Angels and Demons: A Movie Review

Another movie review? Why, I couldn't possibly! Well, I mean . . . if you insist I suppose I could write one . . .

So pretty much Angels and Demons was everything that I expected it to be: your typical summer movie with a few cool effects, little character development, sub par acting, highly improbable plot line, and over all worthy of a 'meh' on my part.

The movie differed from the book greatly at some parts, which is something to be expected when you go to see a movie. If you haven't figured this out already folks, let me assure you: The book is usually better than the movie, 99% of the time, anyway. And also, the movie is always different than the book is. Period. I mean, we've seen what happens when a movie stays too true to the book (COUGH COUGH Da Vinci Code COUGH COUGH).

But moving on: The parts of the book that were taken out are exactly the parts that would've made the movie better: the fact that Vittoria's father was murdered, the Hassasin being Arabic (as oposed to some bespectecled nerd with a laptop), the weird, random love connection between Langdon and Vittoria, and yes, even THE LEGS (also known as: my main complaint and grievance).

I think that all of the aformentioned are all things and elements to the story that are better suited to the big screen: it's my belief that Dan Brown speficially writes his books with a movie in mind. The quick chapter changes, the 'everyman' protagonist, the over played characters: it's obvious that Brown is a fan of films, and has seen a few of them.

So pretty much Angels and Demons was everything that I expected it to be: your typical summer movie with a few cool effects, little character development, sub par acting, highly improbable plot line, and over all worthy of a 'meh' on my part.

All of the things that this movie tries to do have already been done, and they've been done better. It's a good try on Howards part to make a summer block buster, and aparently he's done that, seeing as how A&D is the highest grossing film of 2009 (it's done really, really well internationally as oposed to domestically). But for someone like me, who's seen this typical movie a hundred times before, it just falls under average. As a fan, it was interesting to see the source material brought to life, but other than that, the film held no real interest for me. For the average movie goer, I'd say that its a movie to pay $2.00 to go and see during a matinee during the summer, to waste an afternoon and escape the heat.

One last word: was it just me, or did anyone else have Forrest Gump flashbacks thanks to Tom Hanks?

'Mama always said life is like a box of Cardinals!!'

'Swin, Forrest, Swim!!'

' I love you, Vit-tor-i-a!!!'

. . . yeah, the list goes on and on.

Pope Version 2.0: Now with 98% more Joyful Palpacy!

Okay, so I have to admit that I kind of saw this one coming:

Haven't we discussed in class the fact that the catholic church isn't really 'down with the kids' are are tailored to suit more of an old school generation (aka our grandparents) ? I think that anyone who has been following the advancement of technology a

nd the recent decline in the interest of Jesus-loving teens could

have guessed that at some point or another, the Pope was going to have to get with the times and use his BlackBerry not just for calling God, but to also update his ever interesting Facebook status.

And this isn't necessarily a bad thing: new media, celebrities, and a barrage of other companies, groups, etc are using technology to their advantage rather than turning it down or opposing it, in hopes of gaining the attention of our Gen Y minds (fyi: t

he Gen Y shall now be referred to as Generation Youtube. Coincidence?)

Personally, I'm not very religious so the fact that the Pope got a facebook page and an iPhone app doesn't really rock my world. While I find it a tad tacky, hila

rious, and generally ironic, I'm not up in arms about this whole thing. I think that its great that for once, the church is accepting some sort of advancement, be it technologically or otherwise. I mean really, it's a small start, but it's still a start.

What does this mean for the rest of us? Well, just like when you parents got Facebook, this means that Facebook is officially no longer cool. Think about it! Now that the Pope has Facebook, how long is it before dear old gran is filling out her 'looking for' and 'political views' in her brand spankin' new FB page (with all the privacy settings on full, of course).

The fact that Facebook is officially, completely, and 100% no longer cool means that either

a) Twitter is going to become over populated (please, no) or

b) MySpace just might make the resurgence it's been waiting so long for. OR

c) A new form of social networking that has yet to be unveiled will take over

Only time will tell which one of these scenarios is going to work out, but I can tell you that no matter what, we're all still going to be logging in, turning off, and praising God: for many, many years to come.

PS

While on the subject of the Pope, I can't help but share this photo that my friend made of me . . . as the Pope. Politically incorrect? Yes. Offensive? Possibly. Hilarious and though provoking? Most definitely.

Oh How Lame, the Hair of Tom!

So by now, most of us have seen either all of, or part of the disaster that was The Da Vinci Code. Personally, I actually paid money to go and see the movie the night it came out. Why? Well my friends, it may be hard to believe, but there was a time when the movie guru you see before you was young and naive and didn't know all that she knows today about what movies are good, and what movies are a complete waste of time.

But getting back on track, after the movie, many fans were left asking 'what the hell went wrong?' and personally, I don't know the answer to that question. I'd like to say that I really do know all there is to know about movies, but I'm just a mortal, and I can only come up with a few suggestions on to why Code completely and utterly crashed and burned.

First of all, it remained way too true to the book. It's not always the case that books can be perfectly segwayed into movies (AHEM Watchmen AHEM) and this is one of those times. I think that the best example of this is at the very start of the film, when Langdon aka Tom Hanks is deciphering the codes that Dead French Dude left behind for him. Does anyone else remember this? Floating, glowing letters, and a murmuring Hanks does not a good scene make. The effects here looked like some kid with Final Cut Pro had spent about 2 minutes trying to make his Com

m Tech project YouTube acceptable. I mean really, how much of a budget did these guys have, and that's the best they could come up with? Honestly Ron Howard, give your head a shake.

SECONDLY! Ron Howard isn't an action director. Sure, he's made such great films as Apollo 13, Frost Nixon, Cocoon, etc etc. But as for action and face paced adventure? Not so much. The audience doesn't experience a sense of urgency like they do in Demons. There is no ultimate threat really, except for that really pale monk, who looks like he could be my cousin, and even then, he doesn't seem like that much of a threat.

Also, as for the action part, a specific scene comes to mind where Sophie is driving her smart car around the streets of Paris, and the cops are after her. In a nutshell, the scene is shot too close. You can't tell what's going on, because everything is shot so close up. You see perhaps 2 shots that show more than just Sophie looked scared and/or concentrated and/or excited.

Lastly, Tom Hanks' hair. Need I say more?

There are a few other things that are wrong with the film (aka the flashbacks. If it was a happy flashback, it was colored normally, but if if was a scary or sad flashback, some guy in editing when nuts with the color correction and made it all BLUE), but I won't get into those too much. Pretty much, only the really die hard fans enjoyed the movie, and even then, only slightly. It's a rental of a movie at best, and even then I wouldn't suggest it to anyone.

Good Old Al Gore....

