My initial thought upon reading the introductions to the article was apprehension. The writers have many statistics throw out statistics left and right making my generation seem plainly stupid. But where are they getting these statistics? At first, I began to become angry because I felt as though I was not being represented at the fullest potential. Were the kids they questioned really dumb? No, not at all.
After reading further into the article, the writers explain that they believe that it is not the fault of our generation, but out lack of knowledge of historical facts should be blamed on our teachers; the elders. Ironically, our elders are the generation before us, whom which are the ones that had higher correct answer percentages than the current generation. The article states, “First, IQ scores in every country that measures them, including the United States, have been rising since
the 1930s. Since the tests measure not knowledge but pure thinking capacity—what cognitive scientists call fluid intelligence, in that it can be applied to problems in any domain—then Gen Y's ignorance of facts (or of facts that older people think are important) reflects not dumbness but choice.” Gen Y now has the choice as to what information we want to learn and retain.
After reading the article, the content of it somewhat made me think back to “On Studying” by Ortega. In that piece of reading, Ortega stated that although studying must be done by all students, Gen-Y, it is not a necessity to them because one does not need it. In “the Dumbest Generation” article, it declares that my generation chooses what we want to learn and study, which is why we might not know historical facts.
“The Dumbest Generation? Don’t Be Dumb” was a very misleading title for the article. Although it started out blaming my generation for being simply stupid, we truly are not. We are using technological advancements that our grandparents never had. We are progressing forward and certainly are not “dumb”.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Why Americans are Restless
2. When a society devotes their focus to equality opportunity, this weakens the individual’s access to a fair chance at success. Also, when striving for equality, the entire society can never be completely satisfied. There will always be at least one group in the minority that is unhappy and goes not see themselves as having an “equal” opportunity. Tocqueville writes, “When men are more or less equal and are following the same path, it is very difficult for any of them to walk faster and get out beyond the uniform crowd surrounding and hemming them in” (Tocqueville 167). Tocqueville means that when equality is set in place, it is much harder for the individual to have success because they will always be in competition with one another. Tocqueville continues to state, “No matter how people strives for it, all the conditions of life can never be perfectly equal. Even if, by the misfortune, such an absolute dead level were attained, there would still be inequalities of intelligence which, coming directly from God, will never escape the laws of man” (Tocqueville 167). Therefore, the individual within the society can never fully have equal rights and opportunities to everyone else. There will always be a factor, which disallows them to have equality with the rest of their society.
5. Tocqueville believes that Americans are restless because they do not necessarily know what they want or are inconsistent with their desires. Americans cannot stay with something that they are doing, and when a bigger, better deal or opportunity comes along, they take it. For example, Tocqueville writes, “An American will build a house in which to pass his old age and sell it before the roof is on; he will plant a garden and rent it just as the trees are coming into bearing; he will clear a filed and leave others to reap the harvest…” (Tocqueville 165). This argues the fact that Americans cannot steadily keep with what they originally want to achieve. This is a probable case to why other countries see Americans as greedy individuals, when in all actuality we are only striving for what we want to accomplish.
5. Tocqueville believes that Americans are restless because they do not necessarily know what they want or are inconsistent with their desires. Americans cannot stay with something that they are doing, and when a bigger, better deal or opportunity comes along, they take it. For example, Tocqueville writes, “An American will build a house in which to pass his old age and sell it before the roof is on; he will plant a garden and rent it just as the trees are coming into bearing; he will clear a filed and leave others to reap the harvest…” (Tocqueville 165). This argues the fact that Americans cannot steadily keep with what they originally want to achieve. This is a probable case to why other countries see Americans as greedy individuals, when in all actuality we are only striving for what we want to accomplish.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Let Them Eat Cake.
The empowered peasants show intense hatred towards the previous ruling class. They will do anything and everything to take them down, which amounts to the mass executions on the guillotine. In comparison to the peasants, the previous ruling class could care less. They behave in such a way that shows that they still believe that have great power, although they are being executed, like the Marquis.
Personal appeals also have a rather large role between the empowered peasants along with the previous ruling class. For example, when Lucie begs for the safety of her husband, Madame Defarge does not show any sympathy for her. Why would Madame help Lucie when she has helped no one else? Personal appeals also appear throughout the books, like the exchange between the Marquis and the peasants. When the Marquis ran over Gaspard’s son, he did no show any sign of remorse. No sense of sadness swept over him as Gaspard cried out that his son was dead. The Marquis simply exchanged a few gold coins as if Gaspard’s son were worthless, lost cargo.
