gives good advice to those and has a lot of faith in society becoming better, but doesnt seem to do the things he preaches. However i like how he gives advice to society and delivers a sense of hope. That hope is that those in society will better themselves. I feel like Whitmans poem makes me want to become a better person and helps me realize that even in the rough days there is hope. I think section 52 was the most interesting because this is the section where Whitman realizes that he has been doing the exact opposite of what hes been preaching. He also comes to sense with the fact that he will be dying soon in this section. He tells readers that when hes dead you can search in his poetry to find him. His poetry will be his legacy and his thoughts. This is plain to see this poem is one of the most influential because poets nowadays are basing their works off of it. Many lessons that are in Whitmans poem are also embedded in those of the modern day. I believe it relates to today because everyone seems to be looking for ways to better themselves and find who they really are. People feel rushed to find their true identity and figure out what they are going to do in life. Another big thing is equality. Whitman expresses his love for equality in section 6. Equality is still something that we struggle with today because unfortunately not everyone has as open as a mind as Whitman. People are quick to judge others based on things they cant choose such as race or gender. As a reader I question why Whitman write this poem. Was he himself lost or was he trying to leave something for future generations to seek for advice? Did Whitman actually live his life the way he is telling readers to or did he fall short? Lastly I wonder what Whitman was in search of when writing this poem. I would say this poem is about an 6/10 because from the beginning i didnt understand it. It required a decent amount of time to figure out the meaning behind it and the poem itself was pretty long. However, I do like the message that Whitman gets across in the poem. He does a good job of providing hope for those in the future.
I have a split opinion when it comes to “that government is best which governs least”. There needs to be laws that are enforced to keep everyone on the right track and to stop people from committing crimes that put themselves and others in danger. However, these laws must be reasonable and should not be controlling of others. People who are under strict and unreasonable laws may have the tendency to rebel or cause chaos in order to show their lack of approval. We just learned not long ago in American Cultures about prohibition. This is an example of a law being too controlling and too strict. The law didnt stop people from consuming and selling alcohol but instead caused people to do it in secret. They would open illegal bars called speak easies where everyone would gather and break the prohibition law. Based on this past, one where people do what they wish anyway, having too controlling of a government just doesnt work. I believe it is important to have a government that has a handle on issues but isnt too controlling and inhibiting. A government that commands respect would be a dictatorship because if you speak out against it you will be killed or arrested. These punishments stop people from speaking out against dictators and their government. This is why it is so hard to make a stand against a dictatorship or make a chance. Civil disobedience is still very preeminent in todays society. People protest for gay rights, womens rights, salary increases, gun control and other causes they feel important . These protests happen extremely often in places all over the country. Chances are if you take a trip to D.C. , you will see people protesting their causes on the daily. I am unsure if all of these protets are exactly effective though. These assembly’s promote publicity but can go amiss when someone does something extreme or violent. In these cases, instead of a positive message being portrayed, a negative image is given to the cause. In order for these protests to be effective everyone must behave in a proper and nonviolent way.
I believe Emerson and Thoreau share a lot of similar beliefs and ideas. One of those similar views was about self reliance. In order to become better people we must prove so through our actions and behaviors. However when looking further in depth in this concept of self reliance you can see that Emerson believes we are capable of becoming someone as perfect as Jesus. Thoreau has more of the belief that you create the world you want to coexist in and to value what you have. Thoreau seems to believe that the less you have the more you have to gain. Emerson appears to have a greater appreciation of Nature than Thoreau based on my observations. Emerson points out all nature has to offer and how we are less than nature while Thoreau seems to pick out the parts of nature that arent perfect or are in another sense ugly in his eyes.I believe “Where I Lived and What I Lived For?” explains a lot about why he choose to go to the woods and endure its rough conditions. I believe this is mainly about the importance of a simple life that isnt taken over by materialistic things. Sometimes in life its the simple things that make you the happiest. You dont need a luxury car or a mansion on a lake to live a happy life. In the end its the simple things that you will always rely on. The main point of “The conclusion” is that you shouldn’t be a follower but instead should take the reins and be a leader. You have to be unique and cant be a carbon copy of everyone else. In order to do great things you have to break away from the standards, expectations and crowds. In life you have to do the things that make you happy and put yourself ahead. I believe some of the benefits of Thoreaus leaving behind society is that the amount of drama would be majorly reduced. You dont have to deal with other peoples problems and pettiness and can instead focus on yourself and following your dreams. I however would miss my phone and miss all the technology that i have in my life if i were to follow Thoreau. Although i would like to say i wouldnt, i would end up missing materialistic items. I honestly dont think i could do it. I believe the reader should take out of transcendentalism is that idea that you should always be yourself because you control your fate. Instead of striving to be alike strive to do the unexpected and strive to be known as the one who didnt follow the pack. If we are all the same there will never be new inventions or new ways of thinking. Overall, the idea is just to be unique; be you and be proud of who you are.
