New Begginning!

People say at the start of a new year they are starting a fresh but all that happens is they get dragged back to the same old trouble.  Why does that always happen?

Nobody knows and most of the time they don’t even care. They say it’s karma, some say it’s bad luck but it happens you can’t change it, only to look forward not back is my opinion.

Thank you for reading!!!! :)

I’ve got 3 minutes to make this pitch and sell the concept so here goes. The idea isn’t “Rocket Science” and I call it “I-Power.” The I stands for “Independent Power.” What I want is a way to take individuals off the grid and to supply them with alternatives that are eco-friendly, inexpensive and easy to use with a flip of a switch. Am I dreaming or is that sand under my feet?

“I-Power” is a short-term alternative to the electric company used for emergencies and or used to combat “Peak Hours.” The power company is a monopoly. The consumer has little or no option to defeat this powerful force in our lives. “I-Power” is an option that takes us off the grid when we want. By flipping a switch, the home is able to A) Produce electricity through an exercise bike, B) Tap into a rechargable battery, or C) Hook up to a gas generator. Say goodbye to the power monopoly and embrace an eco-friendly future?

In short, “I-Power” is just a dream that begins with an “Off Switch.” The consumer is empowered to produce their own short-term electricity and to control outrageous electric bills as they see fit. In the words of Martha Stewart, “Competition is a good thing.” As I see it, every home on Earth would love to have the “I-Power” system. Imagine how good it would feel to take back control from the electric company? Picture yourself exercising your body and rights to say “No” to “Peak Power.” That’s my 3 minutes and I’m certain anyone can see the benefits of this concept. Will someone read the Citizen’s Journal and make my dreams come true? Someday, I may see you on the beach. I loved “Gilligan’s Isle.”

