Okay so…

I recently rediscovered that I had this word press account/site from way back when when I had to do posts for high school (it’s so old that I don’t even remember what they were meant for LOL). Anyways, I thought it would be a good idea to put this site to use again for myself as a log of things I like or things that I want to talk about. Definitely low maintenance but I want something apart from my journal that I can access and write on without having to blow out my wrist haha. Expect reviews of inks, books, stationary, and other miscellaneous things as my life progresses into adulthood!

XOXO,

Anna

I’m sure it’s gonna be really fun reading about how everybody hates homework. Heck, even I have my days where I’d rather gut myself like a fish than finish my chemistry or calculus homework. I’ll try to explain my own beliefs on homework and its proper application, though it may ultimately seem like two different parts of myself are arguing with each other. Going off of that, my personality itself is very Jekyll and Hyde, where they constantly clash. One minute I try to be a goodie-goodie and the typical “hardworking student”, the next I feel like recreating a funny vine or video I recently watched to neglect my studies. Though I wouldn’t describe myself as being one of the most stable people, I definitely don’t think my life is bad because of it. But I digress. What I’m trying to say that my stance on homework is much like my personality: pretty black and white.

My philosophy is that “smartness” is nothing without hard work to back it up. I don’t really think of myself as the certified genius like some of the other kids in my class. However, my hard work allows me to pursue. Homework is one of the things that I think teaches kids about hard work and its relevance. From what I think of homework, it inherently sets a goal for the student: you finish it as best you can and with the time given. These skills, even though they may not be in line with the curriculum taught within the aforementioned “homework”, it is important and necessary to accumulate these skills as they will help in all of life, not just a student’s academic studies. I find that within most of my fellow classmates, laziness seems to be the key player in not achieving their goals. With the inherent goals that homework sets on the student, its hard not to develop either a habit of completely removing yourself from it or being steadfast and keeping a schedule. Oh, and have I mentioned scheduling? Whenever I go home for the day, I have a plan and time tables ready for completing each task in the least amount of time possible. That being said, I am still a teen and I will often get distracted by playing with my dog or going down a Youtube rabbit hole.

Though I have developed this sense of hard work from diligently doing my homework, it has not come without its consequences. Before high school, I would get tired at 9:00 and fall asleep by 10:00. Now, with the excess amount of school work plaguing my home life, I have developed severe insomnia. I physically cannot go to sleep until about 2:00 am or later and that has caused so much fatigue in just my daily life. With AP review season in the midst, it’s easy to see that the amount of homework to review will significantly increase and thus make me sleep at even later hours. Take for example my AP Physics class. Right now, I receive a review packet, typically averaging at about 5 pages, every day for homework. With that and all the other homework given in all my other classes, it’s not that hard to see why parents would see their children as being overworked. Even I distinctly remember my mom coming downstairs after I pulled an all-nighter finishing a project that I had to make absolutely perfect and demanding that I had to go to sleep. My point is, though homework comes with positives, it certainly needs to be said that excessive amounts of it indirectly lead to mental and physical health problems.

When I got my movie rhetorical back, I felt pretty okay with my grade. I knew that I could have done better because I saw that there were many grammar mistakes, which I feel like are things that I could easily fix. Even though I felt that the grammar aspect was a bit of a disappointment, I thought that my actual writing and the analysis of the rhetoric within the movie was pretty spot on or as good as I could have made it at the time. I did not see any comments regarding the actual analysis of the paper, only quick grammar fixes and I felt that what I wrote a quality paper in terms of the content. I definitely could have spent more time finalizing and editing my paper until I felt that it was “perfect”, but, at the time, I had deeper concerns with other classes.

I feel that my strengths as a writer stem from the fact that, when I set myself to do something, I always finish it. In terms of writing, this is useful because I could finish a rough draft that was fairly well-thought-out pretty quickly. Understanding and gathering evidence for what I want to write, pre-planning if you will, is something that I excel at. I know this seems that this does not seem like the biggest deal but, as I said before, once I know how to do something, I do not finish or stray away from the thought. This, I feel, is a significant part of the writing process that is constantly overlooked and disregards even though it seems to be such an integral part of writing a good essay. This strength of mine definitely contributes to the high scores I receive on most take-home essays such as the one we got. I also definitely feel like my analysis skills have gotten better since at the start of the year. I used to dread writing rhetorical analysis paper or timed writings, yet now I don’t feel as uncomfortable as I previously did.

