Guys, come on. I swear I'm not crazy!

Well, bad news guys... my test results suggested that I have strong psychopathic tendencies. DUN DUN DUNNN. But no. I'm totally messing around. Got you there, didn't I? ;) Probably not. You guys know I'm harmless. Anyway, all I have to say is WOW. Sitting through a whole hour of people talking and talking. Thanks Mr. B! It was pretty interesting though. The first part talked about Robert Dixon, I think, who was charged for being an accessory to murder and got like 15 to life. Yeah, pretty insane for just standing around while some guy got shot. Anyway, they did one of those tests on him or whatever and it said that his psychopathic tendencies were seriously high. 73% more higher than the rest of the waco's took that test. Some of the people said that the test is unreliable though because it's determined too much on past events and such which I kinda sorta agree with. Second act is on Jon Ronson investigating whether or not corporate leaders can be psychopaths. The test results for all of them were in fact all zero's. Meaning none of them had psychopathic tendencies. Which is awesome cause a radio show run by psycho's? Yeah, sounds a little weird to me. :)

Crime. Yep, just crime.

The connections between Crime & Punishment, The Minority Report, the article, and the lyrics is pretty obvious; they are all about crime. Hence, my title.

The Minority Report discusses the system of precrime (which should sound pretty obvious). The police force has the authority to arrest criminals even before they commit the crime. Relying on information from vegetable state sources. They are considered "stupid and retarded", and also heavily deformed. Anderton, the head commissioner, finds him self in a dilemma. One of the cards read his name and say he is plotting to murder Leopold Kaplan. A retired military general. Anderton, not even knowing who this man was, panics and tries to leave. Kaplans men get a hold of him and he then is met with him. He says that he is going to turn him in, for his own safety. But he then later finds out that Kaplan is behind the whole plot, framing him in an attempt to regain Army control. The minority report reads that Anderton had changed his mind, therefore Kaplan was in no real danger, but Anderton ends up killing him anyway to make sure the precrime system isn't discredited. I definitely can see a connection between this and Crime & Punishment. It seems as if everything we do based off of society's perspective. I mean, seriously? Locking up people who are innocent, but MIGHT commit a crime in the future? I find that rather unfair. I don't know if it's just me but I'm okay with the system we have now. I just don't feel as if information like that is liable from three vegetables.

The lyrics for "I don't like Monday's" kinda sorta disturb me in a way? A 16 year old girl going on a shooting spree? For what reason? She's probably kinda nuts. And I'm guessing she doesn't like Monday's? Or this occurred on  a Monday? Who knows. It kinda confuses me but I guess in a way there is a connection. Raskolnikov didn't like the old lady, so he killed her. Oh joy. Another story of a psycho.

Now the article, I can make the best connection out of. It talks of criminals and how their brain varies in different to those who don't commit crimes. Studies are done to show that people with antisocial personality disorder have a higher risk of committing crimes, considering that they don't have a feeling for what's right and what's wrong, although they do know the two apart. Should you really charge someone who commits the crime if they have no sense of guilt or remorse for it? I don't think it's fair, in a sense. If they don't feel emotion for it, how can it be a crime to them? What are ethics to judge a persons sense of right and wrong? Sure, society places great dismay on psychopaths but like the article states; did they really choose to be born that way? I see a connection in this and Crime & Punishment by the fact that Raskolnikov is afraid of being judged by society for his actions but he is already judging himself. He of course feels guilt and emotion for what he has done, clearly not being a psychopath. So then why did he do it? I don't know. Maybe he was fated to kill her. Just maybe.

The criminals mind is one heck of an interesting place and all 3 of these sources seem to somehow fit and be in tune with one another. Some are fated and some are just crazy. Either way though, a crime is still a crime, no matter who's ethics you're looking at.

Redemption. (You know, that one movie with the black guy? I think?)

Raskolnikov definitely seems to be going a bit loco. He's clearly starting to give off clues by being delusional when talking to the inspector, claiming he knows quite a bit about the murders. (Oh, I'm sure he does.) He nearly gives off clues that might lead the police to consider him a suspect but they just simply think that he's gone mad. Which in a way I guess is good for Raskolnikov. It's quite evident that Luzhin is a total prick. Cocky and full of himself. Always trying to make a point about something he probably knows nothing about. Raskolnikov and Razumikhin are clearly not impressed with this guys attitude and eventually get him angry enough that he runs out. On a more sentimental note, Marmeladov is dying. He was trampled by horses and there's definitely no way he is going to survive. He dies in the arms of Sonya, his daughter. Raskolnikov seems to be quite caring to the family. Giving them 20 rubles and heading out back home. He considers him self partially redeemed. He then visits Razumikhin who is slightly drunk, tells Rasko that Zassimov believes he is mad. Raskolinikov then becomes faint. He and Razumikhin return to his room where Pulcheria and Dunya are waiting for him. They are quite sad to hear about his condition but then he ends up just passing out.

