There are several things I should know about English, especially since my major is the Teaching of English. With the help of my English 160 class at the University of Illinois at Chicago, I have learned quite a few things. I learned that great pieces of writing are not made with one draft, even by well known writers. It takes a few drafts and several drafts to create a work of art. Also, it is important for me to rewrite, instead of revise. I tend to get off topic a little, so I was advised to write an outline and get my writing proofread by the writing center, or yourself. Furthermore, I was not taught pathos, ethos, grammar, etc. A movie called Videodrome encouraged me to step a little outside my comfort zone and try something I would not usually like. This Film is Not Yet Rated taught me to question established systems and to propose changes to systems that are flawed. I was challenged numerous times and my professor found countless examples and others ways to help me comprehend. Most importantly, I was taught not to fall into stereotypes by I saw an incredible movie called The Life of David Gale and professors seemed understanding and cool, but I thought that was just a movie, until I came to English 160.  My professor went beyond the stereotypes that all teachers have to be boring, too conservative, and cannot relate to their students. He is truly an individual that has taught me not to subject myself to conformity. I think we need more educators like him, to keep the interest of all students. He has taught with such insight that gives me hope that I can still pursue my degree because I have the passion and willingness to learn. I appreciate everything that he has taught me.

News of the recession has travelled worldwide rapidly, considering the fact that we have begun to borrow money from China frequently. China’s investment in U.S. government debt has more than tripled in the past five years, from $71 billion in 2000 to $242 billion in 2005. Much of this is primarily due to war costs. According to a new report from National Priorities Project (NPP), the United States is spending between $97 and $215 billion dollars annually on military action to defend access to oil and natural gas reserves around the globe.

This downward economic spiral does not only affect our pockets, but it affects our pride as well. Far too often have we heard the woes of our neighbors and have seen their irreconcilable sorrow hidden behind their weary eyes. The government has neglected us all, at a time when we needed help the most. With such distress plaguing our country, we must not allow any candidate similar to our current president, who has leaded us into economic instability, to gain a position that will determine the socio-economic status in which we live. It is our divine right and obligation as civilians, to vote for a leader who will promote the betterment of our existence as a nation.

I recently saw an older film; one of David Cronenburg most critically acclaimed movies, Videodrome. Videodrome depicts the fictional life of Max Renn, a sexually uninhibited, television programmer. He and his viewers indulge in his sexually explicit and violently perverse television shows. Max decides to introduce his audience into a new era of television programming. He wants to the public to view shows that are more racy and grotesque.  He begins to look for more provocative material, and he discovers Videodrome. Videodrome is a pornographic film that exposes people being tortured to death. Though Max is not certain if Videodrome is indeed real, he is still disturbed by its content.

After viewing Videodrome he goes on a quest to determine its validity.  During his investigation of Videodrome, Renn undergoes a series of situations that spin him in and out of hallucinations. Through these hallucinations he starts to believe that television is being controlled and used as a weapon by an unidentified group.

Videodrome is not the classic horror film. It is much more, yet it manages to entice avid horror movie fans. It may be rather sci-fi but it can be enjoyed by audiences who do not flock to the Star Wars conventions. The graphics are very vivid. At one point, Renn inserts a cassette of Videodrome into his stomach, and as it morphs you can see the layers of his insides as well as the tangible evil of the tape. Viewers with a sensitive stomach may be cautioned, but missing out on this movie would be unforgiveable. This is one of the few movies of its time that engages in Sadomasochism. Its sexual exploitation is refreshing, and although it contains various sexual acts, it is less offensive as it serves an informative purpose and it manages to captivate the eye.

Furthermore, Cronenburg instills messages in the audience that leaves them thinking.  Through Videodrome David conveys his perception of television. Television is used a tool to manipulate. It determines our way of life, affect our mentality, and it dictates our actions. Our idea of normality is based upon television. We observe the commercials and advertisements sub-consciously. For instance, make-up campaigns give us the image they consider to beautiful, and as an impressionable society we oblige. How often do we question the generalized notion of beauty? Similarly, manipulative television channels such as Fox, that expose selective media, may coax viewers into changing their opinions. In Videodrome Cronenburg does not portray television as a luxury, informational tool. He exploits it as a force of evil, a disease that plagues all the weak-minded and easily influenced. Videodrome will always remain a must-see because it identifies the negative aspects of television, contrary to its widely perceived usefulness.

I agree with Court Commissioner Carl Greco. “It is a heinous offense”.  Though, I believe these young offenders may receive a punishment that is too harsh. University of Wisconsin law professor Kenneth Strife added that these boys will automatically receive a life sentence at the tender ages of 14 and 15, if they are convicted of first-degree intentional murder. With the conservative jurors of Wisconsin, there are more likely to be found guilty. This is morally unethical considering the fact that these children have not matured; they lack the reasoning and comprehension needed for legal competence. A recent study by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation argued that a third of children ages 11 through 13 and a fifth of those ages 14 or 15 understood legal matters at a similar level as mentally ill adults who have been found incompetent to stand trial. Furthermore, these boys have taken someone’s life for a game system and a few measly coins. Even without the evidence conducted through the study, they do not appear to be mentally stable individuals. Consequently, they should not be permitted to stand trial.

            Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were both descendents of Jewish immigrants. They became politically active in the Young Communist League, which is a communist organization initially established by the Soviet Union. The pair met in this league in 1936. Julius became an electrical engineer and Ethel became a secretary. This ordinary couple would be accused of being spies for the Soviet Union and traitors to their own country during the Cold War.  

