I don't often read newspaper articles, and somehow had a strange suspicion that the authors for the newspaper used biased assumptions towards certain events- all the time, but I was wrong. In the article from the Globe and Mail, the author Marcus Gee states that a potential future mayor of Toronto is nailing it's present mayor, openly wanting him kicked out. Marcus Gee didn't actually include a physical opinion of what he "prefers", in the article, but in the mean time, he included arguments that Olivia Chow had made, offending Rob Ford.
The main idea of the news "flash" article (as previously written), was that Olivia Chow was nailing Rob Ford, constantly with problematic situations that our mayor was not able to solve, complete or even start. Some of the arguments that the Chow campaign included, was that Rob Ford had started many impossible projects in Toronto, that would collapse the economy.
Miss Chow is definitely nailing Rob Ford hard, with his mistakes...
Since the news print wasn't a long article, it didn't include many characters. The main characters mentioned, were Miss Olivia Chow: a driven politician who is running for mayor. She wants to convince Torontonians that she has things in common with the voters, (she came as an immigrant to Canada), which could relate her to most of the public. The next character mentioned was Rob Ford. He was being "prosecuted" by miss Chow, after his horrific job as mayor. Throughout the article, Miss Chow constantly nails him with complaints from the public, advertising problems that he hadn't solved properly. Olivia Chow's campaign was mentioned quite a few times, supporting their possible future mayor, and going around the city, trying to convince Torontonians to vote for the "Chow campaign. Lastly, the politician "John Tory" was mentioned, in one of the arguments that Olivia Chow had. Tory and Ford were apparently responsible for the major subway going to Scarborough. In Chow's opinion, a much cheaper "light rail" would do fine, as Rob Ford (and John Tory) have no idea where they will achieve the needed money.
In the article, I think there was a hint of a bias opinion from the author. Of course it's fair to be a little bit sided to the opposite character of a "crack cocaine mayor". But on the other hand, the repeated quotes and events that were completely against Rob Ford, with the minority of arguments against Olivia Chow was just a pinch over the top. As I stated that the author had included much of the strategies and "disses" that Olivia Chow had told Rob Ford, he only included a small area informing that she hadn't given any reasons why voters should vote for her, reasons why she could change Toronto, or what she would do. All her strategy was, was to nail our present mayor, with the problems he couldn't, or hadn't solved. To conclude, I don't think that articles should have that small amount of biasses in it.
The article was actually quite well written. Somehow I didn't realize that you had to be a good writer, but the way the author added the bias part, and added in all the different areas of Chow's accusations, was really good. The news article was very informative, being a person who doesn't read, watch or listen to the news. I'd never heard of Olivia Chow beforehand, and as I read about the new possible mayor, I completely started to understand most of her strategies, and a lot of projects that mayor Rob Ford hadn't completed. This article could convince me to propose Olivia Chow as a "candidate" for my parents' options in the fall votes this year.
Olivia Chow, running for mayor
I think that Olivia Chow could be a good mayor for Toronto, because in the article she claimed that more affordable projects, rather than the faraway, unreachable projects that Rob Ford and John Tory had produced or agreed to. She also went around Toronto, to the areas that weren't being as funded, so there is a possibility that (from the article's view) she has recognized the low funded areas, and may help them if she became mayor. But, so far the Chow campaign has shown no promise
s or guarantees that Olivia Chow would meet all the wants of Torontonians, because she had been busily accusing Rob Ford, wanting the votes from his previous voters in the coming elections.
The author of the news article, Marcus Gee had composed the arguments against Rob Ford- by Olivia Chow well. Miss Chow has proven that Rob Ford has not only (already) made a fool of himself, but hasn't answered many wants or needs of the public. The unneeded mistakes that he did let miss Chow have a small advantage to hook Rob Ford's previous voters, and get them to vote for her. On a different page, the author included just a small hint of bias. Obviously most Torontonians don't approve of Rob Ford's moves in politics, but I still think that reporters shouldn't have a biassed opinion. Perhaps Olivia Chow can be our next mayor- the votes are coming up, this fall!
The first time I heard the overplayed pop song, by the teen singer “Lorde”, I got glued to the music- finding the upbeat song catchy, original and lively. The only thing that displeased me in the song, was that some gruesome words would strike out of the presentation, leaving the listener (me) questioned by the words. Other than that, I really enjoyed “Royals”! I don’t usually pay attention to songs on the radio, because of my family’s reputation of not listening to pop music that often. But when we listened to the song by Lorde, I really got interested in the song- because it was unlike most of the average (repetitive) pulsing songs on the radio!
