Jaycee Dugard was only 11 years old when walking to her school bus, right before being abducted. It started out already as an odd day because her mother forgot to say goodbye before leaving for work; as she was reaching her stop, an odd van arrived behind her. It was then that Jaycee would live her life being hypnotized by a cruel, perverted man, who said with the "help" of Jaycee she would save all the other children, which he would leave alone.
This book was a tough read because of the vivid, disturbing details. Pictures that I would never imagine, ones's that no normal person should ever imagine, were forced into my mind. It was like a dream while reading her powerful story. She had such a hard life, but to her, her life with Philip Garrido was never going to be the end. Her end was going to be when she was reunited with her mother, when her two daughters were grown and married, and when she finally would be freed from the evil man who got to call himself "daddy" to G and A (her daughters).
This memoir was more captivating that any other memoir, or even non-fiction book, I have ever read because it was so recent in time. I think about all the McFarland children who walk to the school bus every morning, and I would do anything to make sure this situation never happens here. Children deserve to play at the park, learn at school, and cuddle with their parents at night-not the life of being a sex slave.
One of the best ideas Jaycee points out throughout her book is that pets are therapy. I have a King Charles Cavalier Spaniel, and let me tell you, he knows when something is wrong with me. Whether I am sick, sad, or even mad, Bentley (my dog) knows how to be the best friend possible. I think this holds true with any animal. Jaycee spent her life in captivity with multiple animals in and out. Although the majority of them didn't last long residing insider her small, outdoor tent, she did have a few cats, a parakeet, hermit crabs, and two of her neighbor's dogs that were with her until the end. I, personally, believe that Jaycee would not have held up as strong as she was through her journey without all of her animals. Spending 12 hours alone in the dark is one thing...having someone, an animal, to interact with during those 12 hours is another. I believe they kept her sane.
Jaycee Dugard may have the writing skills of a middle school child; however, she adapted to being a mom at age fourteen with a dangerous, evil stranger, and I think that beats learning how to write gramatically correct any day. Her writing throughout the book wasn't half bad, but then again given the opportunity she may have become a beautiful, strong writer...that path just wasn't the one she had been provided with, but the future may hold something different.
I think if I were in Jaycee's shoes I would not want Phillip put to death, nor would I want people to force their hatred upon him. I would want him to have to pay for the terrible crimes he commited: kidnapping, rape, drug use...etc., but I would want him to have to pay for my life that was stolen right before my eyes. I would want all of his money to go towards "our" two daughters, so they could have a better life than what I ever had. Phillip Garrido did take care of Jaycee, Nancy, his mother, Pat, and the two girls, but with all of the wrong intentions. He is a confused man who has always lived a troubled life by not ever receiving the help he has pleaded for. Along with Phillip being blamed for this tragedy, I blame the parole officers, therapists, Nancy Garrido, who went along with the whole thing, even while against it, and the local community for never noticing anything strange, when all along Jaycee was right in front of their eyes.
For some reason, I believe that Phillip had finally had enough the third time he was going to be put into prison..."third strike and you're out". I think he knew that it'd be best for his daughters if they were some place else while he was in prison-not realizing he would never be allowed to see them again. Phillip's mind was warped, and I don't think he will ever be considered "normal". Prison is a good home for him and his angels (the voices he hears in his head).
Jaycee Dugard has showed me brighter than daylight that being grateful for even the smallest things can go a long way. At one point she longed just for toilet paper. Each of us go to the bathroom expecting it will be there; it's just part of our normal, daily routine. I look at things now through a magnify glass. I cherish the moments spent with my mother. I look at my future positively because I know I have one. Jaycee didn't know where her life would end up, but she always made the best of things, even if a few tears dropped here and there. This memoir was not only an eye-opening read, but the definition of reality; being taken could happen to any of us, so we might as live our lives to the fullest while we hold the opportunity to.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Standing On Your Own... As a Woman!
By far, Sarah Hepola may be the most inspiring, independent female author out there. I thought by the title, "Every Woman Should Travel Alone", that she'd portray herself as some depressed woman repelling any man that entered her life because of an awfully hurtful past; however, that was not the case for this woman.
The message of this essay was not to be a "loner" and live in the dark...it was to reassure oneself by learning to stand on your own in the world. Sarah didn't ride along the Pacific Coast Highway, drive to Alaska, and across Montana into Quebec because of boredom; she did it to conquer all of her fears in the world that could have existed even while sitting on her couch watching reality television.
