Romeo and Juliet

Romeo and Juliet has been a popular play for hundreds of years, so it is no wonder that many people have ongoing arguments about whether certain acts committed by certain characters in this play meet moral and ethical standards. One example of such an act is that of Friar Lawrence marrying Romeo and Juliet, despite that fact that he could've believed that they weren't sincerely in love. However if you analyze the situation it becomes obvious that Friar Lawrence didn't believe that Romeo was sincerely in love. However, it can't be said that Friar Lawrence's actions were unethical.

One reason why it can be said that Friar Lawrence doubted the verity of Romeo's love for Juliet is because of the fact that he implied that Romeo was only infatuated with Juliet's looks. For he says, "Young men's hearts lie, not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes."Implying that Romeo was largely attracted to Juliet for her looks. He also is shocked at the fact that Romeo gets over his deep love for Rosaline so quickly. So shocked, that he invokes a saint in his suprise at this saying, "Holy Saint Francis, what a change is here! Is Rosaline, that thou didst love so dear, so soon forsaken." The Friar's tone regarding Romeo and Juliet's union is skeptical. Despite this, Friar Lawrence does agree to marry Juliet and Romeo. And many question whether this act was ethical.

The act to marry Romeo and Juliet was ethical, simply because Friar Lawrence didn't have much of a decision regarding whether or not to marry them. Friar Lawrence did act as a mentor to Romeo, even calling him his, "Pupil", and is obviously privy to the more private happenings in Romeo's life. However his duties as a priest overruled his duties as a mentor. If Romeo desired to be married no matter how questionable the union was he still had to marry them as long as they were good Catholics. In this case the Friar was a completely objective character and it would have been more unethical for him to not marry Romeo and Juliet than to marry them because he doubted the verity of their love. Also, if he didn't marry them another could have just have easily done so.

In conclusion, I believe that people read too much into Shakespeare. Although it is interesting to speculate the characters and their motivations, so much speculation gives these plays the status of holy books. This I find annoying. So many of the savants who put so much energy into trying to decipher the morality of a fictional character in a 400 plus year old play, could put that into speculating real world problems. And although analyzing character's actions does help us to create personal ethical codes by which to live by, you can do the same by analyzing current or past real world issues.

Power dynamics are critical to follow. In fact, not doing so can mean the difference between life and death. Many things have an effect on people and the amount of power they hold. These factors include, gender, religion and money. In the book, "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" by Betty Smith. The story follows the life of Mary Frances Nolan, a young Catholic girl in Williamsburg. Early 20th century Brooklyn is an interesting place with a lot of implicit power dynamics.

One implicit power dynamic is that between Christians and Jews. The Jewish boys are persecuted by. The Christian ones. This is a power dynamic that is constantly changing. In general, this power dynamic is always changing. Depending on the population of Christians or Jews in relation to the other. Whichever is the state religion also has an effect on this. Another very influential factor in power dynamics is money, and we see it's influences in the book.

Not suprisingly, there are a lot of perverts in early Williamsburg. What is surprising however is that many get away with it. One factor in this is education, and success. For example, a music teacher forces girls to play for him without stockings, and he's aloud to do this because of his prestige. However, when there is a serial rapist in the area, he is stopped very quickly, because of the fact that he is not a respected music teacher. This is also a very prevalent power dynamic across the world. 

After reading this book, I've come to the realization that despite differences in culture and ethics across the world, some power dynamics stay the same. This is why being a good politician takes good  instincts and takes socially adept people. You can also be liked by people everywhere, no matter the values, if you appeal to their human nature. This will lead to you being able to do whatever you want. This is also why. Socially awkward people don't rise to power.

Are Drones Doomed?

Salvatore Tetsuo Viviano

I recent years it seems as if drones, what used to be the stuff of science fiction novels, have become ubiquitous. This is definitely a sign of the times. Yeah! Our society is is so technologically advanced. However it may suprise some, that people find these facts disconcerting. Why? Because there are quite a few cons to the use of drones for all purposes. In fact I have just finished an article called, "Invasion of The Drones" by Patricia Smith, that outlines many of these problems. Drone usage stimulates arguments based on ethics and safety. 

