Government, Get On Gun Control!

I read the New York Times editorial piece, "Common Sense in Connecticut." This article is about how Dannel Malloy, the Governor of Connecticut is talking about new gun control laws because of the Sandy Hook Elementary Tragedy. He wants to reform the outdated gun control laws and replace them with better, safer laws. While New York passed new gun control laws within weeks of the tragedy, Connecticut (the state within which the event took place) still is debating what to do on the matter. Malloy does plan to get stuff done though, he has talked quite a bit on the matter and has ideas of what to do that are similar to President Obama's. These ideas include strengthening the ban on ownership of any assault and semi-automatic weapons, those who own a gun would have to get a permit or dispose of it immediately, also it would be much more difficult to get a permit, if one had anything at all on their record that could make them at all unstable they would be refused.

I believe this is a huge step up and is something that we have needed for a while. I think it's awful that it had to take something as devastating as the Sandy Hook incident to finally open the government's eyes and make them see that the only way to stop people from using guns to harm others, is to take away (or make it very difficult to gain possession) of a gun. I don't understand why these harsher laws had not been established before, then maybe just maybe this wouldn't have even happened. But we can't go back in time and change anything now sadly, we must only fix the future, which is hopefully what these improved laws will do.

Since this is an editorial, the author uses his/her voice, ideas, and opinions to prove his/her point. The author also uses many comparisons in the article to help show the reader what is and what isn't good enough compared to other things, and what is similar. The author underlines statements to show the reader what's important and proves his/her point. The author wants the reader to both feel slightly disappointed in the government for not doing enough about gun control until now, and still stalling, but the author also wants the reader to feel hopeful for change in the near future.

Friendship, whether you like it or not

"Looking For Alaska" by John Green is about a teenage boy named Miles Halter who at the beginning of the book has no friends and just lives with his parents, but then he goes to boarding school. At boarding school, Miles meets new friends who show him new experiences which he wouldn't have expected to ever experience in his no boarding school, no badass friends, well no friends at all life. With his new friends, Miles smokes a cigarette for the first and second and third time, has his first big crush, has his first kiss, etc. Miles also finds himself caught in a bunch of drama with other students because of who he's friends with, the badass wallflower type people.

It's kind of weird that Miles never really had friends for whatever reason before, but then by the first week of boarding school he already has a whole group of friends. Maybe it's just a coincidence because he gets a sort of outspoken roommate (Chip/the Colonel) who just takes him in and introduces him to his entire friend group. But if it's that easy for Miles to make friends at boarding school, how come he didn't have any friends back home? I guess he's kind of nerdy and shy but he doesn't seem to have any real problems especially socially, so one would expect him to have at least some friends.

I feel like this happens in many books, where a lonesome awkward teenager who doesn't start off with many or really any friends is all of a sudden adopted into a whole group of friends. For example, Charlie in "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky. Charlie is different from Miles, he did have a friend before, and he does have some psychological problems that may be the reason he's kind of awkward and didn't have many friends. But similar to Miles, Charlie is very quickly adopted into a group of friends in his freshman year of high school. Maybe for both Charlie and Miles it was sort of the friends who befriended them because of maybe interest and a little bit of pity. 

In real friendships one doesn't really know who chose who, but they just sort of start and can stay for a pretty long time. I don't really remember how exactly I became friends with most of my friends, it just sort of happens. And maybe people become friends like Miles did, just because they live in a room together and kind of have to, but no matter how friends meet they're for the most part there to stay whether you like it or not. And maybe even if Miles and Chip weren't roommates they would still have managed to be friends because friendship is destined and finds a way.

Carmen's Choices

A song that I have been listening to a fair amount lately, because I like it in general but also for the obvious reason, is "Carmen" by Lana Del Rey. "Carmen" is about a girl that doesn't make the smartest decisions. She drinks and gets high and seems to do a share of sleeping around. Carmen's only seventeen but she's already famous and has all of these problems and addictions. Many lines in the song portray that Carmen doesn't actually enjoy her lifestyle and does not suggest it to others, for she seems to know that what she is doing is bad for her. So why does she do it?