This essay correlates well with the popular talk about women's rights, which has consistently shown up in recent political discussions. Sarah demonstrates clearly after acting very stupid, solely through the intoxication of alcohol, that not only men but women do stupid things. Why should women be more careful than men? It is just a matter of a gender difference. Stupid actions don't fit different genders more or less...stupid is stupid, period.
Fifty years ago the act of one's daughter leaving to travel the world on her own would be frowned upon because women were more incapable then...they were suppose to be housewives and give birth to multiple children, but now days it's not about the incapability it's about the danger of a woman being alone. The world is wicked, but it is equally as wicked of a place for men as for women. Without facing your fears now, alone or not alone, one may fail to become the person they have always wanted to be...as Sarah quickly found out.
I don't know how people can judge a woman traveling alone but not a man? It seems unbelievably sexist, and I feel like it is the year 2012, and people need to get over it. Sarah acquired an addiction, traveling. She had a desire to run all over the world. I believe that this attitude is becoming more of a trend rather than boyfriends, girlfriends, and babies. Big romances don't happen as often as they did fifty years ago, so why not obtain crazy, fun addictions?
I very much agree with Sarah's message in this essay. There is no way that in five years I will be letting myself live in the dark...especially just because I am a girl. My dream is to learn new languages and visit less privileged countries to help teach children or even medically assist them. Being young and stupid may seem irresponsible to a lot of adults, but let's be real, they all did it too, that's why they know the ridiculous outcomes.
The ending line is my favorite throughout this entire essay : "That the greatest trip of my life came because I did not get the things I wanted." I think that if everyone found a way to gain something new after not getting what they wanted originally, it would broaden the happiness in people's lives. Everybody gets set on one thing and that's all they can see through their tiny tunnel, but just as Sarah showed there is really an entire world out there waiting to be explored by each and every one of us...man or woman!
The message of this essay was not to be a "loner" and live in the dark...it was to reassure oneself by learning to stand on your own in the world. Sarah didn't ride along the Pacific Coast Highway, drive to Alaska, and across Montana into Quebec because of boredom; she did it to conquer all of her fears in the world that could have existed even while sitting on her couch watching reality television.
This essay correlates well with the popular talk about women's rights, which has consistently shown up in recent political discussions. Sarah demonstrates clearly after acting very stupid, solely through the intoxication of alcohol, that not only men but women do stupid things. Why should women be more careful than men? It is just a matter of a gender difference. Stupid actions don't fit different genders more or less...stupid is stupid, period.
Fifty years ago the act of one's daughter leaving to travel the world on her own would be frowned upon because women were more incapable then...they were suppose to be housewives and give birth to multiple children, but now days it's not about the incapability it's about the danger of a woman being alone. The world is wicked, but it is equally as wicked of a place for men as for women. Without facing your fears now, alone or not alone, one may fail to become the person they have always wanted to be...as Sarah quickly found out.
I don't know how people can judge a woman traveling alone but not a man? It seems unbelievably sexist, and I feel like it is the year 2012, and people need to get over it. Sarah acquired an addiction, traveling. She had a desire to run all over the world. I believe that this attitude is becoming more of a trend rather than boyfriends, girlfriends, and babies. Big romances don't happen as often as they did fifty years ago, so why not obtain crazy, fun addictions?
I very much agree with Sarah's message in this essay. There is no way that in five years I will be letting myself live in the dark...especially just because I am a girl. My dream is to learn new languages and visit less privileged countries to help teach children or even medically assist them. Being young and stupid may seem irresponsible to a lot of adults, but let's be real, they all did it too, that's why they know the ridiculous outcomes.
The ending line is my favorite throughout this entire essay : "That the greatest trip of my life came because I did not get the things I wanted." I think that if everyone found a way to gain something new after not getting what they wanted originally, it would broaden the happiness in people's lives. Everybody gets set on one thing and that's all they can see through their tiny tunnel, but just as Sarah showed there is really an entire world out there waiting to be explored by each and every one of us...man or woman!
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Baseball is More Hazardous Than Football! (Mr.Kunkle you'll like this one!)
To start off, this caught my eye because I know Mr.Kunkle and I share an interest of baseball. Baseball is a huge recreational activity in my family, and my cousin, my role model, actually just finished his first summer playing for the Madison Mallards, and I hope he can go even farther in time. But even with my great love for this sport, it seems that it is more dangerous than football is...my second favorite sport. Sunday night football seems to be doing less damage after the players retire than when baseball players do.
