East of Eden (pg 201-225)

After Cathy shot Adam, the Trask couple is under investigation by deputy sherriff Horace Quinn. For some odd reason, while Adam extends his nose and tries to protect Cathy by concealing the truth and "acting dumb." Meanwhile, Cathy travels to Salinas to answer her true calling and looks for work in one of the three local whorehouses. At first site, Faye, the owner and supervisor of the whore house is astonished that such an "angel-like" girl would want to become a whore. Faye is suspicious of Cathy's motive for wanting to be a whore; however, restrains herself from prying too much. After all she would be shocked if not apalled if she had found out that Cathy had just shot her husband and left behind her two newborn sons. Not wanting to refuse work to whore with high potential, Faye gives her a room. A little later, the deputy sherriff finds Cathy at the whore house and questions her. From the begining Cathy who has changed her name to Kate has been a great asset to the brothel. Faye has also take a greate liking to her.

Why is Adam trying to protect Cathy? Does Adam care about his kids? Why doesn't anyone tell
Adam the truth about Cathy's whereabouts?

East of Eden (pg 176-200)

The true monster that lay in Cathy is finally revealed. A mother who won’t nurse her children, a wife who shoots and leaves her husband- Cathy shows her true colors. When Samuel Hamilton was aiding Cathy in giving birth, the twins popped out like they wanted to be there in the first place. In the process of giving birth, Cathy unyieldingly mauls her helper’s hand and leaves him bleeding with a punctured hand. The Hamiltons play a critical role in the immediate care of the newborns by cleaning and managing the house, nursing the children, and taking care of the couple; Adam shows his gratitude and pays his saviors; however, Cathy repays the Adam by shooting him and the Hamiltons by leaving without a word.

Why doesn’t Cathy care about her children? Is Cathy human? Why did Cathy resent being with Adam so much?

East of Eden (pg 151-175)

False impressions and false love has dragged Adam to Salinas Valley. Now false hope leads him to believe that life in Salinas Valley will be ideal and his farm utopian. In pursuit of his utopian farm, Adam seeks the help of Samuel Hamilton to find some water on the farm. While traveling to and from the Trask farm, Samuel Hamilton is given the opportunity to converse with Adams butler, Lee. From their conversations, Hamilton discovers the manner that is expected of foreigners, the benefits of being a butler, and the true nature of the Trask household. "Pidgin they expect, and pidgin they'll listen to. But English from me they don't listen to, and so they don't understand it." Lee isn't understood by the ignorant unless he puts up the stereotypical front; such expectancies are prevalent today, the nature of contemporaray stereotypes and prejudices demonstrate such expectancies. "But a good servant... can completely control his master, tell him what to think, how to act, whom to marry, when to divorce, reduce him to terror as a discipline, or distribute happiness to him, and finally be mentioned in his will." The professions of butlers and servants are looked upon disdainfully and even condescendingly; however, its position is a powerful one.

Will Lee somehow influence anything in the Trask couple's relationship? Why do people expect certain people to act a certain way? What is pidgin?

East of Eden (pg 126-150)

Knocked up
After fornicating with her brother in law and getting pregnant, Adam and Cathy move to the Salinas Valley where Cathy tries to abort her babies, but is found out and almost sent to jail. Meanwhile, Adam makes friends with the Hamiltons and prospects for places to settle.
In the end Adam purchases a property called the Sanchez place from a man named Bordoni with hopes of creating a utopia for him and his soon to be family.
In this portion of the novel, the Hamiltons come into play. Samuel Hamilton is a brilliant man with endless ideas and skills; however, it seems that he isn't able to make much money. Adam acquaints Samuel at his house and purchases the Sanchez property from his advice. A man of many skills: blacksmithing, carpentering, digging wells, etc, Samuel is almost the handyman of the whole valley.

Why did Adam ever marry Cathy? Why does Samuel Hamilton have such horrible luck? Why doesn't Cathy want any kids?

East of Eden (pg 101-125)

Money, greed, and wealth. The Trask brothers' new found wealth has been constantly tearing the bond of the two Trask brothers apart since Cyrus bequeathed it upon them. While Adam wants to further invest it, Charles wants to make sure that the money was legitimate and that his father had acquired it through lawful methods. Adam is kicked out of the farm, only to come back again a few months after.
Then one day, the Trask brothers find a mysterious girl at their doorstep. Cathy who had recently been beaten up and left for dead dragged herself to the house of the Trasks and again, the Trask brothers quarrel over how to treat her. While Adam adamantly wants to treat her, Charles is hesitant. Through the course of her recovery, Adam takes care of her and Charles resents her being there. In the end, Adam marries her; however, on the night of the wedding, Cathy drugs Adam and sleeps with Charles (what a whore, I hate her and Charles).