I believe the purpose of independent reading is to allow students to read what they wish instead of being forced to read a particular book or novel. Independent reading can help improve vocabulary as well because the more you read, the greater your vocabulary will become. As a student I believe that some form of incentive would make students want to read more. Often with a lot of homework, studying and other activities reading slips students minds. The least they are worried about, especially if the dont like reading, is picking up a book.
I selected the book “An Abundance of Katherine’s” by John Greene for my first book for the 3rd quarter. I selected this book because I have read most of John Greene’s other books and enjoyed them so I figured why not. Im not exactly sure what to think after reading the first chapter. I wasnt a huge fan of the first chapter so im hoping it gets better. I believe that Colin will try to get Katherine 19 back based on the first chapter of the book. I dont really have any major concerns about creating a book trailer.
Transcendentalism….I still have no idea what it means. My initial thoughts were that I am gonna need a lot of explanation. I feel like this could be one long unit filled with struggles and possibly a fear tears of frustration. As for saying the word transcendentalism, I have concluded I am fully incapable of doing it properly. After getting a little bit of a grasp on the concept from reading the excerpts, im still not sure what exactly to think of it. Both of the excerpts game me a little bit of hassle trying to understand them, but once i understood them I believed that they are both pretty intriguing. I never really sat down and thought about the topics that Emerson expressed in the excerpts. The metaphors, when you understand them, really do help to add to the meaning of the excerpts and they are pretty cool. What he is saying I believe is true. Nature is more important and bigger than any human will ever be and it is true that when you follow others you loose your sense of self.
Im not sure if i agree with the idea of transcendentalism or not, im kinda in the middle. Humans can be gentle, sweet and caring to each other and have a lot of good in their hearts. On the other hand, some people are out to get you no matter what you do and I feel like that can kinda be qualified as evil. No human is ever going to be perfect when you look at the whole picture. The more I think about it the more I do lean towards the side of man being evil. People these days commit crimes without thinking much of it. In reality do they really have remorse for their actions or are they just afraid of punishments in store for them. These days people will do whatever it takes to get themselves ahead in life even if it is in the expense of others and i feel as though that in itself is wrong. To conclude, there is no such thing as a perfect human being but it seems as though we are leaning in the wrong direction and need society to have rules to keep from bad things happening.
No matter what stages in our lives everyone is going to have differing opinions on certain topics. Often people argue with each other based on what they believe is right and just. Most arguments are based on individuals emotions. They have a strong emotion about a topic and feel the need to explain why their view is the right one to have. Often people get upset over a debate and are very one sided. Someone who is arguing for one side of a topic will often disregard the other side which is a fatal flaw. Although you may not view the other side as correct, it is valuable to state facts of the other side and try to explain why they are negative. Often extremely one sided arguments that provide no fact of the other side are easy to shoot down. The topic of abortion in the class debates was one that had a lot of emotion tied in with it. Were we really getting the rock solid facts or were we getting someones opinion in an attempt to sound like a fact? It is often hard to listen to the other side of a debate because you often already have a personal stand on the issue. Our in class debates were pretty formal. They included a constructive, cross-examination, rebuttal and conclusion. We were very well prepared (at least most of us) for these arguments but in real life there are times you often have no preparation for an argument. If you meet some guy on the street who wants to argue about if marijuana should be legalized you dont have any facts to whip out off the top of your head. This often makes real life arguments harder to fight. I personally believe that the best debate in our class was the legalization of marijuana debate between Autumn and Alexa. They both did a really good job providing facts for their side of the argument but yet still addressed the other side. They had really good questions to ask each other during the cross- examination, some of which the other couldn’t answer. When it came to the rebuttal they both proved why the other side was wrong, pointing out fallacies each other used. Their conclusions were strong as well making it extremely hard, as a listener, to decide which side had won the debate.