I’m writing this argument as a minority who found the study of Huckleberry Finn to be useful and educational. I’m also writing this from the point of view of a private school student who believes that private schools should still require it. Public schools however, I don’t know enough to argue for that.
Ever since this classic American novel was released to society, Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been writhing in controversy, due to the way that a black slave is portrayed and also due to the seemingly relaxed use of the highly offensive racial slang, “n****r”, and because of this, critics often state that this novel should not be a required reading in American schools due to the worry that the novel might offend students and parents. This is an understandable concern, due to the offensive language, a black slave being portrayed as stupid, superstitious, and doing whatever it is that Huckleberry, a young white child, tells him to do, and four practical jokes played by young white boys on a black slave. Although the language was difficult for me to read as a minority student, I never once regretted reading the novel. I am glad that this work of literature was required; instead of judging it by the first few pages, I was given a chance to see that the novel is not offensive, nor is it racist, because Twain shows us through his writing that racism is a bad thing. While it is true that the novel contains offensive language, it does not necessarily follow that Twain’s work is too inappropriate to be read in schools, and this statement is formed because Twain was an anti-racist, the real problem is not the language as much as the people reading it, and racism is not created through racial differences, but capitalism and elitism.
Mark Twain was an anti-racism novelist, writing an anti-racist novel after the end of the Civil War. A few good examples proving him to be anti-racism fall in the practical jokes of the novel. After one practical joke, according to Alan and Carol Hunt, Twain writes that Huck “feels guilty, apologizes, and swears to himself that he will play no more tricks” (Hunt, Hunt 200), showing the shame that comes with performing the practical joke that forces Huckleberry to start “to see Jim as an individual, as a sensitive man whose feelings must be considered, not as a slave who can be mistreated on a whim” (Hunt, Hunt 200). The joke is portrayed in a way that degrades Huckleberry and, according to Alan Hunt and Carol Hunt: “Twain lets the humor fail in Huck’s pranks in order to show what the jokes disguise: cruelty, prejudice, [and] subhuman treatment of blacks” (Hunt, Hunt 201). Mark Twain is against racism, and this is obvious as readers get into the novel. If he was a racist, he would not have shown the whites feeling guilty for their actions; instead he would have let Jim writhe in comical (from a white perspective) agony, and have the whites take humor in his pain. The critics argue that portrayed in a negative manner, and an example is when Twain writes that “Jim said the witches bewitched him and put him in a trance, and rode him all over the State” (Twain 5), making Jim seem superstitious and unintelligent. Critics argue that Twain also goes as far as to let on that not just Jim, but all blacks were stupid, citing the part where he writes that blacks “would come miles to hear Jim talk about it” (Twain 5) and that they would “stand with their mouths open and look him all over, same as if he was a wonder” (Twain 5). During these passages, it can definitely be argued that Mark Twain portrays blacks as stupid, superstitious, and able to believe anything told to them, but there are also those who believe differently. Robert Chrisman, a critic who believes in the idea that Jim was portrayed positively, states that “Jim, despite his enslaved condition, remains devoted to Huck Finn as his helpmate in the great river adventure saving his life and sustaining him in every way, instead of [...] escaping to the North” (Chrisman 816), and through this, Twain sheds positive light on Jim, featuring him to readers as a moral man who does not commit any acts of deceit. Mark Twain, as a writer, writes a novel showing America how ugly racism is.
The content of the novel is not the problem because the true problem is us. Readers have trouble discussing the novel “without hyperboles of either outrage or defensiveness” (Arc 123), as quoted from Jonathan Arc’s article “Putting the River on New Maps: Nation, Race, and Beyond in Reading Huckleberry Finn”. Arc gives a very valid point here, noting that readers are so sensitive that they cannot hold an open mind and play devil’s advocate to see if perhaps there is a deeper point beneath Twain’s admittedly offensive racial slurs. Readers are holding onto the past, and “America’s historical racism is what provokes [...] students and their parents to protest the classroom prestige of Huckleberry Finn” (Arc 124), but the prestige of the work cannot be doubted, for “prestige” implies much more than elegance of literary quality (after all, the book is narrated by a young boy with poor grammar), but literary quality in the terms of symbolism, theme, and argument. There is a reason why, today, people are still reading this novel, and there is a reason why, today, there is an ongoing debate about whether or not Huckleberry Finn beats J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye as the great American novel. There is only an issue with the novel because the readers and critics create an issue and although many critics write about the “negative portrayal” of Jim, it can be argued that Jim is portrayed as a kind and thoughtful figure because, as the previously mentioned quote stated, he “remains devoted to Huck Finn as his helpmate in the great river adventure, saving his life and sustaining him in every way, instead of bashing in his stringy little head and escaping to the North” (816 Chrisman). Jim is not portrayed in a negative light, as a matter of fact, the other characters, in their treatment of him, are the ones who seem to be more negative. After Huckleberry Finn plays a prank, he always looks cruel, selfish, and childish, even more than Jim looks stupid. It can even be argued that Mark Twain is portraying Huckleberry in a way that is degrading for young white Southern boys of a poorer background, and that Twain is portraying them as rude, trouble-making pranksters who use poor grammar, but no one ever does accuse the author of this crime, because Jim is black and Huckleberry is white. There is only a problem in this novel because we make it a problem.
Another thing that should be looked at is the idea that racism is not truly about race, a very simplistic idea, but that the problem lies not within skin color, but within capitalism, elitism, and its control of the media. The wealthy would only desire to mingle with those of the same social standing, and at the time of the novel, the wealthy also happened to be white. Robert Chrisman argues in his article “Blacks, Racism, and Bourgeois Culture” that the capitalist system is the real monster in racism and prejudice. He references a “modern petit bourgeois” and “their profitable manipulation of the capitalist system that was developing” (814 Chrisma), describing the way that the media is influenced by the bourgeois. It is a fair statement to make that elitism, capitalism, and its control of the media, are what truly drive racism. The media has often portrayed blacks in a negative manner and the elite class, therefore the whites, have always had more control over the media, literature especially, and “the working classes and the petite bourgeoisie beg[an] themselves to be writers and editors and publishers, and their literature became the voice of this striving, capitalistic oriented class” (Chrisman 814). With the media in the firm hands of white elitists, racism flourished all over the country. A very distinct problem was that at the time, blacks were uneducated, so they could not hold good paying jobs in order to gain a higher social status, and that stereotype seemed to stick when it came to the media, because “myths maintained that blacks simply lacked the basic intelligence [...] in the white man’s world” (Chrisman 819), and so from that, stemmed “the heroic Western gunfighter, who subdues dissident Mexicans and Indians, frequently with the assistance of a colored companion” (Chrisman 818). The white elite starting a stereotype about blacks, especially ones about education and intelligence, catches on in the media, because “literacy has always held supreme strategic value, one need only browse through the autobiographies of Frederick Douglas, Richard Wright, and Malcolm X, who each spend chapters upon their development of reading and writing skills, to see how much political and imaginative power this skill unleashed [...] and which they harnessed [...] And how bitterly white culture still opposes [their] literacy” (Chrisman 822). After making a reference in his article to how much the white culture tries to stop the blacks from gaining an education, especially he states “how bitterly the white culture still opposes [their] literacy” (Chrisman 822), Chrisman urges his readers to educate themselves, learning to read and write, referencing to how it is the path out of the ghetto, so to speak.
Perhaps teachers discussing this novel with their students should find ways to discuss how racism influences current culture and society, finding ways to tie it back into the novel, too. In conclusion, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn should be read in classroom settings in America, because the novel is a fight against racism, the real problem with reading Huckleberry Finn lies within the reader, and racism is not created through race as much as it is fostered through capitalism and elitism.
————————————————————————————————————————
Nina S is a student, freelance journalist, museum worker, and blogger. She lives in the D.C. area. You can find more of her work, concentrating on lifestyle, society, and culture, at http://pagefortheculturefreak.blogspot.com/