Despite the fact that most people believe that Al Gores message of the environment being in trouble as 'the sky is falling!!' type alerts, I for one think that it's true.

While I'm fulfilling my white person job as being enviormentally aware, I do think that we (and I say 'we' as in 'globally') have to figure out something to stop a total collapse of our environment. I mean really, have none of you people seen Wall E? We have Al Gore and cute, animated robots trying to get us to save the planet, what more is it going to take?!

And while it is true that history shows us that the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling, there's no denying the fact that we as humans are having some kind of negative impact on on earth. You can only sit there and mass consume, pollute, and litter for so long before it comes back and bites you. Anyone who thinks that we aren't at least partially responsible for this problem is ignorant, and part of the reason why we're here: people unwilling to believe new facts and change their ways for the good of man kind.

But, as I said in a previous blog, though, we need to sort ourselves out financially before we can save the environment, otherwise we're globally going to be in a lot of debt, and that will just cause bigger problems for us in the long run. My plan of action? Fix the economy, fix the environment, and then be on our merry way.

Angels and Demons and Hollywood

So not gonna lie, I didn't really exactly read the entire article...I know I know, give me a break, here! I have like 10 chapters of Frankenstein to go through still!

ANYWAYS I think I pretty much got the jist of the article, and here's my thoughts, plain and simple.

Way way way back in the day (the good ol day, that is) biblical epics (like the ones that I talked about in my ISP presentation) did really, really well. Why? Because more people were religious and open about where their faith lay. So if your movie in some way or another portrayed faith in a good light, there was little you could do to stop if from doing well financially.

Skip a few decades to today. More and more people are claiming that they're atheists or agnostics (damn fence sitters) that there used to be. Now, I'm not saying that the non-believers outweigh those who do believe, but its more socially acceptable now to be able to say 'I don't believe in a god' than it was when our parents were growing up (those people who did, were considered radical liberal hippies.... or communists, depending on where you lived).

So what does this mean for the movie industry? Pretty much, if you want your movie to be a success, you have to pander to both crowds. How, you may ask? Well its simple. You're pretty much allowed to have one or two characters that are either

a) undecided on faith (aka agnostics)

b) atheists, but subtle atheists, no Richard Dawkins' allowed

and these characters are the ones that represent one side of the religious spectrum: the side that isn't religious, that is. They are the only ones that are allowed to question faith or be cynical about it, etc etc.

For the rest of the movie, you have to have more people who are of faith than there are not of faith. Aka Tom Hanks (one character) vs VATICAN CITY. See what I'm saying here? The religious people are happy because over all, they win, but the atheists and agnostics are happy that their view of things is still represented.

This is exactly what Angels and Demons manages to do: bring up a little bit of watered down controversy while still managing to win over the Catholics with its over all message of 'Faith is good'. When tackling subject matter like this, this is the only way you can win, aka your 'no fail, idiot proof movie making' plan.

Don't believe me? Well, numbers don't lie, my friend: Angels and Demons has made the most money of any movie thus far this year. It has made (worldwide) $414, 171, 118 (according to Box Office Mojo.com). As it seems, all you need is a little faith.

The Big Issues

Okay so although my group and I (and  by 'my group' I mean 'CJ and I') thought that the biggest problem facing the world at this very moment was The Kids Today! (which I still stand by. Seriously, what is the world going to look like in 20 years when those twerps start running the place? All I can say is, I hope I die before I get old....)

But ANYWAYS, in all honesty I think that the biggest problem facing the world today is the economy crisis. Sure, some experts say that we can be looking at getting out of this thing by the end of the year, but here's how I see things:

Globally, things kind of suck right now: poverty, famine, disease, war, and not to mention global warming. In order to even start to think about fixing some of these things, we have to have the money and funds to do so, and as of right now, that's not an option. If we try to fix any of these issues right now, we'll have less money than ever before. 

If, however, we wait until (as a global community) we are financially ready to fix the tasks at hand, and then start to solve some problems, I think that we would all be better off. You can't start to fix something unless you have to the tools to do it, so if making this world a better one means waiting until we have the funds, I say we do it.

Educatoin System

So I'm just going to put this out here right now: don't expect my usual epic blog post. I'm serious, I'm trying really hard to not make these things 8 paragraph events that take an hour to write and another half hour to read for you guys. Seriously,  I'm putting my foot down, and this one is going to be short, sweet, and to the point.

OKAY so with that out of the way, the one major thing that I would change in the school system would be to have school start later. Anyone that knows me well is probably thinking 'You WOULD have school start later, w

ouldn't you Chloe?!' and to that I say 'Shut up!' because yes, while it is true that I am late to my first period class almost everyday, and there have been many an early English class that I have slept through, I do have more than personal reasons behind my decision.

The first of them is that I for one, have taken Mrs. Hoopers lovely Physcology class, and beyond talking about our part time jobs, dating, having kids, an

d a cornucopia of other 'wtf' classified topics, we discussed teen sleeping habits, and how they apply to learning and education. Now Mrs.Hooper is many things, and one of them happens to be a person who knows what the hell she's talking about, so when she says she's done her research, chances are, she has. So I believed her whole heartily when she said that recent research shows that teens need between 8 and 9 hours of sleep every single night to maintain happy, healthy, and to also be in the ideal state of mind to l

earn. She also gave us a case study of certain schools that have under gone a schedule change, and that now start at 9 or 10 AM instead of 8, and its a proven fact that those high school that start later in the day, are also the same schools that have higher test marks, happier students, and less attendance problems.

To quote Polk a Dot Shorts:
'Coincidence? I 

think NOT!!'

(If anyone actual remembers this show besides me and Marcie, welcome to the dark side)

So what does that research show us? Lets appeal to math land for a second and put it into an equation!

Teenagers + More Sleep - School starting Earlier =

 Happier, Healthier, Smarter Teens.

I'd like to see one educator who doesn't like them apples.

Also, with the rising cost of college/university tuition, many kids now have part time jobs. Between school, homework, work, etc, that doesn't leave kids with much time after school for sleep. If you get home at 3pm, work a 6 hour shift from 3:30 - 9pm, and then have one hour of homework for each of your classes, you're looking at not getting to bed until 12:30AM! If school starts at 8, like ours does, and you get up at say, 6:30 to catch the bus, get ready, etc that gives you exactly 6 hours of sleep, 3 hours less than the amount you need to stay healthy.

Now I know that some of these figures are obviously of

f, and that one hour of homework for each class may not apply to everyone, but if you put things in perspective, it still shows us the truth of the matter: we need more sleep.

Now I'm not saying that things are going to change drastically, suddenly, or all at once, but with this kind of research, it is possible that in the next few years, high school may just start later than it is now. With this happy thought in mind, think of the fact that by this time, we won't be in high school anymore, and we won't be able to reap the benefits of a 9AM wake up call. What was that about 'Always look on the bright side of life', Eric Idol? 