Personal appeals also have a rather large role between the empowered peasants along with the previous ruling class. For example, when Lucie begs for the safety of her husband, Madame Defarge does not show any sympathy for her. Why would Madame help Lucie when she has helped no one else? Personal appeals also appear throughout the books, like the exchange between the Marquis and the peasants. When the Marquis ran over Gaspard’s son, he did no show any sign of remorse. No sense of sadness swept over him as Gaspard cried out that his son was dead. The Marquis simply exchanged a few gold coins as if Gaspard’s son were worthless, lost cargo.
Monday, September 21, 2009
"A Tale of Two Cities" Book 1 Questions
1. For how long has the man in Jarvis Lorry’s thoughts been buried?
The man in Jarvis Lorry’s thoughts has been buried for eighteen years.
2. What else do we know of this man who has been “buried”?
We know that he is from the Tellson’s Bank and has abandoned all hope of being dug out of his grave a long time ago. He also says that he “can’t say” if he cares to live.
3. What are the two conditions concerning Dr. Manette?
Dr. Manette is the father of Lucie Manette, whom which he does not remember. Dr. Manette also does not remember who he is exactly, and cannot even recall his own name.
4. Who are the proprietors of the wine-shop?
The proprietors of the wine-shop are Monsieur Defarge and his wife, Madame Defarge. The husband is described as “bullnecked” and about thirty years old. His wife is explained as a very observing woman who sits in the shop and takes everything in around her.
5. Why does Defarge show Dr. Manette to the “Jacques”?
Defarge shows Dr. Manette to the “Jacques” because he likes to make a show of him. When asked how he chooses who gets to see Dr. Manette, Defarge says, "I choose them as real me, of my name-- Jacques is my name-- to whom the sight is likely to do good. Enough: you are English; that is another thing".
6. What is Dr. Manette doing when they enter his room?
When everyone enters Dr. Manette’s room, he is making a pair of girl’s shoes. He does not seem interested in who enters the room, and focuses his attention on his work.
7. What does Dr. Manette say his name is? What is the significance of what he says?
Dr. Manette says that his name is One Hundred and Five, North Tower. This is significant because it shows that he has been locked up so long that he cannot even remember his life before his time in the North Tower. He cannot recall something as simple as his own name.
The man in Jarvis Lorry’s thoughts has been buried for eighteen years.
2. What else do we know of this man who has been “buried”?
We know that he is from the Tellson’s Bank and has abandoned all hope of being dug out of his grave a long time ago. He also says that he “can’t say” if he cares to live.
3. What are the two conditions concerning Dr. Manette?
Dr. Manette is the father of Lucie Manette, whom which he does not remember. Dr. Manette also does not remember who he is exactly, and cannot even recall his own name.
4. Who are the proprietors of the wine-shop?
The proprietors of the wine-shop are Monsieur Defarge and his wife, Madame Defarge. The husband is described as “bullnecked” and about thirty years old. His wife is explained as a very observing woman who sits in the shop and takes everything in around her.
5. Why does Defarge show Dr. Manette to the “Jacques”?
Defarge shows Dr. Manette to the “Jacques” because he likes to make a show of him. When asked how he chooses who gets to see Dr. Manette, Defarge says, "I choose them as real me, of my name-- Jacques is my name-- to whom the sight is likely to do good. Enough: you are English; that is another thing".
6. What is Dr. Manette doing when they enter his room?
When everyone enters Dr. Manette’s room, he is making a pair of girl’s shoes. He does not seem interested in who enters the room, and focuses his attention on his work.
7. What does Dr. Manette say his name is? What is the significance of what he says?
Dr. Manette says that his name is One Hundred and Five, North Tower. This is significant because it shows that he has been locked up so long that he cannot even remember his life before his time in the North Tower. He cannot recall something as simple as his own name.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
I Am Me, and I Won't Change for Anyone
Why is it difficult not to care about what others think of you? Do we control the way other people see and think about us?
Self-expression is one of the most important aspects of one’s life. Unfortunately, this potentially is the most judged thing about someone. One can express themselves through clothes, hair, and their natural personality, the list goes on, but often times, you cannot be yourself because of what other people think of you.