Usually I don’t really listen to pop music (as in the previous paragraph). This would lead to me not really knowing the names of the songs and not getting the albums for them. When I researched the different songs in the same album as Royals, I found out that there were fifteen songs in the album. This probably wouldn’t have been quite a surprise to most of the public, but before I read all the songs that were in the album, I only thought that Lorde (singer) had only written a few songs! In the album “Pure Heroin”, there was (including “Royals”):
Lorde in "Royals" music video
“Pure Heroin” by Lorde: (POPULARITY- most to least (top to bottom)
The lyrics to Royals are just a little bit depressing, in my opinion. When listening to the song, you could hear some gruesome illustrated words- that would stand out, like: “Blood stains”, “tigers on a gold leash” or “trippin in the bathroom”. Unlike most pop songs in our modern age, the composer and singer of Royals (Lorde) didn’t use romance as the main component of her song. I liked how (at least) she didn’t really incorporate all the garbage “love” in her music, but added a little bit of a ‘female rebel’ characteristic within her songs. In my opininon, I think that the interpretation of Royals is that (then again) the person described in the song is rebellious, and wants to live life carelessly- trashing her money and spending it without caring about what anybody thinks (The rest of the album has a similar idea). I think that the lyrics are mostly appropriate, in terms of language (swearing), romance and gory or violent. I still was comparing Royals to other pop songs on the radio, again, so the comparison could be off (because of other songs that might not be inappropriate.
Album cover for "Pure Heroine"
I really enjoyed the part that Lorde sang her voice in a creaky- pitch, that didn’t sound bad. Her voice is quite original, because none of the other singers have performed songs with such a “weak” but lively way. Lorde’s music could be somewhat inspiring to girls, because of her “rebellious” songs… but the song was original and interesting! In her music video, she sings with a “sway” throughout her performance (very different from most singers) with her arms twitching. I’d never seen any pop singer sing that way- so again; I found that Lorde started a new “style” of performing music. I think that Lorde did a great job singing and performing her songs, with a new twist in pop music!
There were only a couple things that I didn’t really like in the song. In some versions of the song, Lorde’s swaying looked a little creepy. She twitched her arm (no offence), looking a little like a zombie. Another creepy part of her “album” is that the name of her album “Heroine” but “Heroin” is a drug- that has killed many victims. My parents were shocked by the name when I first brought it up, and they quickly told me that the name could’ve been related to the drug, to draw attention. But, on the other hand, the album could’ve just plainly meant “Female Hero”. Lastly, the song’s lyrics were a little bit ugly- with blood and violence. Other than the cons that were listed, I really liked how the song wasn’t inappropriate- in terms of romantic music (etc.).
Lorde is a very talented singer, in the "modern pop music terms". She brought out a new style of singing, with a good sound, but in a strained voice- and excluded all the unnecessary romance! She sings with a creepy style, that probably could become quite depressing after a while, but overall Lorde's music is original, calculated, and fun!
My rating out of ten for the song "Royals", is a 7.5 out of 10, because the lyrics were just a little bit upsetting... But the music was really well done!
Movie Information: Rating/ time: PG, 1hr, 23 min Theme: Action and Adventure, Fantasy, Drama In theatres: Feb, 2010
CAST:
Director: Chris Columbus
Writer(s): Crag Titley
Star actors:-Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson)
-Alexandra Daddario (Annabeth Chase)
-Brandon T. Jackson (Grover Underwood) -Jake Abel (Luke Caspian)
-Pierce Brosnan. Chiron/Mr. Brunner)
"Percy Jackson: the lightning thief" was a great movie, in terms of film quality, authentic action, and the story line wasn't too confusing. The movie was based in a Greek mythological theme, where the Greek gods and goddesses had children who took up half god and half human form. Since I was a big fan of the Percy Jackson series (books), I heard that there was going to be a movie based on the novels, and so excitedly, I wanted to view it! Sadly, in my opinion, the movie didn't taken the
events from the novel. It turned out to be quite disappointing, because I assumed that some exciting parts of the book would be in the film, but ended up not being included. Aside from the The movie
not being parallel to the storyline of the book, the acting, the filming, and the action was good!
