Monday, December 15, 2008
College
Just a small update on my college progress: I did not get into Duke. They said they received twice as many early decision applicants as usual and they still can only use the 500 spots that they reserved for it. Also, on a lighter note, and contrary to what the random commenter said on my other post, I was accepted into SLU today. I am not on the waiting list, so there.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Yes, me is gonna be a kooledge stoodunt.
So right now I am awash in college app stuff. I really hate it. I have deadlines out the wazoo and I really want to get into one of my schools. My number one choice is Duke, then Wash U. You can decide which one is a safety school, because they're both pretty good. My real safety schools are SLU and Hillsdale College in Michigan. I am actually above the middle fifty percent with my grades and such, so I expect to get into those two. My safety safety school is Mizzou, and if I don't get in there I will cry. My complete wild card-just to say I got in there-school is NYU. But like I said, I just want to say I got in. It would take a fantastic financial aid package for that to happen, but if I got to that would be pretty awesome. So I spend this week fretting over my Mizzou and SLU stuff, then I have until January 1 for my NYU stuff. Finally, I have until January 15 to finish Wash U. However, by that time I will be completely subdued by financial aid apps. Those will be worse than anything else I have had to so far. Its a mess, and I hope it works out. If you wonder what my motivation for getting through all of this is, I've got two words: Community College. I refuse. I'm going to real college, thank you very much.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Politics #3
My installment this time will focus on two areas that have been irking me lately.
First: ''Spread the wealth around''
Barack Obama said this at an event last week. He said this as he was trying to explain the purpose of his more accentuated, graduated income tax plan. He wants to spread the wealth around to help out those who need it. The thought that immediately came to my mind was communism. Today I looked up the communist manifesto online, and I found something disturbing: The whole idea of graduated income tax was Karl Marx's idea! Barack Obama is advocating a core principle of communism for use in the ''land of the free, and the home of the brave.'' This idea completely repulses me. Why would you want to use these ideas in our country. Barack Obama is beyond socialist, he is a communist. Obama calls himself a friend for the middle class. Well guess what, so did Karl Marx. Game, Set, Match. Commie.
Second: I recently received my absentee balot(I will be working the polls), and I saw Proposition A on there. The proponents say that it will benefit schools by taxing casinos even more. I won't disagree with that, except to say that in order for it to benefit the schools, they must be managed properly, which they aren't. My problem here is with the way the government will get the money. This bill will actually eliminate loss limits at casinos. People who are addicted to gambling will give the casinos as much money as they can stay conscious
for. This puts both the casinos(which I hate) and the state in the position of ''stealer of the helpless addict's money.'' It makes me so mad that the state can justify taxing people on things that are addictive. These people need help, not higher taxes they can't afford. We have the same problem with enormous taxes on ciggarettes. If the government says it is raising taxes for public good(casinos), or public health(ciggarettes), then it whould ban gambling and smoking. THAT alone would improve the country. But the politician's are too happy with taking in the money to do that. I wonder, who is really addicted, the needy people, or the greedy intruding politicians?
First: ''Spread the wealth around''
Barack Obama said this at an event last week. He said this as he was trying to explain the purpose of his more accentuated, graduated income tax plan. He wants to spread the wealth around to help out those who need it. The thought that immediately came to my mind was communism. Today I looked up the communist manifesto online, and I found something disturbing: The whole idea of graduated income tax was Karl Marx's idea! Barack Obama is advocating a core principle of communism for use in the ''land of the free, and the home of the brave.'' This idea completely repulses me. Why would you want to use these ideas in our country. Barack Obama is beyond socialist, he is a communist. Obama calls himself a friend for the middle class. Well guess what, so did Karl Marx. Game, Set, Match. Commie.
