donaldduck125

I have just finished reading the Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. An amazing book. It was a great read and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It picks up on the fictous character Robert Langdon a Symbologist professor at the Harvard University. It is a sequel to Angels & Demons and the Da Vinci Code. However in this book the story takes place in the US, in the Nation?s capital. Langdon is deceived into coming to Washington to give a lecture. However when he arrives he is thrown into a complex web of clues and revealed secrets that can help solve an ancient mystery older than the US itself. He gains and loses companions during a night of intense suspense. He becomes a fugitive from the CIA who are trying to prevent a national security breach. Along with its predecessor (The Da Vinci Code) it portrays a great secret lost in time and protected by secret societies, mainly the Freemasons. Whom it seem have played a much larger role in the founding of America than it seems, as the capitol building and its mirrored landmarks are all a heaven for free masonry.

It is fun to read about all these ancient symbols and their interpreted meaning ? which Brown claims are all real. However the main theme is a bit far-fetched that I would consider a more of a science fiction. What makes the Novel wonderful though is that Brown backs up the theme so damn well, including perfectly places historical happenings and real artifacts with real histories ? making the novel very believable. The fast pace also helps to make this novel a perfect mystery thriller. I enjoyed every moment of it and had a hard time to put it down.

Christopher McCandless was from a young age very adventurous. He would always try to break new ground or discover new places. His urge to do so may have been fueled by his parent?s lack of parenting, and their constant fighting. He may have found comfort in the undiscovered as a way to get away from this domestic conflict. As this continued through his childhood it may have been the reason he rejected his parents so. The accumulation of this trauma throughout his childhood and teenage years is probably the reason he rejected his parents till the very end.

It is very brave of a man to discard his previous life which he has lived for over 20 years in favor of a wanderer?s life. But McCandless did it. He felt it was what he had to do at the time and that he was steadfast at this is in my opinion a beautiful achievement. He had it all and just threw it away. It just means that he is brave enough to do so and I think he reached a much higher level of self-insight than any of us will ever achieve.

He saw his parents fighting and arguing a lot and probably drew a connection between that and having material wealth. Later he learns that his parents probably didn?t even love each other and that his father had another child somewhere else. He may have thought that he was heading down that road and sought to take the first exit. It may be the push factor that made him leave. Also mentioned above that he had an unquenchable urge of discovery which may have been the pull factor and making him chose to leave. It may have given him something to leave to, instead of just traveling mindlessly on the roads of society. He was also a fond reader and found comfort in many romanticist authors who all have their love for nature and the wild. This may have helped fuel his urge to discover the unknown and natural world.

I could not answer such a question of whether or not I would go out into the wild, if I were in his place. I can never know how I would tackle such a situation for I have never been in one like his. It would be wonderful though to travel as he did but I would probably have the intention of always returning home in the end. I would probably not travel to Alaska either for I am no fan of the great white north during winter. But also if I were in his position and loathed my parents I would probably not include them in the decision making either. However I think I would keep my sister more in the loop as she was and is in the same boat as he was during their upbringings.

Romanticism and transcendentalism are two key concepts in the movie and which I think Christopher McCandless had a personal relationship to. They are philosophical, literary and artistic movements that happened during the early to mid 19^th centuries. Romanticism appeared first however with its roots in England and Germany and later spread to the states. It originated as a countermovement towards the enlightenment age and industrialization, and had its focus on returning to the natural and individual self.  However I think the transcendentalism had a larger impact on McCandless and you can draw a line by the below statement to his general behavior throughout the movie.  Transcendentalism emerged as a branch off from Romanticism in the New England area of the US and as Ralph Waldo Emerson (one of the leading transcendentalists) put it in an essay: ?Transcendentalists believed that society and its institutions ultimately corrupted the purity of the individual. Man is at his best when truly "self-reliant" and independent. It is only from such real individuals that true community could be formed?.

In this blog post I am going to write about the Jim Crow Laws of the south which play an important part of the movie "the great debaters" we saw in class, where much of the theme is a direct consequence of these laws.

The Jim Crow Laws were a series of state and local laws enacting from 1876 and 1965 primarily in the previous confederate states. These laws initiated and legalized segregation of black and white Americans in all public places. Officially African American "areas" where to be equal to their white counterparts but this was hardly the case. Examples of these laws are segregated schools, public transportation, restaurants, other public places and even drinking fountains.

