Into the Wild Reader Response

In my opinion Alex (or Chris) was extremely excited for his trip but he wasn't prepared enough for it. It is ok to live off of the land and be a real trooper but in this case, it was not a good idea. He did not even have good enough boots. He burned his money which was a bad idea as well because before he did his Alaskan adventure, it would have been a good idea to keep it around. He was starving himself before Alaska because he had no money. "Alex allowed that it had been a couple of days. [since he ate last] Said he'd kind of run out of money" (pg. 17). Alex did not know what he was doing. He did know what berries to eat and such but he did not know about the one berry that killed him. He should have spent much longer studying Alaskan wildlife. Alex knew what it meant to be a hard worker and to be dedicated. He simply was dedicated too early, he threw himself into a project that was not meant for him. "If he started a job, he'd finish it. It was almost like a moral thing for him" (pg. 18). While Chris's (Alex's) morals were very sure and upbeat, he set his deadline too short (no pun intended). He should have waited another year or two just in Alaska to learn about the wildlife first hand rather than reading about it. I believe Chris would have known how to survive better if he had waited and had understood the gravity of the project he was undertaking. I also believe that Alex had some sort of defect though I'm not sure what that is, that caused him to not be able to think through situations logically. He had absolutely no way to get help or to help himself. He changed his name to start his life over. While this is a touching and riveting plot to a story, in real life it is dangerous. However, Alex did it anyways, "No longer would he answer to Chris McCandless; he was now AlexanderSupertramp, master of his own destiny" (pg. 23). If this is the way that Chris saw himself, as master of his own destiny, I also have to wonder if Chris had a superiority complex and if he thought himself to be powerful beyond the average man. We must read and wait to discover this. For now, it is all simple conjecture.

Bowling for Columbine

Bowling for Columbine is an extremely biased documentary that to be honest, I don't quite understand the point of it. The movie Bowling for Columbine has little to do with Columbine specifically and more to do with the 2nd amendment. The only reason Columbine is even in this documentary is so that the narrator can support his claim. Thus, he is using the Columbine tragedy to promote his personal anti-gun beliefs. I think that that is wrong, especially when the name of the documentary suggests that the documentary is an ode to Columbine. Furthermore, I do not understand what Lockheed Martin had to do with any of this. Sure, they are the top weapons maker in the United States, but coming from a family of Lockheed Martin employees, I suppose that I am biased on that subject. Knowing that Michael Moore's representation of Lockheed Martin's position is inaccurate, he has absolutely no credibility. In fact, in contrast to Mr. Moore's accusations, Lockheed Martin does care about other countries and they are actually currently part of the effort to fund Japan while Japan is in crisis. Anyone who knowingly publishes false information while knowing that it is incorrect should be considered unethical and they should not be listened to. Michael Moore is known for his liberalist views as well as his biases. Therefore, I don't believe that we can truly consider any of his "findings" in Bowling for Columbine accurate. Overall, Bowling for Columbine is not so much a documentary as it is a parody against all of those who are for the second amendment and the right to bear arms. Michael Moore presents himself in an unethical fashion and anyone who knows anything about the issues he is discussing realizes his mistakes. Bowling for Columbine is a non-fiction comedy made out to be a documentary.

Are there different types of psychopaths?

In class lately we have been disscussing that Eric was a psychopath; however, my question is, How many psychopaths are out there and are there different types of psychopaths that feel different emotions?
I researched my questions and discovered that psychopaths are similar to conciensious people in that they are all different. Some are motivated by blood and power such as Eric was, and others are motivated by success in a job. However, their erie ability to not be discovered for what they are makes it difficult to identify and study a psychopath. I found out that 4% of the world's population is; to some extent, a psychopath. That means 4 in every 100 people have some sort of psychopathy. It has been researched that people in politics might have a rather large ratio of psychopaths versus normal, concientious people. If you think about that, that almost makes sense. Politicians are steriotyped as being unremorsefull human beings with absolutely no worry about what happens to their opponent. The amount of psychopaths in politics would help to create this steriotype. From my reading it seems that there are many different grades of psychopathic behavior but they all stem from the same lack of concience. Some scientists argue that psychopaths should be classified as a different type of human.  Psychopaths seem to realize that something is wrong with them and they know that the difference is their emotional status compared to the rest of society. However, psychopaths do not feel the need to conform, they see no reason to change themselves. That does make it interesting that psychopaths do tend to act like they conform but in actuallity, they simply inspire trust or "friendship" in other people to get what they want. The act of friendship may not be a conformity but rather a strategy of getting what they want. Overall, the average psychopath has no feelings and they tend to be either criminals or very successful people. The successful people are known for their easy way that they cope with emotional problems. The criminals are simply written off as psychopaths and left alone. Psychopaths are out there and they are prominent in society, they affect people's lives both directly and indirectly. This and the fact that they hide their psychopathy is what makes them so dangerous and frightening.