While toplessly sunbathing, Mandy Lignard had a picture of her taken by a drone. Later the pictures were blown up and put on a local real estate board. Imagine Lignard's embarassment as her sub-nude body was displayed to all who happened to pass by this billboard. Suprisingly, this is an innocent mishap, in comparison to some people's speculations of how intrusive drones have potential to be. Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union states that, "Our biggest concern is that they not be used for mass surveillance." This would be a violation of our constitutional right to protection from, "Unreasonable searches and seizures." This issue is so prevalent and controversial that 20 states have passed laws against it. This issue still pales in comparison to the issue of drones causing safety problems. People's concern regarding this matter isn't unmerited. Recently, a 375-pound drone crashed into an elementary school in Harrisburg Pennsylvania. Fortunately, school was not in session at the time. The most alarming thing was that this isn't anomaly. Recently there have been "dozens" of near misses due to technical or weather problems while operating drones. One last concern the article brings to our attention is the problem of drones being used in warfare in place of humans. This raises the issue of whether it's ethical to send humans into warfare. The main concern here is whether drone cheapen human life. By making warfare seem like, "A video game rather than a life or death conflict." 

This article brings in to focus a lot of controversial issues that are brought up by the introduction of drones in to warfare and daily life. Is it really good to have pre-programmed technology play such and important role in society? Technology that is prone to mishaps. That is lacking human stamina, brain and judgement. Will the use of technology make us more feeble-minded? These are all legitimate concerns concerning the use of drones.

Watch Chains, Beards and Handkerchiefs.

Suprisingly enough, all of these objects have a connection. They all can be used as symbols. All these items are used as symbols in Alexandre Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo". This book is an enthralling story full of adventure, romance and revenge. The main character, Edmond Dantes, is wrongly imprisoned at the young age of 19, while on the verge of a successful career and a happy marriage. While in prison, he meets the allegedly crazy abbe Faria. Faria helps him to realize the reason for his wrongful imprisonment, and teaches him many languages, along with the basics of mathematics and chemistry. While on his deathbed, Faria tells him of a fabled treasure on the obscure island of Monte Cristo. Dantes, having grown to trust the old Abbe, escapes from prison subsequent to Faria's death, reclaims the treasure, and goes off to take vengeance on all who had wronged him.

In a book with such a variety of devious characters, the role of a specific character in traditional plotline can be very ambiguous. Alexandre Dumas gives us hints as to a certain characters role in the story by using symbolic traits or objects.

For example Eugenie Danglars is describes as a beautiful, yet very independent woman with very sharp features. Later on in the book she runs away from home, however she is for the most part a protaganist. I think that Dumas definitely used her characteristics to foreshadow how she would act later in the story. Her features were definitely symbolic.

Another time Dumas did this, was when he wrote about how Eugenie's father wore a ridiculously heavy gold watch chain. Mr. Danglars is a banker and cares a great amount about money. Later on in the book, Edmond uses his love of money to get revenge on Danglars, since he was one of the people to imprison him. The watch chain is a way of reflecting Danglars love of money. It, along with several other heavily decorated objects, are symbols of Danglars love of money, and displays the fact that he's not an amiable loving person. 

Overall, I realized that symbols can be used by the authors to display the different characters' role in the story, or their inner personality traits, which can reveal other things about the characters. Symbolism is a huge part of author's craft, and can be very subtle. However learning to pick up on subtleties is an important part of deeper thinking on books.

Social commentary in "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens.

If we were to go back 150 years in history the technology, social norms, and vernacular language that people use would be drastically different than today. Charles Dickens brings us back to that world in his book "Great Expectations." The book tells the story of Phillip Pirrip, otherwise known as "Pip", and his rise from a humble apprentice blacksmith to a gentleman aided by a mysterious patron. The settings of this book range from a small village in england were Pip is brought up, to the big city of London. Aside from involving a plethora of different settings, this book contains characters of varying social status, and temperaments. The author comments on social norms profusely, devoting whole paragraphs to it. And one thing that I perceived was that, although this book takes place in 19th century england, people's misdirected attitudes towards certain things have not changed in the last few centuries.

For example, one area in which people's attitudes haven't changed is the way they view speaking to children. In the book, Pip's adult older sister is very mean to him. She complains about him to no end, saying that, "He was", referring to Pip, "A squeaker." She also speaks to him in a "Reproachful voice." In addition to his sister degrading him, other adults degrade Pip, saying that the young are, "Naturally ungrateful", since his sister brought him up and they perceive that he is ungrateful to his sister even though they're is no solid evidence of this. They speak of him in a degrading way without thinking about the consequence and without restraint, similar to the way many people speak to their children today. I'm sure that we've all heard a children being chewed out by their parents, while the child sits helplessly doing nothing. This reflects a lack of change in parenting, or child rearing. Parents still overreact and chew out their children and also degrade them in public. They also expect them to respect them while doing this. Children who obey parents like this, obey them out of fear, not respect. The author is using this scene to make social commentary on a system he probably took issue with as a child. He is trying to raise awareness about this issue by having examples of adults speaking normally to children in the book.