                                                            Yeah.... I forget too......

The Kids Today!!

The Ingersollian Pressure Cooker

So in the article that we read, someone stated the fact that because all of the American Teens lived in a small town, the place seemed like a social pressure cooker, and things happened on a bigger social scale because of the plain fact that 'everyone knows everyone'. I think that this is not only 100% completely true, but it also applies to Ingersoll, too.

First of all, Ingersoll is the smallest of small towns (without getting into village and or Middlesex/Thamesford territory). Lets put things into perspective: its white beyond belief, there are probably 2 black citizens of IDCI, there are 3 Asian citizens of IDCI (and I'm 'besties' with one of the 3), we think that London is a 'big city', going to Toronto is a huge event and is considered the Canadian equivalent of New York, New York, and I once at work, I refused to serve a woman who came into the deli demanding meat after we had been closed for a full 15 minutes. This woman turned out to be the hair dresser of the mayors wife. How my boss figured this out, I have no idea, but all I know is that I got a stern 'talking to' because 'this kind of bad customer service reputation could get around town when you're dealing with the mayors wives' hair dresser'...........yeah, right.

So in case you didn't already realize how small Ingersoll is, I hope that little example put things into perspective. We are small. We're a wart on the foot of the world. Ew, I just threw up in my mouth a little, but you get the point.

NOW, if that's not grounds for a heightened social conscious, I don't know what is.

Because of the fact that everyone knows everyone, we are (socially of course) under a microscope. You can't do anything in this town without your mother finding out. Why? Because if you decide to do something stupid on a Saturday Night, someone is going to see you. And that someone is going to tell a friend, and that friend will just happen to mention it to someone they work with at the grocery store, and that person will spill the beans about you to someone going through the cash while buying groceries. And that customer just happens to be a close friend of someone important within the community, and this continues on and on until almost literally everyone knows. 

With this in mind, I don't know if kids are more or less reckless when it comes to social behaviour. It should mean that the kids here are more tame and socially conscious when it comes to partying, etc but there is the darker side where attention-seeking habits could kick in and make kids more likely to act like morons in order to gain the attention of everyone in town.

Could it be that small towns in that sense can actually be damaging to kids? The fact that we feel that microscope peering at us at all times, and therefor are too afraid, tame or meek to express the real us? Think about all the Ambercrombie and Fitch wearing kids at IDCI and you can't help but wonder if they dress like that because they want to, or if its because they don't want to be noticed too much and they want to look like everyone else in order to blend in.

It takes a very brave individual to stand outside the norm and be themselves, let alone do that in an environment such as high school where you're highly judged, and to on top of that do it in a small town. In a high school in Toronto, you'll see a lot more kids wearing Mohawks and neon leopard print skirts. Why is this? You could argue that its because there are a lot more cultural influences in a place like Toronto than there are in Ingersoll, but I think that its something more.

I think that living in a big city like Toronto gives you a bit of anonymity. Instead of being yourself, known to all by name, you'll just be known as 'the kid that wore those combat boots with a mini skirt one time.' The social critiquing that may be done on you doesn't get back to you, and not everyone knows your name, your parents, etc. You're just another nameless, faceless person living in a hell of fluorescent lights, old desks and dusty text books, and because of this, you have more courage to be whoever the hell you want to be, because you can. 

While I will admit that small towns have a sense of unity and commitment to the community and people that you won't find in Toronto or Ottawa, I do believe that in some ways, being in this social pressure cooker does definitely have its disadvantages, especially if you're 17 years old and trying to survive high school. 

Seeing is Believing?

Oh great, this age-old debate. Buckle in folks, this is going to get bumpy....

But first, before I totally sink my teeth into this, I'd like to start off with a little story, one that I think many of us have gone through: the time that we first found out Santa Claus wasn't real.

My parents called me down into the basement and sat me down. My first reaction was that I had done something bad, and I was about to get it. I racked my brain to try and figure out what I had done now, and how I could get out of it. Little did I know that my parents were gazing at me sympathetically. My step mom was the first to say it:

'Chloe, sweetie. We wanted to tell you something serious. Something very important: this Christmas, there isn't going to be a santa claus, because santa claus isn't real.'

They looked at me expectantly. What they were expecting I don't know, because all I did was sit there and say 'Oh.....that makes more sense.' and sit there some more. Apparently, they were waiting for me to start sobbing because that's what my step mom did when she first found out, and my dad was pretty much expecting the same. 

See the thing is, I wasn't all that surprised or shocked or sad or anything, mainly because I had never really believed in Santa Claus in the first place (I know a lot of you are shaking your heads saying 'well THAT explains a lot'). 

Seriously, I'm not kidding: I never believed in Santa, or the Easter bunny, or the tooth fairy, or any of that crap. I don't know why, but for some reason, even as a kid, I was programmed to only believe it if I personally saw it myself. The fact that a fat guy in a suit could make land animals without wings fly across the world carrying not only himself, but a sleigh full of a WORLDS SUPPLY OF TOYS all in one night just didn't make any sense to my young brain, and since I had never actually seen Santa despite my 7 Christmases thus far on this earth, I had already come to the conclusion that Santa must not exist, because I hadn't seen him. The same goes for all the other little made up characters our parents produce: I never bought into any of it. 

Sure, I wanted to, I wanted to be like every other kid and get all caught up in the whimsical-ness of it all, but my logically little mind wouldn't let me. 'No, Stupid! Don't leave cookies out for this fraud! THIS MAKES NO SENSE AND YOU KNOW IT! Stop it damn it, STOP!'

Okay, so the inner monologue thing IS going a bit far, but the rest is all true: I never believed in Santa because I never saw Santa. So I guess that you can pretty much guess where I stand on this whole 'Seeing is Believing' thing.

I'm one of those few that live by the 'if I can see it and I can touch it then its real' motto. That might be one of the main reasons why I'm an atheist: in my lifetime, I haven't had any spiritual journeys, or anything remotely close to what most people call an encounter with the divine. Religion has played a small to minuscule part in my life, and I can't say that its made it any better or worse, thus I am null and void when it comes to being spiritual. That's about the nicest, safest way I can put it, and I really don't want to open that can of worms anyway.

So there it is, plain and simple. My humble and mortal opinion: you have to see it to believe it. Maybe its selfish to assume this, but I think that you only get to live once, so why spend this life believing your little heart out to no avail, with no grantee that you're going to 'see' anything at the end? 