According to Alexandre Fleckisov, a former Soviet agent, Julius was recruited by the Russian Committee for State Security in 1942. There began their alleged espionage.  Fleckisov claimed that Julius gave thousands of classified reports from Emerson Radio.  Of these reports, the most vital information was thought to be the atomic bomb.

These accounts were supposedly acts of Julius Rosenberg, but not of his wife Ethel, yet she was convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage.  It’s likely that Ethel was accused with Julius as a way to make Julius give them the names of the other people involved. This, however, was unsuccessful. Julius was indeed a recruiter and courier, which led to him and Ethel’s demise. The two were executed on June 19, 1953 at Sing Sing correctional facility in New York. They are the only reported execution in the Cold War.

Even today, there is no evidence that Ethel had any part in it. Recent evidence shows that there was distorted eye-witness testimony.  According to Sam Roberts of the New York Times, during a previously unpublished interview, Richard M. Nixon said that Ethel Rosenberg, the convicted spy, might have been spared the death penalty by President Dwight D. Eisenhower had he been aware that evidence against her was tainted. With different eye-witness accounts, why wasn’t Ethel’s life spared during the trial?

            This is quite common in our world and throughout our history. What people do not understand they fear and what they fear they attempt to destroy. Mrs. Rosenberg was a Jewish Communist, during the time of McCarthyism. With her husband’s treachery she was an easy target for anti-communists. When she was on trial, she was not punished for the offense she was accused of, but because of beliefs. This is very similar to the genocide of the Jewish by the German, and other brutal historical acts that we do not want to remember. One might believe that the family of Mrs. Rosenberg be compensated for America’s mistake.

            Even though I consider myself to be an independent young woman, I am delighted  to reap the benefits I presume most women are entitled to, similar to having the door held, getting chairs pulled out,  and occasionally not having to pay for dinner. Women are usually given respect; we don’t receive the vulgarity men use with other men, and we surely are able to keep our affairs private. Yet, when it comes to a political campaigner, do the rules of formality change?

            You may be familiar with Sarah Palin, the feminist, Republican Vice Presidential candidate of the United States of America. Sarah, governor of Alaska, is the running mate of John McCain. She is, in fact, a woman. So is she entitled to the privacy and respect that most women receive, or do her political obligations force her to become exempt.          

 ABC Channel seven’s Jake Tapper noted that Sarah Palin would not be interviewed until she was treated with deference.  She then had an interview with Charles Gibson of ABC. Though they discussed important issues pertaining to the country, such as national security ,and then energy policy and climate change. Gibson failed to inquire information about her personal life that voters may seem relevant, like the fact that she is against sex-education in schools, yet her seventeen year old daughter, who is unwed, is pregnant. It seems as though most reporters are afraid to pursue questions that may cause Palin to feel “uncomfortable”. I assumed that because she is a woman, she would become more vulnerable in a male-dominant field like politics, but it appears as though it is protecting her.

            Why must Sarah be treated with “deference”?  A true feminist not only campaigns for women’s rights and interest, but she advocates equality for all women. If Mrs. Palin strives for equality, she should be insulted to be treated like a “woman”.  How often do people consider a male nominee’s image, or feelings? Publicly insulting another candidate is good for the image of neither the offender nor the offended.

            Sarah has exploited being a woman while attempting to destroy Barack Obama’s image. Barack criticized the questionable change in the Republican campaign’s new ideas. He referred to it as putting lipstick on a pig but the outcome still is a pig, implying that the Republicans disguise their lies. And the” pro-woman” Palin contorts this statement, alluding that the only difference between a hockey mom and pit bull terrier is lipstick.

            In my opinion, Sarah Palin deserves to be treated equally as all the other nominees. Her gender should not limit the inquiries about her political, social, or personal life. Sarah uses her gender for her convenience. Unfortunately for Palin, there are no grey areas in equality.

            In America, drinking alcoholic beverages is prohibited for ages twenty and younger.  According to Wikipedia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have a drinking age of eighteen.  Are these islands not a territory of the United States of America? Then, why, I ask, do we not allow young adults in America to legally drink at the age of eighteen?

            As an under aged young adult, and I am fully aware that people my age drink. It is very easy for teenagers to buy liquor. If we are unable to buy liquor we can ask someone else to buy it and they are very likely to oblige. Going to parties with older people, especially, in college, we have access to an abundance of alcohol. Though, the law is still active, younger people continue to drink before reaching their twenty-first birthday, which can sometimes lead to their demise.

With only a few years of experience teens are unskilled drivers, adding liquor only hinders their abilities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, motor vehicle crashes remain the number one cause of death among youth ages 15-20. There were 7,460 youth motor vehicle deaths in 2005. (This includes both drivers and passengers.) Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD) also notes that the use of alcohol is frequently coupled with risky and potentially destructive behaviors such as physical and emotional violence, rude or thoughtless remarks or actions, sexual mistakes or misjudgments, sexual assaults, and suicide acts and attempts. With such adverse effects, why would any responsible teen drink.

I think that most teens do not drink heavily to receive a “good feeling”. They do it because they are not permitted to do so. A simple suggestion might be to allow teens to drink in a safer atmosphere. Allowing teens to drink in social settings with their family or other supervision will probably help them consume less.

            It is the morality and judgment of the young adult that determines if he or she will drink. Yet, everyone does not have the same morals or judgment.  Nor, does everyone have self-control. Being young, teens may be unaware of their alcohol limit. Also, at such a young age, the eagerness to fit-in can cause them to consume too much and may put them in risk of alcohol poison.

Public safety is more important than giving teenagers the freedom to consume liquor. Although laws seem to deny us of the freedom we were promised, they are needed to maintain stability and to prevent chaos.