I believe that my views have stayed pretty much the same over time. I still believe that illegal immigration is a big problem because it is unfair to those who are here legally. I think the most interesting fact was that the government spends 113 billion annually on illegal immigrants. I never imagined it would be such a high amount of money. I didnt know these exact statistics before researching them for my debate. Forbes.com gave me the information on this statistic. I believe my topic can trigger sadness, pity and anger. People often feel anger for illegals because they indeed are here illegally and are taking things away from legal citizens such as jobs and tax dollars. It can trigger sadness and pity because of the fact illegal immigrants get housing aid when veterans and american families are left to sleep on the streets. I believe my debate topic is emotionally charged by itself because a lot of people have differing opinions on the topic. My topic is one that has a big impact on ethics. Ethics means having justice and fairness but when it comes to illegal immigration its hard to find anything exactly fair about it. One ethical argument for illegal immigration is that it gives people a chance at their dream but one against it is that legal tax payers are spending their hard earned money to pay for illegal immigrants which isnt fair. I believe emotion is most important for my topic because each person has different emotional views of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration causes many people to feel a wide variety of emotions. As said before, in my case, there is anger about illegal immigration but those in favor of it may say they feel sadness for them because they want to make a better life for themselves. I feel like there is some slippery slope against illegal immigration but a lot of appeal to emotion in favor of illegal immigration. Ive learned that when debating nobody cares about your opinion. If you put the words i or i believe in people are less likely to be persuaded. I believe in the future i wont be using any of my opinions in debates but instead using valid facts.
My topic is immigration, specifically the question “is illegal immigration as big as a problem as it is perceived to be?” My side of the argument is pro so I will be arguing that illegal immigration is as big as a problem as it is perceived. Id say this is my personal opinion to when it comes to the topic of illegal immigration. I believe that immigrants should be welcomed but they should go through the process legally instead of coming here illegally. I know that there is a large amount of illegal immigrants entering the country yearly. Those immigrants dont pay taxes like American citizens must, so essentially they are are benefiting majorly. When googling this topic multiple sites pop up stating both the pros and cons of illegal immigration. The pros being economics, especially farming. Many illegal immigrants are used to farm produce. I plan on addressing both sides of the argument in my debate in order to further support my stance. Pity can be brought into the debate because people often feel bad for illegal immigrants because they are supposedly just trying to make a better life for themselves. The immigration process is often long and strenuous and many immigrants dont have the time to go through the process. They are so far into poverty they must do whatever necessary to try to turn their lives around for themselves and their families. To support that illegal immigration is bad you can hit the emotion of anger because American citizens have to pay for things but illegal immigrants dont. This is unfair to many many Americans, some of whom are barely making it by money wise. How is it proper that someone who is here legally must contribute money when those who come illegally get off free? I believe this topic can be debated strongly in favor of and against which will make it quite challenging.
My article argues the fact that Orcas win the battle of apex predators over Great White sharks, but what if Great Whites are actually the winner? Great White sharks are the largest predatory fish in the world. They have razor sharp teeth that can be 2.5 inches long and are used to rip chunks of flesh off. They often attacked unseen, unheard and lie in shallow waters. Great Whites have great speed allowing them to suddenly attack their prey and they are located close to the top of the food chain. Great Whites have an incredible sense of smell and can smell blood in the ocean from far distances away. 3 miles away is the range in which they can pick up a scent. They can detect electrical signals that come from other living animals naturally. Sharks can sense vibrations as well which helps them hunt well. Great Whites don’t need oxygen in order to survive so they can stay submerged when hunting their prey. The sharks use their large powerful bodies to help attack the prey that they are after. Sometimes they go after seals but ultimately it comes down to what prey is available in their location at the time. These massive sharks can weigh between 1500-2400 pounds and can grow up to 21 feet in length! The sharks can swim up to 35 mph which allows them to quickly reach their prey. The bite force of a Great White is 4,000 psi, that is 10 times the bite force of a lion. They are also smart, the sharks tend to hunt early in the mornings when visibility is low which makes killing prey easier. Not to mention the fact that they can jump up to ten feet above the surface of the water to catch their dinner. Great Whites often are over looked on how powerful they truly are. These sharks are capable of things far beyond our beliefs. Don’t automatically assume that Great Whites are less powerful than Orca’s. Whos to say a Great White couldnt beat up on an Orca? If you dont judge people by rumors why should you judge the Great Whites from rumors? Just because some sites say that orcas are more powerful doesnt mean you should automatically believe it. Do thorough research and learn for yourself. If your like myself, you will see that Great Whites have a lot of power and are capable of many things, one of which I believe is taking down an Orca single- handedly.