Lazy Freshmans

Okay, so am I the only one that saw this one coming from like, a MILE away? I mean really, this should have been apparent since the invention of GOOGLE that kids were going to get lazy.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The story here is that University proffs. are complaining that their first year students are too lazy, immature, reliant on wikipedia, the works. Essentially, they blame the students who blame the high school teachers and the high school teachers blame the elementary school teachers who blame the parents who are really at a loss as to why little Johnny (who had $20, 000 invested in him so he could go to U of T ) is now failing every class he's taking.

The real problem here isn't where to place the blame. As aforementioned, its a vicious cycle that gets nowhere and leaves the accused angry, scared, and at a complete loss. Personally, I think that its the combined effort of lazy parents, elementary and high school teachers that leads in turn to the kids themselves being lazy.

Think about it: our parents generation was the one that was told to go outside and play all day by themselves. Back then, kids would go out at 9 AM, run around the neighbourhood with their friends  until 5PM (aka supper time). If they got hurt ..... then they got hurt, and a lesson was learned from it. Whats that, son? You fell out of a tree and sprained your wrist? Well I guess you now know not to climb that high, stupid. Now lets go take you to the doctors, dummy.

There wasn't such a fear of rapists, molesters, etc. Because our parents were raised with this mentality of 'everything will be okay, let them go off on their own' from such an early age, they vowed that they would never, ever let that happen to their kids. So when they themselves actually did have kids of their own, they raised them entirely differently from how their parents raised them:

Kids were kept inside at all times so that their parents could monitor them 24/7, cell phones were bought for them at the ludicrous age of 7 so that they could always be in contact, hell, even little GPS chips were put into their fingers so that, heaven forbid they leave their parents sight for a second, they can use satellite technology to track them down.

See what I'm getting at here? We as a generation were babied! Our parents gave us what they never had: un-conditional love and support, all day every day. Now I'm not saying that our grandparents never loved our parents, I'm just saying that they always wanted more love, and are now over compensating for it by throwing it at us.

By the time we get to school, our parents are sweating buckets with worry about us. Leaving their kids all alone with a bunch of other kids in a huge building with strange and different teachers? Just the thought of it makes parents want to faint. Parents also like to think that their spawn is quite possibly the best thing to ever grace this earth. Stuff White People Like mentioned this, but really, it holds true to most parents. They are under the misguided impression that their kid is the smartest damn kid in that school, and that if you as a teacher don't fully recognize that fact, you're dead.

SO when the unthinkable happens, and Tommy gets a D- on a math test, his parents hit the roof, they go nuts, they hulk out, they loose their sh**, to say the least. They storm the school, report card in handing, demanding to know why their little angel is failing geometry (or whatever the hell it is that you take in math during the 3rd grade). The teachers are corned. They can't very well argue with the parents in fear of loosing their jobs, so in the end, Tommy either gets individual attention, or the curriculum is dumbed down in order to accommodate a bunch of kids who are stupid and can get away with it. 

So what does this have to do with the fact that first year University kids are lazy? Well it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots: between our parents babying us all our lives, and the fact that essentially, elementary school teachers and high school teachers do the same, and to add that to the fact that we have technology at our finger tips that makes research excruciatingly simple, it all sums up to the fact that by the time we're 18, we are completely unprepared for life on our own!

It's not really any ones fault, its just happenstance, and it's the way things are. I for one think that we as students have to accept the fact that yes, we are lazy. It's not something that anyone likes to admit about themselves, but it's true. Our best course of action is to suck it up, get the board of education to stop babying kids, and prove the professors wrong by showing them that this wave of first years isn't going to be a bunch of sloth-like, wiki-addicted students. Well... it's that, or we all google 'good freshman students' and see what search results come up. And after that, how about asking good old Mom and Dad for a raise in your allowance, eh?

Pirate Supplies and Essays....

I grew up with education all around me as a kid, because BOTH my dad and my step-mum who I lived with all throughout elementary school were teachers, which meant that I always heard about your run of the mill teacher gripes: report cards, snotty nose kids, heckling parents and yes, the many, MANY flaws that are in the education system.

One of these flaws, of course, is that classes are way too big, and not enough kids are getting one on one help. Now I'm going to play devils advocate and say that although this isn't exactly the greatest situation, you have to understand the stress that the teachers themselves are under, too. If they had it their way, I'm sure that most teachers would make sure that classes were very small and that every student got individual attention. But sadly this world isn't designed entirely by a board of public school teachers, and the classes keep growing, the parents get more irate, and the kids keep falling by the wayside.

BUT there is hope!

Thanks for the wonderful people at McSweeney's (who I already knew were glorious, wonderful people to begin with thanks to McSweeney's Joke Book of Book Jokes) there is the Pirate Supply store / Homework Help Center also known as 826 Valencia in San Francisco.

Pirate Supply Shop on the outside, tutoring center on the inside, and a McSweeney's publishing office somewhere in between,  826 Valencia is a unique and fantastic idea that offers help to kids for free in an attempt to make sure that each child in some way, shape, or form gets individual attention and gets help with problems that are exclusive to them.

Personally, I think that this is a great idea. Kids feel intrigued by the store, and then wind up getting help with their homework in a way that doesn't make them feel dumb, different, or anything like that. It wasn't 'The Center for Kids Who Need More Help' as David Egger so eloquently put it. It was simply 826 Valencia. 

BUT would this clever idea work in a place like Ingersoll? In a word, no.

I could go on all day about why this wouldn't work, but I can pretty much sum it down to a few main arguments. First of all, Ingersoll is much too small of a town. Most of the kids that go to school here are either from rural, farming families, or your average, middle class working families. That means that kids my age (aka the 'high school' crowd) are either working on their parents farm right after school, or they're working at a part time job. Many people wouldn't have time to go to a help center even if they wanted to. Which leads me to my next point:

Sure, everyone wants to get better grades. But going into a help center to do your homework creates a stigma whether you like it or not. Sure its not fair, but its true. If people found out that someone went to a 'help center' that person would automatically be labelled as dumb or remedial, and would be shunned a little, if not looked at differently (at the very least). Because Ingersoll is so small, everyone knows practically everything about everyone. If even one person knew of a kid that went to our very own 826 Valencia, word would get around and soon enough, out of peer pressure, that kid would stop going. It would take a kid who was cool enough to be different, and could get away with it, and who doesn't care what other people think to start a wave of people to go. And those kids are few and far between.

Also, who would run this make believe 826 Valencia? The one in San Francisco is mainly volunteer run, and I don't know if Ingersoll is exactly over flowing with volunteers who would be willing to haul themselves down town to help out a bunch of kids with their homework. I'm not saying that those people aren't out there, but I am saying that there's not enough of them to make it work. 