Another area in which the attitudes of the characters are similar to attitudes today, are people's attitudes regarding those of other social classes. In the book, Pip is invited to "entertain" Ms. Havisham, an older rich lady. Pip's older sister takes this commission very seriously and prior to Pip's going to Ms. Havisham's washes him very thoroughly and dresses him in his sunday best. Obviously she respects Ms. Havisham, because prior to sending Pip off to "entertain" her, she dresses Pip like she would dress him before sending him to church. We see a complete opposite example of this later on in the book when Estrella, a young rich girl who happens to be at Ms. Havisham's house when Pip is there, degrades him due to the fact that he is a, "Common working boy," and has calloused hands and thick boots. Today we see this in our society, were the word, "poor" is an insult. Dickens includes these scenes in the book to show the difference in how the poor view the rich and the rich view the poor. This is definitely an injustice, since both Estrella and Pip had no control over the way they had been brought up to that point and the class they were born into. To think yourself better than another disadvantaged child is ridiculous. Dickens comments on this by having this scene in the book, showing how this attitude is pervasive to even young children.

In conclusion, I would like to qualify that I am not saying that all have the same attitudes regarding how you should talk to children, and those of other social classes. However these are to some extent still the predominant attitudes for most of the general population. Also we live in America were people are relatively open-minded and not afraid to voice their newer opinions. These two attitudes that have remained unchanged are terrible. But no one is to say that they can't change eventually. After all, major institutions that have been in power for centuries that were in the wrong have been changed. However this is not a matter of changing laws, this is a matter of changing attitudes, something much more subtle and not as easy to do. In order to fix these problems, we need to make a concerted effort as people of this world,

"Upfront October 27th 2014"

Religion, though considered ridiculous by some, still has a definite effect on this worlds affairs and rightly so, 88.5% of people in this world are religious. What ethnicity people are can also have a huge affect on what religion they are. So why did the chart displaying the multiple different important statistics for each country, such as literacy rate, life expectancy, money made per capita, and languages spoken, in this most recent upfront magazine not include religion?

I think that the fact that the article didn't display the religion is a reflection of the worlds trend to disregard religion as something that isn't important politically. However, it is. Take for example the situation in the middle east. The whole area is being ravaged by a militant group that is motivated by religion. I'm not saying that religion is bad by any means at all. In fact, I think it's beneficial for promoting morality. However this is another reason why religion is so controversial, some people may feel as strongly as I do, but also have the means to protest for their beliefs. Some in more violent ways than others. Some people are extremists and give a bad name to all other religious people. Why I'm trying to say is, religion can also be very secular. So secular that the dominant religion should be posted on the charts.

Now you may argue that Upfront did post a pie chart listing all the religions and the different percentages that they take up. However  they still didn't list all the highest concentration of people of each religion in each country. I like to know information. It always interests me to read what denomination most people in each country are. It's doesn't give enough information to write that, "32.9% of people globally are christians. Again, religion isn't given much consideration in these articles, something that I think is unjust.

Response to "Darkness too visible"

The Article "Darkness too visible" by Megan Cox Gurdon" addresses the all too prevalent issue of young adult fiction, and what's considered "appropriate". Gurdon backs the side of those who believe that overly adult themes such as, Incest, pederasty, and self mutilation should be banned.

She uses loaded words and imagery to suppport her point. For example she she calls books of this sort "Horrendous" and says that any young reader who seeks out this "Depravity" will be surrounded by, "brutality and losses", of the, "Most horrendous kinds." She also uses imagery by describing the world of teen fiction as a "hall of funhouse mirrors, constantly reflecting back distorted portrayls of what life is.

Lastly, she quotes a person who's viewpoint is opposite of hers, and then describes his ranting against censorship as "bemoaning". The restrictions set on him. This is effective because she gives her counterattack an ear, then points out faults in it to weaken it. Explaining how not censoring books can be considered a "dereliction" of a parents duty. Yet when editors do this as part of their job, they are incriminated.

I partially agree with the author. I don't think that adolescents should be sheltered, and have an idea of the dark parts of this world. However they shouldn't be entertaining themselves with it by reading a book solely about self-mutilation. When it comes down to how much children are influenced, it really depends on the child's maturity and their parents decision.