It all started when Grantland's Bill Barnwell established an informal survey about morality rates among professional football and baseball players. The results did very much surprise me, as well as for Mr.Barnwell. About 3,000 ex-football players who played a least five seasons between the years of 1959 and 1988 obtained a death rate of 12.8 percent; however, with a lessened number of about 1,500 baseball players, their death rate was at about 15.9 percent during the same era. I feel like when you watch a football game you are always going "ooh" and "ah" to all of the tough hits thrust upon one another, but with baseball it seems much more relaxed and rarely do you see a dramatic injury; it's the "gentleman's game". Football has always had the scare of concussions, so I don't understand how baseball has a much higher percentage?
The best part of this entire essay is the part where it states, "The health risks associated with playing football were being more than outweighed by the benefits of being a pro athlete-excellent training and nutrition, a good salary, top-quality medical care, and so on." People now days care more about the money and the fame, but what they don't realize, yet, is that they cannot have all of that when their dead. In my opinion, I think it is pointless to risk dying at such a young age for five years of "the good life". But quite frankly it is the "good life" that is getting them farther than being a professional baseball player their entire life.
The results of this survey may seem to be looking at cumulative "wear-and-tear" rather than acute injuries that are acquired throughout football season. A football star's career is much shorter too...a baseball star's career lasts almost 60 percent longer.
The argument that I agree with the most is that the use of chewing tobacco or snuff is lessening these baseball player's life. It was shown in a 2009 study that only .2 percent of NFL athletes use tobacco; clearly, that is way low compared to the 36 percent of Major League Baseball players. I think common sense should get someone the answers they need to know about the consequences of using tobacco.
This article really opened my eyes to see how even the smallest stereotypes can be reversed. Nobody saw it coming that baseball would kill more than football does, but now that we know the true facts it will just create more studies to find the exact reason why it does. So my advice...get out their and play ball while you still can!
It all started when Grantland's Bill Barnwell established an informal survey about morality rates among professional football and baseball players. The results did very much surprise me, as well as for Mr.Barnwell. About 3,000 ex-football players who played a least five seasons between the years of 1959 and 1988 obtained a death rate of 12.8 percent; however, with a lessened number of about 1,500 baseball players, their death rate was at about 15.9 percent during the same era. I feel like when you watch a football game you are always going "ooh" and "ah" to all of the tough hits thrust upon one another, but with baseball it seems much more relaxed and rarely do you see a dramatic injury; it's the "gentleman's game". Football has always had the scare of concussions, so I don't understand how baseball has a much higher percentage?
The best part of this entire essay is the part where it states, "The health risks associated with playing football were being more than outweighed by the benefits of being a pro athlete-excellent training and nutrition, a good salary, top-quality medical care, and so on." People now days care more about the money and the fame, but what they don't realize, yet, is that they cannot have all of that when their dead. In my opinion, I think it is pointless to risk dying at such a young age for five years of "the good life". But quite frankly it is the "good life" that is getting them farther than being a professional baseball player their entire life.
The results of this survey may seem to be looking at cumulative "wear-and-tear" rather than acute injuries that are acquired throughout football season. A football star's career is much shorter too...a baseball star's career lasts almost 60 percent longer.
The argument that I agree with the most is that the use of chewing tobacco or snuff is lessening these baseball player's life. It was shown in a 2009 study that only .2 percent of NFL athletes use tobacco; clearly, that is way low compared to the 36 percent of Major League Baseball players. I think common sense should get someone the answers they need to know about the consequences of using tobacco.
This article really opened my eyes to see how even the smallest stereotypes can be reversed. Nobody saw it coming that baseball would kill more than football does, but now that we know the true facts it will just create more studies to find the exact reason why it does. So my advice...get out their and play ball while you still can!
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Mary's 19 Article....(which I deleted once already)...
While endeavouring to complete this long article, it became much more difficult while summer was still going on, and the sun was still shining through my blinds. Procrastination hit me hard; however, I became interested in Mary Wollstonecraft's article when I knew it had something to do with me, a women growing up in a tough society...where men seem to still be of the greater sex-where they are almost made a "God" to our society. It caught my attention from the very beginning when she said: "Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, every thing else is needless, for, at least, twenty years of their lives."
I felt like she almost detested this statement but at the same time supported it? Throughout this article I felt as if Wollstonecraft was there to protect women and their rights, but she did it in a very awkward way.
I did, however, agree with her argument to have men and women educated by the opinions/manners of the society that both of us live in. Why alter it due to who you are or where you've come from? Her opinion of "the most perfect education" coming for the exercise of one's own reason is completely correct in my opinion as well.