In the movie (Percy Jackson), the main character is a boy named Percy who discovers that he is the son of the god of the sea. After he gets "recruited" by a satyr named Grover Underwood (Brandon T. Jackson), his world quickly spins around, into a dangerous adventure, full of quests for the Greek gods, against monsters. Once the two (more or less) boys reach a safe haven for "Demigods" (commonly known as "Camp Half Blood"). Soon after Percy stays at the camp, he finds out that his father is a major Greek god, Poseidon- the lord of the seas. Chiron (Pierce Brosnan), the camp director then realizes that Percy had been found guilty of a great crime-that he hadn't done, to the gods. An important lightning bolt- Lord Zeus's lightning bolt, had been stolen, and Percy Jackson was to blame. The camp director, Chiron granted Percy a quest: to find the missing "Master Bolt" and clear his name from the gods. The quest that Percy embarks, with his Demigod friend, Annabeth Chase, daughter of Athena (Alexandra Daddario), and Grover Underwood, a satyr (Brandon T. Jackson) ends up to be a dangerous and suspenseful journey, fighting the Hydra, the great Medusa, Lord Hades, and a betraying friend- who tries to kill him. The trio of heroes journey across America, to find out who had stolen the lightning bolt of Zeus, and complete their adventurous quest. There were many different characters who scarcely popped up in the movie, but the main, or star actresses and characters were the demigods/ creatures that travelled with Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) throughout his adventures. Percy's closest friend in the movie was Grover Underwood, a satyr (half goat/ half human) who was African American, and had a lot of attitude towards monsters, and his friends. The second most recurring character in the movie was Annabeth Chase (Alexandra Daddario), a demigod, who was the daughter of Athena (goddess of Wisdom). Annabeth has brown hair in this movie, and is skillful in swordsmanship. Chiron (Pierce Brosnan) , a Demigod "coach", who was the director of Camp Half-Blood. Chiron is a half horse, and half human creature, known for his wisdom and knowledge. There are many gods who showed up in the movie, but Hades (Steve Coogan) was the most descripted, or showed. Hades is shown as a vengeful, sassy, angry god, who is married to Persephone (Rosario Dawson). He becomes a minor enemy towards Percy in the movie.
(Hydra in process)
The movie was actually a great movie, produced with phenomenal side-effects, and a chunk of amazing acting. The actors and actresses had to pretend to "fight" a monster, and while watching the movie, I couldn't find many flaws of the animation of the monsters "attacking" Percy Jackson and his friends. There was a part where Percy, Annabeth and Grover entered a museum, and eight night guards confronting them. The trio soon realized that the night guards all moved in the same manner. But before the heroes could defend themselves, a hydra formed from the eight night museum guards. That part of the movie was done extremely well, as the heroes had to act like a real hydra was in front of them. The animation was done very well too, and most of the lighting in the filming matched the lighting on the animation, unlike the second movie. The movie built up from mystery, a bit of romance, and a ton of action (a little too much in my opinion), making the movie a great adventure movie.
(Annabeth from the book)
(Actress Alexandra Daddario)
There were quite a few things that I didn't really enjoy, or found the best in this movie. Aside from the point that the movie had almost nothing to do with the book, the characters were too different looking from what the book descripted, in the novels, and in the "profile drawings" of the characters. The actress for Annabeth, (Alexandra Daddario) had brown hair, and blue eyes, but in the book, she clearly had blond hair, and grey eyes. Because of the persistent complaints against Daddario's brown hair, and blue eyes, by some of the audience, in the second movie she changed her hair, and eye color! What really disappointed me, while watching "Percy Jackson", was that the director, or script writer took out some exciting, and important parts of the book, and replaced them with unnecessary violence. In the book, Percy Jackson first experiences his power (water), because he was the son of the sea god, he unleashed his anger accidentally at an annoying classmate. The water around Percy pushed the character into a water fountain, getting her soaking wet. I thought that this part would be a more reasonable way to introduce the main character's power, than the way the movie did. In the movie, Percy Jackson just abruptly "knew" all of a sudden who his godly parent was, without his father actually telling him. I think that the movie could've done a better job of keeping the storyline clear, without random or unesscary violence and romance. The most dissapointing part of the movie, was that Percy and his friends were supposed to be only twelve years old! In the movie, the main characters are in their older teenaged years. The problem with the age probably influenced the script writer to add in more romance, making it less child friendly, like the book was. In my opinion, Percy Jackson was a great movie, if the audience or watcher hadnt read the books. The movie had great acting, side effects, animation, and a good storyline, but some parts included unnecessary violence, romance and character description. The movie shouldnt have taken the name of "Percy Jackson" because it stole the main idea, of the author, and changed it up into a completely diffrent story, so why name it "Percy Jackson"?
