http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/kristof-where-pimps-peddle-their-goods.html?_r=1&ref=nicholasdkristof#
I just finished reding an article about prositution, specificall online prositution. The article was written by Nicholas Kristof. The article is about how girls are who are usually picked off by guys on the street, are now being sold practically online as well. It's like an auction and whichever pimp can pay more for the girl, she gets sold to them. Nicholas had spoken privately with a former prostitute who escaped after years of torturous rape and abuse. The article was based upon a website that helped sell these poor oung ladies. It's as if they are just toys a collector doesn't want anymore and sells them.
Nicholas makes his opinion known through out the article. He voices his opinion about sex trafficking by saying, "...but it would help to have public pressure on Village Voice Media to stop carrying prostitution advertising." Also when he says "Isn’t it infinitely more insulting to provide a forum for the sale of women and girls?" He definetly shows that he is against sex trafficking. He thinks that people do not help the situation by accepting ads and posting them or practically giving people the option to sell these young girls/women as objects and sex toys. He figures that if a major webpage stops using ads and promoting online prostitution, maybe the pimps will realize that no one cares about prostitution anymore and stop doing that. " Backpage’s exit from prostitution advertising wouldn’t solve the problem, for smaller Web sites would take on some of the ads. But it would be a setback for pimps to lose a major online marketplace."
I think this is a horrible digusting promblem that teenage girls and even young adults have to face in life. Guys don't always understand what girls really go though. Why they take martial arts or carry mace in the handbags. Because some guys are disgusting pigs. As girls approach their teenage years, they want more freedom. They wanna hang with friends, stay out later, start to dress differently. But, as girls, we always have to be on our toes. A guy can come out of no where and seem friendly and nice but he just in the end, wants to use you as a toy. Girls really have to be careful when it comes to dating or walking the neighborhood. Some men have a mindset that girls are not humans and equal to men but are used to sex and can be sold. As girls become young adults, even though we may have more freedom and a social life, to what risk are we willing to go? Nobody should have to be sold for sex and passed around amongst others as a toy. I am outraged by this, but i do realize that this is what happens when you're pretty, teenage girl. Not everyone can see past your appearance and realize that you're actually not a pretty toy but a human being.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
How Thick are You? (#1)
Some people are actors. They don't get payed for being an actor and aren't hired for gigs, but are still acctors. Except we don't call them actors, we call them fakers; fake people; materialistic. They only see things from the outside. Do you have any friends like that? Any people you see that act different in front of people then when they're with you? SPOILER ALERT! In the book The Splendor Falls, by Rosemary Clement-Moore, Shawn Maddox is the apple of the town's eyes. He is the perfect eenager. He has good looks, charm, leadership, friendlyness; he's just all around the perfect guy. But to Rhys and Sylvie, they see right past his charming wall. As it turns out, in the end, Shawn really wanted to control people and things with magic and he wormed his way into everybody's hearts-especially the adults-by being the golden boy, the angel, the good samaritan for anyone/everyone in town. But how long could Shawn keep up the golden boy attitude before someone caught on? Especially who knows stage presence/real personalities.
Rhys knew all along what Shawn was doing. Shawn had tried to rope him into it to but Rhys refused. And Sylvie almost was roped in, but she realized what she was about to do and stopped herself. Shawn was just trying to more trustworthy and loyal in front of the adults in town. Like in a real highschool, sometimes the best behaved, golden boy of everyone's eyes is really just a guy who wants to get in girls pants but charms their way in. I think the author purposely made Sylvie feel attracted to both male characters not because teh plot thickens-which it did- but because it creates two different examples of people in one character. Rhys was portrayed as the down to earth, quiet/outcaste, good looking modest guy and Shawn was portrayed as the golden boy, the trustkeeper, the leader of the graduating class, good looking and semi or entirely rich kind of guy. Two entirely different opposites which made Sylvie have to choose the kind of life she wanted in the future. She had to choose "one path".
Not always can people see through each others fake personality and see the real them. Some people just want to see the good in everyone, and they get used and hurt. I think the author was trying to say that people aren't always who they say they are. Some people are only skin thick/deep. They don't realize that there are actual feelings and emotions to a person besides just looks. Shawn was Edward in The Splendor Falls. Rhys was the Jacob. Some people do see past all the layers of appearance and look with in. Do you?
