Individual Reading -the last part.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GWmbkA0q3DMazuILag4_XGMhDxLqzGEGXAttN4WHK70/edit

W.S.Maugham "In a Strange Land”

W.S.Maugham "In a Strange Land”

Interpretation

Born in Paris, of Irish ancestry, Somerset Maugham was to lead a fascinating life and would become famous for his mastery of short evocative stories that were often set in the more obscure and remote areas of the British Empire. Suffering from a bad stammer, he received a classic public school education at King's school in Canterbury, Kent. Rather more unconventionally he studied at Heidelburg university where he read philosophy and literature. He then studied in London, eventually qualifying as a surgeon at St Thomas's hospital. He conducted his year's medical practice in the slums of the East End. It was here that he found material for his first, rather lurid, novel Liza of Lambeth in 1897 and much of the material for his critically acclaimed autobiographical novel Of Human Bondage although this wasn't to be published until 1915.

Continuing with more peacable travels, Maugham took to the South Seas, where he visited the island of Tahiti and on which he based his novel The Moon and Sixpence. Sickness would then force Maugham to return and remain in a Scottish tubercoulosis sanatorium. However, on recovery, he returned to the Far East and collected imperial information and experiences that would form the basis of many short stories, plays and novels: East of Suez in 1922, Our Betters in 1923 and The Letter in 1927, are amongst the better known of these.

I think the title has only direct meaning, dealing with a foreign country which is unfamiliar and odd to you. The main character observed the behavior of old English who leave their native land.

The story touches upon many problems, but the major one, in my opinion, is love without borders.

The narrator  stood at the hotel in Turkey where he met Signore Niccolini - an  English woman. She was a house-keeper in service in a noble English family, and her husband Signor Niccolini was a chef. Later the couple bought a hotel and after many years she continued living there but without the husband. Signor Niccolini had died and his wife adopted his sons and she never returned back to England. This story shocked the narrator because it was strange for him to get accustomed to a place and lost the contact with the relatives.

The main idea of the story is connected with the fact that one should know one's roots. It is impossible to grow into the foreign culture fully. Origin would give oneself away.

I would like to tell about Signora Niccolini; she was an Englishwoman, living in Turkey for many years. She described directly. She looked exactly like a house-keeper in a great English house. She looked upon everyone who wasn’t English as a foreigner and therefore as someone, almost imbecile, for whom allowances must be made. She ruled her staff despotically, and everything about the hotel was clean and neat. Signora Niccolini speak Turkish very well but her cockney accent made her quite recognized for the narrator.

The story seems to me very interesting, because of the way it is organized and the number of the themes that are mentioned there.

When you are in love with someone who belongs to your usual environment, you somehow know them and things are easier. However, when you fall in love with a stranger—who may even be a foreigner—things are quite different. People that have a mentality influenced by traditions are different from people that are dominated by modernism for example, and if you are in love with someone who belongs to a family with a mentality totally different to yours, things will be quite difficult between you two. What is really important in a relationship is the other person’s personality. If their personality fits with yours, you’ll be happy!

However, if you are in love with a foreigner, you’ll have more obstacles and difficulties in order to find out who they really are, because of all the problems we have already examined and many others. So, do your best in order to learn everything you can about the unknown person before getting too involved with them, without really understanding who you are with.

Individual Reading Part 3

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GWmbkA0q3DMazuILag4_XGMhDxLqzGEGXAttN4WHK70/edit

Rendering 12

The editorial published on the website of the newspaper "The New York Times” on November 1, 2012 is headlined “As Wolves’ Numbers Rise, So Does Friction BetweenGuardians and Hunters’’. The author (STEVEN YACCINO) gives us some details about the situation in the United States. The article touches upon the fact that  Ms. Dowler cares for five full-grown purebreds. She bottle-fed them as pups and howls with them at passing sirens. The other day she gave one breath mints through a hole in the fence, passing it directly from her lips to his.

It was revealed that  Hers seems a fairy tale world compared with the legal dogfights occurring beyond these kennels. Out there, Wisconsin is three weeks into its first wolf-hunting season, sanctioned by the State Legislature in April. Minnesota is scheduled to begin its first registered wolf hunt this weekend.Moreover, the legalization of wolf hunting in both states was devised to manage a rebounding wolf population after the federal government stopped listing the species as endangered in the region last year. Both have drawn lawsuits from local and national animal rights groups that fear the undoing of nearly four decades of work to restore a healthy number of wolves.