Lastly,  look at what happened to the Fusion Youth Center. It started off as a good idea: a place where kids in the area could hang out with their friends away from peer pressure, drugs, etc. It had a lot of funding backing it up, and showed a lot of promise. Sadly though, it turned into a spot known for its druggies and back crowd. Perhaps this is what would happen to our hypothetical Valencia too?

All in all, its a great idea, and I really, really do wish that every town could have its own 826 Valencia. I can't say for sure whether or not I myself would go if we had one here in town. I can certainly say that if a McSweeny's publishing company was in the back, I would be there all day, everyday trying to scrounge a job for myself, but other than that I don't know. Sure, we'd all like to think that we would all be flooding in to our own Valencia the second it opened, but really, we're all affected by the stigma that goes along with the phrase 'homework help' so no one can be sure. Hopefully though, there would be enough of us to make it work, or at the very least, keep the pirate/superhero/time travelling store in business, even if it was only for a few months. 

American Teen

First of all let me say: seriously?! One of our assignments is to (technically) do a movie review of American Teen?! HONESTLY!! YES! Interdisciplinary is now officially the best class ever. Period.

*Ahem* on to the task at hand: American Teen.

I've been following this movie for awhile. I'm big on the Sundance Film Festival, and the second it premiered there I did a ton of research about the film and waited (impatiently) for it to come out on DVD. Up until this point though, I hadn't seen the whole film.

Boasting that it's this generations Breakfast Club, the movie set the bar high for itself, and over all I think that it basically achieved what it was trying to do: show regular everyday teenagers, one from each major stereotype, in an effort to show every kid out there that everybody has problems, and that life is basically tough all around. 

I really, really liked the movie, but out of all the kids, I have to say that the one that I sympathized the most with was Hannah (who saw that one coming?).  Sadly, right from the very start when she was boasting about how much she loved her boyfriend of 2 years, I knew that *it* was about to hit the fan. And I was right. 

From the start, Hannah is dumped in probably the worst way possible, and I know that every single girl in the room (hopefully most of the guys, too) all had their hearts deflate a little when they heard that after sleeping together for the first time, Hannah and guywhodeservestogethitbyabus were no more. After missing school (and I mean A LOT) of school, she almost fails her last year of high school, then falls for the 'heart throb' Mitch, only to have him 'text message break up'. Let me tell you something, fellow gifteds:

YOU NEVER TEXT MESSAGE BREAK UP!!

(skip to 2:40 for the meat of the video..warning: not appropriate for school).

Anyways, along with all of this she has a dream of going to San Francisco so she can really live in a world different from the conformist, red, Christian one that she grew up in. She also wants to make movies, which yeah, did really strike a chord with me, so I related to her the most. 

I was really happy to see that she did end up in San Fran, and was even more pleased to learn that after 8 months she went back to the East Coast and was studying film. I'd also like to mention that I 'became a fan' of her on facebook. Oh yeah, I'm soooo bordering on stalker-ish right now.

All in all, a great movie with a likable (and hate-able aka MEGAN)  characters that weren't just characters: they were real which gave the movie a lot of depth that you wouldn't get from a movie that followed the exact same script, plot line, etc but used actors. Although art mimics reality, only reality can capture the ultimate spirit of reality. 

Overall, a thumbs up / 4 out of 5 stars.

PS I would also like to state that this is one of my shortest blogs ever. A rather tremendous occasion for me, I must say. 

Twittering fantastic Tweets to all my Twits!!!

Twitter, how doth I love thou? Let me count the ways...

Okay so I'm not actually going to recite poetry to Twitter to show my devotion, because as much as I love tweeting, that would be bordering on insanity, and I already walk that fine line of 'devoted fan' and 'insane asylum patient' everyday. What else is new?

But yes, it is true. I am a bit of a twitter fan girl. I tweet to my fellow twits everyday, and I don't even feel remotely stupid saying it. I'm sure that I should, but I just can't. I've officially jumped on the twitter band wagon (hell, by this point in time, I'm DRIVING the twitter band wagon), and I love it. I must admit that I'm a bit miffed that more of my friends don't use twitter yet, and yes, I do get mocked within my circle of friends, but I can brush it off. Why? Because I know that in a few years time, they'll all be tweeting too. I mean hey, everyone scoffed at the idea of facebook and myspace at some time, right? And now look where we are. 

And before you start mocking me too, yes, I do realize how stupid twitter is and how stupid it sounds. Randomly posting your pointless activities through out the day in 140 words or less? I was skeptical at first, but once you get started, its addicting. Even I couldn't have predicted that at some point in my life, I would be telling random people:

Where the hell  are my oat clusters in my Cheerios Oat Clusters CRUNCH! cereal. God damn it, why does this always happen to ME?! 

Yes, it is a bit self absorbed of me to believe that anyone out there would honestly care that I was saddened over the lack of granola in my cereal, but I did receive a few tweets back that made me laugh, such as this one from my 'bestie' and fellow tweeter, Michelle:

@Chlo_Chlo_Chloe i ate them when you were asleep. wake up earlier next time. Sorry, princess

A fantastic Twit!! (and yes, I realize that I'm saying 'twit'. It's half of the appeal, the irony of it all). But anyways, on to the task at hand.

Personally, I can understand that some may think that it's a fear of death that keeps me tweeting. I'm sure that if Freud was around today, he'd have a few things to say about all the Internet activity, but seeing as how he's not,  it looks like I'm going to have to sort through all the Internet phsycology myself.

Why do I tweet? The same reason why you have a facebook account: it's fun. It's addicting. It's pointless and you realize it, and yet you can't stop. You like to know what other people are up to. You like to glorify your life by shouting out random information about your day into the dark void known as the Internet. Many are quick to criticise Twitter, but it's really not all that different from updating your status on facebook, which many of us do everyday. I mean really, if you think about it, who cares?! No one, that's who. No one except for you. But as humans, we're all full of ourselves and like to think that someone out there, be they stalker or not, are concerned with our breakfast cereal and would like to be updated every hour or so on our daily activities. 

Personally, I don't think that I have a fear of death and thus I tweet. I think I tweet because weather I like to admit it or not, I am just like every other self obsessed teenager out there. I enjoy being apart of something, I like letting everyone else know what I'm doing. I hate to say it, and it pains me as I type to admit it, but it's true. It's just another fun, random, addicting Internet trend that will be dead in 5 years, but in the meantime it's fun, and I'm the first (as far as I can tell) to stake this new found ground as my own. To conclude, I give you this, my own twitter account. I know that you don't care what I'm up to, and to be frank, I don't care either. But in the meantime, we're young and tweeting, so why the hell not? Follow me, Tweet me, Twitter me, etc (as the kids say). 

Rock Stars and Science

Okay, so I'm nong to lie here. 