One of my weaknesses, though, is the fact that editing and revising drafts make me actually lose my mind. I absolutely despise and loathe going through my writing to find mistakes because once I start to do that, I begin to add unnecessary things which then makes the paper seem poorly planned. I most definitely need to focus more on editing in terms of straight grammar or word choice instead of straying away from the point I try to make when I add unnecessary content. Maybe this is just an extension of my brain trying to flood everything with as much information as possible. Who knows? I definitely understand that though packing a lot of information into a paper may make it seem cohesive, It will actually do the opposite most of the time. I have tried to steer clear of repeating this, however, sometimes I just can not go on with myself if I do not put another line of evidence proving my point or argument.

 

There should definitely be a word for someone who pisses you off even though your opinions are similar – someone you just hate unconditionally. Take for example Kristen Stewart, an American actress, mostly known for her role in the Twilight movies. I asked people if they liked her or hated her. Most said they hated her. When I asked why most simply said:  “I don’t know”. As there is unconditional love, there must be unconditional hate. Another example, especially in the modern world, is the position of boss. From what I know, people usually hate their boss regardless of whether or not their boss is a bad person.

The word that I propose would fit this definition would be Susan-ite. Now, I can understand how this would confuse some, but let me explain. In teenage fashion, certain words already are aligned with meanings that aren’t apparent to most. For example, the name Susan typically has the connotation of a middle-aged white mom who always wants to “speak with your manager” or can just be overtly condescending. As such, this would help draw to the conclusion of a person that’s just annoying and easy to hate. The last part of the word is just a regular suffix of most terms. -Ite is a suffix of nouns denoting especially persons associated with a place, tribe, leader, doctrine, system, etcetera, reinforcing the usage of the word as a term. I got the inspiration for the word from the German word Backpfeifengesicht. This word basically means someone you know whom you find to be insufferably smug or someone that makes you feel an uncontrollable desire to slap them silly every time they open their mouth. I think that the English language doesn’t have a specific term for this and, quite frankly, saying the German version would honestly be a mouthful.

When we were asked to analyze a Superbowl ad, I wasn’t too excited because I personally don’t see the appeal of the Superbowl. Even though I still don’t see how the football aspect is interesting, after bingeing too many Superbowl ads, I can definitely say that they are the only thing that comes out of the Superbowl that deserves merit. I chose the Washington Post’s “Democracy Dies in Darkness” Superbowl message.

The ad starts off with an image of what appears to be D-Day with the narrator saying “When we go off to war…” then transitions to “When we exercise our rights” showing an image of the Selma march. The advertisement then shifts from “when we soar to our greatest heights” with an image of the American flag on the Moon to “when we mourn and pray” with an image of what seems to be a presidential funeral. All of these images appeal to a sense of patriotism. Because it’s the Superbowl, most, if not, all of America will be watching, allowing the Washington post to successfully reach to their intended audience: patriotic Americans.

Next, the ad shows an image of firefighters battling Californian fires with the narrator saying the words, “when our neighbors are at risk”. After that, he goes on to say “when our nation is threatened”, showing a picture of a building torn apart. This entire section is used to transition into the next section that shows what the Washington post has to offer, almost appeal to their sense of commitment to the truth. “There’s someone to gather the facts … To bring you the story no matter the cost”, the narrator says as a policeman is shown as well as a compilation of various reporters in threatening situations and three journalists that were killed in their line of duty.

“Because knowing empowers us, knowing helps us decide … knowing keeps us free”. These last lines indicate the purpose of the ad: to promote the news site while promoting nationalistic values. Through these various methods like appealing to patriotism, The Washington post may succeed in their purpose of gaining more readers from their intended audience: patriotic Americans.

The spot of Number 2 on the Listverse list of “10 great people you should know” goes to Empress Myeongseong, a truly extraordinary figure in Korean history. Empress Myeongseong, also known as Queen Min, was born as an orphan. She, later, would go on to become the first wife of the young King Gojong of the Joseon Dynasty. Korea’s child-king, Gojong, actually served as a pawn for his father and “advisor”, the Taewongun. “It was the Taewongun who selected Min as the future queen, presumably because she did not have a strong family to threaten the crown” (Thought Co.). Though she was considered to become a pawn, she would become the one to indirectly take control of the throne, described with eyes “cold and keen, and the general impression one of brilliant intelligence” (Thought Co.).