No matter how much you want to express yourself freely, there will always be that slight fear of other peoples’ opinions. It is difficult to not care about what other people think of you because if you are judged or thought of poorly, it is a low blow to your self-esteem. We as people naturally want to so badly be seen by others in a light that is accepted, that we often times hid who we truly are; unique.
By the absolute need of wanting to feel accepted, we alter ourselves to “fit in” to our society. This is potentially “controlling” how others see and think about us, but does it make us happy? Personally, I would say no, not really. No matter what the circumstance is, the majority of people morph themselves into something that they believe would be allowed and accepted by other people’s own thoughts, not their own.
Bringing this through provoking situation into my own world, I can honestly claim myself as guilty of altering myself in the past. I used to think so highly of how people would think of me, that it eventually got to me. I still expressed myself how I wanted, but people would see and think of me differently than I desired. Now, I believe that I am truly happy with myself and honestly do not think all that much of what other people think of me. To me, as long as I am happy with who I am and how I present myself, I am comfortable within my own skin.
Self-expression is one of the most important aspects of one’s life. Unfortunately, this potentially is the most judged thing about someone. One can express themselves through clothes, hair, and their natural personality, the list goes on, but often times, you cannot be yourself because of what other people think of you.
No matter how much you want to express yourself freely, there will always be that slight fear of other peoples’ opinions. It is difficult to not care about what other people think of you because if you are judged or thought of poorly, it is a low blow to your self-esteem. We as people naturally want to so badly be seen by others in a light that is accepted, that we often times hid who we truly are; unique.
By the absolute need of wanting to feel accepted, we alter ourselves to “fit in” to our society. This is potentially “controlling” how others see and think about us, but does it make us happy? Personally, I would say no, not really. No matter what the circumstance is, the majority of people morph themselves into something that they believe would be allowed and accepted by other people’s own thoughts, not their own.
Bringing this through provoking situation into my own world, I can honestly claim myself as guilty of altering myself in the past. I used to think so highly of how people would think of me, that it eventually got to me. I still expressed myself how I wanted, but people would see and think of me differently than I desired. Now, I believe that I am truly happy with myself and honestly do not think all that much of what other people think of me. To me, as long as I am happy with who I am and how I present myself, I am comfortable within my own skin.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Let Freedom Ring
What is more important? Freedom or survival?
Freedom is without a doubt more important to me than survival. Personally, there is no comparison. Without freedom, I would not live the life I do today. There would be no life behind my eyes. I could not do as a pleased. When I look at third world countries and see their limited liberty, I feel disgusted. If I try to imagine myself living like that, I simply try to clear it out of my mind at lightning speed. I would not want to live a kind of “life” where I knew what certain things I was missing out on. Freedom is life.
Survival is just the state of living, nothing more. Life without freedom is just skimming the surface of existence. There is nothing to look forward to or potentially live for. You would wake up, “live” your day, and then return to your sleep. It would be an unfulfilling pattern. When I think of people living their lives just surviving, I feel heartbroken. It may sounds stereotypical, but I immediately think of people with war in their country. I remember the stories of women not being able to vote or be taken seriously. I imagine children without parents, merely surviving. That to me is unfair and unacceptable.
My life is fueled by my freedom. I cherish and take pride in my freedom. I will proudly wear my red, white, and blue on Independence Day. I live for my freedom. I love and support my troops. And most importantly, I firmly believe in when I say the Pledge of Alligence, “with liberty and justice for all”.
Freedom is without a doubt more important to me than survival. Personally, there is no comparison. Without freedom, I would not live the life I do today. There would be no life behind my eyes. I could not do as a pleased. When I look at third world countries and see their limited liberty, I feel disgusted. If I try to imagine myself living like that, I simply try to clear it out of my mind at lightning speed. I would not want to live a kind of “life” where I knew what certain things I was missing out on. Freedom is life.
Survival is just the state of living, nothing more. Life without freedom is just skimming the surface of existence. There is nothing to look forward to or potentially live for. You would wake up, “live” your day, and then return to your sleep. It would be an unfulfilling pattern. When I think of people living their lives just surviving, I feel heartbroken. It may sounds stereotypical, but I immediately think of people with war in their country. I remember the stories of women not being able to vote or be taken seriously. I imagine children without parents, merely surviving. That to me is unfair and unacceptable.
