Olympic Games? Why Russia is getting a political makeover just in time to host the Sochi Olympics

      In the article, "Olympic Games?", written by Patricia Smith, the author's main point is that Vladimir Putin is using the Olympic Games to clean up his image and improve the way others view his nation, as well as somewhat repair/stabilize relationships with the U.S. government. The author talks a lot about the past tensions between the U.S. and the Russian government. For example, the text says, "Last summer, Russia offered political asylum to Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked information about secret American surveillance programs and is wanted for espionage by U.S. authorities". Obviously, Russia helping out someone who betrayed the U.S. would not put the two countries on good terms. Also, the author wanted people to know that outsiders see Russia as a suppressed nation, and Putin is trying to fix that image. For example in the article it says, "Long criticized for his suppression of political descent, Putin has spent the lead-up to the Games freeing thousands of political prisoners, including several high profile ones". Overall, the author really wants readers to understand how much the Olympics are being used to "put on a show" and try to make Russia look like less of the violent suppressed nation than it is.  
      Throughout the text, the author seems to want readers to feel that this whole new friendly version of Russia is fake, and just a way to come across as appealing on camera. This is shown through discussing how only recently has Putin taken actions to release innocent prisoners- just in time for the Games "coincidently"! As stated in the text, in December "Putin freed two young women who were jailed in 2012 on charges of 'hooliganism' after their punk band performed an anti-Putin protest song in a Moscow cathedral". It also says that last month, he eased up on a ban on public protests in Sochi. But the reason this comes across as very fake to readers is because the author shows how President Obama isn't fooling for it- therefore influencing readers to realize how its only for the press. For example, the article says, "The surprise clemencies don't seem to have impressed President Barack Obama". He skipped the Olympics opening ceremony to make a political statement about Russia's government. The article also digs into Putin''s past, discussing all the shady deals he made and how he cheated to get to the top. He made his successor run for presidency and then as the new picked prime minister, Putin still practically controlled everything even though his term as president was up. All in all, it is clear that the Olympics are simply a way for Putin to get rid of his old image and make sure he keeps alliances and friendships in the world wide political spectrum.   
      This article was interesting to me because it opened my eyes to a lot I wasn't aware of that goes on in government "behind the scenes". A lot of country grudges are based off personal grudges, it seems like, and the inability to move on from the past. This article shows history has such a lasting effect on our world today; that still countries are on edge and betray each other because of past events that shaped those political feelings towards one another. It makes me wonder whether if Russia and the U.S. never had such intense grudges from the past, would our relationship be a lot different then it is now? Although I do think there's a good chance there would be a lot less hatred, I also think the leaders of our countries in present day clash, and that is something history cannot be blamed for. 

Sing You Home

      In the novel "Sing You Home", written by Jodi Picoult, the author introduces many complex, more difficult topics throughout the story. The book is about Zoe Baxter, a music therapist who desperately wants a child, but has suffered from infertility her whole marriage. When what almost becomes Zoe's child is born a still borne, Zoe completely breaks down, unable to deal with yet another failed pregnancy. Max, Zoe's husband, leaves her, done with dealing with her overpowering love for an unborn child instead of him. In her post-break-up state, Zoe meets Vanessa, a lesbian therapist, who instantly clicks with her and becomes her best friend. This friendship spurts into romance, and as the two marry and decide they want Vanessa to carry a baby they can raise together, they begin to face obstacles. Throughout the story, Jodi Picoult explores the complex disagreements over gay marriage, and all the many sides and opinions of what is "right" and "wrong" concerning it. 

      In the book, Zoe and Vanessa want to have children from the embryos that Zoe and Max created and froze when they were together. When Zoe asks Max to sign off on papers, allowing her to use them, he begins to question whether or not he should- especially because of his lack of support of gay marriage. After he left Zoe, Max struggled with alcoholism, and turned to his brother, Reid, and sister-in-law, Liddy, who are strong Christians and who helped Max out of his dark place and converted him to be a devoted Christian who worships God. They feel that Zoe and Vanessa are not fit for raising a child since they would be lesbian mothers. This brings up the controversy of gay marriage and families with gay parents. While in court, over the debate of who gets the embryos; Max or Zoe, Max's attorney stands up and says, "We are gathered today to mourn the loss of something near and dear to us all: the traditional family." 