One of the world’s greatest classics, “The Old Man and the Sea” revolves around a man who’s poor and fishes for a living. He goes out and manages to snag his line on a humongous fish, who eventually drags him all over the ocean.

The old man refuses to give up, even though he’s running out of supplies and is also becoming wounded.

I, personally, didn’t enjoy this book. I found it to be very boring to read, although I do believe that one should read it just because it’s one of the most important books in the English speaking world. Who knows why (I heard rumors that the main character is supposed to symbolize Jesus…?).

Everyone says it is extremely well written, however, I respectfully disagree. Ernest Hemmingway has a signature style of simplistic writing. Now, do tell me how in the world he can use that to show off knowing how to write a book that’s “well-written”? Exactly. The only part well-written was the part when Ernest Hemmingway describes the the scales of the fish hitting the sunlight in vivid detail.

Long thought of as the greatest Russian poet to have ever lived, Alexander Pushkin’s celebrated poetic narrative, “Eugene Onegin”, is now available in a stunning new translation.

This Penguin edition manages to accurately translate the meaning while preserving the original rhythm, flow, and beauty.

The most famous translation, an excruciatingly literal Nabokov, fails to accomplish what the Penguin does.

In Vladimir Nabokov’s translation, he focuses on giving readers the literal translation without caring about the music of the poem. After all, he stated that this was his only goal:literal meaning over beauty.

The Penguin edition translation is nothing short of a masterpiece, for Charles Johnston manages to preserve the grace and the beauty, the melody and the rhythm.

It is a phenomenal achievement, one that can be celebrated by those who love poetry or classical literature.

A few weeks ago, “Legally Blonde”, the Broadway musical, visited Chrsyler Hall of Norfolk while on its successful, national tour. Advertisements were abundant leading up to the performances in Norfolk and many from the Tidewater area flocked to see what tricks this well-publicized musical had up its sleeve.

The music was very upbeat, although the jokes were obviously pointed at a certain audience (peppy teenage girls). The running time was reasonable: not long enough that we found ourselves squirming in our seats, and not short enough that we found ourselves wishing for something more. The sets were simple, but still very consistent with the overall feeling of the show.

I personally did not enjoy the show as much as I believe many will. I feel like the show is not necessarily good and not necessarily bad, but is really dependent on the viewer’s personal tastes and their theater-going history.

I would recommend this show to viewers who are not regular theatergoers or show fans that wouldn’t list theater as one of their top interests, but simply want the experience of seeing a Broadway production. This show is very good for a first Broadway show (so is “Lion King”, “Wicked”, “Hairspray”, and “Grease”, by the way), because the style of the writers is very simple. I would also recommend this show to a younger female audience.

I would not recommend this show, however, to the regular theatergoers and show fan who have been to many shows and plan on going to many more. For that group, this show lacks depth and the “razzle-dazzle” (“Chicago”, anyone?) that truly does define Broadway. Although a fun show, audiences who adore shows like “Phantom of the Opera”, “42nd Street”, “Chicago”, “A Streetcar Named Desire”, or non-Broadway shows such as “Carmen” and “La Boheme” would find this show to be less-than-satisfying.

RATING:6.5/10
WHY: The perfect show should seek to give enough satisfaction to all audiences, regardless of taste and personal theater-going experience. This show fails to meet that standard.