My life is fueled by my freedom. I cherish and take pride in my freedom. I will proudly wear my red, white, and blue on Independence Day. I live for my freedom. I love and support my troops. And most importantly, I firmly believe in when I say the Pledge of Alligence, “with liberty and justice for all”.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Tugging Between Idea of War
Is war ever a good thing? Is there any cause for which you would go to war?
War is often thought of as violent bloodshed affecting millions around the world. To many, including myself, war is not necessarily a “good” thing, but is commonly a necessity. Yes, bloodshed makes people shudder, but sometimes you almost need it in order to make your point. For example, headlines and crawlers on the news often read “Alert: 10 American Soldiers Dead in Afghanistan”. The immediate reaction is horror. Men and women from our nation: dead. War is bloodily violent, but mostly needed to get what you want. Yes, practical ways of peace making should be tried first, but when all else fails war is what we must turn to.
I assume that my argument is contradictory when saying I support both peaceful resolutions and war, but I believe that it is a practical way of thinking. This is a just way of thinking because of course, no one wants to fight in a war and would much rather participate in peaceful manners, but when the going gets tough, it is time to bring out the big guns.
Personally, I could never make myself physically fight in a war. Yes, I stand strongly behind my troops, but never could I do what they go through daily. I very much so admire our troops fighting for us while we are at home, safe and sound. Fighting in war takes courage, physical and mental strength, and passion for your country. I most likely sound like a coward, but that is not entirely true. I have a burning passion to help in the war efforts, but maybe not first hand.
Seeing myself physically killing for something I believe strongly in would most likely never happen. But one does not need to do that to “go to war”. One can simply help second handedly. For example, I am not first handedly fighting against Joseph Kony for the Invisible Children, but I am still “fighting” for what I believe in. I desperately try, and sometimes fail, to fight for the children of Uganda. I fight to raise money. I fight and race against other schools. I passionately “go to war” for these unseen children. I believe I am at war. And just like our soldiers, I will not stop fighting until I win.
War is often thought of as violent bloodshed affecting millions around the world. To many, including myself, war is not necessarily a “good” thing, but is commonly a necessity. Yes, bloodshed makes people shudder, but sometimes you almost need it in order to make your point. For example, headlines and crawlers on the news often read “Alert: 10 American Soldiers Dead in Afghanistan”. The immediate reaction is horror. Men and women from our nation: dead. War is bloodily violent, but mostly needed to get what you want. Yes, practical ways of peace making should be tried first, but when all else fails war is what we must turn to.
I assume that my argument is contradictory when saying I support both peaceful resolutions and war, but I believe that it is a practical way of thinking. This is a just way of thinking because of course, no one wants to fight in a war and would much rather participate in peaceful manners, but when the going gets tough, it is time to bring out the big guns.
Personally, I could never make myself physically fight in a war. Yes, I stand strongly behind my troops, but never could I do what they go through daily. I very much so admire our troops fighting for us while we are at home, safe and sound. Fighting in war takes courage, physical and mental strength, and passion for your country. I most likely sound like a coward, but that is not entirely true. I have a burning passion to help in the war efforts, but maybe not first hand.
Seeing myself physically killing for something I believe strongly in would most likely never happen. But one does not need to do that to “go to war”. One can simply help second handedly. For example, I am not first handedly fighting against Joseph Kony for the Invisible Children, but I am still “fighting” for what I believe in. I desperately try, and sometimes fail, to fight for the children of Uganda. I fight to raise money. I fight and race against other schools. I passionately “go to war” for these unseen children. I believe I am at war. And just like our soldiers, I will not stop fighting until I win.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Of Mice and Men Characters
Q: Who was your favorite character in the book "Of Mice and Men"?
A: After reading “Of Mice and Men”, I have come to know many characters. Although, many of these characters I know on different levels. Therefore, I would have to say my favorite character is Candy.
Candy is really what people would call “a good-ole’ guy”. Candy is very compassionate towards his old aged dog, which I found very endearing. His love toward the old dog was almost sad in a way because it showed that that dog was the only thing Candy had living for. This shows that Candy is very much loving and caring, which initially attracted me toward him.
What I also liked about Candy was that he looked out for George and Lennie. One would think that in those days, it’s every man from himself. Candy went against this theory by immediately warning George and Lennie the dangers of Curley and his wife. This again portrayed Candy’s caring and nice side of him, which generally everyone wants to be friends with. Therefore, I really enjoyed Candy’s character.
