When exactly is taking it “too far”?

Recently interviewed, Jose Canseco spoke about his book Vindicator. Jose Canseco is a former baseball player. He was an outfielder and designated hitter. The main purpose of his book is to attack major league baseball. As we can tell from the definition of the title, his purpose is to justify specific doubts people have about issues with the sport. At one point, Vindicator focuses on New York Yankee’s superstar Alex Rodriguez. This incredible third baseman just signed a ten year contract and continues to strive in his athletic ability; however, author Jose Canseco has plenty to say. In this new book A. Rod is accused of taking steroids. While Jose admits that he never actually injected the prominent athlete, he does quote him saying “Where would one go if one were to buy steroids”? He also accuses Mr. Rodriguez of hitting on his wife. When the press questioned him about this situation he replied “I have absolutely no comment,” giving Mr. Canseco even more of a reason to believe his intuition.

After reading about the main focus of this new book I had mixed emotions. Many people felt Jose Canseco had crossed the line. Could he be jealous of this incredible athlete and is looking to seek revenge? Is he looking for a way to make money and feels this storyline would be a “hot topic” to sell? While the reasons behind him doing this are unclear it is easy to see the negative effects of his book. Jose is jeopardizing the reputation of young athlete Alex Rodriguez. For some people when they read information they take it as true before even finding out the rest of the facts. With this book being published people may not take A. Rod as serious, believing he is on steroids. Teaming up with the media, Jose Canseco is jumping to conclusions based on what he hears. Mr. Rodriguez’s decision of not commenting when asked about Canseco’s wife could have to do with the fact that he does not want something that never happened to be blown up into a big deal. With the publishing of Vindicator this issue will be open for the entire world to voice their opinion on.

With little positive affects of this book, there is, however, some that can be touched on. This book enlightens readers on the problems found in major league baseball. While on the outside the sport may seem like a “perfect little world,” there is much more that goes on behind the scenes. Baseball players are constantly being questioned about the use of steroids and it seems like their exceptional ability becomes unheard of and their success becomes due to the injecting of steroids. Vindicator shows that even people in the major leagues are ordinary people just like us. It shows a feud between two competitors and problems such as “fighting” over a girl which most of us can relate to.

I was in awe when I read the summary of this book. I could not believe someone would go as far as commenting on the personal life of another to base a book around. The intention of this book was not to praise or honor the sport but rather attack it as well as the people who participate in it. I don’t think Jose Canseco took into consideration the people he was hurting when writing this book but thought more about the profit he would make when selling it. I also feel that people will look at him differently knowing that he decided to write about a situation involving his marriage rather then trying to keep his “personal” life separate from his “celebrity” life.

Divorce; Now Becoming a Trend?

In this day and age, divorce is becoming more common then ever. As quickly as people are getting married they are getting divorced several years later. Looking back on the history of divorce, it dates back to the years of Mesopotamia. Back then the ancient Athenians allowed divorce but the person who wanted the divorce had to present papers to a magistrate. From there the magistrate would determine whether or not the reasons were sufficient enough. Based on the decision a divorce was either granted or the subject was dropped. Today the divorce rate is 17.7 for every 1,000 married women. Consequently, the marriage rate is on a steady decline. There has been a 50% drop in marriages since 1970. But what is the reason for all of these divorces and the cutting down of marriage?

One significant factor deals with the fact that men and women need each other less for economic survival. Through the years women have become independent, moving into high ranking positions and being able to support themselves on their own. Another factor of why marriages are declining and divorces are occurring is because the advances made with birth control allow men and women to separate sexual life from a life with children. Other factors that contribute to the outcome of divorce are money, career issues, and lack of communication or emotional maturity. Bills become overwhelming; fights begin to last for days and other issues such as jealousy, animosity, etc. begin to show. Other grounds for divorce include unfaithfulness, abuse or addiction. For some, temptation of the opposite sex is too much to handle and their emotions become hard to control causing them to cheat on their spouse. With all life’s hardships it is unfortunate that some people find the need to turn to drugs or alcohol and before they know it are quickly addicted. Their addiction could lead to violence and injury to their spouse.