Why did Cathy sleep with Charles? Vice versa? Will Adam ever find out about the adultery? Do these people have any morals?

East of Eden (pg 76-100)

Monster. Cathy seemed like she was going to be one of the finest young ladies in town: fair skinned, uniquely bueatiful, and very educated. However, she turned out to be a cold hearted, emotionless creature that had no compassion, even towards her loving parents. Cathy never lived the childhood of an ordinary little girl. She was found half naked in a barn with two boys and her arms tied, she witnessed the corpse of her teacher who had committed suicide with a shotgun; this isn't even the beginning. As the 4th 25 pages of the novel unravels, Cathy shows her true colors: she burns her house down, steals her parents money, and runs off to a whorehouse in search of work. In her plight to find work, Cathy encounters a pimp named Mr. Edwards who funs a successful ring of prostitutes all over the county. Now Mr. Edwards falls in love with Cathy, he sees in her qualities not fitting for a prostitutes, so he keeps her for his own private affairs.

Why did Cathy leave home and become a prostitute? Is Cathy evil? Why or why not? Why is Cathy so cold hearted and callous? Why did Cathy leave her potentially successful life and pursue a career in prostitution?

East of Eden (51-75)

After being discharged from the cavalry, Adam wanders around the country living the life of a hobo. Charles diligently takes care of the farm and Cyrus passes away. It would turn out that Cyrus had become a very rich man. With around $100,000, Adam and Charles are caought in a constant struggle to determine what should be done with the money. While Charles is reluctant to do anything with the money, Adam's unwavering desire to take the money and settle in California traps them in constant bickering.
Aside from the continuation of the Trask story, a new character, Catherine Ames is introduced into the story as ... a monster. On the surface, Cathy is the as innnocent and pretty as any little girl. However, she lies for no good and was caught half naked in a barn with two boys.

Will the Trask brothers and Cathy ever meet? What can be expected of Cathy in the future? How can a girl be so tainted at such a young age?

East of Eden (pg 26-50)

This is one screwed up family. The father doesn't have a leg. His first wife drowned herself in a puddle of water a few inches deep. And now, the younger son has attempted to murder to his older half brother. Sounds like a 19th century soap opera. In the 2nd 25 pages of East of Eden by John Steinbeck, Charles' resentment towards Cyrus' unbalanced affection is revealed. Because it seems that Cyrus loves Adam more, Charles beats Adam to a pulp and attempts to kill him. However, his attempt fails and Adam is enlisted in the cavalry within 3 days. Cyrus leaves the farm to work for the government and Adam slaughters Indians for a living while Charles is left slaving at the farm. While working on the farm, Charles accidentally inflicts a wound upon himself which produces a growing scar on his forhead while Adam meets a bartender with a similar scar. Interesting...

What is the significance of the scar on the forehead of Charles and the forehead of the bartender Adam befriends? Do you think Adam has changed after his military service? Will Adam return to the farm?

East of Eden (pg 1-25)

In a seemingly peaceful and serene place called Salinas Valley is a lattice of tightly knit households in a small community. I this valley, those with fertile land are rich and those without are poor. In the first 25 pages of John Steinbeck's East of Eden, many families are portrayed and their familial histories shuffled. In the midst of looking through such familial histories, dark pasts unfold: a mother/wife drowns herself in a puddle of water not a foot deep. So far, the focus of the book are the Hamilton and Trask families. The Hamiltons have a surplus of kids and the Trasks have two sons which in a sense resemble Cain and Abel. "Chstlrd moved close and struck him in the face with his bat...swung his bat and hit him in the ribs...swung at his head and knocked him out. And as Adam lay unconscious on the ground, Charles kicked him heavily in the stomach and walked away" (pg 23). Maybe just a bit brutal for beating him in a game of peewee, the younger, beat the older brother because he won one lousy game. In addition to enduring such beatings, Adam will be forced to join the military while Charles the violent one won't be forced to join the military.

Will this relationship between brothers eventually lead to fratricide? Being the elder brother, should Adam put Charles in his place? Why will Adam and not Charles be forced to join the military?

The Things They Carried

A vivid depiction of the brutality of the Vietnam War on the psyches of the American soldiers that fought in it. In The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien reveals the intangible burdens that the soldiers of the Vietnam War carried. In retrospect, Tim O'Brien discovers the causes of the demise of his fellow comrades in civilian life. By portraying scenes where soldiers explode a puppy and shoot a water buffalo calf to death without feeling a bit of remorse, Tim O'Brien demonstrates the plight of the American soldiers are they struggle to stay sane and find the will to fight on. This book was very intriguing because it addressed aspects of war that are usually looked over. When people think of war, they think of bullets, blood, and death; however the ability to perceive such brutality and stay sane is what tests a soldeir's tenacity and will.