I honestly don't know. Maybe it's all she knows how to do and she already's in this mess and just can't get out. Maybe she tries but trying to escape is much more difficult than just staying the way you are, no matter how bad that way may be. But Lana Del Rey doesn't make it completely clear whether or not Carmen is really conscious of what she is doing to herself. "Lying to herself 'cause her liquor's top shelf." Lana repeats this line a couple of times and maybe it means that she does know in the back of her mind that she's doing bad but she lies to herself because that's easier than trying to change. Lana also says "She [Carmen] says you don't want to be like me, don't want to see all the things I've seen. I'm dying, I'm dying." This shows me that Carmen really is aware of her choices and well being and does not suggest her lifestyle to others. "I'm dying, I'm dying" This part I think adds on to what I was saying about her not being able to escape so it's easier to just let it happen. When you're dying there's no way you can just stop dying, and it's sometimes better if you except it rather than deny it. Maybe she's in too deep to even bother getting out.

But which is better, knowing that you are making bad choices and not being able to do anything about it or not realizing the effect of your choices and not doing anything about it? I know I've made decisions that I didn't realize were bad until after it was too late to really do anything about them. Usually this is just saying something to someone that I didn't realize then, but I shouldn't have. Once I realize my mistake I can apologize and sort of right the wrong, but you can never really go back and undo it, especially if it's something more permanent like drugs, alcohol and sex. If you never did realize what you did was wrong that would be the worse, because you would never be able to fix it at all.s

Does Your Grandpa Know Who Justin Bieber Is?

I just started reading the book "Slapstick" by Kurt Vonnegut. I find this book to be quite odd but none the less very interesting. In the book Dr. Wilbur Daffodil-11 Swain lives in Manhattan. He does not live in the Manhattan we know today, but in Manhattan in the future, a Manhattan where everyone has names as odd as Dr. Wilbur Daffodil-11s. Everything is crushed and destroyed and it seems as though there are very few people beside himself. Wilbur lives in the empire state building with only two other people, his sixteen year old grand-daughter and her husband.

Even though the book is written with humor and lightheartedness, it is actually pretty sad. Everything that once was is gone, almost all traditions from before are gone, and all the people of Dr. Wilbur Daffodil-11's generation are gone. He is nearly all alone in his old age. I find this really sad because living with people who have been alive for about as long as you have is natural, so you can reminisce about old times and just know that those people know just about as much and what you know. Especially in the time where Wilbur lives all of this would be severely needed. His grand-daughter and her husband don't even know how to read.

Being young, I personally could not imagine only living with my parents and people of their generation. They don't understand very much about pop culture and just how people act. They still think that Glee is an emotion, not a hit TV show on Fox. They still think that if you can move around comfortably in jeans it's okay, no, it's not. They don't know what Gangnam Style is... well maybe that one's for the better. Anyway, no one wants to only live with people of different generations whether you're old and don't want to only live with young people or if you are young and don't want to only live with old people.

Why Not To Have A $325,000 Dog House

The Upfront Magazine article "What You Can Learn From Celeb Money Meltdowns" by Cheryl Lock and Rachel Morris, explains how even though they are being payed millions of dollars a year, many celebrities are not saving any of their money for their or their children's future but instead they are spending it right away on things that are unimaginable for any human to ever need. An example of this idiotic spending is that Paris Hilton purchased a $325,000 dog house that is an exact replica of her own (probably very overpriced) mansion. The authors also give us an example of pure stupidity, that Britney Spears makes $737,000 a month, and saves absolutely none of it. Another case of pure stupidity: Lindsay Lohan found herself drowning in half a million dollars of debt in 2010 and asking her own friends for some financial help.

The authors want the reader to know how not to make these financial mistakes that so many celebrities make. They want the reader to know that if you have money to save, save it. And that a doghouse that's over $300,000 is not worth it. Nor is buying a house with a home theater, bowling alley, barber shop, and six car garage like LeBron James did. They want the readers to see the backfire of buying anything that crosses your mind even if you have enough money to buy it, and to not make this mistake.