So, let's get this straight here. Just because he commits one good deed, he's already considering himself partially redeemed? In a way, yes, he did do a good thing by giving them 20 rubles but that still doesn't account for the fact that you murdered 2 innocent people! What he did was terrible and I don't feel as if he can be redeemed. Maybe a life time full of guilt and suffering sounds pretty good, don't you think? Sure he might be all messed up for the rest of his life but he deserves it.

I'd definitely have to say that what mostly influences my values is common sense. It SHOULD be common sense that killing people is wrong. Even if they aren't innocent. Let them face their own fate. Don't play the role of God by taking it into your own hands.

(Title goes here)

Dostoevsky makes distinct connections between his own life and the life of Raskolnikov, also the setting in which the story takes place. He was born in Moscow, not moving to St. Petersburg until the age of 16. (Hence the setting of the novel). His father worked at a hospital that helped the poor. They also lived in an apartment on hospital grounds and Dostoevsky took a particular interest in the patients and hearing out their stories. Anyway, this connects with the novel because Raskolnikov doesn't necessarily seem to be in the right state of mind. (Well, that's kind of obvious). Also the setting seems to be drawn from Dostoevsky's time on the hospital grounds.

Now for this: Is it a crime if you do it for good reasons? I mean, sure. I'm pretty positive that everybody who commits a crime has good reason for it. Unless they're completely mental but everyone tries to take that plea of insanity now a days. Own up for your actions, dude. Sure, they might not be no John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy but whatever your reason for a crime, no matter how small it is, it's still a crime. For example, Raskolnikov killed the old lady. Like, okay, I get it (she was a total b!*@ch) but does that honestly give you reason to go hacking away at her head? Yeah, I didn't think so. What if the old lady disliked you and hated you? You think she'd want to kill you? No, because she's SANE. I get it though, you're getting all of these hints and clues. Like, "dude, I totally found an axe and heard someone say that the world would be a better place without her, blah blah blah." But seriously? Taking it into your own hands to murder her? She was pretty old anyway so I'm sure she would've died sometime soon. So no, I really don't think that ANYBODY has a justifiable reason for killing anyone.Sure, she rips people off but I'm sure anyone living in such a poor state would do almost anything to get by.  Do you know Alyona's living situation? Maybe what she goes through? It's hard times, man. People have to get by somehow. Sure, she rips people off but I'm sure anyone living in such a poor state would do almost anything to get by.

Crime And Punishment: Part 1

So far in Dostoevsky's, Crime And Punishment, we are introduced to a young man. Seemingly, well, clearly depressed, he is dreading the sight of walking into his land lady. He owes her a pretty  hefty amount of money for rent but can't seem to pay it. He is described as being in a nervous state of depression, secluding himself to the outside world and avoiding as much human contact as possible. He rambles on and on to himself about a plan. Unsure if he wants to commit it or not, he seems to dismiss it. But as he soon realizes, he constantly finds himself thinking of taking action, yet being disgusted by it. He then goes to the old lady, a pawnbroker, and we are then introduced to the young man as Raskolnikov.
He finds himself pawning his watch in exchange for money, but knowing he has double ended intentions. He observes her office, plotting even more. He also sees that he is giving away money like it's nothing, even though he is heavily in debt. The story seems to be told from a third person point of view, but I can't tell if it's omniscient or limited. The mood is set as rather depressing, regarding his situation but at times a bit suspenseful, considering the action of what he wants to do.  

Quotations from, The Road.

So far in reading, The Road, I've definitely come across some memorable quotes. Either in the fathers head or something he says to the boy. Or maybe through a flashback. One of them include, "The world shrinking down about a raw core of parsible entities. The names of things slowly following those things into oblivion. Colors. The names of birds. Things to eat. Finally the names of things one believed to be true. More fragile than he would have thought. How much was gone already? The sacred idiom shorn of its referents and so of its reality." ( page 75 ) is talking about how the post apocalyptic world has been reduced to it's basic elements and for it to be complex, it would be a luxury. The more sophisticated aspects of human civilization have been erased completely and what once was is slowly being forgotten. Also, truths and customs involving human life have been completely lost. The concepts of that day that once were, now have no human meaning to them.

Another quote I'd like to discuss would be, 

"He walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun in their running. The crushing black vacuum of the universe. And somewhere two hunted animals trembling like groundfoxes in their cover. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it." ( page 110 ) This desolate passage is reveling the indifference of the universe to the man. A condition that he takes to be 'the absolute truth of the world'. The earth still continues to revolve 'cold' and 'relentless'.  It is saying that the survivors only exist for the moment somehow, the hunted animals could possibly represent the man and the boy. Living in spite of the universe's disinterest, witnessing this wasteland with their fleeting lives.