Argument: Although physical capability keeps one's body intact in a war, one's adaptability and strength of mind is what keeps one sane and functioning properly.

Question: As a teenage student, do you carry any intangible burdens?

FREAKONOMICS chunk three

In today's society, education is a nessecity on the road to success. To obtain a quality education, it is necessary for one to have responsible and caring parents. But how much effect does a parent have on the outcome of one's success? It is not what the parents do for the children, but what they are? It turns out that parents who have a higher education tend to have smarter children that the parents who go the extra mile to read to their kids every night and so forth. All the extra help such as the HeadStart Program can only do so much, the outcome of a child's life is more dependant on the resume of the parents. Contradictory to emperical ideas, the amount of television viewed by the child or the amount of video games played by the child hardly affects the success of a child.
The name of a child doesn't determine his/her success, rather, their names are an indicator of their socioeconomic status which influences their life. Certain opportunities and resources are only available to the more fortunate and economically stable of families. These are the factors that determine the life one is to have. Names are but indicators of socioeconomic status. The wealthy tend to have more uncommon names because they make them up while the names of the monetarily challenged are those that have been hackneyed by the rich. Although parents name their children with names that "sound" successful, they won't succeed unless the parents have set an example for them to follow. Again, Dubner and Levitt have tackled a facet of economics (which no one else has questioned) to contradict an empirical hypothesis and state the actual reason.

Rhetorical Terms:
Statistics: stats on names from various years
Appeal to Logic:the whole book

What do you think are some names that are common for high and low socioeconomic families?
How do names "sound" successful? What are some?
Do you think one's socioeconomic status dictates their success? Why or why not?

FREAKONOMICS chunck 2

Why do drug dealers live with their moms? By analyzing the studies of Sudhir Venkatesh, a PhD student at the University of Chicago, Levitt and Dubner have exposed the inner workings of the drug markets and discovered why drug dealers still live with their mothers. What started with a life or death encounter with a gang of drug dealers turned out to be an experience that has provided a wealth of information pertaining to the hierarchy of drug dealers and its similarity to the hierarchies of some of the most succesful corporations ever founded. Venkatesh's research has shown that only the executives of the drug industry, much like the executives of a major corporation rake in large incomes. While the executives earn around $200,000 a year, the foot soldiers (who do the actual dealing) earn less than half of the minimum wage (around $3.30 an hour). This explains why drug dealers still live with their moms. Not only do the foot soldiers earn less than half of minimum wage, their working conditions are the worst in the world- they risk being arrested, shot at by crackheads and/or rival gangs, etc. There is a 25% that a drug dealer will get killed while on the job. How can people still hold drug dealers in high esteem when they still live with their mothers, earn less than half of the minimum wage, and have a 25% chance of getting killed?
In this chunk, Levitt and Dubner also tackle the sudden decrease in crime rates in the 1990s. Again, Levitt's unconventional methods yield unexpected answers that are nonetheless highly plausible. The steep drop of crime rates in the 1990s have raised many questions about how and why they dropped. Although all fingers point to laws pertaining to the stricter law enforcement and harsher punishments, Levitt has proven that the real reason behind it was the legalization of abortion. Most criminals originate from households with single or negligent parents who either don't have the time to care or just don't care. These parents don't provide the necessary care for their children and therefore, their childern inevitably deviate from a correct the correct path and are bred into criminals. However, Levitt has reasoned that because these potential criminals were never born, their imminent crimes were never committed. The preventing of the births of potential criminals is the main reason that crime rates have dropped. Again, the unconventional thinking of Levitt and Dubner have provided unforeseen answers to everyday questions.

Tone: technical and sincere

Rhetorical Terms:
1. Appeal to Logos: this whole book appeals to logic, no matter how unconventional it may be. With assumably accurate facts and statistics, Levitt and Dubner validate their arguments.
2. Statistics: their specific numbers pertaining to the drug industry and drop in crime rates adds credibility to the argument.

Questions:
1. Do the beneficial effects of the legalization of abortions outweigh the moral discrepancies of abortion itself?
2. Why do drug dealers still deal drugs even with all of its drawbacks?

FREAKNONOMICS, 1st Chunk

Approaching the the world of economics from a new viewpoint, Freakonomics applies the basic principles of economics to society. With the most basic of economic principles, Freakonomics is able to explain why teachers and sumo wrestlers cheat and how the KKK and real estate agents utilize agents to maximize their profits and gains. By using these examples, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner are able to explain the concept of incentives and the utilization of information that is ubiquitous in economics. Incentives run the economic world, they can either stimulate business or scare it away. Sumo wrestlers help each other out (win some and lose some(on purpose)) in order to stay in the elite class. Meanwhile teachers cheat for students on standardized tests to receive more money. Information can be used to foil the plans of a national terrorist organization or sell your own home for more profit than someone else's. Real estate agents take advantage of their knowledge and the ignorance of the average home owner to sell their home at a higher rate. The business of one bagel man, a former executive, illustrates the morality involved in economics. People feel more obligated to stay true to their morals when they're closer to the significan other, people lower on the executive ladder appear to have truer ethics than their bosses, and people neglect payment less and steal less when in a more tightly knit group. A unique book, Freakonomics is able to dissect the complicated concepts of economics and demonstrate them through practical every day occurrences and history. All this is said in the first two chapters of the book.