IF YOU LIKE IT YOU SHOULD SEE:
“Hairspray”, “The Lion King”, “Tarzan”, “The Little Mermaid”, “Wicked”, “Grease”
IF YOU DIDN’T LIKE IT YOU SHOULD SEE:
“The Phantom of the Opera”, “Chicago”, “Nine”, “42nd Street”, “Evita”, “Carmen”, “Madame Butterfly”, “A Streetcar Named Desire”

***Note. In the show recommendations, not all of the shows listed as “If You Like It You Should See” would be less than enjoyable to those in the other group. Same thing vice versa. But they hold similar characteristics. In the first group, the shows are easier to understand. In the second group, it involves more dedicated enthusiasts who don’t mind heavier material and more complex/deep thoughts.

Those whose lives are greatly effected by the importance of appearance are often regarded as shallow by the rest of the population; their seemingly frivolous nature teases the judgmental nature of most. But perhaps there is more to outward appearance than we may first suppose. Perhaps in concluding it shallow so quickly we are the ones being truly short sighted.

Growing up is confusing for a child as it is, having to learn how the world works. It may be made easier if there was some consistent guideline given about the implications of appearance. My parents always told me that it was important I be my own person and not take into account the thoughts of other people. However, there was always the unspoken hope from them (understandably) that I fit in at school, and amongst other people. Unfortunately, at school the easiest way to fit in is to be like other people; the sheep conclusion contradicting the “be yourself” agenda.

Clothes, make up, skin tone (you can fake everything these days); it all seems skin deep. People painting and decorating themselves to look like their ideal ego. First thoughts tell us that they are self obsessed spending so much time fretting about how they look to others. They must be selfish as somebody who devotes all their care inwards must not have any left for anyone else. We sometimes brand them slutty as it seems they are trying to divert all eyes of the opposite gender to bathe in an orgy of attention.

The importance of appearance in society cannot be denied; the very presence of a £billion industry dedicated to looks is evidence enough for that. If our outward appearance did not matter, then why would anyone spend anything above the minimum on clothes and the like? People are judgmental whether they like to believe it or not and will make assumptions (however subliminal) about each individual they meet based on their appearance. This elevates the idea of appearance past shallow; it is being used to define the essence of that person as a first impression.

What we look like does not only effect the way others view us, but also the way we view ourselves. It can have a great impact on our psyche so it must hold more weight in the spiritual genre than we usually give it credit; it is not often that something so material can have such far reaching effect on our mentality. However, while some people feel completely comfortable wearing anything, some may need to be more confident about the way they look to others so they can go about life without worrying about bad impressions.

There are many individuals in the world who are not happy in their own skin; they do not feel comfortable in the world and think themselves too fragile to be on display to others. To counter this some may turn to to baggy clothes and long, face covering hairstyles in order to hide themselves from others; however, some may choose tight, figure shaping clothes to manipulate their physique and heavy, obvious make up to obscure their natural features. The second option (of change, not denial) is made possible by the magic wand of material goods; perhaps eventually the make up and clothes lead to acceptance of self. Either that or they push the individual into a tight corner and let the artificial, sparkly, ideal persona take over their existence.

That last points leads me on to my final point; in a haven so safe as the human mind where we may choose which aspects of our personality to display to the world, we only show people who we really want to be. So as shallow as it seems, maybe appearance IS who we are.

So what can one conclude from attitude to appearance?

I will not claim to know that every person in the world who dotes on their own appearance must be a tortured soul on the inside, or someone still painting who they intend to become. I would just like to ask that next time you see somebody “shallow” check themselves out in the mirror, look into their expression and decide; are their eyes conceited or desperate? Prepare your inner nurturer, maybe they need reassurance.

Lizzie Hemp

Life appears to change daily – things change. People change. But most importantly, I change. Our entire being changes from one instant to the next. Half the time I can’t seem to decide whether or not its for the best, but as my dearest friend Stefanie notes, “it is what it is”. Dear God, how much I hate that saying! But as she usually is, she’s right. I can’t help but be angry; angry with myself for what I am now, angrier because im not who I wish I were right now, but I also seem to be angry because I am losing sight of what may be real. There’s a sense of longing for things that may very well be out of reach, but I deny it to myself in the hopes that my intuition may be wrong for a change. I’m a woman, who am i fooling? The one thing I can soley depend upon – without any hesitation, is my intuition. That part of me will always carry me to where it is I must go. I don’t know what it is i’m rambling on about now – possibly how things keep changing and I don’t know how to deal with it. Or i’m going on about my unhappiness with myself. This unhappiness has a tendency of disguising itself as anger towards those around me. But in all honesty, can I really be angry with those that have fooled me or lead me to believe one truth over the next? Of course not. I’m only to be blamed as I know better.

“(U) Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.”