I definitely fell asleep during the Ted Talks Large Hadron Collider video. I know, shun me, burn me at the stake, do whatever you like. I deserve it (kind of). And the really sad part is, is that I don't mean that I got bored and zoned out, I mean I literally fell asleep. Full out, head on my computer desk, lights still on,  mom walking in at about 1 in the morning asking 'what the heck happened to you?' The answer? Physics, Mom. Physics happened to me.

But give me a little credit! I stuck it out until Brian Cox (aka the rock star physicist) started talking about quarks and then I got a Star Trek flashback and I was done. I mean really, asking someone like me to understand particle physics is like asking an ant to re-create the Mona Lisa. That is to say, that IF it happens (and that is a VERY big 'if'), it's going to take that ant a very long time. It's like CJ says: 'I'm CJ, and I play X-box.' Well, when it comes to complicated science-type stuff like this 'I'm Chloe, and I get all of my science related knowledge from a little show called The Big Bang Theory.' 'Nuff said. But seriously, if you're a geek in any sense (comic book geek, science geek, etc etc) you are going to find this show hilarious. I usually cry I laugh so hard. These guys reference everything from Lord of the Rings to Superman to Physics and scientific theories to Battlestar Galactica and back again. The only reason why I know what I know about science is because of a few way to smart people I hang out with...and a television show. How sad.

ANYWAYS I knew about the LHC long before watching the TED video, because f the aforementioned  nerds I hang out with who went bonkers the day they first tested it. Thanks to them, and for the portion of the video that I was conscious for, this is the bare bones knowledge that I now have:

The LHC is the worlds largest science experiment. It is a particle accelerator who's goal is to smash together two particles traveling at very fast speeds together, in an attempt to re-create the exact moment of the Big Bang. Right now, we're really close to the exact time, about 10 billionths of a second after the Big Bang. Which is pretty damn impressive.

So that's all I know when it comes to particle physics. Its not much, I know, but it's all I've got so far. And hey, it helps me sleep at night knowing that behind this small, cynical blogger is someone who can at least pretend that they know what they're talking about if ever asked about 'all this LHC business'. Go team Chloe. Oh, and since I mentioned Star Trek earlier.......

Live Long and Prosper, my friends. 

'Earth Hour' or '60 Minutes of Pretending to Care'

So at this point in time Earth Hour has come and gone. For the most part, I really don't have a problem with 'going green' and doing what you can to help the environment: I actually think that it's a great idea to get out there and actually do a little good for the world, and if you're one of the few people that actually manage to stay 'green' all year long instead of just on certain days, then I fully congratulate and look up to you, because in all seriousness you're a better person than I am (try as I might to do my part, I'm still addicted to Tim Hortons, who's cups are slowly but surely clogging up our landfills).

But ANYWAYS on with Earth Hour: the problem that I had with it this year is that for whatever reason, someone over at EH thought that it would be a good idea to go with a gimmick as a weak attempt to try and get more people interested and involved. This year, the catch to Earth Hour was that if you turned your lights off, that would count as a 'vote' towards saving the earth, but if you left your lights on, that would be a vote for 'global warming'. At the end of Earth Hour, the results would then be taken to the Global Climate Change Conference in December 2009, and shown to all the worlds leaders to try and spark some sort of global green initiative.

Now, because of 'liberal media' and Al Gore, we all know that global warming is not a good thing. Whether or not we agree that it exists is still up for debate, but for the most part the majority of the population knows that it isn't something we want. Playing on this general knowledge, the EH folks thought that their whole 'voting' gimmick would work wonders and get billions of people around the world to turn off their lights.

NOTE: NEVER go with a gimmick. Ever.

Now, the results (as far as I can tell) are not online. I've looked on various websites and there are no concrete numbers showing whether or not Earth Hour actually did any good, and if mother earth 'won' against Global Warming. You have to wonder if this lack of information means that Global Warming really did win...

Whether or not this lame attempt at making Eco-friendliness commercial is exactly what I hate about the ever-popular green movement: Like I mentioned early, I hold high respects for those certain individuals who really, honestly care about the earth, and do everything in their power to make it a cleaner and better place. What I don't like however, is the fact that this has become a trend, and a part of pop-culture.

When did it suddenly become 'hip' and 'young' and 'trendy' to pick up trash and actually care about our planet? Have you noticed how it's considered cool to drive a hybrid car and use cloth shopping bags instead of plastic ones? Have you taken a look at the sale of 'organically made' clothing or 'fair trade' outfits? Or what about the fact that people are using phrases like 'Carbon Footprint' but don't have the slightest idea what they actually mean?! I don't like that caring about the earth has become commercial, and just another trend that in a few months, years, etc is going to fall by the wayside and die just like the other trends of past decades. Saving the planet is supposed to be something that's sold in magazines and on tv: it's a responsibility that every person on earth should have to bear. Sometimes it's not fun, and it's definitely not easy, but if we're going to actually save the earth, we have to stop jumping on the electrically fueled, 100% bio-degradable bandwagon and start seriously caring about this, and not think of it as just another way to be cool.

The Trouble with The Pope....

Okay so we all know the story by now: Pope Benedict XVI went to Africa, and told the thousands of people that went to go see him that 'condoms don't help stop the spread of HIV, on the contrary, they only worsen the problem.' I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point: the Pope flat out said that condoms make AIDS worse.

What the hell.

You don't have to be a scientist to know that this is a completely false statement: condoms do not, in fact, make the spread of AIDS worse. Out of all the studies done, there have been no findings to support this idea . Every scientist on earth can attest to the fact that condoms help to NOT spread AIDS. Hell, everyday people could tell you that condoms help prevent AIDS. But apparently, the Pope didn't get the memo.

Now I understand that the Catholic Church has been against any form of birth control from the get-go. It's just something that you don't do if you're Catholic. Period. Its a sacred rule that's been around for 2000 years, and its probably not going to change any time soon. Why? Because the Catholic Church is terrified of change of any kind. Their religion is built upon a set of rules that were made up a very, very, VERY long time ago, and even the idea of tweaking a few of those standards to fit a modern 21st century life style sends them into paralyzing fear. The Catholics are all for pro-creation, which is why 'every sperm is sacred' in their eyes, and everything from the pill to condoms is looked down upon.

Now like I said, I understand all of this. There is no question in my mind that pertains to why the Catholics don't like birth control, it's an easy enough concept to wrap your mind around. Put into math this means:

condoms + Catholics

= less Catholic babies

= less members of the Catholic Church

= less money going towards the Catholic Church

= you know what hits the fan (religiously speaking)

Now sure it's pretty cynical to assume that the only reason why the Church is against contraception is because they need a lot of church-goers come Sunday, but it's a realistic one: for the most part, young people aren't really into being Catholic. There are a lot of codes and conventions that limit them from doing the 'fun stuff' like pre-marital sex, etc. This being understood, the Church knows that if a Catholic couple have a baby, that baby is going to be raised Catholic, and will most likely stay with that religion until they have kids of their own, and those kids will be raised Catholic, and so on and so forth.