Second: I recently received my absentee balot(I will be working the polls), and I saw Proposition A on there. The proponents say that it will benefit schools by taxing casinos even more. I won't disagree with that, except to say that in order for it to benefit the schools, they must be managed properly, which they aren't. My problem here is with the way the government will get the money. This bill will actually eliminate loss limits at casinos. People who are addicted to gambling will give the casinos as much money as they can stay conscious
for. This puts both the casinos(which I hate) and the state in the position of ''stealer of the helpless addict's money.'' It makes me so mad that the state can justify taxing people on things that are addictive. These people need help, not higher taxes they can't afford. We have the same problem with enormous taxes on ciggarettes. If the government says it is raising taxes for public good(casinos), or public health(ciggarettes), then it whould ban gambling and smoking. THAT alone would improve the country. But the politician's are too happy with taking in the money to do that. I wonder, who is really addicted, the needy people, or the greedy intruding politicians?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
My work as a semi-pro writer(or so it often seems) #1
The following is my paper on Ophelia's death in Hamlet, by Shakespeare. In this paper, I propose a very taboo point of view in Shakespeare circles. I had no idea that this was the case when I chose this as my thesis, and as a result, it was hard to find helpful lines of thought out there. But I wanted to do this thesis because the idea hit me as soon as I read the play and I am still convinced that it is true.
Enjoy!
It is normal for those reading Shakespeare’s Hamlet to take at face value the scene of Ophelia’s death. And while this may be justified, given that people’s minds would explode if they couldn’t take anything at face value, in the case of Ophelia’s death, we must consider an interpretation different than the conventional one. Usually, we would take the account of Ophelia’s death by Gertrude as accurate, namely that Ophelia, in her madness, fell off the edge of the bank and into the river. However, the idea that Ophelia drowned, whether by suicide or by accident, does not fit the rest of the story. If this is the case, in the whole play, there is but one death without a murderer, Ophelia’s. That within itself is a strange occurrence. But what is also strange is the death of Gertrude. She dies in the final scene, amongst all the other murderers, but is the only one who has not actually murdered someone. These two out-of-place deaths, while strange, never seem to influence the interpretations of the play. Some, however, do think that these two deaths, with the understandings tweaked, do not just make sense, but actually complete each other and clarify the play more succinctly. I propose that, rather than assuming an accidental death in the case of Ophelia, the idea of a murder be explored. I believe Gertrude pushed Ophelia to her watery demise.
A few things that are necessary to remember are these: Ophelia spent a large amount of time with Gertrude after she went mad. Also, Gertrude was the only witness of Ophelia’s death and consequently the only one to report it (4, 4). When she did report Ophelia’s death, she made no mention of any help given to Ophelia.
Since Gertrude’s testimony is our only insight into this mysterious death, this can give us a significant insight into her thoughts of the death. As noted previously, there is an inconspicuous absence in Gertrude’s testimony of help given to Ophelia. This raises questions about why Gertrude did not help her. We know she was close enough to see what happened, and given that she had to able to look down at Ophelia drowning (because Ophelia fell), she could not have been very far at all behind her. So now we can surmise that Gertrude was close to Ophelia. But that still does not answer the question of why Gertrude did not help Ophelia. Perhaps Gertrude felt too dainty, she was, after all, a Queen. This is possible, but as a Queen, she would have had attendants with her. Her account says nothing about her attendants trying to help either. This seems odd because it would require no effort or sacrifice for Gertrude to give Ophelia help from her attendants. The only way her attendants would not have jumped into the river to save a drowning person would be if Gertrude herself had pushed Ophelia, and they saw it. Then they would have not dared to do so. From this hole in Gertrude’s testimony, we can, with certainty, at least place some guilt on Gertrude for not helping Ophelia.