Although no one wants to experience divorce or watch someone go through the painful process sometimes it is the best option. Marriage is not always the answer and sometimes the people we think we could spend the rest of our lives with may not be that person at all. Sometimes people are forced into a marriage whether it has to do with pregnancy, the feeling of not being able to find anyone else, etc.

As the daughter of two divorced parents, I had to witness the whole process. The reasons my parents got divorced, the talk I had to have with them before they went their separate ways and the period after my family broke apart was more than I could handle at the time. From experience I could say that this decision was one of the better decisions they could have made. I see the way my family is today and realize how much better off we are with things as they are. Not only are my parents much happier but I have learned a lot through the whole process. I learned how to become an independent woman and separate my problems at home with the rest of the activities I had to fulfill throughout my day. I can now attest that while things may seem like the worst decision at the time and when things seem like they could never get worse, one day you realize why everything happens the way it does.

What exactly is Creative Nonfiction?

For those familiar with literature, it is easy to identify two main genres, fiction and nonfiction. Fiction comprises works of imaginative narration while nonfiction encompasses the narrative style dealing with opinions or speculation of facts and reality. However, digging into the more specific genres, creative nonfiction is becoming more and more popular over time.

Also known as “literary journalism” or “new journalism,” the term creative nonfiction became “official” in 1983. While the name did not become “firm” until 1983 writers of the 1960’s and 70’s started to write in this context. They began to write true stories more stylistically as opposed to simply stating facts and reporting information. Throughout the years, there has been groundbreaking works of creative nonfiction including Truman Capote’s, In Cold Blood.

While different people have different ways and use different words to describe creative nonfiction it is easy to see they all express a similar definition. It is a genre of writing that uses literary approaches and techniques to express factually accurate narratives. Creative nonfiction is formed in a way which reads like fiction but communicates information. It uses the devices of fiction while preserving loyalty to the truth. Creative nonfiction is a technique used to get the reader interested and understanding the information provided by having “the author in the work.” It gives a personal incorporation of an account as well as reporting on the outside world. It is a way for the author to “liven up” information and ideas that are already present by making them more interesting.

After understanding what the genre consists of, it is easy to relate it to books previously read. In Herbert Asbury’s All Around the Town he demonstrates the style of creative nonfiction. Specifically, in “A Lady of Fashion” the reader becomes aware of the style of dress in the early 1900’s. The information is given in a vivid and dramatic way keeping the readers interested but at the same time expressing factual information. The same goes for John McPhee’s The Curve of Binding Energy. He writes with fictional techniques but provides nonfictional information such as Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and the background of uranium-235 and plutonium-239.

Other styles of writing such as creative writing and journalism may seem to be almost the same as creative nonfiction; however, there is a fine line that separates these genres. Creative writing gives the writer the ability to write freely, creating imaginative drama. Journalism, on the other hand, involves reporting and writing news by giving information straightforwardly and to the point. Creative nonfiction can be seen as a mixture of both these types of genres. It is the performance of writing nonfiction in an imaginative and striking approach. Creative nonfiction proposes flexibility and liberty while sticking to the guidelines of reporting, escaping the customary boundaries of narrative overall.

This underlying genre can also be found in the form of personal essays, memoirs, travel writing, food writing, biography, literary journalism, etc. Through these works it is easy to involve not only the reader but the writer as well. In the course of creative nonfiction writing, facts come alive through narration and setting. Well developed scenes are presented to give an interesting twist to actuality. Creative nonfiction differs from other genres in that the “I” is present either explicitly or implicitly. Writers of creative nonfiction do not make things up but rather personalize the information. Creative nonfiction “shows rather than tells.”