Candy was really just the old soul in the book, who just wanted something to live for. Candy’s desperation for the farm made me somewhat upset because just a farm would make him an extremely happy man. Candy was definitely my favorite character in “Of Mice in Men” mainly because of his compassion toward other people.
A: After reading “Of Mice and Men”, I have come to know many characters. Although, many of these characters I know on different levels. Therefore, I would have to say my favorite character is Candy.
Candy is really what people would call “a good-ole’ guy”. Candy is very compassionate towards his old aged dog, which I found very endearing. His love toward the old dog was almost sad in a way because it showed that that dog was the only thing Candy had living for. This shows that Candy is very much loving and caring, which initially attracted me toward him.
What I also liked about Candy was that he looked out for George and Lennie. One would think that in those days, it’s every man from himself. Candy went against this theory by immediately warning George and Lennie the dangers of Curley and his wife. This again portrayed Candy’s caring and nice side of him, which generally everyone wants to be friends with. Therefore, I really enjoyed Candy’s character.
Candy was really just the old soul in the book, who just wanted something to live for. Candy’s desperation for the farm made me somewhat upset because just a farm would make him an extremely happy man. Candy was definitely my favorite character in “Of Mice in Men” mainly because of his compassion toward other people.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Euthanasia
Q: Define euthanasia. Then defend or condemn the practice and justify your beliefs.
A: Euthanasia: the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
Euthanasia is illegal in most countries, but should be legalized in said countries. Euthanasia allows human beings and animals to be put out of their misery and end their pain. It is one of few ways to end one’s life without the effect of pain or the long process of the actual death.
If I were to suffer from some sort of accident, I already have my life after the event planned out. I have thought of just being kept alive, but after a year and no hope for recovery, I would prefer to be euthanized. To me, if you are brain dead with no chance of recovery, plugged into some machine, it really is not life. If that were to happen to me, heaven forbid, I would not want my family to have to pay for me to “live” that sort of life. I would hate to have them suffer; visiting a hospital, and look at their sister or daughter lay in a bed with no chance of recovery. That to me seems extremely wrong.
Euthanasia to me is a very logical option. Between brain dead and suffering patients to over crowded animal shelters, euthanasia seems to be the logical choice. Although it is hard to see someone die, I’d rather see them die knowing they are at peace than seeing them continue to suffer in their painful life.
A: Euthanasia: the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
Euthanasia is illegal in most countries, but should be legalized in said countries. Euthanasia allows human beings and animals to be put out of their misery and end their pain. It is one of few ways to end one’s life without the effect of pain or the long process of the actual death.
If I were to suffer from some sort of accident, I already have my life after the event planned out. I have thought of just being kept alive, but after a year and no hope for recovery, I would prefer to be euthanized. To me, if you are brain dead with no chance of recovery, plugged into some machine, it really is not life. If that were to happen to me, heaven forbid, I would not want my family to have to pay for me to “live” that sort of life. I would hate to have them suffer; visiting a hospital, and look at their sister or daughter lay in a bed with no chance of recovery. That to me seems extremely wrong.
Euthanasia to me is a very logical option. Between brain dead and suffering patients to over crowded animal shelters, euthanasia seems to be the logical choice. Although it is hard to see someone die, I’d rather see them die knowing they are at peace than seeing them continue to suffer in their painful life.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Failed Dreams
Q: Why do dreams sometimes fail?
A: Every human being has had some sort of dream or desire. They would vary and much as something big like saving money for a new pair of shoes or making it to medical school. Unfortunately, dreams fail often, and possibly more than they come true. “I wish I could have perfect attendance”, but you come down with bronchitis. “I dream of becoming a movie star”, but you’re a horrible actor. Or even, “I really want be the first of my family to go to college”, but the recession strikes and you have no money.
In my own life, many of my dreams have failed. Most of these have failed due to myself, but often times other people. Maybe I didn’t try hard enough or dedicate myself to the fullest extent. Occasionally, not necessarily dreams, but wants and desires have fallen flat due to other people. Yes, this is partially my own fault for relying on people too much, or trusting too much, but in the end, I did my best in those particular situations.