She calls herself arrogant, but I think she shows courage by writing such strong beliefs in such intelligent sentences. She has a unique way of writing where she uses big words to go off on tangents, where at times, I think she makes no sense at all. She pushes her point across with her statement of, "faithful expression of my feelings; of the clear result, which experience and reflection have led me to draw."
In my opinion, I feel as if Wollstonecraft focuses on how much women have been degraded rather than how to fix the inequality between the two genders. When she says, "...they do to-day what they did yesterday, merely because they did it yesterday..." seems like an understatement to me. Women have the right to gain total equality, and I feel like many women have enough education to stand up for what is right.
Without a doubt, there is an education in our society that is dedicated to creating a gentleman figure; however, I feel like there is an education not far behind that one, which teaches how to be a lady too. She believes acquiring manners before morals is a negative thing... but I for one think that obtaining either in your personality is a great thing- for either gender too!
It seemed to me that she put more focus on what she thought women could be rather than what they are. Even with the scrambled thoughts that I attained throughout this article, Wollstonecraft definitely had a slick, beautiful way with her words. She writes with such dignity and strength behind her beliefs; it's incredible! For some odd reason, the sentence explaining, "...obedience is the grand lesson which ought to be impressed with unrelenting rigour," caught my attention greatly-maybe because I thought it was as ridiculous as she did. She also speaks wise words throughout her article and creates unique comparisons, such as, soldiers vs. women, oblique sunbeams vs. a man's charm, or even stripped virtues vs. clothing humanity.
Even with the long stretch of what seemed to be a never ending article, it was solely to enforce her beliefs. Wollstonecraft had very mind-twisting thoughts. She not only seemed to contradict herself at times, but she also was spot on with my opinion at times too. "-But, whether she be loved or neglected, her first wish should be to make herself respectable...", what a fabulous sentence, which every girl/women/daughter/mother should follow. Clearly, she (Mary Wollstonecraft) may have some interesting ways of expressing herself, but nonetheless she is a very talented writer who wants to change our society now and forever to make it equal for the female sex.
I felt like she almost detested this statement but at the same time supported it? Throughout this article I felt as if Wollstonecraft was there to protect women and their rights, but she did it in a very awkward way.
I did, however, agree with her argument to have men and women educated by the opinions/manners of the society that both of us live in. Why alter it due to who you are or where you've come from? Her opinion of "the most perfect education" coming for the exercise of one's own reason is completely correct in my opinion as well.
She calls herself arrogant, but I think she shows courage by writing such strong beliefs in such intelligent sentences. She has a unique way of writing where she uses big words to go off on tangents, where at times, I think she makes no sense at all. She pushes her point across with her statement of, "faithful expression of my feelings; of the clear result, which experience and reflection have led me to draw."
In my opinion, I feel as if Wollstonecraft focuses on how much women have been degraded rather than how to fix the inequality between the two genders. When she says, "...they do to-day what they did yesterday, merely because they did it yesterday..." seems like an understatement to me. Women have the right to gain total equality, and I feel like many women have enough education to stand up for what is right.
Without a doubt, there is an education in our society that is dedicated to creating a gentleman figure; however, I feel like there is an education not far behind that one, which teaches how to be a lady too. She believes acquiring manners before morals is a negative thing... but I for one think that obtaining either in your personality is a great thing- for either gender too!
It seemed to me that she put more focus on what she thought women could be rather than what they are. Even with the scrambled thoughts that I attained throughout this article, Wollstonecraft definitely had a slick, beautiful way with her words. She writes with such dignity and strength behind her beliefs; it's incredible! For some odd reason, the sentence explaining, "...obedience is the grand lesson which ought to be impressed with unrelenting rigour," caught my attention greatly-maybe because I thought it was as ridiculous as she did. She also speaks wise words throughout her article and creates unique comparisons, such as, soldiers vs. women, oblique sunbeams vs. a man's charm, or even stripped virtues vs. clothing humanity.
Even with the long stretch of what seemed to be a never ending article, it was solely to enforce her beliefs. Wollstonecraft had very mind-twisting thoughts. She not only seemed to contradict herself at times, but she also was spot on with my opinion at times too. "-But, whether she be loved or neglected, her first wish should be to make herself respectable...", what a fabulous sentence, which every girl/women/daughter/mother should follow. Clearly, she (Mary Wollstonecraft) may have some interesting ways of expressing herself, but nonetheless she is a very talented writer who wants to change our society now and forever to make it equal for the female sex.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Stupid Google or Stupid Us?