Sure it's practically immoral and most people aren't bright enough to pick up on this fact, and yes it's a complete ploy that has (possibly) kept the Catholic Church on top for the past few hundred years, but despite all this, this isn't what I have a problem with.

I have a problem with the fact that the Pope, a man who is considered divine and is looked up to by millions of people world wide, made a false statement, and never bothered to correct that statement. Furthermore, he specifically said this to thousands of people who currently live in a country that is being slowly destroyed by a terrible disease known as HIV. The only thing that is cheap, easy to attain, readily available and helps protect against this deadly disease are condoms, which are the exact thing that the Pope 'bashed' (for lack of a better word). Now, the millions of people who look up to him are questioning condom use, even though they do actually help protect against AIDS/HIV. And even though what he said is wrong and technically speaking he lied, no one is really allowed to say anything about it. Why? Because we are brought up in a religion-ridden society that considers it taboo and wrong to even think about questioning religion or what a religious leader says or does. Even though these people may be just as smart as us, we're not allowed to say a damn thing because we're just everyday citizens who although (for the most part) are educated, we're not the head of a religion. And religion is the one thing in society that you are not allowed to make fun of, question, or mock. Why? Because it's religion that's why. This isn't right and it isn't fair, and because of this, the Pope gets off scott free without have to explain a thing. And that, my friends, is where I have a problem, and honestly, that's where I think you should have a problem too.

Who Watches the Watchmen? A Movie Review

Ok, so this past weekend was huge for you if you are 

a) A comic book nerd

b) A movie nerd or 

c) A Literary nerd

Why is this you might ask? Because the greatest graphic novel of all time, winner of the Hugo Award, one of Time Magazines 100 Best Novels of the 21st Century, the 'un-filmable Graphic Novel' was in fact, filmed. It's called Watchmen and it came out in theaters this weekend. And for the most part, it was great. 

For those of you that don't know what Watchmen is about, here's the short version: Its a series of 12 comic books written by Alan Moore (who also wrote such famous titles as V for Vendetta and The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, and YES both of those were movies and are also graphic novels, betcha didn't know that one). Anyways, here's the whole wikipedia link, but to quickly sum it all up, here's the plot:

The year is 1985, an alternative reality. Nixon is president still (for his...5th term?). The Americans won the Vietnam War. Masked vigilantes (aka superheroes) were around since the 30's and on, but a law called The Keane Act has outlawed them. The Death Clock is set at 5 minutes to midnight, and the Russians and the Americans are close to nuclear war. Interested? I know I was.

The graphic novel really is astounding, showing that comic books aren't just for kids. Alan Moore did for graphic novels what Ralph Bakshi did for animation in the 70's: he took a medium that was under rated and thought by all to be 'for kids' and made it a real art form that could be intelligent, thought provoking, mature, etc. In other words, Watchmen changed the industry, and the way that everything was made from that point on.

So of course Hollywood wanted it. And bad. The rights to make Watchmen had been tossed around for years, with different studios and directors clawing each other for the opportunity to make it, but nothing came of this, especially when Terry Gilliam himself (famous director and former Monty Python member) deemed it 'un-filmable'.

The person that DID end up directing it was Zack Snyder, who has also done the comic book adaptation 300 (wow, ANOTHER comic book movie? Who knew?!) and the recent remake of Dawn of the Dead. Many were critical of Snyder, due to his slow mo, over saturated way of filming things, and while that did come out in Watchmen it did little to tarnish the film. But ANYWAYS on with the actual review!!

With a running time of an astounding 2 hours and 45 minutes (with more bonus material and deleted scenes to be included in the directors cut edition of the DVD!!) it was obvious that A LOT of time went in to filming this sucker, and it really does show: if you've read the graphic novel, the film looks like Watchmen should. Though its apparent to veteran movie goers that most of it was filmed on a sound stage, they did a gorgeous job of using the right architecture, colors, etc to make it a visually appealing and comfortable film to look at. As for casting, it was pretty good (especially Jackie Earl Harvey as Rorschach), but my only problem is Matthew Goode as Adrien Veidt. For a guy who

a) rules the world (practically)

b) owns the world (again, practically) and can

c) throw 240 lbs guys all the way across the room...

he looked scrawny, and much too young. Seriously, he was frat boy material.

Also, they changed the ending. What. The. Hell. I knew this was coming, and I won't spoil either ending for those of you who haven't seen the movie OR read the novel, but I can tell you this: the graphic novels' ending is so much better. It makes more sense, it has more emotional impact, and its just plain BETTER. Trust me on this. Another thing that agitated me to no end was the fact that Snyder was bashing the audience over the head with the message of 'COMIC BOOK MOVIES AREN'T JUST FOR KIDS!! GET IT YET? NO?! MAYBE I SHOULD THROW IN MORE BLOOD AND MORE SEX SCENES!! THAT WILL SHOW YOU!!'

Really, Zack. It's okay. You can put down the fake blood and sit down now. We all understand, now please go off and just sit for a minute.

Other than those major complaints (which I could rant about for days) I didn't have any more issues with the movies. Sure, Dr.Manhattan is naked most of the time, sure the sex scene in the Owl Ship is the cheesiest thing to ever hit the big screen ( I laughed out loud, especially due to Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah playing in the background), and yes, some of the music as stated before was way, way WAY out of place. But I can forgive most of that.

Why? Mainly because of the fact that I liked it. I was never bored, I was entertained, the movie looked gorgeous, it was a great film, and an above average adaptation. But more over, this movie has shed so much light on the original graphic novel that millions of copies were being sold every day. This means that more people are going to take comic books seriously, and that this could be a big jump forward for the entire industry. 

To sum up, a 4.5/5 stars. I'll defiantly be buying the DVD (directors cut, extended version, etc). But please, if you want to see the movie, read the graphic novel too (ideally, read it first). This movie and the graphic novel deal with politics, morals, and complex ideas of society, human nature, and morality. Who watches the Watchmen? I do, and I'll continue to.

A+ For All

Personally, I think that the whole idea of this professor giving out A+'s to every student in his class at the start of the year is a brilliant idea. While some may say that its just a new wave, liberal teaching method that will die as soon as its inventor does, I feel that if handled properly, it could change the way that we look at education.