Glitzy Guns?

Recently aroused again is the issue of “painting” guns. It has been on the news and in the papers as to whether or not gun paint should legally be sold in stores. The colors range from “barney” purple to lime green to “sunshine” yellow, etc. Mayor Bloomberg once outlawed this issue. Ironically, he now uses his name to promote the product. A sketch of Mayor Bloomberg’s face can be found on the display guns for this product. It was admitted that this is mainly for publicity. The underlying question, however, is whether or not legalizing gun paint is a good idea.

For most, they are absolutely against the idea. Safety is a big issue especially when it comes to guns. With the pull of a trigger someone’s life can easily be taken from them. By having these flamboyant colors real guns start to resemble toy guns that children play with when they play “cops and robbers.” This can have a big effect on police officers. If they are in a situation and someone pulls out a lime green gun they may hesitate, deciding if the gun is real or not. This slight hesitation could be the difference between life and death. On the opposite end, knowing how much these painted guns look like toy guns, someone looking to rob a store may walk in with a plastic and get everything they want. Little would the owner know that the gun was fake and they could have saved their store without getting hurt. Painted guns take away the seriousness of the weapon. If a police officer was walking around with a purple gun it would be something to look and laugh about rather than to be scared and realize the power that police officer has. Fun, bright colors are the colors of toys, clothes, shoes, etc., not the color of a weapon.

Others do not take this issue as heavily. They feel it is another way to make money and just another product sold. It is a nice touch for those who perhaps enjoy collecting stamps or coins, playing sports, etc. Referring back to the safety issue, many people feel that no matter what shape, size and especially color of a gun, a police officer would react as if it was truly loaded and ready to fire. They feel there should be no hesitation because after all a gun is a gun no matter how it looks.

As for me, I feel there should be limits to this gun paint. I do not think it should be legal to sell them in stores for anyone to purchase. I feel that painting guns various colors takes away from the seriousness of the weapon. It makes it seem like it is something that is fun to do rather than something dangerous to be around. I also think that if children see guns painted in fun colors they will want to have one of their own. To compromise on this situation I feel that perhaps a “gun club” could have a special day or place to paint the guns they have, rather than let people paint their own, even if the gun is licensed. Therefore, the guns never leave the place and it is “O.K.” for there to be yellow, purple, green guns to shoot around with.

Are people truly aware of the issue of nuclear weapons?

After recently reading John McPhee’s The Curve of Binding Energy, my eyes were opened to an issue I, like many others, seem to overlook. It introduced readers to the reality of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. Ted Taylor, the main character, spoke about his concern for the capability of anyone to get hold of nuclear materials and construct a homemade bomb. This message left me thinking even after I finished reading the book. Is what Taylor was saying really true? Are people unaware of what is out there in a world some conceive to be as “perfect”?

Most people are unaware of the seriousness of the nuclear world. They do not realize what goes on and how easy nuclear material could be obtained. To most, this is not a topic of interest. I know for me learning about nuclear bombs in school was something I didn’t care to pay too much attention to. People are unaware of the issue of safeguards and how important they truly are. Safeguards are a “series of frames around the nuclear industry.” They are a way to look after and protect the material that could eventually be turned into a bomb, whether it means alarms, vaults, fences, guards, etc. This alone shows that there must be a strict watch on nuclear materials. Sometimes it is hard to grasp the concept that although nuclear bombs are not blowing up under our feet they still exist and are affecting other parts of the world. In correlation to the war in Iraq, while everyone “knows” what is going on do they really “know” what is going on?

For those that are aware and familiar with the issue, it is hard to know if they really care enough to do something about helping protect the nuclear field. They read about what goes on and how important the issue is, but after reading this information do they close the book or want to contribute something to help? McPhee really hits the point of warning the general public of what used to be such a “secretive” topic. Through his book we see how the information is out there and the leniency on expressing details about the world of nuclear weapons. We are also put in a position to worry that people reading this book will use it to their advantage to help in the construction of a bomb.