Nicholas Carr hits the spot in this essay when he states, "The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle." Not only do I see this happening with people around me, but I notice it occurring within myself. I use to be able to read an entire Harry Potter book without any distractions, but now that is not the option of choice for my lazy days. It's difficult at times to concentrate just on the book in front of me instead of the many other distractions that surround me.
Another point he makes that I completely agree with is, "The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer." I love writing, it is my stress reliever; however, whenever I need to know a fact I do not go deep into the topic with researching it; I just look up the small part of information that I need right from Google. I do reckon that the Web is beginning to take over not our ways of reading but our ways of thinking. The study within the British library concluded with a spectacular idea that..."It almost seems that they (people) go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense."
Even with all these sharp points Carr has started to make, I have also, again, widened my vocabulary. There were about a dozen words in which I was unsure about, which I am now able to add to my vocab. cards. His different variety of words, specific examples from studies all over, and strong opinion lead to a great article, intriguing his readers during every part. I did not get bored or fidgety while reading this because it has to do with me and my future.
On a personal note, I firmly believe that the laziness of our country has not only affected our health but our intelligence... just how Carr has stated. When a large text assignment is assigned during a class, there is no doubt that over half of the kids "read" or skim the words to just get by. Why waste your time skimming though, when you can add a few extra minutes and complete it thoroughly and benefit yourself? It almost seems that most kids do not want to accept the free education they are granted; instead, they enjoy their parents spending money each month, so they have access to Google, YouTube, Wikipedia...etc.
Clearly, just how the article explained, we may be reading more with the production of all our new technology, but it is a different type of reading, which leads to a very different type of thinking. Maryanne Wolf of Tufts University makes it evident that the connections we make while traditionally reading are disappearing as we introduce the new ways.
So the answer to the title of this blog, in my opinion, would be stupid us. There's no mistake in saying that Google is a very smart tool. In fact all of the technology leading up to it...typewriter, steam engine, Internet...are extremely intelligent tools for us to use, but how far do we go until we stop? Sergey Brin and Larry Page, founders of Google, want it to go as far as possible. They are hooked on the belief that having all the information in our brains already, or providing it with the use of Google, will make us better off. Google's motive is to "solve problems that have never been solved before". So besides the rest of society lessening its intelligence, Brin and Page are trying to become geniuses in cracking the hardest problem ever, artificial intelligence. I agree with Carr with the conclusion that, "It is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence." Google clearly isn't benefiting any one's future except for these two founder's; it'll just take time for more people to realize that.
Another point he makes that I completely agree with is, "The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer." I love writing, it is my stress reliever; however, whenever I need to know a fact I do not go deep into the topic with researching it; I just look up the small part of information that I need right from Google. I do reckon that the Web is beginning to take over not our ways of reading but our ways of thinking. The study within the British library concluded with a spectacular idea that..."It almost seems that they (people) go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense."
Even with all these sharp points Carr has started to make, I have also, again, widened my vocabulary. There were about a dozen words in which I was unsure about, which I am now able to add to my vocab. cards. His different variety of words, specific examples from studies all over, and strong opinion lead to a great article, intriguing his readers during every part. I did not get bored or fidgety while reading this because it has to do with me and my future.
On a personal note, I firmly believe that the laziness of our country has not only affected our health but our intelligence... just how Carr has stated. When a large text assignment is assigned during a class, there is no doubt that over half of the kids "read" or skim the words to just get by. Why waste your time skimming though, when you can add a few extra minutes and complete it thoroughly and benefit yourself? It almost seems that most kids do not want to accept the free education they are granted; instead, they enjoy their parents spending money each month, so they have access to Google, YouTube, Wikipedia...etc.
Clearly, just how the article explained, we may be reading more with the production of all our new technology, but it is a different type of reading, which leads to a very different type of thinking. Maryanne Wolf of Tufts University makes it evident that the connections we make while traditionally reading are disappearing as we introduce the new ways.
So the answer to the title of this blog, in my opinion, would be stupid us. There's no mistake in saying that Google is a very smart tool. In fact all of the technology leading up to it...typewriter, steam engine, Internet...are extremely intelligent tools for us to use, but how far do we go until we stop? Sergey Brin and Larry Page, founders of Google, want it to go as far as possible. They are hooked on the belief that having all the information in our brains already, or providing it with the use of Google, will make us better off. Google's motive is to "solve problems that have never been solved before". So besides the rest of society lessening its intelligence, Brin and Page are trying to become geniuses in cracking the hardest problem ever, artificial intelligence. I agree with Carr with the conclusion that, "It is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence." Google clearly isn't benefiting any one's future except for these two founder's; it'll just take time for more people to realize that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)