These laws first came into act during the re-construction period right after the civil war (1865-1877). During this period federal troops left (who were sent there to protect the blacks) and the southern states managed to reinstate democratic officials at state and local levels. The southern states at this time were predominantly democratic while the northern states were republican, opposite of today. The democrats then upped the education level for voters that almost dissolved the black voting population in the south. Now they could start imposing the Jim Crow laws legally. Their argument was that the whites were not ready to be see blacks as equal just jet. And that they needed time to integrate themselves. Many of the democrat officials where elected because of paramilitary and mob support. The African Americans, whose future seemed bright, lost everything in just a couple decades.

 Now anti-black terrorist group?s formed most notably the Ku Klux Klan which at its peak in the early 1920s had over 6 million active members. If a black man spoke out he would probably be lynched. The Tuskegee Institute (an all-black university) recorded over 4 500 lynching?s from 1882 to 1962. Also between this period 200 anti-lynching bills were produced but only 3 of these passes the house. When the president is a southerner (Woodrow Wilson) it is difficult to charge any of these crimes. Also the using of white robes to hide their identity was common for the KKK. Woodrow Wilson also started segregation in the north, especially in D.C. but with less success than in the South.

The term Jim Crow comes from a character "jump Jim Crow" who is a white actor dressed as an African American. As this actor rose in fame the term Jim Crow became used as a derogatory way towards blacks alongside the term Negro.


By the time of Martin Luther king jr. the Jim Crow laws were on their way out, and the Supreme Court along with northern support regarded these as unconstitutional. As we can see in the movie the great debaters the Jim Crow laws are being challenged and ignored. But in some conservative states it would be a long time before they saw any change. With the lynching of 3 civil rights students in Mississippi in 1964 created national outrage and only 6 of the 18 convicted Klan members? received sentences by the Supreme Court. In 2005 one of the convicted was retried (now 80 years old) and was sentenced to 60 years in prison. By now the whole country was in against the segregation and in 1965 the voting rights acts was passed outlawing all discriminatory voting practices, ending it were it all started.

Does the wife's character differ from story to film, if so how?

I think the wife is almost a completely different character in the short story vs the Hitchcock movie. In the movie she strikes you as a kind loving woman. This is also true for the short story. But in The movie when she kills her husband she neglects to do a number of things that she did in the short story, making her come across more as a psychopath instead of an intelligent detective wife with a masked dark side. Along with mediocre acting which only confirms my resolve.

Where this difference is most prominent is during the beginning of the story when Mr. Maloney comes home after work and is struck down by his pregnant wife and the immediate follow up to this. In the movie we see Mrs. Maloney preparing for her husband almost frantically, while in the short story the scene is described in way more detail and in a more relaxed way. Here we learn she is pregnant as well - something they take up later in the film and that the wife barely shows sign of. She almost attacks him like a puppy ecstatic to see their owner when he arrives in the film but in the short story she is more laid back and greets him at the door content and warm.
It is always difficult to portray thoughts and feelings through expressions for the camera so Hitchcock almost distances himself from that side of the story, making it impossible to create a better remake. In the short story she tries to do all of these things for him out of an eerie displaced happening she does not know what to make of. But in the movie it seems like it?s her job and everyday routine.
I find the woman in the short story to come across as a very sensual being and it is hard to imagine that he could leave her especially in such a state with her golden skin, soft lips and large dark placid eyes, this must have aroused him. However i see how he could leave the woman in the movie.



Where does the story take place?
I think the story takes place in Idaho, USA. This is a difficult question to answer with much evidence. But I will try to give as much as I can to back up my theory.
The Short story was given out in 1953. At the time the author Roald Dahl just moved to the US and married an American. He continued living here for a long time. So there are obvious American traits growing here. He wanted released it first to the New York Times which suggests that it was written in the US.
In the short story the only place name that is given is the state of Idaho. The only reason I think it is there is because when she is at the grocery store the clerk asks her if she wants Idaho potatoes. The only other country where the story presumably takes place is England (where Dahl grew up). And after WW2 England did have rationing but not on potatoes, presumably because they had an abundance on the Island. And potatoes is also in abundance in most American states implying that there is no need to import them from other states, hence Idaho.
As well England was suffering from the great war. They did not have a strong economy and did probably not have the capital to have a full stove oven and freezer, something more likely in the US with their blooming economy.
Mrs. Maloney also says she knows the penalty for murder (capital punishment). Something that was not lifted until the Supreme Court ruled it invalid in 1972.