I always find that it’s hard to please little kids at the same time as teenagers and elderly people. “Apples to Apples” is a great board game, or as a family game, because of the simplicity of the rules, and the low maintenance. The first time I played, was on New Year’s Eve, and the rules were extremely easy to pick up, and understand!
red cards- comparing or defining cards
When I wrote that “Apples to Apples” is a simple game, it is. The goal to the game is to win five times, (or get five green cards). To set up for the game, players must organize the green cards (words), and the red cards (defining words). In this process, each player grabs six red playing cards (players are allowed to look at the inside parts of the cards). One player is then chosen to be the “judge” first. The judge’s role for the first round is to pull out a green card out of the green card pile, and flip it over in the middle of the group of players. After this, the other players choose which of their red cards represent the word in the middle (the most), face down. After all the other players have put down their cards, the judge flips the red cards over, and reads them out loud. The judge then picks the red card that (realistically, logically, or in his/ her opinion) represents the green card the most. The player whose card was picked by the judge calls out that he/ she had been picked, and then takes the green card. All red cards go into the “discard” pile, and this session restarts until one player wins five green cards. Also, every ‘session’ the group changes the judge of the game, clockwise around the players.
Apples to Apples is a game of cards that doesn’t let anyone have a “wrong” judgement, play or turn. It is set up with two decks of cards, one (green) that has a word that should be described by the other cards, and the other, (red) that describe the word on the green cards. (Ex: green card: funny, red cards: a comedian, a ghost, or a teacher.) The game is low maintenance, with only cards as the game pieces, and is simple to learn, and play with younger or older people. The game can be a short game, or a long game, depending on how fast you want to play it. Though the ages for apples to apples is ages 9 and up, we played with six year olds!
“Apples to apples” was a great 'board game' (without an actual board). The game can be varied, time wise,
apples to apples cover
because of the loose set of rules. In the game, players just need to win five set of games, and they can win. While playing “Apples to Apples”, players can change the 'winning point' in the game, lengthening or shortening it to their preference. This board game or card game requires very little materials. All the players need to play 'Apples to Apples', is a stack of green cards (words), a larger pile of red cards (defining words), and the players! Lastly, the simple card game is child- friendly. There are very few games that young children (six year olds), teenagers, adults and elderly can all enjoy- at the same time, during the same game. This has actually been quite a big problem in my family, but when we played this game, we were able to all play, satisfied. So, anyone can really play “Apples to Apples”, because you don’t require any knowledge, depending on the style that a group of players play.
There are barely any cons to the game “Apples to Apples”. In the card game, while my family was playing, some of the words (either on the red cards, or green cards) were a little too complicated for my younger brothers. When we played, we played by our opinions, but we couldn’t play (the version of playing in reference to real definitions) because some of the words were more advanced and complicated for the younger people in my family. But overall, I didn’t really find any problems, or confusing components while playing the game “Apples to Apples”, but I learned to play this game while playing with a group of people who already knew how to play. If I were to play “Apples to Apples” from scratch, it would probably be a little different.
As you may have been able to tell, I am quite fond of “Apples to Apples”. I really enjoy games that have loose rules. In this game, there are different ways to play! As a judge, you can “judge” the cards by opinion, or by a dictionary or thesaurus. You don’t necessarily have to make sense in the game; really just depending on the way the judges choose who wins. In a family or group with lots of different ages, I find it hard to find a game for everyone. “Apples to Apples” lets in different interests to people, and levels of knowledge (you don’t have to be very knowledgeable to the topics, depending on the way you play), because there is really no wrong answer, or move in the game!
I would rate “Apples to Apples” seven out of ten, because it was a great game for the family, and had simple rules that can be varied to your personal taste! The reason why I didn’t choose a higher rating is because of the little amount of creativeness of the game. There aren’t many complicated, or thought out rules that would make this game extremely original, comparing to other games.
Watch the tutorial vido of
How to play Apples to Apples!