Free Write: School Killers; profiling

School shootings are not a simplistic matter. Every generation is represented at schools and putting one if not all of these generations is a risk.It seems to be impossible to eliminate the risk of school violence. Those that are considered violent come in all different profiles. Some have a perfect family, others have divorced parents, some have no parents at all, and then there is the multitude of other situtations not mentioned. The only thing common between shooters is that they all plan ahead. They do not simply snap and decide to be violent. They plan weeks, even months in advance for their scheme. This is seen in Columbine in the way that Eric and Dylan planned their attack upon their student body. Some shooters are driven to violence by their lack of socialization and their feelings towards the general society. This is not seen in Eric and Dylan as both are "ladies men" and both have dates for prom and they also have each other. Being a loner more qualifies depression, not violent antics. So how would one identify a potential school shooter threat? The secret service suggests that you should interview those closest to the threat. You should ask things about their behavior, any possible emotional problems, their potential access to weapons, etc... This is a much more accurate way to identify a threat than that of profiling a killer into a category. In my opinion, killers can only be put into the specific category of killers. Other than that, they all have something different messed up in their brains.

Pepsi Max commercial bias

Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola have been bitter rivals for years and therefore they have many biases for themselves and against the other. This advertisement shows these biases from the Pepsi side. This advertises Pepsi max against Coke zero product. When the Coke zero truck driver tastes Pepsi max, he is awestruck by the taste and how it compares to Coke Zero. This compares to the Pepsi man who does not taste the Coke product at all thus showing the bias that Pepsi is so much better that Pepsi knows that he needn’t even try and taste Coke Zero. Plus, that would ruin the advertisement. The song Why Can’t We Be Friends shows how Pepsi is the good guy in the rivalry. This tries to run people’s sentiments towards Pepsi. This shows the bias that Pepsi is all around better not just in taste. This is a well formulated advertisement that shows how much better Pepsi max taste and personality is. The people in the advertisement serve as sort of a personification for Pepsi Max and Coke Zero. Pepsi is nice and Coke is nice but that nice turns out to be fake when the Coke man throws Pepsi out a window. Thus, Pepsi is overall better through the works of the bias in this television advertisement.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBXlUcxmu7M&feature=fvst

Howard Roark: character analysis

In the book, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, the ideal goal for characters is to become an objectivist. Naturally, there must be a character in the book that qualifies what Rand believes to be an objectivist. In her novel, Howard Roark becomes such a character. The beginning of the book opens with Roark standing on the edge of a cliff naked. This signifies that number one, he is at ease with himself and has no troubles in the world. Number two, it reveals him as the protagonist of the novel. This is in contrast with someone like Peter Keating who simply does not know what to do with himself unless someone is there to tell him that he is correct. Howard Roark does not compromise anything to anyone else's beliefs and that is an objectivist point of view. He believes himself to be the best however, he doesn't care if others think so. Along with his anti-social attitude comes a certain believable power that we see prominantly with Roark's interactions with Dominique Francon. This shows that an objectivist holds power above everyone else. After discovering what Roark does with his unique power, one can decide that he truly does only do what he wants to do and he cares for little else. He is not looking for fame or glory, he is looking for truth (in his architecture) and he is looking for happiness (which he finds even when money is scarce). He does not pay any attention to negative critisism such as what Ellsworth Toohey and Dominique Francon give him because the only critic in his world is himself. That is how an objectivist is to act. Howard Roark's talent for architecture labels him not only as the protagonist of the story but also as someone who has the power to be a protagonist in real life. He is the ideal person in Ayn Rand's mind. That is what makes Roark so interesting to readers. Most readers, I would dare to say, can not identify with Roark simply because the average human being cares about other people's opinions. However, people can identify with Roark's love for what he does and they are surprised and proud of the glorious way that Roark handles critisism as well as praise. His ability to read people makes him even more ideal and powerful. It makes people afraid and allured at the same time. The reader spends the entire novel to discover Howard Roark and at the end his objectivist personality shines through. He stayed himself to the very end. The only difficulty is that readers feel like there is more and that makes Roark all the more interesting because we shall never know the true story of Howard Roark.

Dominique Francon Character Analysis

In The Fountainhead, Dominique is a powerful woman that has fortune by way of her father, Mr. Francon. However, Dominique is completely different from her father. She finds beauty in many things including destruction whereas her father, being an architect cannot imagine greatness unless it is comprised in  his own office. Dominique has set her life in her own values and much like Roark, she does not compromise her values. However, Dominique is a woman and during the 1920s women were expected to get along with society. Dominique is a cold hearted woman until she meets Roark. Roark breaks down her control of her world simply by knowing her. When Roark moves away, Dominique is cold again and she and Keating agree to court publicly but in reality Dominique constantly snubs Keating. Dominique punishes herself constantly because she always believes that she has done something wrong to the world or the world has done something wrong to her. When Roark returns, she meets him at a party and they do not discuss the rape because she is still not sure what to think of it. Roark instills emotion in her that she cannot understand because she has been such a cold hearted woman for so long. Eventually, Dominique punishes herself as a substitute for punishing the world because the world does not understand Roark. She does this punishment by agreeing to marry Keating. Now, Dominique is showing her ability to not care about society and the expectations in it. Keating and her do not get along and their marriage is somewhat of a joke. However, society is entranced with their marriage and Roark has become “the other man” in Dominique’s life. She does not have a problem with going against society like this. Roark and Dominique continue to meet at nights and Roark and Dominique admit their love to each other. This is significant because up until meeting each other, both characters were freezing out the rest of the world and showing little to no emotion. Dominique has shown a powerful emotion by loving Roark and they both understand the need to push each other’s limits. Dominique pushes Roark by talking out against him in her column. That is, until she is fired. Dominique is just like Roark in her lack of ability to compromise her own values. This makes her and Roark quite alike.