Letter to the Editor - Brexit

I choose an article called “The real danger of Brexit” from The Economist printed on February 27^th, 2016. The link to the article is http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693584-leaving-eu-would-hurt-britainand-would-also-deal-terrible-blow-west-real-danger.

The article talks about the reasons why Britain wants to leave the EU, how that could harm the global economy in addition to Britain’s economy, and how it could break up the United Kingdom itself. Some British think that the EU is holding Britain back and that a break from the EU could allow Britain to be sovereign again. One hope is that this would allow them to control their immigration. The article says that although Britain would be sovereign, it would be much less powerful without the EU. A Brexit would cause the EU to weaken as well, disrupting western powers in the global economy. Furthermore the article says that the Brexit could cause Scotland and Northern Ireland to leave the UK. It says Scotland would leave because they are looking for any reason to leave and that Northern Ireland would leave because their peace with Britain has relied heavily on their membership with the EU.

A letter to the editor was written by Alastair Cameron, the director of Scotland in Union. The link to the letter is http://www.economist.com/news/letters/21694978-letters-editor.

The letter argues that the articles comment “Scotland…is again agitating for a divorce” is untrue. Cameron states that only some people in Scotland are agitating, primarily the nationalists. Polls show that only 10% want a referendum to be a priority. Cameron argues that Scotland depends on the rest of the UK for trade much more than it depends on the EU so the Brexit would not cause them to leave. If anything it would want them to stay in UK because now they need the trade with the UK even more than before.

I think this letter to the editor was very well put together and makes a stronger argument for Scotland staying in the UK than the article makes for Scotland leaving the UK. 

Literary Analyses

Throughout my time in high school many literary analysis assignments have been given to me. Those assignments fall into two categories.  The first category is for literary analyses done on assigned books to read and the second category is for literary analyses done on books I got to choose.

I generally disliked the assignments in the first category. The books that the teachers choose tended to be American literature classics, which usually do not appeal to me. Although they lack appeal, they do not lack in the number of academic writings about them. For these assignments, I usually read the book hastily so I could be done with it. Because of this, I would rely heavily on the critiques I read to develop deeper opinions about the book. None of the books were particularly challenging for me academically but they were challenging for me in the sense that it took more effort to make myself given assignments the effort required. Some examples of books I had to read and write on are The Great Gatsby, Of Mice and Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, and The Scarlet Letter.

The assignments in the second category, on the other hand, I usually enjoyed. For these assignments, the teacher would either let the class choose from a long list of books or allow the class to choose any book they want, within limits, and with their approval. For these assignments, the downside was that there were usually limited amounts of academic writing about them. To combat that, because of my interest in the books, I formed more opinions and thoughts on the book by myself and used sources more sparingly. These books could be challenging if I wanted them to be.

Overall I have mixed feelings about writing literary analyses.