At the time of Ophelia’s death, Gertrude was feeling many emotions. She was obviously shaken over Hamlet’s madness, as we see when he confronts her in her bedroom. In addition, at this time, she had thought Hamlet had died, because the king had given an order for Hamlet’s death overseas. This same order was given partly based on her testimony to Claudius of Hamlet’s actions in her bedroom. What is more, while all this is going on, Gertrude is definitely feeling guilt over her hasty marriage to her dead husband’s brother. She shows her unwillingness to even be reminded of the matter when Hamlet shows his play. Gertrude is almost as affected by the play as Claudius is. In summary, Gertrude is feeling guilt over her husband’s death, guilt over her hasty marriage to his brother, guilt and sorrow over Hamlet’s death, and concern, grief, and fear over Hamlet’s madness and his threatening behavior before he was taken to England. It is reasonable to assume that Gertrude was a highly emotional person at this time. Now, exactly at the time when she has all of these emotions bottled up inside her, she sees Ophelia go insane. Ophelia was the person to whom she wanted Hamlet to get married (5, 1), and Ophelia is a picture and strong reminder of Hamlet. Through her former relationship with Hamlet, which failed over his madness, to her own madness, Ophelia is a picture of Hamlet to Gertrude, and Hamlet, for Gertrude, is a symbol of all her guilt, shame, concern, and fear. The very first thing Gertrude says after hearing of Ophelia’s madness is ‘’to my sick soul (as sin’s true nature is)….so full of artless jealousy is guilt.’’ She is reminded immediately of her guilt. There is no doubt that Gertrude would want to get rid of that picture. No one would be able to live with that kind of torment the rest of her life. She would be stuck looking at someone who loved her son, who was a picture of her guilt. The only options open to her would be to banish Ophelia in some way, or to kill her. The Queen obviously did not react unfavorably, immediately upon seeing Ophelia. She did not do anything to harm her. However, when the opportunity presented itself at the river and all she had to do was give a little shove-Gertrude removed the constant reminder of her guilt and tried to bring peace back into her world.
This possibility of a ‘’hidden’’ murder draws much skepticism from many who wish to treat Shakespeare’s work with a little more dignity. Shakespeare writes in his play an account that gives all the necessary details about the death of one of his characters. There is no reason to assume that that he would have done this to what is an excellent piece of work-or so they say. Consider the fact that not everything Shakespeare writes or at least intimates, is the actual truth in this play. At the very beginning of the play, readers are lead to believe one man who speaks first is a guard, when in fact he is not. The reader does not know this for several lines. Consider Hamlet, when he leaves the scene of his play, fully intent on killing Claudius, when he sees the perfect opportunity in front of him and we just ‘‘know’’ he is going to finish the task he was given-and then he doesn’t. Several times in this play, Shakespeare leads us to believe one thing and then reveals the opposite. To this, some would say then that it would ruin Shakespeare’s play to throw in a major sub-plot twist, so late in the play. The answer to this is the thought that it would hurt his play more to have two very out of place murders. It feels incomplete to have Ophelia be the only death without a murderer, and Gertrude the only one poisoned who did not murder anyone. Shakespeare’s play makes more sense if Gertrude killed Ophelia.
The death of Ophelia was a key turning point in the story of Hamlet. The action in the play takes a sharp upswing immediately after her death occurs, and many things start to go very badly wrong. Without a murderer for Ophelia, the play loses a sense of completion and order, both of the murdered minor characters and the poisoned murderers. In a manner that completes the play, Gertrude pushed Ophelia from the river bank to the depths below.
Enjoy!
It is normal for those reading Shakespeare’s Hamlet to take at face value the scene of Ophelia’s death. And while this may be justified, given that people’s minds would explode if they couldn’t take anything at face value, in the case of Ophelia’s death, we must consider an interpretation different than the conventional one. Usually, we would take the account of Ophelia’s death by Gertrude as accurate, namely that Ophelia, in her madness, fell off the edge of the bank and into the river. However, the idea that Ophelia drowned, whether by suicide or by accident, does not fit the rest of the story. If this is the case, in the whole play, there is but one death without a murderer, Ophelia’s. That within itself is a strange occurrence. But what is also strange is the death of Gertrude. She dies in the final scene, amongst all the other murderers, but is the only one who has not actually murdered someone. These two out-of-place deaths, while strange, never seem to influence the interpretations of the play. Some, however, do think that these two deaths, with the understandings tweaked, do not just make sense, but actually complete each other and clarify the play more succinctly. I propose that, rather than assuming an accidental death in the case of Ophelia, the idea of a murder be explored. I believe Gertrude pushed Ophelia to her watery demise.
