Entertainment Arguement

In today's society, everything has to be fast paced. We dread a slow Internet connection or sitting in rush hour traffic. As Americans, we have become accustomed to having everything we want, right at the moment we want it. So, when we come home from our demanding jobs, we want to relax and wind down. And what better way to settle down from a day of rushing around than to sit down and watch people on TV provide the entertainment that people 100 years ago provided for themselves?

One hundred years ago or more, people used to entertain themselves with what they had around them. If you didn't live in a tropical rain forest, you could only imagine what a parrot looked like. If you were lucky, you could make a trip to a rain forest yourself to experience it first hand, but these trips were only made once in a lifetime, if they were made at all. Today, we no longer have to wonder what a parrot in a tropical rain forest looks like---we have explorers on TV to make the trip for us. We have an unlimited supply of TV shows and channels that can show us a whole other side of the world. We have the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and the Travel Channel to relay back to us "in stunning high-definition" every little detail of their location. Or in some cases, how the food of a certain culture tastes. I'm sure we have all heard of the show on the Travel channel broadcasting a fearless explorer who bravely tastes the strangest foods of the world. The viewer can ride on a cultural roller coaster as the host not only explains the foods, but also gives a nice tour of the area's geographical oddities. So if we, as Americans can simply turn on our TVs to visit an exotic rain forest, why spend the money, or effort, to go visit in person?

Although there are some people in the world who enjoy watching brave explorers eat revolting foods, most tune in to their favorite television show or movie for the action. There are those out there who love to watch boxing and wrestling, or see a secret agent blow up an enemy vehicle. But would these people actually do these things themselves? Because I don't see an average cubicle worker out boxing Muhammad Ali, I believe I can safely say no. Americans strive for ease and convenience when it comes to anything they can buy, which is why so much money is spent on Hi-def TV sets rather than extravagant vacations to the other half of the world. Although a poll by the New York Times says that people who spend their money on experiences rather than material items, we as Americans love the ease and painlessness of buying a TV set to watch someone else experience something exciting and dangerous rather than do it on their own.

The Great Gatsby Analysis

Fitzgerald's insightful yet hopeless tones reflect his woebegone view of the people of his time and his fascination with their inability to move into the future.

As "boats beating against the current," the people of the 1920s were, for the most part, reluctant to leave the comfort zone they knew so well behind them and move into the churning future before them. The 1920s were controversial times, mainly because of the young women of the time. Flappers, as they were called, flaunted their bodies and bare skin before the ravenous men begging for a glimpse of these improper women. The older generation refused to accept these inappropriate females. Similar to this apprehensive generation are the boats they are compared to. These older people are beating against the current of the younger generation,

3rd Quarter Reading List

I read 3 books, the equivalent of 7 books.

• Pride and Prejudice
• The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (336 pages)
• Deception Point (464 pages)

It was a dark, dreary night when Tom and Huck entered the graveyard. They entered with the intention of seeing some demons drag the newest buried body down to Hell, and left with the knowledge of a murder. Injun Joe, out of fury, killed another man, not knowing that Tom and Huck were hiding in the bushes. The two boys watch as Injun Joe lays the knife in his partner's hand, framing him for the murder. Tom and Huck make a pact (sealing it with blood, of course), and move on with their lives, adventuring as pirates and getting lost in caves. As the village awaits the trial of the "murderer", Tom and Huck must decide whether their lives are more important than the innocent "homicidal" person sitting in jail, awaiting his death for a murder he didn't commit. Tom reminded me of myself when I was younger. I used to look for trouble and go on "adventures" to lost places.

Consumption

"It is not necessity but abundance which produces greed."
-Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (1533–1592)

With an abundance of goods comes more opportunities to buy those goods, which leads to people buying much more than they actually need. Even back in the sixteenth century, before the mass production of goods brought on by the Industrial Revolution, Michel Eyquem de Montaigne understood human nature's worst dispositions, greed. Although he could clearly interpret abundance's effect on this terrible emotion, there was no way he could fathom the impact the Industrial Revolution would have on the world. The greed he was acquainted with in the 1500s was nothing compared to the malignant indulgence we experience everyday.

thINK #2

12 Sentence Short Story

First Amendment Rights?

As I was glancing over the day's news on MSNBC, one article definitely caught my attention. This article discussed the rising controversy surrounding Amazon's selling of a book called The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-lover's Code of Conduct. The controversy rests in the fact that legally, through the 1st Amendment, Amazon has the right to keep any book they want on their website and the author has the right to sell it. Morally, most people would agree that keeping this book readily available is absolutely wrong.

According to this article, Amazon defended its right to sell the book until they lost a large amount of customers. What I don't understand is how someone could defend a book teaching pedophiles how to deal with being criticized and targeted because of their "sexuality." The author of the book says that the protesters are "free to think whatever they want to think about the book." He justifies writing the book by stating "everytime you see (pedophiles) on television, they are either murderers, rapists, or kidnappers" and by letting you know, "that's just not an accurate representation of that particular sexuality." But when MSNBC purchased the book for reviewing purposes, they stated that the two sexually graphic stories "presented as an adult's recollection of his youthful experience" could be interpreted as thinly veiled examples of pedophilic-themed erotica.

Do we really want "pedophilic-themed erotica" in the hands of those twisted people obsessed with our children and little brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews and grandchildren? I would say that we should definitely make sure these kinds of books are kept away from the rapists and kidnappers of the world. Amazon took the book off its website only when they realized they were losing many potential customers through protests and anti-Amazon Facebook groups. What kind of world do we live in where big business overpowers morality and a person's sense of right and wrong?