The article carries a lot of comment on the fact that since the wolf hunt began last month, at least 42 have been killed in Wisconsin. All told, officials expect 600 wolves will die at the hands of hunters and trappers in the two states before spring. Wolves were once so numerous in the United States that ranchers and government agencies paid people to kill them. By the time the Endangered Species Act began protecting wolves in 1973, they were nearing extinction in the lower 48 states. Today, wolf numbers have grown to 4,000 and exceeded recovery goals in the western Great Lakes area, according to federal estimates. In addition, Wisconsin humane groups have filed a lawsuit to prohibit the use of dogs for hunting wolves, calling it cruel. Minnesota advocates also took legal action against their state in an attempt to stop its hunt, which lasts from Nov. 3 to Jan. 31. And Minnesota’s Chippewa tribes have banned wolf hunting and trapping on its reservation lands.

The main purpose of the article is to give the reader some information about  animal rights groups have little sympathy for the hunters. They argue that the state kill quotas do not properly account for other ways that wolves can die, like poaching and vehicular collisions and the killing of the animals by farmers and ranchers protecting their livestock. Those additional causes, they say, could put the animals at risk again.

Analyzing the situation in the word it is necessary to emphasize that people absolutely love wolves  or they absolutely hate them. There are few people in the middle. So many animals are now in danger of extinction that a list is kept in a Red Book. unfortunately, the list gets longer every year.We should do something, we can’t wait. We mustn’t wait!

Individual Reading

Without Remorse

Rendering 11

The editorial published on the website of the newspaper "The New York Times” on November 24, 2012 is headlined "Swallowing Rain Forest, Cities Surge in Amazon". The author (SIMON ROMERO) gives us some details about the situation in Brazil. The article touches upon the fact that the Amazon has been viewed for ages as a vast quilt of rain forest interspersed by remote river outposts. But the surging population growth of cities in the jungle is turning that rural vision on its head and alarming scientists, as an array of new industrial projects transforms the Amazon into Brazil’s fastest-growing region. However,the reporter concidered that the torrid expansion of rain forest cities is visible in places like Parauapebas, which has changed in a generation from an obscure frontier settlement with gold miners and gunfights to a sprawling urban area with an air-conditioned shopping mall, gated communities and a dealership selling Chevy pickup trucks.

It was revealed that scientists are studying such developments and focusing on the demands on the resources of the Amazon, the world’s largest remaining area of tropical forest. Though Brazilian officials have historically viewed the colonization of the Amazon as a matter of national security — military rulers built roads to the forest under the slogan “Occupy it to avoid surrendering it” — deforestation in the region already ranks among the largest contributors to global greenhouse-gas emissions.

The article carries a lot of comment on various factors ,fueling this growth, among them larger family sizes and the Amazon’s high levels of poverty in comparison with other regions that draw people to the cities for work. While Brazil’s birthrate has fallen to 1.86 children per woman, one of the lowest in Latin America, the Amazon has Brazil’s highest rate, at 2.42.

The main purpose of the article is to give the reader  some information about  the region’s economic allure. For example, in Parauapebas, an open-pit iron ore mine provides thousands of jobs. Plans for additional mines here, supported largely by forecasts of robust demand in China, have lured many to this corner of the Amazon in search of work. Just since the 2010 census, the city’s population has swelled to an estimated 220,000 from 154,000.

Analysing the situation in the word it is necessary to emphasize that  it seems difficult to substantiate the situation deals with pollution. Globally, to protect nature mankind should change their attitude to it. As for me, I think that man people all over the world do everything to protect their nature, to make their country richer, to make their life happier. Our environment must be clean. What must we do for it? We have to control atmospheric and water pollution, to study the man's influence on the climate. The pollution of the environment influences the life of animals, plants and our human life. If we don't use chemicals in a proper way we'll pollute our environment.

Rendering 10

The article published on the website of the newspaper ‘’The New York Times” on August 21, 2012  is headlined “CourtBlocks E.P.A. Rule on Cross-State Pollution”. The article takes a critical view of the fact that a federal appeals court overturned a federal rule that laid out how much air pollution states would have to clean up to avoid incurring violations in downwind states. It  leads to the argument over how to mesh a system of state-by-state regulation with the problem of industrial smokestacks pumping pollutants into a single atmosphere.

Speaking of this situation it is interesting to note that the agency was trying to address a problem that has vexed the air pollution control system for at least three decades: how to deal with states whose own air meets standards but whose power plants, refineries and other industrial plants emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollutants that — wind-aided — prevent neighboring states from attaining the level of cleanliness required under federal law.

Moreover, there are also signs that the rule thrown out on Tuesday, called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, was the agency’s attempt to fix an earlier version, the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule, which in 2008 a court ordered the E.P.A to make changes in. Analysts suggested that it would take several years to rewrite the rule rejected on Tuesday. The appeals court said the E.P.A. had been authorized to set rules that would require upwind states “to bear responsibility for their fair share of the mess in downwind states.