In Of Mice and Men, Lennie and George have the dream to one day own their own ranch. Due to money issues, their dream probably would not have come true if they didn’t allow a friend, Candy, to help them out. With Candy, their dream will most likely come true, although again, it has the potential to fail. This is due to George’s irresponsible actions, which include visiting the brothel. By doing this, George is wasting his and Lennie’s hard earned money and giving it to, in all honestly, whores. Lennie and George’s dream could potentially fail due to stupid decisions made by George, without the consent of Lennie, which is completely unfair. Like myself, Lennie depends on other people to make his dream come true, which will most likely hurt him in the long run.
A: Every human being has had some sort of dream or desire. They would vary and much as something big like saving money for a new pair of shoes or making it to medical school. Unfortunately, dreams fail often, and possibly more than they come true. “I wish I could have perfect attendance”, but you come down with bronchitis. “I dream of becoming a movie star”, but you’re a horrible actor. Or even, “I really want be the first of my family to go to college”, but the recession strikes and you have no money.
In my own life, many of my dreams have failed. Most of these have failed due to myself, but often times other people. Maybe I didn’t try hard enough or dedicate myself to the fullest extent. Occasionally, not necessarily dreams, but wants and desires have fallen flat due to other people. Yes, this is partially my own fault for relying on people too much, or trusting too much, but in the end, I did my best in those particular situations.
In Of Mice and Men, Lennie and George have the dream to one day own their own ranch. Due to money issues, their dream probably would not have come true if they didn’t allow a friend, Candy, to help them out. With Candy, their dream will most likely come true, although again, it has the potential to fail. This is due to George’s irresponsible actions, which include visiting the brothel. By doing this, George is wasting his and Lennie’s hard earned money and giving it to, in all honestly, whores. Lennie and George’s dream could potentially fail due to stupid decisions made by George, without the consent of Lennie, which is completely unfair. Like myself, Lennie depends on other people to make his dream come true, which will most likely hurt him in the long run.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
"Belonging"
Q: How important is it for human beings to have a place where they "belong", where there are people who know them and love them?
A: In today’s society, it now seems to be extremely important to “fit in” or “belong”. Cliques and defined groups of people generally rule most schools, towns, and cities. Cliques are simply a “security blanket” for oneself. You’re trapped. You are sucked into a certain group with no way out without being called “changed”. When in all actuality, you’re just being yourself. You don’t have to pretend to “fit in” anymore.
Having friends and family is extremely important to live life, but not always do you necessarily “fit in” or “belong”. Real friends will love no matter who you are. Real friends don’t care what you are; a geek, freak, jock, preppy, punk: all common cliques. They love you for who you are, not what you seem to come off as or what you look like.
What it comes down to is not to necessarily “belong” or “fit in”, but to feel comfortable around the people you are with. No two human beings in the world are alike. We are like fingerprints, completely unique. Therefore, we will never truly “belong” anywhere, but will feel welcomed and loved. This is when you can say you are truly at “home”.
A: In today’s society, it now seems to be extremely important to “fit in” or “belong”. Cliques and defined groups of people generally rule most schools, towns, and cities. Cliques are simply a “security blanket” for oneself. You’re trapped. You are sucked into a certain group with no way out without being called “changed”. When in all actuality, you’re just being yourself. You don’t have to pretend to “fit in” anymore.
Having friends and family is extremely important to live life, but not always do you necessarily “fit in” or “belong”. Real friends will love no matter who you are. Real friends don’t care what you are; a geek, freak, jock, preppy, punk: all common cliques. They love you for who you are, not what you seem to come off as or what you look like.
What it comes down to is not to necessarily “belong” or “fit in”, but to feel comfortable around the people you are with. No two human beings in the world are alike. We are like fingerprints, completely unique. Therefore, we will never truly “belong” anywhere, but will feel welcomed and loved. This is when you can say you are truly at “home”.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Importance of Friends
Q: What makes a friend? Why is it important to have a friend?
A: The importance of friends is key to one’s life. Without them, there simply is not a reason for many meanings in that one person’s life. Friends are there to support you through think and thin. Friends are there to help you out. Friends are there to lean on when you need them most. Friends are there to tell you the truth no matter what, not to lie. And most importantly, friends are there to help you live your life to its fullest potential
A friend is to be your ally. A friend is your superhero, fighting off all the bad guys, protecting you from evil. A friend laughs at you when you fall down the stairs, but eventually helps you up in the end. A friend is someone you confide in, sharing juicy secrets. A friend makes fun of you and your “oh so charming” ways. But a true friend is one that stands up for you, like a brick wall, with no intention of backing down.