Rhys knew all along what Shawn was doing. Shawn had tried to rope him into it to but Rhys refused. And Sylvie almost was roped in, but she realized what she was about to do and stopped herself. Shawn was just trying to more trustworthy and loyal in front of the adults in town. Like in a real highschool, sometimes the best behaved, golden boy of everyone's eyes is really just a guy who wants to get in girls pants but charms their way in. I think the author purposely made Sylvie feel attracted to both male characters not because teh plot thickens-which it did- but because it creates two different examples of people in one character. Rhys was portrayed as the down to earth, quiet/outcaste, good looking modest guy and Shawn was portrayed as the golden boy, the trustkeeper, the leader of the graduating class, good looking and semi or entirely rich kind of guy. Two entirely different opposites which made Sylvie have to choose the kind of life she wanted in the future. She had to choose "one path".
Not always can people see through each others fake personality and see the real them. Some people just want to see the good in everyone, and they get used and hurt. I think the author was trying to say that people aren't always who they say they are. Some people are only skin thick/deep. They don't realize that there are actual feelings and emotions to a person besides just looks. Shawn was Edward in The Splendor Falls. Rhys was the Jacob. Some people do see past all the layers of appearance and look with in. Do you?
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Redemption for Yourself
"Well, Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming?"
Have you ever done something wrong? Or haven't DONE anything at all when you could have? And when another opportunity comes along similar to the last or something huge comes into your life, did you take it? Did you believe that if you righted this wrong, you make up for the last one you didn't do? Did you think you could ty to redeem youself? SPOILER ALERT! In my book, Silence of the Lambs, by Thomas Harris, Dr. Lecter presumes that Clarice is trying so hard to find "Buffalo Bill" so "the lambs" will finally stop crying. The lambs that Dr. Lecter is implying are the lambs from Clarices' childhood. The relatives she lived with for a short period, slaughtered lambs and horses. She ran away with a horse that was on "death row". She awoke that early morning because the lambs were screaming. They knew that they were being killed. She had heard the lambs through out the rest of her life. She wasn't able to save those lambs.
Clarice did stop Buffalo Bill from killing a seventh girl. Clarice was never able to save those lambs and i think that that has haunted her a little through out her life. Dr. Lecter brought up the lambs i think because he realized that these girls Bill was killing were practically getting slaughtered. She pushed or all the details and answers from him because deep down, those girls were teh sceaming lambs. They were the helpless animals who had their life cut to short. I think that Clarice carried this around and wanted to save these girls not just for justice, but because they were like the lambs. She wanted to redeem herself. To prove she couldn't just walk away from these girls as she had done with the lambs. She wanted to prove to whoever that she did care, she felt their pain as their cries rang out. She understood. And after leaving the innocent lambs alone and dead, she couldn't do that agian. She couldn't just walk away from the case and let someone else handle it. Her pride and dignity was connected to this case on a personal and professional level.
When i think of this sentence, i think about how ignorant people are blind to the need of others. But suddenly, when they need help, they can see perfectly. And they see that they ignored all the need from others, ignoring others entirely. But i don't think this sentence is menat that way here. Thomas Harris wrote that line for Dr. Lecter, who cared dearly about Clarice. To Clarice, the lambs were silenced. She felt as though she had redeemed herself. I think that if your always tying to make up what you missed, you'll miss out on opportunities that are waiting for you to turn around and stop looking back. But i still think that redeeming yourself-to your own standards-is good. A weight will lit off your shoulders. Don't let an opportunity go by for you to "save the lambs."
Have you ever done something wrong? Or haven't DONE anything at all when you could have? And when another opportunity comes along similar to the last or something huge comes into your life, did you take it? Did you believe that if you righted this wrong, you make up for the last one you didn't do? Did you think you could ty to redeem youself? SPOILER ALERT! In my book, Silence of the Lambs, by Thomas Harris, Dr. Lecter presumes that Clarice is trying so hard to find "Buffalo Bill" so "the lambs" will finally stop crying. The lambs that Dr. Lecter is implying are the lambs from Clarices' childhood. The relatives she lived with for a short period, slaughtered lambs and horses. She ran away with a horse that was on "death row". She awoke that early morning because the lambs were screaming. They knew that they were being killed. She had heard the lambs through out the rest of her life. She wasn't able to save those lambs.