Usually queen business for Korea meant to dabble in tea parties, fashion, and gossip. However, contrasting from previous queens before her, Min would read books that were usually reserved for men on the sciences and philosophy. Through this self-taught education, she gained knowledge of the capacity of her position of power. However, the Taewongun became wary and warned King Gojong of Min’s intelligence: “she evidently aspires to be a doctor of letters; look out for her” (Thought Co.). On November 9, 1871, Queen Min also gave birth to a son; however, the child died after just three days (Thought Co.). Min decided to use this as a ploy to blame the Taewongun for her baby’s death, citing usage of poison. This gave her motive to politically fight against the Taewongun and rise in power. She would go on to give her patronage to the first all-girls’ educational institution, invite different missionaries to enter Joseon to bring about religious freedom, and indirectly introduce modern medicine in Korea by establishing the first western Royal Medical Clinic of Gwanghyewon (Wikipedia). Though her actions were beneficial to Korean society, it was still a change from normalcy. One who was unnerved with these changes was one Miura Goro, Japanese ambassador for Korea (Wikipedia). He sent a team of assassins to kill her. She was killed in the inner sanctum of the palace. Her corpse would then be burned and buried (Wikipedia). Her death angered the Korean population as well as her husband King Gojong. She had a lavish and massive funeral, one to fit the influence she brought to Korea and, consequently, Korean culture. Present-day Korea is infatuated with her, prompting the people to make a musical to honor her (Wikipedia). RIP Queen (literally).

Do you know the saying how junior year is the worst year of high school? Going into junior year, I had so many worries that school would be a literal hell on Earth. At the end of the semester, though, I can definitively say that the saying is halfway true.

I had so much homework this semester. Some were influential, some were completely inane, although anybody could say that it was too much work for a single human being to do. However, having a planner and using it saved my butt a time too many. I’m honestly so glad I went with the instinct I had when I was buying school supplies because if I didn’t, I would’ve had so many quizzes I was unprepared before and would have probably failed them all. Having a planner and organizing due dates was definitely a success that helped me get through this year. Another thing that helped me was learning to prioritize certain subjects over others whenever necessary. Most of the time there is more than one test on any day, which means that I have to have a preference for certain subjects over others. Once, I had a major grade assignment due in every period. This meant that I had to study for at least 4 test the night before. On that particular day, Calculus had to take priority over the English timed writing or my Art History Test because of its importance in my future major.

I, however, definitely dropped the ball on a couple of occasions. One thing I definitely learned this semester is that I need to focus more. When I’m doing my homework, I’ll be listening to music on Youtube. I’ll see an interesting video and click on it and essentially go into a Youtube deep dive. I usually would end up about an hour into study time just mindlessly watching Youtube videos. My focus is not great and I think this is a sign of it deteriorating. One way I’m trying to fix this habit is to use Spotify more to listen to music that way I can’t fall back into my habit. This quirk had made me waste so many hours of study/homework time that could have been dedicated to… well… studying and in turn getting better grades on my tests. I absolutely positively need to learn how to improve my focus in the upcoming semester.

When I first read that mini-passage that Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt had written, I was honestly not all that surprised. As a student now, you can definitely tell who are the people proclaimed as “liberals” and “conservatives”. Though I myself lean more toward liberal ideologies than conservative ideologies, I hate labels and proclaiming myself to one specific set of beliefs is not my style (or anybody’s style now that I think about it).

To answer the question briefly, I do believe that education be uncomfortable or “offensive” as Lukianoff and Haidt like to call it. There are two parts, in my opinion, that encompass education: academic education and real-world education. Academic education is exactly as it sounds: education that primarily is based off of learning core subject like math, English, history, and the sciences. On the other hand, real-world education, in my book, is characterized by the skills used outside academics like sports, art, sex-ed, social skills, and virtually everything else that does not encompass the academic education section. With these two different parts of educations in mind, I’d like to look at how uncomfort can be a positive thing in the long run for kids.