Everyone deserves a friend. Everyone needs someone they can talk with. Everyone deserves to have a Buzz Light Year to their Woody. A cookie to their milk. Peanut butter to their jelly. But most importantly, everyone deserves to have someone they cannot live without. A friend.
A: The importance of friends is key to one’s life. Without them, there simply is not a reason for many meanings in that one person’s life. Friends are there to support you through think and thin. Friends are there to help you out. Friends are there to lean on when you need them most. Friends are there to tell you the truth no matter what, not to lie. And most importantly, friends are there to help you live your life to its fullest potential
A friend is to be your ally. A friend is your superhero, fighting off all the bad guys, protecting you from evil. A friend laughs at you when you fall down the stairs, but eventually helps you up in the end. A friend is someone you confide in, sharing juicy secrets. A friend makes fun of you and your “oh so charming” ways. But a true friend is one that stands up for you, like a brick wall, with no intention of backing down.
Everyone deserves a friend. Everyone needs someone they can talk with. Everyone deserves to have a Buzz Light Year to their Woody. A cookie to their milk. Peanut butter to their jelly. But most importantly, everyone deserves to have someone they cannot live without. A friend.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Anticipation/Reaction Guide
Q: People that are ppor should rely on their friends, family, or church for help, not the government.
A: I do not agree that people whom are poor should rely on the government. With the new policies and president, the “poor people” are doing just that, relying on the government. Many people who are capable of getting themselves a job do not and will not do so now because of the current government. Instead, these lazy people will willingly collect what they believe is “their” money from people that are actually working hard to make that money in the first place. These people relying on the government are cheating the rest of the public out of their rightly earned money.
These “poor people” are also making our economy what it is today. Mainly because of these specific people, we are now in our terrible recession. If these “poor people” man-up and get a job, which they can get, we would not be in the situation we are in today.
There are also people whom which have disabilities and cannot work, and receive a payment from the government. This situation is okay. These people deserve to get their payments. The “poor people” are also cheating the disabled people out of their much-needed money.
These “poor people” are cheating us out of our rightfully earned money, ruining our economy, and making a fool out of our country. Because of these people, the United States is drowning in debt.
A: I do not agree that people whom are poor should rely on the government. With the new policies and president, the “poor people” are doing just that, relying on the government. Many people who are capable of getting themselves a job do not and will not do so now because of the current government. Instead, these lazy people will willingly collect what they believe is “their” money from people that are actually working hard to make that money in the first place. These people relying on the government are cheating the rest of the public out of their rightly earned money.
These “poor people” are also making our economy what it is today. Mainly because of these specific people, we are now in our terrible recession. If these “poor people” man-up and get a job, which they can get, we would not be in the situation we are in today.
There are also people whom which have disabilities and cannot work, and receive a payment from the government. This situation is okay. These people deserve to get their payments. The “poor people” are also cheating the disabled people out of their much-needed money.
These “poor people” are cheating us out of our rightfully earned money, ruining our economy, and making a fool out of our country. Because of these people, the United States is drowning in debt.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Romeo and Juliet Responses
Q: Do you think that The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is really a tragedy? Explain your response.
A: After reading "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet", I do not believe that it is truly a tragedy. Yes, two young lives were ended, but they only brought it upon themselves. In my point of view, an event can only be classified as a tragedy if all close parties are equally effected. I realize that both the Montague and Capulet families were "heartbroken", but Romeo and Juliet took their own lives as their own decision. Romeo and Juliet thought it was best for them to both die together, therefore, it was not necessarily a tragedy in their eyes while committing said tragedy.
Q: Was it wise of Friar Lawrence to give the potion to Juliet? Why or why not?
A: No, I do not believe it was wise at all in the action of the Friar giving Juliet the potion. Although he most likely thought that by him doing this it was best, it truly was not by any means. If he were in the right mindset, he would have easily realized that something terribly wrong could happen within this plan. The Friar should have known somewhat about the plague that disallowed the letter to be sent. And yes, the Friar supposedly knows much about potions and what not, but even in medicine today things do not always work. If the Friar truly wanted this plan to work, he would have even more so thought the entire plan itself through.
Q: Was it right for Romeo and Juliet to run off and get married? Or was it foolish? Or both? Explain your response.