Clarice did stop Buffalo Bill from killing a seventh girl. Clarice was never able to save those lambs and i think that that has haunted her a little through out her life. Dr. Lecter brought up the lambs i think because he realized that these girls Bill was killing were practically getting slaughtered. She pushed or all the details and answers from him because deep down, those girls were teh sceaming lambs. They were the helpless animals who had their life cut to short. I think that Clarice carried this around and wanted to save these girls not just for justice, but because they were like the lambs. She wanted to redeem herself. To prove she couldn't just walk away from these girls as she had done with the lambs. She wanted to prove to whoever that she did care, she felt their pain as their cries rang out. She understood. And after leaving the innocent lambs alone and dead, she couldn't do that agian. She couldn't just walk away from the case and let someone else handle it. Her pride and dignity was connected to this case on a personal and professional level.
When i think of this sentence, i think about how ignorant people are blind to the need of others. But suddenly, when they need help, they can see perfectly. And they see that they ignored all the need from others, ignoring others entirely. But i don't think this sentence is menat that way here. Thomas Harris wrote that line for Dr. Lecter, who cared dearly about Clarice. To Clarice, the lambs were silenced. She felt as though she had redeemed herself. I think that if your always tying to make up what you missed, you'll miss out on opportunities that are waiting for you to turn around and stop looking back. But i still think that redeeming yourself-to your own standards-is good. A weight will lit off your shoulders. Don't let an opportunity go by for you to "save the lambs."
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet
After watching the movie, I had a lot to think about. What I found very interesting about the movie was the way Baz Luherman deicded when to play the music. Almost every scene has music. And I think every scene has different music to go along with the cahracters in that scene or the action/suspense during the scene. I think by having Baz Luherman specifically choose where the music plays in (a) or (the) scene(s) was a symbol for the audience to think deeper in that scene.
When I first noticed this, it was in the very beginning. The prologue actually. After the "newscaster" comes and says the prologue, when all the cahracters are being introdueced. The music is very loud and kind of up beaet. Like, the drums and the singing gets louder as the intro goes on. But when it gets to the end, like right before the "title page" William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the music speeds up and it comes to like one note and then it abruptly stops. I think Baz Luherman did that for the prolouge/intro to show that all these characters have power and importance but when it stops at the end saying ...Romeo and Juliet, it's like saying but all these characters and the storyline are in the balance of these two characters, i.e. Romeo and Juliet.
Then i noticed when Tybalt and Mercutio has started to verbally fight on the beach, in the background, quietly you could hear the rhythm of upbeat music. Like, the music was started like the fight but when Romeo pulled up in teh car, the music that had now subdued from a soft rhythm to a just a louding beat stopped and when Tybalt called Romeo, it was just silence. Again I think Baz Luherman purposely stopped the music in that moment and purposely lead the music up higher and then silence to show that if the audience wasn't paying attention before, they should now because this part is important. Romeo didn't see Tybalt until his name was called. They are from two different sides of power who both cannot stand each other. (Romeo tried reaching out to Tybalt but Tybalt refused.)
And then at the very end of the movie, there was no music. In the death scene specifically. When Romeo first arrived at the church, there was. But all while he was talking, there wasn't. All you heard was his voice. And when he took some of the poison, a slow and low song played until he died. Then there was complete silence while Juliet sobbed and looked around for a way to kill herself. And there especially was no music when she picked up the gun and shot herself. The (2nd) climax of the scene held no music. I think Baz Luherman wanted the audience to really pay attention to what was happening in the scene and to clearly hear everything and not everything with music.
When i think about all the things Baz Luherman purposely did in this movie for a ceratin reason i think about the music. I think that whenever Baz Luherman thought a scene or part was very important for the audience NOT to miss, he played music and then stopped it. He wanted to grab the audiences attention and then deliver the climax in silence for meaning of importance to that specific part.
