Hurah! I will not go Kathy Bates on anyone.

                So I took the physcopath test and lo and behold, I am not a physcopath. I think I'm way too emotional to ever be a physcopath (I cried after "Titanic"). Listening to the "This American Life" broadcast kind of alarmed me, especially the part about the CEO physcopath. Having someone in such a high position where they can actively make or break people's lives is scary. Could you imagine our President as a physco path, who wouldn't even care about the well being of the people? I also identify with what the author said, that he feels a bit envious of physcopaths.They are not held down by ideals, morals and ethics like regular people. Physcopaths just do what they want. Which is not good, I know, but there is something freeing about that. I found the broadcast to be very interesting and it's opened my eyes about some of the people around me.

You're sending me to jail? Why?! I haven't done anything wrong!

           From the combined efforts of reading "Minority Report", the article about the criminal mind, and the song "I don't like Mondays" by The Boomtown Rats i am slightly confused and mind blown. I did not quite understand the song, but i fully understood "minority Report" and the article.Scanning criminals brains to see what makes them different has been known about for quite a while.  Somehow some parts of their frontal lobes( emotions) don't work or haven't matured like a regular person. So if a person has a mental disorder (I'm guessing that now being a sociopath is a mental disorder) they could commit a crime without even knowing that they committed one. So should they be held liable for their crimes? They don't even know that their doing something wrong but on the other hand they are causing harm to someone. Could being a sociopath be used as a get out of jail free card? They still have done something wrong, so shouldn't they be punished? And if we could correct the problem before it starts are we being like the people like the "Minority Report"? How can we, society , do something to someone based on what their likely to do? Until that individual is actually on the verge of committing the crime only then can we know their intent. Locking up Innocent people is wrong.(By the way "MR" was one of the best short stories I've ever read) How can you punish someone when they haven't committed a crime? And on the subject of the song, i don't really understand it. I even went of you tube and watched the video ( the lead singer looks like Jerry Seinfeld) Are they talking about killing children and really seem to dislike Mondays. I think this all(except the song) relates to Crime and Punishment. If brain scanning had been around during Raskolnikov's time he wouldn't have been considered crazy, he would have just had a mental problem and he would have gotten help. He may would not have committed the crime in the first place if technology was available. And that would be especially true in the "Minority Report's" storyline. In there he would not have committed the crime in the first place.The crime would have been foreseen and and he would not have committed it.

P.S Could the Song be explained on Monday?

The Crazy Train

           For starters, let me start off by saying that R really is crazy. He has manic fits of depression, surges of happiness, and a misanthropic lifestyle. One moment he can be perfectly sane, like when he helps Marmeladov and his family. The next moment he can be raving about something that isn't rational. And a few times R tries to confess to the murder of the money lender. What? I thought the whole point of running away and getting rid of the evidence is so that he wouldn't be caught. Maybe he's subconsciously (or purposely) trying to confess. Maybe his guilt at this point is over riding him and he needs release. He certainly seems like he wants to get caught, even going so far as to tell a police officer of how he committed the crime. Also, R at this point really has only one friend, Raz. Yet R pushes Raz away and calls him annoying. What's up with that? Raz is probability one of the select few who care about R. R seems to be distancing himself from others as a form of punishment (though if i were me i wouldn't be friends with him anyway because the guy is nuts).
               I believe that redemption is possible for someone who has done something wrong. My belief probably stems from the fact that I'm a Christian, and the whole Christian doctrine is based on redemption. In fact, I think all religions believe in redemption, it's a universal theme found all around the world. Though just because I believe in redemption and forgiveness doesn't mean I'll forgive something easily. There has to be a level of sincerity to be forgiven. Lack of sincerity shows that that person is manipulative and people loose respect for them. Take one of those African dictators that engage in civil war, killing thousands of men women and children. Personally, I have a strong animosity towards that type of person but if they seek redemption out of the sincerity of their heart I must forgive them. In Christian doctrine you must forgive, your personal feelings aside if a person is being truthful. And if their being like the boy who cried wolf you still have to forgive them when they seek redemption.The consequences of their actions will be decided by God.

Crime and Punishment (yay, we finally know that the crime is !)