A few things that are necessary to remember are these: Ophelia spent a large amount of time with Gertrude after she went mad. Also, Gertrude was the only witness of Ophelia’s death and consequently the only one to report it (4, 4). When she did report Ophelia’s death, she made no mention of any help given to Ophelia.
Since Gertrude’s testimony is our only insight into this mysterious death, this can give us a significant insight into her thoughts of the death. As noted previously, there is an inconspicuous absence in Gertrude’s testimony of help given to Ophelia. This raises questions about why Gertrude did not help her. We know she was close enough to see what happened, and given that she had to able to look down at Ophelia drowning (because Ophelia fell), she could not have been very far at all behind her. So now we can surmise that Gertrude was close to Ophelia. But that still does not answer the question of why Gertrude did not help Ophelia. Perhaps Gertrude felt too dainty, she was, after all, a Queen. This is possible, but as a Queen, she would have had attendants with her. Her account says nothing about her attendants trying to help either. This seems odd because it would require no effort or sacrifice for Gertrude to give Ophelia help from her attendants. The only way her attendants would not have jumped into the river to save a drowning person would be if Gertrude herself had pushed Ophelia, and they saw it. Then they would have not dared to do so. From this hole in Gertrude’s testimony, we can, with certainty, at least place some guilt on Gertrude for not helping Ophelia.
At the time of Ophelia’s death, Gertrude was feeling many emotions. She was obviously shaken over Hamlet’s madness, as we see when he confronts her in her bedroom. In addition, at this time, she had thought Hamlet had died, because the king had given an order for Hamlet’s death overseas. This same order was given partly based on her testimony to Claudius of Hamlet’s actions in her bedroom. What is more, while all this is going on, Gertrude is definitely feeling guilt over her hasty marriage to her dead husband’s brother. She shows her unwillingness to even be reminded of the matter when Hamlet shows his play. Gertrude is almost as affected by the play as Claudius is. In summary, Gertrude is feeling guilt over her husband’s death, guilt over her hasty marriage to his brother, guilt and sorrow over Hamlet’s death, and concern, grief, and fear over Hamlet’s madness and his threatening behavior before he was taken to England. It is reasonable to assume that Gertrude was a highly emotional person at this time. Now, exactly at the time when she has all of these emotions bottled up inside her, she sees Ophelia go insane. Ophelia was the person to whom she wanted Hamlet to get married (5, 1), and Ophelia is a picture and strong reminder of Hamlet. Through her former relationship with Hamlet, which failed over his madness, to her own madness, Ophelia is a picture of Hamlet to Gertrude, and Hamlet, for Gertrude, is a symbol of all her guilt, shame, concern, and fear. The very first thing Gertrude says after hearing of Ophelia’s madness is ‘’to my sick soul (as sin’s true nature is)….so full of artless jealousy is guilt.’’ She is reminded immediately of her guilt. There is no doubt that Gertrude would want to get rid of that picture. No one would be able to live with that kind of torment the rest of her life. She would be stuck looking at someone who loved her son, who was a picture of her guilt. The only options open to her would be to banish Ophelia in some way, or to kill her. The Queen obviously did not react unfavorably, immediately upon seeing Ophelia. She did not do anything to harm her. However, when the opportunity presented itself at the river and all she had to do was give a little shove-Gertrude removed the constant reminder of her guilt and tried to bring peace back into her world.