What makes you happy?

Happiness is different for every individual, and what makes one happy is also unique to everyone. However in an Opinion piece from the LA Times entitled "Finding Your Happy Place"(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-weiner2jan02,0,1501976.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions) by Eric Weiner states that happiness originates from external factors of one's life, environment, and society like the "quality of government, social interactions and, to an extent, money" (Maybe that's why Americans are so unhappy). In the first ever happiness map (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uol-uol072706.php) made by the University of Leicester in Britain, countries are listed in chronological order according to the happiness of its citizens. In today's materialistic society, trivial chattels like luxury cars, I-Pods, or MONEY increase one's "subjective well-being, " so do these external factors really matter? If looked at from a broader perspective, it is the government and society that allows individuals to have such material goods. However, monetarily challenged Latin countries are happier than America. A democratic America, ranked 23rd fairs well in comparison to the decadent chaos into which countries such as Zimbabwe (177th) and the "Democratic Rebublic" of Congo (176th) have fallen in. According to this article, the amount of happiness one can achieve depends on where one is situated. So if one wants to be happy, visit countries such as Denmark (VIKINGS and haven for homo-sexuals (1st country to allow same sex marraige)), Switzerland (watches and Alps), and Austria (Einstein and "I'LL BE BACK")

Tone: enthusiastic

What is happiness to you? What makes you happy? Why?

Heaven: Fact or Fiction?

Heaven is what one wants it to be. An imaginary salvation that is anticipated by those who have a hard time in life and expect a reward for being a good samaritan. Just like the religions that force individuals to believe in an non-existent utopian fantasy, the thought of going to heaven makes people feel better and more secure. In an Opinion piece by Joel Stein entitled "A Little Bit of Heaven on Earth" (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-stein21dec21,1,5522577.column?ctrack=1&cset=true), Joel Stein preaches to the public about the outdated version of heaven. "Heaven is totally overrated. It seems boring. Clouds, listening to people play the harp. It should be somewhere you can't wait to go, like a luxury hotel. Maybe blue skies and soft music were enough to keep people in line in the 17th century, but heaven has to step it up a bit. They're basically getting by because they only have to be better than hell." This quote by Joel Stein which was published on Starbucks cups sparked an outrage that suggests that "heaven is a mere fantasy custom tailored to the desires of each individual One outraged indivudual responded to the quote on the Starbucks cup: "I was thinking it was sad that you looked at heaven that way. I wanted you to know about the heaven I know about and I look forward to go to" . So is heaven a fixed utopia that one reaches after a righteous life? Or is it just a dream of which everyone has their own version that can be obtained on Earth? An article that first questions the contemporary views of heaven leads to a debate about the existence of heaven and which ultimately challenges the existence of "God." Religion provides salvation for people during life and heaven is a facet of religion that ensures salvation after death. This practical and potentially controversial article challenges the existence of heaven, ridicules the existence of Jesus and forces one to question...Does heaven exist? Which may lead one to inquire: Does "God" exist?

Tone: casual and mocking

Do you think heaven exists? Why? How do you visualize heaven?

Rid the English Curriculum of the Past Tense

Analysis
In this satirical piece from the Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/underfunded_schools_forced_to_cut), an anonymous author addresses the controversy over cutting the past tense from English programs in underfunded schools. Although seemingly unintended for a particular audience, this article is directed to people aware of underfunded schools and offers an alternative to cutting "unessential" music and art programs. The past tense is a thing of the past and society should look towards the future rather than linger in the past in order to progress. According to a satirically invented quote by Utah's Republican senator, Orrin Hatch, "Our tax dollars should be spent preparing our children for the future, not for what has already happened . . . It's about time we stopped wasting everyone's time with who 'did' what or 'went' where. The past tense is, by definition, outdated." A typical Republican defined by pro creative education cuts and the supposed "No Child Left Behind Policies," Hatch has defended the actions of the pedophile Mark Foley. The article's satirical point attacks the paradoxical views of the Republicans like Orrin Hatch in the field of educational reform. If art and music programs are so unnecessary that they are deserving of cuts, why not omit the past tense from the English curriculum?

Does the author’s mocking tone make the argument more powerful?
Why do people see art and music programs as inessential?