The Domestic Extremism Lexicon was designed to “designed to
provide operational and intelligence advice and assistance to other elements of DHS, as well as state, local, and regional fusions centers. DHS/I&A intends this background information to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security and law
enforcement officials in conducting analytic activities.”

As such it outlines in great detail some of the more prominent “Domestic Extremist” groups that could pose a potential threat. Among those listed are left wing extremism, right wing extremism, the Patriot Movement, the Sovereign Citizen Movement, and the Tax Resistance Movement, as well as an assortment of racially charged groups, specifically hate groups such as the KKK and separatist groups such as black and white nationalists.

Can you read the writing on the wall? Homeland Security (or as I like to call them the American Gestapo) have clearly painted EVERYONE who dissents and disagrees with the federal government in a radical enough way to do something about it as a dangerous extremist. Let’s look deeper at a few of the definitions given to these various potential threats…

“leftwing extremism:
A movement of groups or individuals that
embraces anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines
and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution
rather than through established political processes. The term
also refers to leftwing, single-issue extremist movements that
are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition
to war, and the rights of animals.”

You tell me, how many tree hugging, granola munching , PETA loving neo-hippies have YOU seen with weapons lately? Is this a credible threat to Homeland Security? I don’t agree with many of their ideas but to label them as dangerous? That in and of itself is dangerous. When we start to call people dangerous for their ideas we run the risk of losing our right to ideas.

“militia movement:
A rightwing extremist movement composed of
groups or individuals who adhere to an antigovernment
ideology often incorporating various conspiracy theories.
Members oppose most federal and state laws, regulations, and
authority (particularly firearms laws and regulations) and
often conduct paramilitary training designed to resist
perceived government interference in their activities or to
overthrow the U.S. Government through the use of violence.
(also: citizens militia, unorganized militia)”

Here we have a group of citizens being singled out for practicing their constitutional rights. The truth is, Big Brother doesn’t want these hard to control watch dog groups up their keister and in my opinion that’s exactly where these guys belong, watching the watchers. In case you were unaware we as citizens have a protected RIGHT to overthrow the government if it grows abusive, authoritarian, tyrannical or corrupt.

“patriot movement:
A term used by rightwing extremists to link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign citizens.
(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,
Constitutionist)”

Can it get any more clear? If you are a “radical” who believes in protecting the constitution and the ideals laid down by our revolutionary forefathers, who believes the government should answer to the people and not the other way around, who wants positive change in their nation and in the world and will fight for it, who wants truth about the Federal Income Tax and wants to see an end to the enslavement of the American people by the Federal Reserve and their puppet people in Washington, you are a dangerous extremist, a potential terrorist.

It’s time to wake up people, none of this is new. Read some history! Read about Hitler, the Reichstag, Hitler Youth. Find out what the “PATRIOT” act has in store for you. Educate yourself now before doing so is labeled treason. This is my plea! Please think for yourself! Kill your TV! GO AND DO RESEARCH!

Only we can save ourselves.

(the Domestic Extremism Lexicon can be found in it’s full 11 page glory @ http://www.constitution.org/abus/dhs/hsra-domestic-extremismlexicon_165213935473.pdf)

i got to know about her death around 11 a.m in school when a friend of mine came up to me,with a sad face and said that a friend of his had committed suicide.i didnt know her,so didnt do much,apart from offering a small prayer for her soul and her parents.
so why is that young people,the future of a country,who should be full of energy and good spirits are succumbing to the failures of the world and accepting defeat.why is it that we,cannot find a reason to live?
i dont want to discuss the girls reasons to commit suicide here.may she rest in peace.but her death made me think of the circumstances surrounding our lives.parenatal pressure to do well in studies,teachers making our lives miserable,peer pressure to do drugs,love and its failures…
why is it that we choose to not fight but accept defeat and death as the only option.why can we not realise that theres more to life than grades,friends and love.and why cant the parents of such troubled teens wake up and realise their share of the mistake.
day after day,newspapers keep flooding articles about young teens committing suicide but yet they fail to realise their mistakes.why cant they back off a little and stop making our lives such a misery?why cant they be happy with the ‘kid’ that came out of their womb and not spend every minute changing it?
my very good friend is close to a breakdown and has already made up her mind to commit suicide.reasons-same.parental pressure to do well in boards,dad asking her to become a singer,her boyfriend dumping her and her peers ignoring her….
what can we do to make the lives of people around us less miserable?lets pause for a while and think about it.lets make our lives better.