This possibility of a ‘’hidden’’ murder draws much skepticism from many who wish to treat Shakespeare’s work with a little more dignity. Shakespeare writes in his play an account that gives all the necessary details about the death of one of his characters. There is no reason to assume that that he would have done this to what is an excellent piece of work-or so they say. Consider the fact that not everything Shakespeare writes or at least intimates, is the actual truth in this play. At the very beginning of the play, readers are lead to believe one man who speaks first is a guard, when in fact he is not. The reader does not know this for several lines. Consider Hamlet, when he leaves the scene of his play, fully intent on killing Claudius, when he sees the perfect opportunity in front of him and we just ‘‘know’’ he is going to finish the task he was given-and then he doesn’t. Several times in this play, Shakespeare leads us to believe one thing and then reveals the opposite. To this, some would say then that it would ruin Shakespeare’s play to throw in a major sub-plot twist, so late in the play. The answer to this is the thought that it would hurt his play more to have two very out of place murders. It feels incomplete to have Ophelia be the only death without a murderer, and Gertrude the only one poisoned who did not murder anyone. Shakespeare’s play makes more sense if Gertrude killed Ophelia.
The death of Ophelia was a key turning point in the story of Hamlet. The action in the play takes a sharp upswing immediately after her death occurs, and many things start to go very badly wrong. Without a murderer for Ophelia, the play loses a sense of completion and order, both of the murdered minor characters and the poisoned murderers. In a manner that completes the play, Gertrude pushed Ophelia from the river bank to the depths below.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Politics #1(There will be many more)
While listening to the first presidential debate, I heard John McCain try to pin Barack Obama on an issue that struck a chord with me. McCain took issue with Obama's desire to hike up taxes(typical Democrat) on big companies. He said that in a free market a company that is deciding whether or not to set up shop in the US, or to ship most of its jobs overseas will look at the situation in this way: I can stay in country A(the US) and pay 25% in taxes and a minimum wage that is staggering, or I can go to country B(pick a country that we outsource jobs to) and pay 10% in taxes and only have to pay people a mere fraction of the minimum wage of country A. Why in the world would anyone with half a brain even consider staying in the US?????!!?? Barack Obama claims(as do almost all Democrats) to be touting the middle class and its well being as the backbone of the economy. He says he will give the MC a big tax break, and that may very well be, but he seems to forget that a HUGE amount of MC people are employed at the very same big corporations he plans to tax the dickens out of. If Obama becomes President and has his way with taxes, what good will his tax breaks do if many of the MC are laidoff and their jobs outsourced?
The bottom line is this, Obama is showing his weakness and inexperience. I do not support Hillary Clinton in the sightest, but I have read what her campaign statements were and she didn't even suggest something so outrageous, so crippling, and so utterly stupid as the verbal diarrhea that Obama makes his campaign policies. She would have been a MUCH better choice for President. John McCain's main argument against Obama from an undecided's standpoint is that he has loads of experience. A ticket with Hillary at the top, or even at the bottom, would have left no chance whatsoever for the Republicans to win in November. Barack Obama made a huge mistake when he did not pick Hillary as his running mate and I think he will suffer for it during the debates. My point is this: Barack Obama has NO IDEA what he is doing. One may argue that Sarah Palin does not either, but SHE IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, STUPID. She is the vice presidential pick, but that is another matter. I am already making huge progress with my first post, and I hope to cover a lot more with subsequent ones.
The bottom line is this, Obama is showing his weakness and inexperience. I do not support Hillary Clinton in the sightest, but I have read what her campaign statements were and she didn't even suggest something so outrageous, so crippling, and so utterly stupid as the verbal diarrhea that Obama makes his campaign policies. She would have been a MUCH better choice for President. John McCain's main argument against Obama from an undecided's standpoint is that he has loads of experience. A ticket with Hillary at the top, or even at the bottom, would have left no chance whatsoever for the Republicans to win in November. Barack Obama made a huge mistake when he did not pick Hillary as his running mate and I think he will suffer for it during the debates. My point is this: Barack Obama has NO IDEA what he is doing. One may argue that Sarah Palin does not either, but SHE IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, STUPID. She is the vice presidential pick, but that is another matter. I am already making huge progress with my first post, and I hope to cover a lot more with subsequent ones.
The Purpose of this blog
I have decided to make a blog of my personal endeavours into the adult world. I will most likely include snipits of college related material, along with regular entries regarding politics, life in general, and Providence Christian Academy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)