In this article the authors really want the reader to think about how stupid the celebrities that many of us look up to are when it comes to money. The authors try to get you to think this by saying in bold, facts and statistics about how much money each celebrity spent and on what. They also give specific examples about how each of five celebrities wasted money. Before the section of the article about how you don't make the same mistakes as the celebrities, the authors stated largely in bold "Be smarter than the stars:"

I found the information in this article both very amusing and interesting. Amusing because just reading some of the things that celebrities buy is so stupid it's funny. Interesting because of how the author tries very hard to get the reader not to spend money on dumb things. I mostly agree with the authors, that if you have money you should save it for the future and save it for important and practical things that you mostly need, not a dog mansion. But I know that if I was raking in as much money as LeBron James, I would first save a bunch of it of course, then go right ahead and buy myself the house with the movie theater and bowling alley, why not? If you have enough money that you can save enough and then afford something not very practical but AWESOME, than why would you not buy that? But that' just my opinion.

What's yours? {comment}

Freedom's Faults -Feathers

In "Feathers" by Jacqueline Woodson, Frannie lives in an almost all african-american neighborhood. Across the highway there is the all white neighborhood. No one really knows much about the other side, but they imagine it. Frannie's brother Sean says, "Imagine if somebody built a bridge right outside our window and we could just walk across the highway and be on the other side." Frannie gets upset because she thinks that life is just as good over here as it is over there, and she doesn't understand what he would want to see there that he couldn't see here, on their side.

One line that really stood out to me was "Seems kids on this side of the highway were always trying to figure out ways to fly and run and cross  over things... to get free or something." She says this both after her brother talks about building a bridge to the other side, and after a boy in her school gets hurt trying to jump over the fence from a swing. The way she said "to get free or something" is what really stood out to me. Free from what? Maybe freedom always has boundaries, you always imagine it much better than it is.

Growing up, I've always wanted to have freedom. Freedom with my parents, my teachers. But then there's always the down side that the more freedom you have the more responsibility you have. If you think about it you're never actually free from your parents, because in the back of your mind every decision you make you are thinking about what they would want you to do and what they would do. So without even being there they are still sort of controlling you. So freedom has these boundaries that you maybe can never break out of. Then what would be free about going to the other side? It wouldn't be as good or as free as you thought it would be

Across The Highway

I just started reading "Feathers" by Jacqueline Woodson in which a sixth grader named Frannie goes to a public school that only has African Americans attending. "Across the highway" there are other schools where only caucasians go. Until a new boy shows up at the school, a new white boy. This boy is picked on by the other students and told straight up by one of them that "no pale faces go to this school. You need to get your white butt back across the highway." Frannie says "It's the nineteen seventies, not the fifties. There's no more segregation..." That's what I was thinking too... But white people only going to the schools "across the bridge" and black people only going to this school, that sure sounds a lot like segregation to me.

This book is set a good 40 years ago, and some things have changed since then, but i still think about segregation today. Growing up in New York City, one of the most diverse cities in the world I still think about what has changed since segregation (which is of course a lot) and what hasn't changed that much. I've always gone to public schools that are plenty diverse, but just because the school has many different races doesn't mean they're all going to get along. At a certain age we all begin seeing the differences between everyone, and because maybe we think that how we were brought up and what we look like is the one good way to be, or maybe because we don't feel that comfortable with people that don't look and act exactly like us, we end up mostly friending people of similar backgrounds to us and who look like us.

Something that stood out to me is how the author keeps saying "across the highway". I know that in the story there is a real place "across the highway", but is it really to the people talking about it? I feel like these kids imagine this place where the white people are as a rich, snobby, happy place where nothing goes wrong, but it probably isn't anything like they imagine it, and they had just imagined a stereotypical white neighborhood. But don't stereotypes affect how we imagine things a lot?

I'm going through the New York City high school process, and one thing that has had a big part on which school I want to go to, is who goes there. Some schools people had said were "ghetto" or in a bad neighborhood. And so I got these stereotypical images in my mind about how those schools were. But one or two of the "ghetto" schools turned out to be so different than I had imagined and a pretty good school. We let stereotypes control how we think about certain places or people, and I think that may be the one big thing keeping us from really seeing who these people are, and that they are actually not so different from us.