When I first noticed this, it was in the very beginning. The prologue actually. After the "newscaster" comes and says the prologue, when all the cahracters are being introdueced. The music is very loud and kind of up beaet. Like, the drums and the singing gets louder as the intro goes on. But when it gets to the end, like right before the "title page" William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the music speeds up and it comes to like one note and then it abruptly stops. I think Baz Luherman did that for the prolouge/intro to show that all these characters have power and importance but when it stops at the end saying ...Romeo and Juliet, it's like saying but all these characters and the storyline are in the balance of these two characters, i.e. Romeo and Juliet.
Then i noticed when Tybalt and Mercutio has started to verbally fight on the beach, in the background, quietly you could hear the rhythm of upbeat music. Like, the music was started like the fight but when Romeo pulled up in teh car, the music that had now subdued from a soft rhythm to a just a louding beat stopped and when Tybalt called Romeo, it was just silence. Again I think Baz Luherman purposely stopped the music in that moment and purposely lead the music up higher and then silence to show that if the audience wasn't paying attention before, they should now because this part is important. Romeo didn't see Tybalt until his name was called. They are from two different sides of power who both cannot stand each other. (Romeo tried reaching out to Tybalt but Tybalt refused.)
And then at the very end of the movie, there was no music. In the death scene specifically. When Romeo first arrived at the church, there was. But all while he was talking, there wasn't. All you heard was his voice. And when he took some of the poison, a slow and low song played until he died. Then there was complete silence while Juliet sobbed and looked around for a way to kill herself. And there especially was no music when she picked up the gun and shot herself. The (2nd) climax of the scene held no music. I think Baz Luherman wanted the audience to really pay attention to what was happening in the scene and to clearly hear everything and not everything with music.
When i think about all the things Baz Luherman purposely did in this movie for a ceratin reason i think about the music. I think that whenever Baz Luherman thought a scene or part was very important for the audience NOT to miss, he played music and then stopped it. He wanted to grab the audiences attention and then deliver the climax in silence for meaning of importance to that specific part.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Stubborness-I hate it!
Have you ever been so stubborn with someone you care about? Like, you realllyyy want something from your parents and you beg and debate but you refuse to give up? Or trying to be independent and choose your own choices but someone is there trying to stop you or protect you and you get very stubborn? SPOILER ALERT! In my book Dead Before Dark the protagonist Lucinda Sloan is VERY stubborn. She has always been independent but now with Randy being back in her life-YAY!-and him being VERY protective, they constantly clash. Whenever Lucinda wants to go off on a excursion, Randy wants to come and protect. Lucinda fights that protective wing. I think that being stubborn and also being protected go hand in hand, but if there's no line, no independence, they will constantly feud.
I think Lucinda has always been independent. She's never really had a serious relationship and the only "relationship" she's had that was kind of serious was an affair with Randy years ago. Now, his wife and him split so they are close together again. Point being, Lucinda has never been really dependenton anybody. Not even her good friend Neal. And being sooo independent can bring on stubborness. Lucinda isn't used to having someone care about her the way Randy does. He wants to be the superhero, protect his woman like Spiderman. But Lucinda isn't used to being "smothered." She needs her space. Yeah, chasing a serial killer who wants to in the end kill HER may not be the best choice and of course, anyone who deeply cares about her would do exactly what Randy is. But trying to protect her so much, he's kind of smothering her. I would definetly try to convince her and follow her, but you can only do soo much before the person gets very upset and does something reckless.
As people get older, they can comereckeckles hind.Os till that they are stil are young . Benig stubborn and old ot in Lucinda'ways of helping her out when Randy was trying to protect her. Lucinda has so independent she hasn't been protected like this before. But with her being so stubborn, it doesn't help the situation. What would you if you were Randy or Lucinda?
I think Lucinda has always been independent. She's never really had a serious relationship and the only "relationship" she's had that was kind of serious was an affair with Randy years ago. Now, his wife and him split so they are close together again. Point being, Lucinda has never been really dependenton anybody. Not even her good friend Neal. And being sooo independent can bring on stubborness. Lucinda isn't used to having someone care about her the way Randy does. He wants to be the superhero, protect his woman like Spiderman. But Lucinda isn't used to being "smothered." She needs her space. Yeah, chasing a serial killer who wants to in the end kill HER may not be the best choice and of course, anyone who deeply cares about her would do exactly what Randy is. But trying to protect her so much, he's kind of smothering her. I would definetly try to convince her and follow her, but you can only do soo much before the person gets very upset and does something reckless.