      This quote really made me think about the idea of a "traditional" family. What does that even mean? The attorney's case is that God didn't want men and men and women and women to be together as a family-- he wanted a man and a woman. But I personally think God and marriage have nothing to do with one another. I think that you can't make it a state or country law that someone can't marry whoever they want because it's "not right" according to God. First of all, not everyone believes in a God figure, so you can't put the two together-- just the way you are supposed to have separation of church and state.

      This book really opens my eyes up to how many people are so small minded in our world. The book is like a slap of reality, that some people honestly think that a child can't grow up in a household where two parents are the same gender-- that somehow there is something wrong with that. I understand its opinion, but to me, that just seems like intolerance. That is just being intolerant of other people's lifestyles that may be different from your own. 

      Because of the way the author explores this more complex issue of gay marriage, she teaches real, valuable life lessons, and really opens readers’ eyes up to how important it is to be accepting. And being accepting doesn't just mean with gay marriage; it means with all different people with different lifestyles. I think that what everyone can learn from this book is that being different on the outside most certainly does not determine what a person's character is on the inside. And we can't deny people opportunities because they may be a little "different"-- or whatever that means. Everyone deserves to live a happy lifestyle- however that may be- without intolerant people getting in the way and telling them how they should live their life even if it would make them miserable every day. Happiness is so much more important that “traditional standards” in whatever way that may be for you.  

Blog Reviews: Praise for Maja's "Thirteen Reasons Why" Post

      As I was reading various blog posts this past week, one that really stuck out to me was "Thirteen Reasons Why" by Maja. Her post was really well written in both its style and content. She begins by setting up the story with just enough detail so that readers can fully understand the post, without giving anything away. 
      Right away, Maja starts off by relating the book to the world by discussing possible lessons someone could take away from it and apply to their own life. She says that the book "teaches readers that it is important to love yourself". As she beautifully puts it, loosing your love for yourself makes it that much easier to loose your confidence. She then brings this idea back to the story, and talks about how this is what happens to a character in the book. One of the things that makes this post so powerful is this flip-flop of talking about the world, and then reconnecting it to the book-- this is something I definitely will take with me and keep in mind as I write more of my own blog posts. 
      The next thing Maja does really well is she takes a specific moment, and completely dissects it and studies it. She uses a quote, and then unpacks it and talks about what she thinks about this moment in the book, and what this particular line says about the character(s). She quotes a line that Hannah Baker says: "Only one person stands between you and this collection of audiotapes: Mr. Porter". She then talks about how she thinks this is the moment Hannah gave up on her life. Zooming in on one moment and totally unpacking and elaborating ideas off of it is a really great writing style that provides readers with clear examples of the points you're trying to make and ideas you have. 
      Another reason I really like this blog post is because it's very unique in the sense that she doesn't talk so much about the main character, but instead a character who it is a bit harder to elaborate on. All that readers know about Hannah Baker is what they hear from the tapes, and what Clay says, so Maja's ability to create a whole blog post off of just taking everything we hear Hannah say and interpreting it at a much deeper level is very impressive. 
      I have read "Thirteen Reasons Why", and I completely agree with all of the points Maja made, especially about how the book makes readers really understand how our actions affect other people, and the damage we can do without being fully away of what we are doing. I really like how at the very end of her post, Maja connected it back to herself, and how she personally took a lot away from reading the book. 
      Overall, Maja did a really great job on this post. And I have read many others of her post which are equally great. I think this one stood out to me because I have read the book, and was completely agreeing and found myself nodding at certain times while reading the post. Maja wrote with a sophisticated and very insightful voice, and this blog post was really thought-provoking and entertaining to read. http://billions0fbooks.blogspot.com/2013/10/thirteen-reasons-why-by-jay-asher.html