     In chapter 7 we finally find out the crime that Raskolnikov (or R) commits.After he has a vodka induced dream he sets out to kill the money lender. The dream is about an old horse (the money lender) being killed by it's master (R) because it's old and useless. The people jeering it on is symbolically R's mind, while the ones that want to stop it are his conschus.  After having this dream R then proceedes to go through with the murder the next day (but he's got a plan because he's been thinking about this for a while). i can see why the author would write a book aboout this when you consider his life. Although he didn't grow up underpoverished he saw alot of poverty where he lived as a child. That may be why he writes about characters who are in poverty and debt. He may want to highlight their problems and humanize them. Dostoevsy did not start off writing complex physcological stories either, it wan't until he was exiled to Siberia that he began adding more depth. He was also the main provider for his deceased wife and sister in law's familys, and couldnot come with the stress and debt. This is very similar to Marmeladov.
Is it a crime if someone other than yourself benefits?
  Why yes it is. A crime is still a crime no matter how it is dressed up.Murder is still murder. Stealing is still stealing. When the U.S government dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima during World War II it bebefitted America. Our enemy would be weaker and America would have an even better chance of winning the war. Our Eurpean Allies and enemies of Japan would have benefitted alot from it as well. But all the innoncent people who were killed our maimed or were mutated didn't. A crime was committed against those people and even though it would have benefitted others it was still wrong.

Crime and Punishment (Guess what this book is about.)

" Crime and Punishment" written by Fedor Dostoevsky, is so far about a guy named Raskolnikov in Russia. Raskolnikov (call him R), is a university drop out that's poor. He is also a recluse, likes to talk to himself and may or may not be crazy in my opinion. He keeps talking to himself about doing something that repulses him but something he can't stop thinking about.Which might be him committing a crime( because hey, the title is crime and punishment). The mood of the story is kind of dreary, especially when the novel describes the poverty of the city. The narration is third person, but it seems limited to only R at this point. R is described as physically handsome but is portrayed as snobbish and very passive ( in my opinion). I hope that when I finally read more of the novel I'll understand what R is going to do (like kill someone?).

Thr Road- The end

         So I've finished reading "The Road" , and quite honestly it's one of the most depressing books I've ever read. I know it has important themes like morality, love, and family but it's just to sad. Really, I feel like crying right now. After all that the man and the boy has been through the man dies and the boy finds the good guys. But it feels right. If the book had ended in any other way the ending wouldn't have had a strong impact and it wouldn't be realistic. The world the boy and the man lived in was a dog eat dog world, literally. Reading this novel has made me think of alot of things, like if I was in that situation could i be resilient enough to endure it?To face all the hardships the boy and the man did in order to reach something that may not exist. The south may exist but what they think may be in the south may not. I  don't think I could hold out long enough with hope. This book has also taught me that the morality of humans is flexible. That in times of dire need people would put aside their conventions of right and wrong to suit their own purposes.Take the cannibals for example. Everyone knows that cannibalism is wrong, but if there was nothing else to eat would you resort to eating someone else? Like a friend or family member? This book falls into the post apocolyptian genre but unlike the other post Apocalypse novels or movies I don't see a warning. There is pretty much nothing we can do to prevent something like that from happening. I think the book is more of a way of telling how humane people can be even in extreme circumstances, like the man and the boy.

The Road part A and B

      So far, The Road is getting more interesting as the boy and man travel towards the south. I've picked out notable quotes, or at least what I think are notable quotes. " The names of things slowly following those things into oblivion. Colors.the names of birds. the things to eat. How much was gone already?" The quote describes the man's fading memories of the world before. The world where birds, colors, plenty of food and civilization existed. Another quote is "What he could bear in the waking world he could not by night and he sat awake for fear that the dream would return." The man has a dream about his son laying on a cooling board. I think the man uses his dreams as a coping mechanism. He uses his dreams to escape his harsh reality.
   There are various theories concerning the end of the world out there. In this novel the world went up in flames for a reason not listed.After reading  both Yeats and Elliot's poems I see that have similarities. They all, including the novel, seem to be rooted in Christian doctrine. In  Elliot's poem there even seems to be a line from the bible: " For Thine is the Kingdom".  In all of the works when the world ends the social order will be shifted. Instead of virtuous people are in small supply and the wicked are in control. In Elliot's poem the "hollow men" are in control. In Yeats' poem the anti-Christ or adversary is in control. An in The Road the ones who rule that world are cannibals.