I read an article about the health benefits of chocolate. Many people have disagreed whether it can actually help your body. Cacao, which is what chocolate is made out of very good for battling tooth decay. Although, milk chocolate has high sugar so it counters that benefit. The smell of chocolate can cause relaxation, and has a mild mood elevator. These are really small, so you do not usually feel those things. Also the cocoa butter contains a unsaturated fat that can raise good cholesterol. Drinking a cup of hot chocolate can diminish appetite, and men who eat chocolate are supposed to live a tear longer than men who don't.Even though chocolate may have all those benefits, it still has some problems.They're are also many lies about chocolate that people think is about it. Chocolate is not a main cause of acne, and it only contains a little caffeine, so it shouldn't cause nervous excitability. Chocolate does not cause bad cholesterol. But chocolate can cause headaches, and milk chocolate is high is sugar and fat.
I think Marguerite is trying to tell us to consider and think about chocolate more. She is not telling us that is completely bad for us and should never be eaten, but she is not saying it is great for you too. She is trying to get us to think about chocolate while were eating, thinking thoughts like, "should I eat this, even though it is kinda beneficial it has some bad things in it." The last line of the article is,"your sure to find some brand of chocolate you can enjoy with a clear conscience." She is saying that you should be able to eat chocolate without worrying about health risks, but you should remember that chocolate, how many benefits it may have, still has a lot of fat and sugar in it.
I think Marguerite is trying to say in her article that chocolate has many good and bad things. Most people consider it a "bad" food but it actually has some good qualaties. Although most of them are countered by the sugar and fat amount, chocolate can be almost called a "good" food.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Blog Post On Pride and Prejudice
I am reading Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.The main character, Elizabeth Bennet is a girl who lives with her family in Hertfordshire and her mother is desperate to get all her daughters married to the richest men in town. Elizabeth in the book, is not in a hurry to get married because she wants to marry the right man. Her sister Jane however, wants to get married and have kids and has already met someone that she likes. I think if I was Elizabeth, I would not be in a hurry to get married either. A married woman back in the early 19th century(when this book was written) lost nearly all her rights and was almost the sole property of her husband. Even though this sounds really bad, they often lived happy lives and had many children.
Here is a quote from the book,"it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." And mostly through what I have read, it is true. Mr. Bingley, who is the topic of this sentence, likes Jane but sadly moves away for the winter. Jane's family though he was going to settle down and maybe marry their daughter, but to their sadness he did not. The women in this book are quite sneaky, and they gossip a lot. Mrs. Bennet, Jane and Elizabeth's mother, is very critical of her daughters. Although that is understanding, she often goes out of her way to make sure they are following the rules and behaving proper. If I had a mother like that I would be very loose and want to break free of her iron grip. Neither Elizabeth and Jane try too, but Elizabeth sometimes feels overburdened by the stress her mother gives her.
Elizabeth so far in the book has only liked one man a little, Mr. Darcy. Although he is quiet and doesn't seem to have much affection for Elizabeth, she still is very fond of him. If she marries him or not will probably happen later in the book.
Here is a quote from the book,"it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." And mostly through what I have read, it is true. Mr. Bingley, who is the topic of this sentence, likes Jane but sadly moves away for the winter. Jane's family though he was going to settle down and maybe marry their daughter, but to their sadness he did not. The women in this book are quite sneaky, and they gossip a lot. Mrs. Bennet, Jane and Elizabeth's mother, is very critical of her daughters. Although that is understanding, she often goes out of her way to make sure they are following the rules and behaving proper. If I had a mother like that I would be very loose and want to break free of her iron grip. Neither Elizabeth and Jane try too, but Elizabeth sometimes feels overburdened by the stress her mother gives her.
Elizabeth so far in the book has only liked one man a little, Mr. Darcy. Although he is quiet and doesn't seem to have much affection for Elizabeth, she still is very fond of him. If she marries him or not will probably happen later in the book.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Blog Post on The Lovely Bones
I just read The Lovely Bones and one of the questions I am going to answer is, was justice served? I do not think world justice was served, only personal justice to Susie (the main characters) family. In the book, a fourteen year old girl named Susie gets raped and killed and the story is told from her in heaven watching over her family members react to her death and deal with it in their own way. Like I was saying, in the long sense justice isn't served. Susie's body is never found, only her elbow and part of her necklace and hat. Although her rapist Mr. Harvey dies, it is many years later and no one finds out until much later in time.