As people get older, they can comereckeckles hind.Os till that they are stil are young . Benig stubborn and old ot in Lucinda'ways of helping her out when Randy was trying to protect her. Lucinda has so independent she hasn't been protected like this before. But with her being so stubborn, it doesn't help the situation. What would you if you were Randy or Lucinda?
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/140005439?high=on&rpp=50&pg=3&rndkey=20120124&ft=*&pos=101
I think this piece is talking about how the people in this world don't take initiative and help out some one without being asked. Like, they aren't the good samaritan and instead of going to help, TAKE INITIATIVE, they stand around and watch, waiting for someone else to do the work for them. I think this piece in one way shows someone protecting the villagers but in another sense, it shows this ONE person, who is willing to stand there and hold their arm up for who knows how long and protect these villagers and no one is doing anything.
If you look at teh picture closely you see that everyone is looking at the person, and looking up at this land/mountains the person is holding up. They've formed like this semi-circle around the person and are just watching. And some are even looking at each other or pointing up at the mountains but i see nobody who looks like they are going to help that one person. They are all watching and looking around, each waiting for something to happen or someone else to make the first move.
I think this relates to our world because a lot of people will jus walk by a homeless person for example and not put money or change in their jar or can or box. But when someone does, everyone looks at them like their weird. A lot of people in the world let other people do the work for them. They let other people risk their lives for someone else and watch when they can help! If no one helped anyone or anything, we would't be here right now. We would have destroyed the world already! But for the people who care enough to take initiative and help out complete strangers or someone they know is a big thing. Just like this person in the picture. Those mountains can fall at anytime. Most people would get out but the one person who definetly wouldn't get out is the one person holding it up. Risking their lives to HELP others.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
All Star Mentor Anouk!!!
http://agranditsreadingblog.blogspot.com/
I nominate Anouk for the All Star Mentor. Every Wednesday when i comment, the first blog i go to is Anouks. I love how she takes such a simple sentence and goes deep into the meaning. Last Wednesday she did a post on the book You Have To Stop This. Cass was given a daily, " To get to the other side joke," and Anouk didn't just see it as a joke, she imagined people as the thing crossing the Nile, which in reality is life. When i read that, i realized Anouk really puts in effort to make sure her thoughts are well put and deep. Anouk always puts in effort and it makes me look at the simple things in my books and try deciphering them on a deeper note. She doesn't make up this obvious theory and drag it out. I love Anouk's posts because they are thought-provoking and logical, she didn't just write down the first thing that came to mind. I read Anouk's posts EVERY Wednesday because we don't always think the same way about something or have the same idea, so it's intruiging to see what Anouk thinks like or about in her books. I choose Anouk as my mentor because she makes it a point to go deep and deep and keeps thinking about the idea, it's not just whatever comes to mind first, bad or good. I choose Anouk because i feel i can learn from her posts.
I nominate Anouk for the All Star Mentor. Every Wednesday when i comment, the first blog i go to is Anouks. I love how she takes such a simple sentence and goes deep into the meaning. Last Wednesday she did a post on the book You Have To Stop This. Cass was given a daily, " To get to the other side joke," and Anouk didn't just see it as a joke, she imagined people as the thing crossing the Nile, which in reality is life. When i read that, i realized Anouk really puts in effort to make sure her thoughts are well put and deep. Anouk always puts in effort and it makes me look at the simple things in my books and try deciphering them on a deeper note. She doesn't make up this obvious theory and drag it out. I love Anouk's posts because they are thought-provoking and logical, she didn't just write down the first thing that came to mind. I read Anouk's posts EVERY Wednesday because we don't always think the same way about something or have the same idea, so it's intruiging to see what Anouk thinks like or about in her books. I choose Anouk as my mentor because she makes it a point to go deep and deep and keeps thinking about the idea, it's not just whatever comes to mind first, bad or good. I choose Anouk because i feel i can learn from her posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)