For my third post, I read about a murder investigation. My article comes from the Star Tribune website, linked at the bottom of this page.
A woman named Brenda Pikala was stabbed under a bridge that went across Minnehaha Creek 19 years ago. She had been going to a movie with her 9-year old son, but then he decided he didn't want to go. It was reported that she had approached a car bleeding heavily after the attack- but was pronounced dead once a doctor tried to help her. The case had been cold for so long because although the police had evidence (scrapings from under her fingernail), DNA testing had not been as effective or accurate as it is now. The lead suspect of the case, with the matching DNA, was found already in jail on a drunk-driving charge. Albert Moen was convicted Monday for second-degree murder. The article also touches on how difficult it is to solve cold-cases, with Sgt. Barb Moe saying "Oh, my God, it's such a good feeling [to solve a case]."
My thoughts on this article are mixed. I think that our law enforcement does try to solve as many cases as they can, but I also believe that more effort could be put into trying to solve cold cases. Pikala's family was devastated after her death, and her sister is quoted to have said, "I want people to just remember Brenda's smile." This shows that a situation like Pikala's family was thrown into has to be incredibly difficult. Things can change so fast- almost in an instant. The shock of hearing that someone was convicted for their family member's murder had to have been incredible- after all it was 19 years after it had happened. Every case is important, not just the easy-to-solve ones. There are so many other cases that haven't been solved, leaving innocent families with no answer. It makes me sad to think about them and the pain they must experience each day. It also makes me interested in other stories where cold cases were solved. What types of things other than DNA would be more helpful now as opposed to in the past? It's an intriguing thing to think about.
Stacey
<http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=29920524>
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Post #2
*Do not read this if you want to read My Sister's Keeper in the future.
For my second entry, I decided to write about My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. I read this book last year, but I am currently rereading it. It is interesting to read the book and know what will happen, because everything is thrown into a different light. At times it is easier to understand, like in the beginning when it switches from character to character, because you already know the way that the separate characters talk and how they feel. I'm not at the end yet, but I am predicting that it will be less interesting and suspenseful because I know that Kate is the one to ask Anna not to donate the kidney and that Anna will die in the car crash. This book makes me genuinely sad when I read it, because there are so many decisions (moral and logical) to make and all of them are extremely difficult.
I can relate somewhat to the book, because when I was three my mom was hospitalized for 6 months and it changed all of my families' lives. I don't think any member of my family has ever had to donate anything, so in that aspect I can't imagine how difficult Anna's life must have been. I hate hospitals, personally, and I would never want to spend the amount of time she had to in them. I do know about having to make sacrifices though, helping out with my mom having to be in a wheelchair. Not a day goes by where I don't pray for her to get better so that she can walk on her own, because I want the best for her. (Just like Kate's family wants the best for her.)
Overall, I love this book!
Stacey
For my second entry, I decided to write about My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. I read this book last year, but I am currently rereading it. It is interesting to read the book and know what will happen, because everything is thrown into a different light. At times it is easier to understand, like in the beginning when it switches from character to character, because you already know the way that the separate characters talk and how they feel. I'm not at the end yet, but I am predicting that it will be less interesting and suspenseful because I know that Kate is the one to ask Anna not to donate the kidney and that Anna will die in the car crash. This book makes me genuinely sad when I read it, because there are so many decisions (moral and logical) to make and all of them are extremely difficult.
I can relate somewhat to the book, because when I was three my mom was hospitalized for 6 months and it changed all of my families' lives. I don't think any member of my family has ever had to donate anything, so in that aspect I can't imagine how difficult Anna's life must have been. I hate hospitals, personally, and I would never want to spend the amount of time she had to in them. I do know about having to make sacrifices though, helping out with my mom having to be in a wheelchair. Not a day goes by where I don't pray for her to get better so that she can walk on her own, because I want the best for her. (Just like Kate's family wants the best for her.)
Overall, I love this book!
Stacey
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Post Numero Uno.
For my first post, I read an article on the Forbes 400 and the top 40 richest Americans.
The article was about who made the cut as "richest" and who didn't, but what I found interesting was that some of the people who were on it are off it now because of the rising and falling stock market. Such numbers as $6.8 BILLION dollars were lost in cases like Kirk Kerorkian's, and (not surprisingly) Oprah's net worth rose from $200 million to $2.7 billion.
It's absolutely ridiculous how much money some people make. The founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, made it on the list as well at a net worth $1.5 billion. Other popular companies heads such as Urban Outfitters' chief Richard Haynes were also on the list. I think this shows how much popularity effects the amount of profit you can make on something. It isn't surprising at all, rather very demonstrative of the mentality most of America has- the "cooler" it may be, the more you want it. Almost everyone I know has a Facebook, and I know I've shopped at Urban Outfitters before. Oprah is a swelling phenomenon that I don't quite understand myself, but with such a huge fan base I can see why she would become so rich.
This has nothing to do with the article itself, but now I am thinking about how all of that money could go to something better, not necessarily entirely pocketed like much of it must be. So many people could benefit from it, and while the people who earned it entirely have the right to do whatever they want with it (it's their profit, after all), I think that some of the time when it is donated it's for the press time. I don't mean to insinuate that it is strictly for press coverage all of the time, because I know it's not, but when you have so much it's hard to open your eyes to the people that have nothing.
Just a thought.
-Stacey
The article was about who made the cut as "richest" and who didn't, but what I found interesting was that some of the people who were on it are off it now because of the rising and falling stock market. Such numbers as $6.8 BILLION dollars were lost in cases like Kirk Kerorkian's, and (not surprisingly) Oprah's net worth rose from $200 million to $2.7 billion.
It's absolutely ridiculous how much money some people make. The founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, made it on the list as well at a net worth $1.5 billion. Other popular companies heads such as Urban Outfitters' chief Richard Haynes were also on the list. I think this shows how much popularity effects the amount of profit you can make on something. It isn't surprising at all, rather very demonstrative of the mentality most of America has- the "cooler" it may be, the more you want it. Almost everyone I know has a Facebook, and I know I've shopped at Urban Outfitters before. Oprah is a swelling phenomenon that I don't quite understand myself, but with such a huge fan base I can see why she would become so rich.
This has nothing to do with the article itself, but now I am thinking about how all of that money could go to something better, not necessarily entirely pocketed like much of it must be. So many people could benefit from it, and while the people who earned it entirely have the right to do whatever they want with it (it's their profit, after all), I think that some of the time when it is donated it's for the press time. I don't mean to insinuate that it is strictly for press coverage all of the time, because I know it's not, but when you have so much it's hard to open your eyes to the people that have nothing.
Just a thought.
-Stacey
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)