Analyzing the situation it’s necessary to emphasize that rather than apportion the reductions according to the amount of pollution that each upwind state was contributing, the E.P.A. was seeking to require cleanup according to the cost of the reductions, so that the work would get done in the places where the cost of capturing a ton of sulfur or nitrogen oxides was the lowest. The agency was seeking to create a trading system in which the states could buy and sell pollution credits, with the actual work being done in the places where it was easiest to do it.

There indications that the court said that under this scheme, the agency had improperly required states “to reduce their emissions by more than their own significant contribution to a downwind state’s nonattainment,” according to the opinion, written by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and joined by Judge Thomas B. Griffith.

All in all, the author of the article doesn't express his own opinion - he just plainly describes the fact and opinions of different politicians. For example, Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented from the ruling. She said that the states had filed their challenge late and that the court had no authority to consider it. She said the court should “give deference to E.P.A.’s permissible interpretations” where the Clean Air Act was “silent or ambiguous.” But Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an electric utility group, pointed out that the ruling leaves the previous Clean Air Interstate Rule in place. That, he said, along with other provisions of the Clean Air Act, “ensures adequate protections remain in place to handle interstate air pollution.” The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, said in a statement, “This is a win for American families, who, because of this rule, faced the threat of higher power bills, less reliable electricity and job losses.”

As for me, I think that If we are unable to learn to use the environment carefully and protect it from damage caused by man’s activities, very soon we’ll have no world to live in. The Earth is our home but much of it is dirty and dying. Rapid industrial development caused a lot of ecological problems. They are: air pollution, water pollution, growth of population and shortage of mineral resources. Air becomes polluted in many ways. Cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, factories and plants send burnt gases into the air. The production of electricity causes not only air pollution but acid rains and global warming. Because of acid rains the Earth looses twenty million acres of tropical rainforests every year. Seventy percent of the Earth is covered by oceans. Oceans are vital for the life on Earth. They provide homes for millions of plants and animals, provide people with food and help regulate the climate. But now they are a big dumping ground for tons of toxic waste. Most big cities pour their waste into seas and rivers. For a long time people did not realize the danger. We need clean air to breathe and pure water to drink. We need also food that is safe to eat and housing to shelter us. We can't get all these things by ourselves. 

We live in community so we can solve our problems only working together. Russia is co-operating in the field of environmental protection with the USA, Canada, Norway, Finland and other countries. A lot of public organizations have been established. One of them is Green Peace which was formed in 1971 with its Head-quarters in Amsterdam. The area of operation is 25 countries world-wide. Its objectives are to protect wild life and atmosphere, to prevent disposal of toxic waste and nuclear tests.

The Pelican Brief (1993)

The Pelican Brief (1993)

Cast: 

Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Sam Shepard, John Heard, William Atherton, John Lithgow, Stanley Tucci

Director:

 Alan J. Pakula

Synopsis:

 Law student Darby Shaw writes a brief about the assassination of two Supreme Court justices. Her brief makes its way into the wrong hands, marking her for death. She turns to Washington newspaper reporter Gray Grantham for help, and as he learns her story, an incredible conspiracy unfolds.

Review: 

The shocking news that two Supreme Court justices have been brutally murdered is baffling to both the White House and the F.B.I.. The president, a conservative Republican, senses that there may be a political connection to his administration that could be damaging to his reelection bid. And he wants answers. But the FBI fails to establish a motive or come up with a credible list of suspects. Meanwhile in New Orleans, Darby Shaw, a Tulane law student, notes the timing of the murders and suspects that there may be a plot to pack the Court with conservatives. What is puzzling, however, is how dissimilar the murdered justices were. One was a ninety-year-old liberal patriarch of the Court, the other a young conservative justice.

While making her investigation, Darby meets Gray Grantham. He tells her that her work can harm the president and all what they have are theories .When Grantham's editor tells him that they have nothing that he should drop cause the man she implicated is extremely powerful. However, the film ends with the glory of Darby and Gray.

As for performance of the actors, I was impressed by   J.Roberts. Julia is a natural at acting; it just comes easily to her. I have loved her for a long time and nobody can take away her level of talent. I think she should be recognised more as an actress, though, because she has the looks and she does not pretend to be something she's not. I also love her smile, a smile that is not easily forgot.

After watching the film, I have mixed feelings. I like the way the movie was produced. There's an interesting structure where one character unravels the mystery quite early on, but it's only slowly revealed to us while she tries to escape her opponents and publicize their misdeeds However, it was difficult for me to understand who is who just at the beginning. I also liked the ending because the director did not push the love story angle too far in hopes of attracting romance audience and it gave us room for imagination as to what could possibly transpire between the student and the news writer.

I can conclude that the main theme is the innocent bystander against the System, against the odds. I like the triumph of justice.