I believe that people aren’t fully as aware of the issue of nuclear weapons as they should be. I feel people know about the issue and when they hear the word “nuclear” can relate it to previous knowledge they hold on the issue but do not know the danger of what could happen if people get hold of nuclear materials. I feel that as long as people don’t personally experience nuclear bombs they tend to disregard the issue. “If it doesn’t happen to me, it doesn’t exist,” a common motive people live by. This doesn’t wipe away the reality of how dangerous nuclear weapons are and I feel there should be a greater emphasis on the topic. It is not something to sit back on and watch happen before our eyes, regretting the lackadaisical approach to try and secure these nuclear materials.

Can a one line story have a greater impact than one might assume?

Recently I have gained an angel in heaven, but a hole in my heart that seems like it will never heal.

On Your Mark, Get Set, No?!

A couple of years ago there was a heated controversy over whether or not a NASCAR track should be built on Staten Island. It would be placed on an old oil field that has been left unused for ages. The International Speedway Corporation is the company arranging to build the NASCAR track. Many Staten Islanders see this idea as being too farfetched. The thought alone of having a racetrack on Staten Island is absurd. There will be many obstacles faced in building this track because of the political uproar it has created. Many Staten Islanders oppose the track but there are several who are completely for it. Each side has their own opinions for thinking the way they do.

Stating the views of those who are against the racetrack is the point that it will cause much more congestion on the island. As if traffic isn’t bad enough a racetrack would flood the streets with much more cars. It is imagined that NASCAR fans would gather onto the island and create havoc. Not only is traffic a major issue but the noise that the racetrack would bring has to be taken into consideration as well. Due to the fact that Staten Island is quite small, the noise of the track could be heard from all parts of the island. This would especially bother those who live near the presumed location of the track. With traffic and noise becoming a part of the Staten Island “lifestyle,” people may be pushed away from the island or for that matter want to move off of the island. This is not a good turn for the populated island.

Others are overjoyed with the thought of a NASCAR track being built on Staten Island. Many people are fans of this sport and the thought of having a racetrack in their “backyard” is unimaginable; to some it is a dream come true. Having a racetrack on Staten Island provides for new and exciting weekend fun. It gives a new twist to the island and provides young adults with the opportunity to do something proactive with their free time. With a huge inflow of visitors of the track a great profit will be made, contributing to the economy of the island.

Like every other controversy, there are two differing sides on this decision. Both hold valid view points and stand firm to their decision. While a racetrack would be a new attraction for Staten Islanders, I think it would cause much more confusion to the island. It remains to be seen if the NASCAR track will become a reality for Staten Islanders. The International Speedway Corporation has revealed that they will continue with the fight to build this track. Only time will determine the fate of this NASCAR track and will continue the fight until the ISC decides to give up.

Can Uncalled For Remarks Have Serious Consequences?

As if things aren’t “slippery” enough between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one of Obama’s advisors, Samantha Power, added more heat to the fire. She was heard passing a comment about Senator Clinton on Monday, March 3rd referring to her as a “monster.” Ms. Power not only extended her genuine apologies for her inexcusable remark to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the amazing Obama staff she had worked with for almost 14 months, but also wrote an apology letter to Hillary Clinton. Her comments left Obama’s team struggling to manage the damage done and regain its balance especially after Tuesday’s losses in the Rhode Island, Texas and Ohio primaries. After the incident, Samantha Power described Clinton as an “incredibly warm, funny role model for women.” She admitted that what she said was in a surge of frustration and that if Obama does not get the nomination she will be supporting Senator Clinton with the same eagerness. While Ms. Power did apologize for her “uncalled for” remark, is that enough to erase the consequences it caused?