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

      In the book, "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time", written by Mark Haddon, Christopher John Francis Boone is a very complex character, being incredibly intelligent when it comes to math and science, but completely lacking social intelligence. The book is somewhat of a "murder mystery", the murder being a neighbor's bog who was stabbed with a pitchfork, and Christopher being the "detective", while narrating the story. Christopher decides to make it his mission to go about and find who committed this crime, and even though I'm only at the beginning of the book, I already see the complexity to Christopher's personality and character. 
      On one hand, Christopher is incredibly intellectual-- almost like a genius. He introduces himself saying, "I know all the countries of the world and their capitol cities and every prime number up to 7,507". Also, he is always contemplating science related issues to the readers, discussing storms and his confusion with different aspects of them. He has a very reserved kind of intelligence, being very quick with numbers and facts, but his social skills show a different, less intelligent side to him.
      Christopher interacts with people in very strange ways, making me question just how "smart" he is. One of his social problems is that Christopher is extremely hesitant to trust anyone. For example, he meets a neighbor while going about his inquisition, and she invites him inside for tea. He says he doesn't want to go into a strangers house, so she offers to bring it out to him. But as he waits for her to come back, he questions whether she will actually bring tea like she said, and decides to leave, without saying a word. Christopher never reaches out to anyone, but instead shuts people out as if they are a danger to him. 
      Christopher also never lies, he is always telling the truth even when it would benefit everyone if he just lied a little. Because it's such a natural habit, it really shows how Christopher has some weird perks to him. This along with his lack of trust in people adds to his inability to make friends, which is sad, but the reality in his life. He lives almost completely inside his own head, in his own little world. 
      Christopher's characteristics make me question what really determines if someone is smart. There are so many levels to it, so much more than just being good at math or getting good grades in social studies. There's a difference between being a good student and being intellectual. The dictionary definition of smart says, "having or showing a quick-witted intelligence". But what does that mean?
      This made me think about the world, and how many non-intellectual people are so high in command. It seems like it should be so simple, either you're smart or you're not, but yet it's so complex. Most movie stars are not what I would call intellectual people, however socially clearly they know what they are doing. And then there are people like Christopher, who have no social skills whatsoever, but yet are still very, very clever people. Christopher is a fine example of how people are so complex, and what you see if most definitely not all you get in a lot of cases. People and children probably judge Christopher by his lack of friends, and lack of ability to make friends, however if they got to know him, and if he let them get to know him, I'm sure there's a lot you could learn from him. It's important not to make assumptions just because a person may not be the easiest one to bond with. Because once you get past the rough, awkward stages of trying to make conversation, I'm sure there is a lot more to Christopher, as I learn as I read more and more of the book. 

Invisible Child--Girl in Shadows: Dasani's Homeless Life

     The New York Times series, "Invisible Child: Girl in Shadows", written by Andrea Elliott, clearly shows the severe impact that poverty has on a child's lifestyle. The whole article discusses many different aspects of Dasani's life (the 11 year-old girl who lives in a shelter with her many other siblings and her parents), all of which show the negative impact of a low income living condition and life style on a young girl. For example, the article describes Dasani's school as a "poor kids' version of Laguardia Arts", where budget cuts and lack of after school enrichment only contribute to its not so great education program. The passage also describes Dasani's behavioral issues, and her anger management as she encounters other kids at school who push her buttons to a point where she can't help but let her temper land her in the principal's office. She is clearly affected by the stressful money problems within her household, causing her to lash out even at the small taunts. Lastly, the article uses shocking pictures to vividly display how horrible the living conditions are. The pictures show holes in the walls and cracks in the floors. It shows the ripped mattresses that the children are expected to sleep on. And one image shows a baby being bathed in what appears to be the kind of sink you will find in dirty park bathroom. All these examples are described in detail in the article, further proving that poverty is unfathomable, and in no way shape or form is okay for any child to have to deal with and deal with the aftermath of. 
     The author, Andrea Elliott, uses a lot of vivid imagery to show just how horrible the effects of poverty are on a person's daily lifestyle. By using these images, Elliott wants readers to feel the pain, and harsh stab of reality that these people living in poverty feel every day. Elliott wants us to sympathize, and put ourselves in their shoes, hopefully empowering us to try to help make those unfortunate people's lives better. For example, the article describes a picture saying, "To the left of the door, beneath a decrepit sink where Baby Lele is bathed, the wall has rotted through, leaving a long, dark gap where mice congregate." Reading that makes me feel sick, and I can't even begin to imagine living every day with those conditions. Seeing an image with this description makes me think about my own life, and it makes me compare my living to theirs. I feel guilty, that I take so much for granted when these people would just love access to a house without a mouse infestation. The author does an excellent job of putting images into readers’ minds, and using visuals to make them feel for the subjects of the article, and sympathize with them. 
     After reading this article, I feel a lot more exposed to the reality of poverty. I now feel empowered to make change, and not let any other child suffer from the horrible aftermath of not having a substantial income as a parent. My views on poverty used to be similar, but nowhere near as intense and passionate. The article really showed me how change needs to take place, because my heart was breaking as I read how this little 11 year-old goes about her life.  However, the article leaves me with many questions, the main one being, what can we as a country do to fix this growing problem of poverty? How can we prevent children and families from suffering from lack of income? Reading about Dasani really has left an impact on me, and I'm sure will do so to many others. Dasani teaches us that she manages, but not necessarily happily. We need to help her go through life happy, and help her and all other children in her situation be able to get themselves on the right track to overcome their family's money issues, and become successful in their lives. 