Christmas is just around the corner. Everyone is buying presents to everyone else. Where the Christmas tree is almost too small to contain all the presents. This is not the case in China where they give presents to people with a lower income than themselves - a very noble tradition. According to them it makes no sense to give presents to those who are wealthier than themselves - so they all resolve to giving presents to the school bus driver or the custodian, or the guy at the gas station. And these presents are often not that expensive as. As the Chinese saying goes "little gifts have profound meaning".

In China their social structure is hierarchical. This is changing, but it has strong connection with the past and old traditions. China has been a communist country for a while now but these traditions date back before that. In Norway people anywhere can socialize with each other but in China people know their place and abide by these rules. And your prestige comes from inherited wealth and appearance while in Norway it is more the level of education obtained and the success in their line of work.

In China education is taken very seriously. There are so many looking for higher degree required jobs that there are still so many with high degrees who can?t get work, so they take more after school classes to get extra credit. While in Norway we cruise through our schooling and have the possibility of becoming almost whatever we want. The literacy rate in both countries is high something the governments but a lot of weight on requiring 9 mandatory  school years.

China has the largest workforce in the world, with vary many people still working in the industry and agriculture. Compared to Norway where most of the population works in the service sector. The Chinese GDP per capita is over 7 thousand dollars a year while in Norway it is 50 thousand. However China has world?s second largest GDP in the world so is naturally one of the largest economic powers also. While Norway is just a little country in northern Europe with a small oil reserve.

The Arab spring is a revolutionary wave of protests and demonstrations happening in the Arab world (north Africa and the middle east) which started December 2010 and that is continuing today. The protests have caused civil uprisings, revolutions and civil wars. They all have common traits as in the use of rallies, strikes, demonstrations and the use of social media to organize, communicate and especially raise awareness of their cause. These demonstrations have almost without exception been met with force by the authorities or pro-government militias. This has caused over 35 000 civilian deaths.

This all started in December 2010 when a Tunisian street vendor set himself on fire to protest police harassment and corruption. This moved the population to action, and they quickly started massive demonstrations and strikes caused the president to flee the country. Jordan, Yemen, Egypt and Algeria quickly followed suite. This spread even further to most or all of North Africa and bordering regions. Several governments have been overthrown and many more government leaders promising to step down after their terms have ended.

The early success of these protest have inspired many other countries to take up the fight against oppression. Initially spreading to some  middle eastern countries, then to south eastern Europe and the south caucus areas, some countries in the sub-Sahara Africa and even as far away as China people are requesting reform. The occupy wall street movement in the US have stated that they are using Arab spring tactics to reform the hold corporations have on their government. Time Magazine named the Arab springdemonstrators "people of the year".

This map shows all the countries where some forms of uprising/demonstrations have occurred. Where the dark blue are overthrown governments.

My eublog nominations are

best group blog: http://plpnetwork.com/category/voices/page/2/

- Because it is an amazing and insightful blog.

 best student blog: http://sarainternationalenglish.blogspot.com/

- because you have well written smart blog post

best teacher blog: https://annmic.wordpress.com/author/annmic/

- because she is a good smart eacher

 News of the world was at one time the most popular English newspaper with the largest English language Sunday newspaper distribution in the world. It was in business from 1843 to 2011. It was bought by News international in 1963 and transformed into a tabloid paper in 1984.

The newspaper printed its final edition July 11 2011 Titled: "Thank you and good bye". The newspaper was forced to shut down after the escalating investigations and resulting boycotts on their alleged phone hacking practices.

On July 14th the Murdoch?s were summoned before the British parliament to give evidence to the scandal. The next day they began apologizing to the public through other newspapers and appearing in interviews.

The scandal first caught fire in 2005 when the British royal family was targeted for phone hacking - discovering information only a handful of people should know. An investigation later ensued ending with News of the world?s royal editor and a private detective arrested and imprisoned. For a time things looked good for News of the World but in 2009 after a series of lawsuits and investigations by newspapers, and the police revealed phone hacking on an industrial scale. Therefor on January 26th 2011 the metropolitan police announced a full scale investigation.

The investigation later reviled a lot of nasty things News of the World really didn?t want people to know. A very serious incident was when they had hacked the 13 year old Milly Dowlers cell phone after she had gone missing deleting messages on the cell giving false hope to the authorities. Another incident was when the police found personal details and messages from dead British soldiers. Or on July 7 2005 after the London bombings, victims? families were to be tracked on their telephones by News of the World. And the list goes on.

But there is reported to be thousands of accounts of phone hacking. Which directly violates individual liberty. Many have asked why News of the world has allowed this to happen, but James Murdoch and the other chief executives had no knowledge of what was going on. I guess some journalists just do anything for a good story.