Speaking too soon, Samantha Power made things harder for Obama. Her “monster” comment, directed towards Hillary Clinton, had many negative effects. Obama now has to try and fix his “Mr. Clean” image. This incident may lead Obama on the road of a bad reputation. Also, people may have changed their minds about Barack Obama. Those who once thought of him as a sincere, credible man may not view him as the same person anymore. This comment passed by Ms. Power has people wandering whether or not Obama and his team say one thing in public and another in private. Not only was this “episode” immature on Ms. Power’s part but led to her resigning and giving up her position on Obama’s staff. The biggest effect of this action is the heat it added between the two candidates. Hillary Clinton is now very skeptical about what Obama and his advisors say behind closed doors.

While there is really no bright side to this situation, Samantha Power was just expressing her opinion on the opposing candidate. It is unfortunate that she was unaware that she was still on record when she passed this comment but that is why certain things are better left unsaid. As a positive for Senator Clinton, this may give her some extra votes for those who are disappointed in Obama’s team and now want to vote against him. Hillary Clinton praised Obama in accepting Power’s decision to resign but like I said before she is still skeptical about the things him and his team say.

I do agree that Samantha Power’s remark was child-like and inappropriate. I believe she spoke too soon and was unaware of the fact that she was still on record. I do not think this remark will be erased very quickly but eventually it will be in the past and forgotten about. I think Obama will face some sort of consequence for this, whether it’s losing a few votes, losing part of his credibility, etc. During campaigning, every little thing counts. The press is all over the place looking for a good story to write about; not only the candidate but the entire team as well needs to watch what they say and do. While others learned from Ms. Power’s mistake, it cannot be taken back. Both candidates have to move on with their campaign and continue on their struggle to become the next President of the United States!

18 to Get In, 21 to Drink

After a week of stressful days at work and long hours at school everyone looks to get out and have fun on the weekend. The weekend is a time to let loose and ease the mind from any troubles or burdens throughout the week. For most young adults a night of fun involves going out with your friends, dancing the night away and just having a good time. What better place to do this then a bar or a club? However, in every bar and club there is usually some form of alcohol. So what should the age be to get into these places? Should it be strictly 21, or should 18 year olds be able to get in but not be allowed to drink?

People who oppose letting 18 year olds into places where alcohol is present have strong views as to why. For one, it is practically promoting underage drinking. Having those around alcohol who are under the legal age to drink is a strong temptation for them to get a drink anyway that they can. Even though places say it is 21 to drink once you get inside sometimes that is not the case. Bartenders tend to give drinks to anyone who is at the bar because after all that’s more tips for them at the end of the night. With this occurring underage drinkers are likely to get drunk. If for any reason a fight breaks out, the police show up and an underage drinker was the one involved, the bar or club could face serious consequences and possibly get shut down. This makes it not worth it for owners to let 18 year olds into their bar or club.

On the differing side are those owners who promote 18 year olds to come to their bar or club even though they cannot drink once inside. For owners, this is a huge sum of money they collect by allowing this age group to enter. Once the age of 18 is hit, people look to go out and get away from going to the movies, bowling, etc. Allowing 18 year olds to enter gives them a place to go and keeps them from wandering the streets. While you rarely here of a place for those old enough to go out but still too young to drink to go where no alcohol is present, bars and clubs are the only option granted alcohol is available. By allowing 18 year olds to be part of the club scene it gives them the chance to mingle with new people and perhaps meet a lifelong friend.

In my opinion I believe 18 year olds should be allowed to enter a bar or club even though they are unable to drink once they are inside. As long as they obey the rules of the bar or club I don’t see a reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to enter. As one gets older they begin to develop friendships with people of all ages. If an 18 year old hangs out with people a few years older then them, I don’t see why they should have to stay home while the rest of their friends go out because they are only 18. Eighteen is a tough age. It is a time when people are not children anymore but are not quite adults. With this in mind I feel 18 year olds should be given the upper hand and be allowed to enter a bar or a club with an 18 id.