The Tenth Circle

       In the book, "The Tenth Circle" by Jodi Picoult, Trixie Stone is a 14 year old girl who is head over heels for her newly ex-boyfriend, Jason Underhill. Her father, Daniel Stone, who has a past in Alaska of being a stealing, drinking, robbing, and cheating man, is now a well-mannered, collected father who has trouble accepting the fact that his daughter is growing up and exploring "more advanced activities" while falling in love with a boy. Trixie has a great life as a popular, pretty freshman, until at one party Trixie gets drunk and irresponsible, and leaves the party in a complete state of shock, accusing Jason of having raped her. From then on, everything changes, and Trixie spirals into a deep depression, having to deal with the aftermath of being raped. At one point she gets so troubled that she tries to kill herself, making her parents even more riled up at Jason for causing their daughter so much distress. Throughout the story, the idea of justice and injustice is very present. Trixie’s parents react to the situation differently, each with different intentions of bringing justice to their daughter.  
        Trixie's dad comes across with the most the most intense reaction to hearing his daughter got raped. As soon as he hears, he wants nothing more than to rip Jason's head off, and cause him as much, if not more, pain than Jason had caused his daughter. When Trixie shows up at her house, shaking in fear and shock after the trauma happened, Daniel suddenly goes back to the mindset of his past self-- the one that committed crimes and beat up his peers. In the story it says, "In a tornado of pure fury, Daniel had grabbed the first thing he could lay hold of-a soap dish- and hurled it into the bathroom mirror." This behavior is far more aggressive than anything Trixie had ever seen her father do, causing her to freak out and be completely startled. Those actions show how riled-up Daniel can get, and how he still has his former self buried deep within him. His actions also show how much he yearns to bring justice to the situation for his daughter's sake. He is out to get Jason Underhill, and he's willing to go to extreme measures to make him suffer just as his daughter did. He desperately wants to find a way to bring justice and closure along with it.
        Trixie's mom Laura has a very different, very motherly reaction to hearing her daughter was raped. She goes straight into the hospital room to comfort Trixie, and hold her close as though if she lets go, she will no longer be able to protect her daughter- her baby. The author describes her mother with "her arms around Trixie so tight that there was no room for doubt between them." Trixie's mom is not focused on getting "revenge" on Jason, but instead more focused on never letting go of her daughter again. She's focused on never letting harm get near her daughter anymore, which is such a strong motherly feeling and instinct towards a child.
        Trixie's parents' reaction made me think about the whole situation and idea of rape itself. The issue within itself is unjust- the fact that somebody feels the right to invade you in such an intrusive way. Clearly, justice was not being served in the scenario. It's not fair that a girl has to be forced to go through the trauma, and horrendous pain that must come with such an unimaginable situation. And nobody, as hard as they may try, can bring justice to it. Nobody can make up for someone being raped. No one can find a way to make someone completely recover. Because being raped is something you can't brush off- it's something that you have to hold on to-unwillingly- for the rest of your life.
        This led me to think more about whose fault it is that justice can't be served. In the Tenth Circle, it is of course Jason's fault. No one is really "blocking" justice from being served, but by creating the problem, Jason has already prevented Trixie from ever being the same person she was before the incident. But going more in depth, I thought about whether it was only Jason's fault. The truth is, the readers are left to decide whether they truly believe it was all on him, or if Trixie was partially asking for it. The book sets up the scene as a party with drugs and alcohol, where Trixie is most definitely taking part in "having some fun". She is also dancing around and flirting with Moss, Jason's best friend, in front of Jason, trying to make him jealous. Yes, Trixie did not tell Jason to rape her, and yes, he didn't listen when she said stop. But still, I can't help but wonder if through the drugs and alcohol made her memories became clouded, and she might have invited Jason to do more than she remembered.
        Of course, it is not okay that Trixie was raped. It is horrible and disgusting that Jason did that to her. In life, just because someone may not be in their right mind doesn't mean it's okay to take advantage of them. It's still wrong what you're doing. Because taking advantage of someone is worse than just flat out hurting them. Taking advantage of someone is so unfair, and so against what is right. It is unjust, and many people deal with unjust situations in their life on a day to day basis. This book shows that it is so important to have family and friends around you, just like Trixie has her parents, who will go to great measures to keep you safe and make sure that if something terrible happens, justice is brought to you.