For academic education, I would like to look at two of the core subjects I mentioned previously: English and history. We recently had the disscusion in English on how Hucklberry Finn, a book we read that is considered to be contraversial, with its heavy use of the N word, was an appropriate book to read in our school because of the words nature of being offensive or uncomforatble to others, much less in all schools across the country. In my opinion, the racism shown towards Jim can shine a light to the modern-day racism that is still prevelant in today’s society. If the a book cannot cause debate over contraversial topics (such as in Scarlett Letter and the stigma behind cheating or in Great Gatsby and whether or not the American Dream is dead), why should it be studied anyway? In George Orwell’s 1984, one key concepts of the book is that the government burned or replaced information that went against what they supported. Similarly, in actual history, the Nazis would actually burn books that they deemed “un-German”. Instead of outright rejecting ideologies (or in the Nazi’s case, burning them), embracing the uncomfort that is a natural symptom of learning new things is how we, as a people, grow. Because the Nazis censored ideas that they didn’t agree with, there was only a specific set of ideas everyone had to live by. Sounds a lot like a label, doesn’t it?

Now onto literally everything else that isn’t school subjects. I’ll start with personal anecdote. A few years into my figure skating career I was practicing the axel. For people who don’t know skating, landing an axel is basically a rite of passage for young figure skaters to begin their true career as competative figure skaters. Most people take about two to four months to land their axel consistantly. Landing mine took a year. When I say it was the most upsetting annoying process ever, I mean it. However, through the uncomfort of falling over and over and over again, I learned patience and the importance of having a strong will. Now, I never fall on my axels. Another topic that I’ll bring up: sex-ed. Sexual education is inherently uncomfortable; form learning about reproductive organs to sexually transmitted diseases, there seems to be a reason why pre-teens always squirm at the idea of classes concerning sexual health. However, one must think of the reasons for impimenting these classes in the first place. The classes are there to educate kids on how to stay safe and healthy in reagrds to sex. Dissovling these classes because they cause uncomfort within students leads to ignorance within children about the dangerous effects of STDs like HIV/AIDS and how they are aquired. The negatives (dicomfort) are extremely outweighed by the positives (learning how to stay safe within the realm of sex).

That’s that! Here’s Anna signing off.

 

I myself can’t call myself a die-hard Marvel fan but, because of my love of redemptions and villainy within characters, Loki and the Asgardian universe caught my eye about a year or two ago when Thor: Ragnarok came out. I’m not that big of a Marvel movie fan especially because some seem like repeats of others (even the trailers seem to repeat themselves), but Thor: Ragnarok came out, I decided on a whim to go see it, purely based off of the glowing praise all my friends gave it. It’s now one of my favorite Marvel movies. That being said, that movie sparked my interest in the Marvel cinematic universe, particularly the movies that revolve around Thor and Loki.  So with that out of the way, let me tell you why and how Loki is the best character/villain in the Marvel.

Let me go through Loki’s various characteristics and contrast them to what I call “one-shot” villains as I try to explain my stance. First, let me explain what, to me, one-shot villains are. My definition of a one-shot villain/character is one that shows up for one movie and has no affiliation with the overall MCU plot, only with their respective movies. Some examples of these are Aldrich Killian from Iron Man III or Yellow Jacket from Ant-Man, those of which only minorly contribute to the plot of the movie and are honestly underdeveloped. Loki deviates from this structure in that he has shown up and played a significant role in 4 movies: Thor: Ragnarok, The Avengers, Thor, and Thor: The Dark World. Additionally, his actions or plots are not resolved within one movie, they are drawn out within the span of the MCU. This makes him an influential character as the decisions he makes affects the story being told, contrasting with the many one-shot villains that the audience knows the hero will beat because they don’t revolve around the overarching story. A lot of people mention that Killmonger from Black Panther might be a better villain than Loki, and I want to maintain my position. I think that, while Michael B. Jordan is a great actor, and Killmonger is a great villain, he is just another one-off. The secret behind Loki is that he has been in many movies, and continues to be a sidekick or a threat, depending on the day. He steals the show when he’s on screen, and I don’t think it’s possible to create a rival villain with only one movie. Maybe if Killmonger was around for longer, and stayed alive in the MCU he could be considered as villainous as Loki.

One of Loki’s characteristics is that he strongly values recognition and attention, which many people can relate to. His motivations make him stand out from the rest of the villainous crowd and are deeply ingrained into everything he does. He thirsts for power and to rule. Once this was taken away from him in the original Thor movie, his next logical step was to rule Earth, in which he failed again. Everything he does revolves around his thirst for recognition as a king. In Ragnarok, he disguises himself as Odin for this, and it even carries on to his attention seeking on Sakar. His almost child-like desire for attention drives all of his actions, especially in the Avengers. He acts like a diva the entire movie because his desire is so childish, yet relatable considering that everybody wants some control in their lives whether it be over belongings or Earth.