Even though in the long sense justice isn't served, Susie's family throughout the book grieves for her until the end, where they can finally find calmness. They feel relieved at last that Susie can now rest in peace, and they feel the burden of her death go away. They will never forget her, but they will also feel better when they remember her.
The whole book is told through Susie's eyes, even though she is dead and in heaven. Heaven, what Susie thinks is,"different for everyone, yet some merge into mine and others." In the book, heaven is portrayed through what most people think today. A happy place, where you can get everything you want and can look over the one's you love. I think that although heaven is nice, it is showing the injustice of the people who died young, or were murdered. Susie's own personal justice is at first not served while she is in heaven, she feels lost and sad and even wanting vengeance for her death. All the people that die unwilling such as dying young feel that justice should be served when dead, and even everything in heaven won't soothe them because everything they want is to be alive again.
I feel that in some ways justice was served to everybody, but in a way it was served to nobody. Mr. Harvey never got arrested, Susie's family went through difficult family trouble that nearly split their family apart. But through it all, they all feel that their personal justice was served because they could let go of Susie. This made me think of questions about justice, can justice be served without the law and someone having to pay? Is personal justice really justice?
Even though in the long sense justice isn't served, Susie's family throughout the book grieves for her until the end, where they can finally find calmness. They feel relieved at last that Susie can now rest in peace, and they feel the burden of her death go away. They will never forget her, but they will also feel better when they remember her.
The whole book is told through Susie's eyes, even though she is dead and in heaven. Heaven, what Susie thinks is,"different for everyone, yet some merge into mine and others." In the book, heaven is portrayed through what most people think today. A happy place, where you can get everything you want and can look over the one's you love. I think that although heaven is nice, it is showing the injustice of the people who died young, or were murdered. Susie's own personal justice is at first not served while she is in heaven, she feels lost and sad and even wanting vengeance for her death. All the people that die unwilling such as dying young feel that justice should be served when dead, and even everything in heaven won't soothe them because everything they want is to be alive again.
I feel that in some ways justice was served to everybody, but in a way it was served to nobody. Mr. Harvey never got arrested, Susie's family went through difficult family trouble that nearly split their family apart. But through it all, they all feel that their personal justice was served because they could let go of Susie. This made me think of questions about justice, can justice be served without the law and someone having to pay? Is personal justice really justice?
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Blog Post on Rash
I recently read Rash and the question I picked is was justice served? I think that justice is a way was solved for the main character Bo. Bo lives in the future, where everything is super safe and people are sent to prison for doing something as small as littering. Bo, unfairly gets sent to a prison camp where he meets friends and plays football, which is illegal. When Bo gets unfairly sent to prison, he is mad and confused. Although he did create some crimes, they are not strong enough for him to get sent to prison. Even though he gets out of prison, he does not feel satisfied that his life has been fixed. There are still unfair laws restricting peoples' basic rights. I feel that justice is being served only with his personal justice.
I feel that the people who were stopping the justice is the people who created the laws. They didn't realize that people should have personal freedom and laws should not be that strict. Even tough unconsciously they do not know they are stopping the justice, they are. What is ironic is that they are supposed to be represent justice yet they are doing the opposite. I think the one who is bring justice is Bork, Bo's animation monkey that aids him throughout the book. He is the one who manages to get Bo out of prison, and he helps out his family. Even though he is just a creation on a computer, at the end of the book he posses enough intelligence as a human.
I feel like in the real world justice wouldn't be served at all, even personal justice. If the United States did change their laws, I doubt that a computer creation could outwit them. In the book, there is no general justice served because the laws didn't change, and I feel like that would be true in the real world. Bo's personal justice is given to him almost by a accident. If this was the real world, I doubt that anything would change to the better, or change at all.
I feel that the people who were stopping the justice is the people who created the laws. They didn't realize that people should have personal freedom and laws should not be that strict. Even tough unconsciously they do not know they are stopping the justice, they are. What is ironic is that they are supposed to be represent justice yet they are doing the opposite. I think the one who is bring justice is Bork, Bo's animation monkey that aids him throughout the book. He is the one who manages to get Bo out of prison, and he helps out his family. Even though he is just a creation on a computer, at the end of the book he posses enough intelligence as a human.
I feel like in the real world justice wouldn't be served at all, even personal justice. If the United States did change their laws, I doubt that a computer creation could outwit them. In the book, there is no general justice served because the laws didn't change, and I feel like that would be true in the real world. Bo's personal justice is given to him almost by a accident. If this was the real world, I doubt that anything would change to the better, or change at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)