The Secret Life of Bees

      The book, "The Secret Life of Bees", by Sue Monk Kidd, follows the adventure of 14 year-old Lily Owens, an isolated and insecure white girl living in South Carolina in the 1960s. When Lily was four years old, she accidentally shot and killed her mother, and ended up alone with her abusive father who she calls, "T. Ray". Lily is a complicated girl, afraid of lacking beauty and femininity as she grows up. She believes her mother is watching over her, and still loves her from wherever she ended up. Lily's housekeeper, Rosaleen, who helped raise her when her mother was no longer alive, is a feisty black Southern woman, who continuously pushes limits for the time period. One day Rosaleen gets herself into trouble with a group of white men, and is put into the hospital before being sent to jail. Before this can happen however, Lily helps her escape the hospital, and together they run away so that Lily can escape T. Ray and find out more about her mother. They end up at a beekeeper's house belonging to three black women named August, May, and June. As time progresses, Lily learns her own mother once stayed at this house. Throughout the story, more complex issues of racism and injustice of the time period come through. 
Towards the beginning of the book, the whole plot line is set up when Rosaleen gets into a fight with a group of white men. Rosaleen and Lily had gone into town where they ran into three white men who began to taunt Rosaleen. Already, the power struggle in this situation was a more complex issue actually happening. Clearly, Rosaleen was struggling to attempt to be equal to these men, but because of the time period, race was an overpowering issue which completely put Rosaleen at a disadvantage.  
As Rosaleen got fed up with the men in this part of the book, she poured her chewing-tobacco juice onto their shoes, which only made the situation worse. These men called the police and freaked out, attacking her. The police said, "You're under arrest… Assault, theft, and disturbing the peace." Rosaleen did not steal anything, she did not physically assault anyone, and the ones who really disturbed the peace were the white men, who started the whole fight. This just shows how racist people used to be. Although the author doesn't come out and say, "The police man was mean to Rosaleen because she was black", it is so clearly obvious that if she was white, she would have been judged and treated much less harshly than she was in fact treated. 
This situation makes me wonder about the more complex issues happening. One obvious one would be discrimination; obviously the men reacted differently because this woman was black. In South Carolina in the 1960s, race was such an overwhelmingly judgmental issue; it controlled people's minds and views of others. Later in the book, a police man stops by the house where Lily is staying with August, May, June, and Rosaleen, and he inquires why she is alone with four black women. He also warns her she better get out of that house, because if he comes back and finds her still living there, he won't be happy. This scene shows how the expectations of the time period really distorted people's views of what was "right". This police man wasn't necessarily a bad person. Perhaps he was a great guy, and his only flaw was that he let the racial problems of the time influence him. That makes me question whether that itself is what determined true character back then- whether a person was strong and smart enough to know better than to be influenced, and in fact take a stand against what was clearly wrong. 
I also wonder if gender played a role in the situation. Would it have been different if Rosaleen was a man? Even if she was black? Even today these physical characters are so overpowering in a horrible way. People still, in some parts of the world, believe that men should be treated as less then woman. Some people still view African Americans as foreigners. 
It's stunning, and somewhat appalling to me that someone could still go through life with that perspective. The history and the cruel events that have taken place contain thousands of examples for why it's cruel and disgusting to be someone who looks down on others because of race. In my life, I live in a community that is so incredibly diverse and accepting, I could never imagine living in a world like Lily Owens did.