As I've already said, I think that this is a great idea. I know many students that worry too much about marks and what grades they get in school and because of this they limit themselves to one way of thinking. Too many of us just give the teachers what we think they want  to hear, and say what we think they want us to think, instead of voicing our own opinion. This ties back to Ken Robinsons idea of our great fear of being wrong, but we've already gone over that. All I'm saying is that by setting a grade standard, you're automatically limiting students and setting them up to become robots who only spit out the information and opinions they've been told to memorize.  By eliminating the grades, students are more likely to open up and really learn instead of just memorize and try to do what they think the teachers want them to do.

Also, this event took place in the University of Ottawa. Universities are supposed to be places of higher learning where people are allowed to project different views, ideals and methods off of each other, and then study and learn from them. Universities are also supposed to not just tolerate debate, but encourage it. Why is it then, that when a teacher chooses to try out a new teaching method he's automatically fired? Isn't this a bit hypocritical of the University to do this without first discussing with the professor the implications, pros, cons, etc of this new method?

To try and sum up, my thoughts are this: in a school system where the teaching method has been the same for hundreds of years, but within that same system, the concept of new ideas is preached like mad, shouldn't we be more opened minded towards new ways of thinking?

Oak Island

In a time when most 'mysteries' can be solved by modern scientific methods and few stones remained unturned, Oak Island continues to be the one case that can't be cracked. By now, we all know the story behind it, the history etc. so I won't bore you with that. I'm going to present another way of thinking...

Sure, there could be treasure down there, the Holy Grail, some Knights Templar Relic etc etc. Hell, some professor in Sweden probably based his thesis off the idea that E.T is somewhere down in the Money Pitt. What I'm trying to say is that the theories all take a large stretch of imagination to understand let alone actually believe in them, and so far there isn't really any hard evidence that defiantly supports one of them. There are only theories, not actual facts. We have to keep this in mind when inspecting Oak Island.

My idea is this: in a time when we have fiscal problems all over, global warming is suddenly starting to have a huge effect on us, and we need to be working on foreign relations and actually ending  a few wars instead of starting them, why are so many of us off playing treasure hunter? Sure its nice to escape from the worries of the world for awhile and give in to childish ideas about pirates and buried treasure, but we have to be realistic: if anyone high up on the scientific or academic hierarchy really thought that there was a great intellectual discovery to be made on Oak Island, then something would have been done to recover that discovery by now, instead of small time investors pouring money into it. Some grand Board of Science from a well funded country, etc would have come forth and devoted much more time and money into getting whatever is buried on Oak Island, so I think its safe to say that nothing of great importance is down there. 

We also have to take a look at where Oak Island is located. That's right, in CANADA. Last time I checked, not many people come to Canada, our tourism isn't all that great (we have Niagara Falls, the huge mall in Edmonton, and a few other minor attractions, but in the big scheme of things, we really have no revenue coming in from the Canadian Tourism Bureau). Its a definite possibility that this whole thing could've been made by some 'higher ups' in suits to get people interested in Canada. Now I realize that it was found a long time ago, but don't you agree that its possible that the Canadian Government could've come in at some point and made the traps, tunnels and pits originally made by pirates or vikings more complicated, so that more endeavours would be made, and Oak Island could get an extra 15 minutes of fame?

So to end, I think its all a waste of time. If something was down there, we would've found it, especially if it was someting that anyone thought was really that ground breaking and special. So far, nothings come up except for some chain, some paper, and some rocks. Wow. Real archeological breakthroughs, there. But all sarcasm aside, we should be turning our attention to something more important, like using that treasure hunting money to bail ourselves out of our fast sinking economy.

Other Blogs

So here's the list of all the other blogs from Gifted....
katierose78.blogspot.com
danieldbrown.blogspot.com
kevinburker13.blogspot.com
hasthehadondestroyer.blogspot.com (Jennifer)
ashleytalks18.blogspot.com
bgroat.blogspot.com
hhblog09.blogspot.com
hutchbren764.blogspot.com
loghrin.blogspot.com
cjsays.blogspot.com
generalexperience.blogspot.com (Jessie)
shinokage.blogspot.com (Alex)
miranda-start.blogspot.com
mathias.v.blopspot.com
ohthesweetdemiseofambiguity.blogspot.com (Cory)

Enjoy!

Creativity in the Classroom....Since When?

It's like that one thing that we all know, but dare not talk about. Sure, its been going on for years and years...possibly since the start of the idea of public/general education, but nothings gotten in the way of stopping it. Sure, some have tried, but those people are looked down upon and called 'liberal hippy radicals' by your parents, the school board and the rest of society. And those people are the exact kind of people who didn't get along with the school system in the first place! But I'm getting ahead of myself. What am I ranting about?

The complete lack of presence that is creativity in the public school system.

Like I said earlier: ever since the idea of general education for all has begun, its been assumed that included 'the arts' in the curriculum were an after thought. A spot on the face of academia that could be done away with at a moments notice ('Due to budget costs, the drama department is now being shut down.' How many times have you heard that?!). The fact is that the arts aren't taken seriously at all when it comes to education. Anywhere. AT ALL!

Personally, most of the courses that I've taken and loved the most have been the ones that get slated in as 'artsy': drama, music, etc. They're the ones where you really get to see what people are like, take chances, and have fun. Who doesn't love that? (besides the conservatives, I mean).

I think its about time that the arts get better funding and more recognition. Especially now in a time of economic stress. Why is that important? Well...

History has showed us that in times of economic stress or fiscal problems, people loved to be entertained. Even if just for a little while, they want their mind to be taken off the finance trouble at hand and give in to make believe for awhile. Even though people are careful about what they spend money on, they want to have a good time, and thus they make sure to go to the movies, see a play, etc. This is why films do so well even though money's tight: they entertain and distract, something that everyone needs once in awhile.

So, with more and more people looking to have fun, what better time to pump some money into arts programs all over Ontario? Now is when we really should be pushing the arts on people, because now, they're more likely to give in. In English, we study Shakespeare's plays. Why not act them out? In history, we're taught that the visual art that a society and culture creates is like a hand print: it represents who they are after they're gone, and its what gets studied thousands of years later. So why aren't we encouraged to make more of it? All I'm saying is that if 'All the worlds a stage'......we're only sitting in the wings, backstage,  when we really should be out in the spotlight. 

Blogs

So like everyone else's first post, this one is about blogging.Exciting, right?

Blogging isn't new to me. I've used blogger for awhile now and I have a separate blog apart from this one that I use to post some of the random crap that I think about most days. If you want to check it out, it's here. Yes, it may look similar to this one, but I can assure you its completely different. Completely! Got it? Get it? Good.

Hmm why do I blog...for the most part the only reason why I blog is so that the stuff I write gets up somewhere, and when it comes time to fill out college applications I can say that I'm (technically speaking) a published writer. Which is a good thing seeing as how I want to go into journalism. Clever, right?

So that's that. Enjoy!