Another reason why Loki is adored is that he straddles the line of being a hero or a villain. He could be considered, in some sense, as an anti-hero, because of his unpredictability. The audience never knows if Loki will do the right or wrong thing; he has so many layers of ulterior motives that he seems mysterious. This makes the audience wonder and constantly hope that he’ll do the right thing. Even when he does something wrong, the audience hopes that, in the long run, he’ll be redeemed. One example of this occurrence is when Loki, in the Dark World, pretended to chop Thor’s arm off then used that as a distraction to defeat Malekith. On the flip side, when Thor and Loki are stealing the ship in Ragnarok, he seems to be doing the right thing by giving them access to the facility, but he really only was in it for himself, for the reward of Thor’s capture. No one ever knows if Loki is the good guy or the bad guy, which is most likely why many people resonate with him. Many can see their own faults as well as their victories in them. Everyone has a side to them which they don’t like, and want to be able to change that. People project this feeling onto Loki, and this is why people get so attached.

Additionally, Loki’s charisma adds to this mysterious vibe that he exudes. He is entirely confident, and no one is able to tell if he’s being truthful or if he’s lying. Because Tom Hiddleston delivers these lines with such assurance, the character Loki cannot be distinguished as good or evil, allowing the audience to once again root for the character to do good instead of evil.

Another reason why Loki is such an invigorating character is that he is probably one of the least powerful villains. I’m not saying that he isn’t incredibly powerful (he is of Asgard) but Loki tends to use mischievous games to win his fights not just strength like most one-shot villains. Instead, he makes everyone a pawn of his game; metaphorically, he’s playing chess, while everyone else is playing football. As the god of mischief, he must rely on this though; he can’t bash through a horde of enemies like Thor can, and, because of this, he has to use his smarts and skill rather than brute force.

We don’t always see the bad side of Loki. We see a lot of good in him for the majority of The Dark World. With this, in the scenes with Frigga, Odin’s wife, and Loki’s adopted mom, he is so compassionate with her, and we can see that she is someone who he truly loves. It gives the audience hope that he is a reputable guy despite all of the atrocities he committed. Odin was never Loki’s father, but he was definitely Frigga’s son.

Hopefully, this was unbiased as possible

 

I picked the article How The Good Place Goes Beyond ‘The Trolley Problem’ written by Elizabeth Yuko. I was scrolling through the Atlantic and nothing really caught my eye until I saw an article about season three of one of the best shows on television right now: The Good Place. To say that I like it would be an understatement; its genius view on philosophy, specifically that of ethics, along with its amazing actors like Kristen Bell, Ted Danson, and Jameela Jamil, and its genius writers and directors like one Micheal Schur, writer for iconic shows like The Office, Parks and Recreation, and Brooklyn Nine-Nine, affects many like myself. Obviously, this was the article for me. Without bringing show spoilers into the mix, the article basically describes how the show tackles one of ethics most famous problems: the Trolley Problem. To those who don’t know the trolley problem basically works like so. You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up people lying on the tracks. You’re standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options: 1) Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. 2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. This practical application of showing how the Trolley Problem works in comedic TV works in conjunction with how ethics, as a whole, is interpreted within the show’s themes and motifs. Ethics, as a whole, is incredibly overwhelming, even more so when one studies it. This is even joked about within the show when Eleanor, played by Kristen Bell, constantly demeans Chidi, played by William Jackson Harper, by saying that ethics is boring and ethics professor like Chidi are either empty shells of people or just plain crazy. Even people like me, a person with virtually no interest in philosophy and ethics, are drawn to this show by its inherent goodness (ba-dum tss) and its genius way of exploring ethics without sacrificing its complexity or humor, exemplified in “The Trolley Problem”. I can definitely agree with the stance the article takes on how the emergence of this show affects the atmosphere of actually educational ethics, as I myself have learned a thing or two about Immanuel Kant and Plato. The amazing grasp that a show with, frankly, a simple plotline has on modern classroom ethics is incredibly astounding and I respect The Good Place more and more as more content and visual lessons are taught in each episode. (I’ve included a clip of one of my favorite moments in The Good Place just so you can get an idea of how great this show is)