A: I believe that it was very foolish on both Romeo and Juliet's part. First off, they are only thirteen. No thirteen year old is mature enough to make the decision to get married. That is not only immature, but extremely selfish. Also, if Romeo and Juliet were older, there is not reason to keep it from their families. Yes, their families are in a disagreement with each other, but if it's your real family and they care about you, they will back up you up no matter what. In reality, no two people are foolish enough to get married after knowing each other but only a few hours. Romeo and Juliet's choice to be secretly married was not only foolish, but stupid.
A: After reading "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet", I do not believe that it is truly a tragedy. Yes, two young lives were ended, but they only brought it upon themselves. In my point of view, an event can only be classified as a tragedy if all close parties are equally effected. I realize that both the Montague and Capulet families were "heartbroken", but Romeo and Juliet took their own lives as their own decision. Romeo and Juliet thought it was best for them to both die together, therefore, it was not necessarily a tragedy in their eyes while committing said tragedy.
Q: Was it wise of Friar Lawrence to give the potion to Juliet? Why or why not?
A: No, I do not believe it was wise at all in the action of the Friar giving Juliet the potion. Although he most likely thought that by him doing this it was best, it truly was not by any means. If he were in the right mindset, he would have easily realized that something terribly wrong could happen within this plan. The Friar should have known somewhat about the plague that disallowed the letter to be sent. And yes, the Friar supposedly knows much about potions and what not, but even in medicine today things do not always work. If the Friar truly wanted this plan to work, he would have even more so thought the entire plan itself through.
Q: Was it right for Romeo and Juliet to run off and get married? Or was it foolish? Or both? Explain your response.
A: I believe that it was very foolish on both Romeo and Juliet's part. First off, they are only thirteen. No thirteen year old is mature enough to make the decision to get married. That is not only immature, but extremely selfish. Also, if Romeo and Juliet were older, there is not reason to keep it from their families. Yes, their families are in a disagreement with each other, but if it's your real family and they care about you, they will back up you up no matter what. In reality, no two people are foolish enough to get married after knowing each other but only a few hours. Romeo and Juliet's choice to be secretly married was not only foolish, but stupid.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Romeo and Juliet Act 1
After reading Act 1 in “Romeo and Juliet” for the second time, I seem to notice a little bit more. The characters are just as I remember, but Romeo seems to be somewhat more annoying this time. I’m not sure exactly why this is, but he tends to be whinier this time around. This could possibly be because we have talked about his desperate whining in class more in depth then I had last year.
As for Romeo loving Rosaline and Juliet, I do not believe that it is real. I know that Shakespeare made the love interest change to make the story more dramatic, but it really doesn’t seem all that believable. Yes, I do believe that Romeo was infatuated with Rosaline, he had seen her many times before, but to fall in love with Juliet in a matter of seconds seems somewhat ridiculous.
The puns and wordplay in the book I find to be very clever. No, it may not be relevant all of the time, but I do believe that it brings much humor to the play. Often times it is somewhat inappropriate, but I do believe that it was very clever of Shakespeare to include it. Playing on that many words has to be very difficult.
The language in the play is at times difficult to understand, but I truly do love it. I would much rather read the original play than a modern day English version. Some things I wish we would discuss more are the simile, metaphor, and imagery use. In my class last year, we heavily focused on this, which I believe made the play that much more interesting.
I absolutely love “Romeo and Juliet” and have no complaints about the play. Although I read it last year, I could read it a thousand times more.
As for Romeo loving Rosaline and Juliet, I do not believe that it is real. I know that Shakespeare made the love interest change to make the story more dramatic, but it really doesn’t seem all that believable. Yes, I do believe that Romeo was infatuated with Rosaline, he had seen her many times before, but to fall in love with Juliet in a matter of seconds seems somewhat ridiculous.
The puns and wordplay in the book I find to be very clever. No, it may not be relevant all of the time, but I do believe that it brings much humor to the play. Often times it is somewhat inappropriate, but I do believe that it was very clever of Shakespeare to include it. Playing on that many words has to be very difficult.
The language in the play is at times difficult to understand, but I truly do love it. I would much rather read the original play than a modern day English version. Some things I wish we would discuss more are the simile, metaphor, and imagery use. In my class last year, we heavily focused on this, which I believe made the play that much more interesting.
I absolutely love “Romeo and Juliet” and have no complaints about the play. Although I read it last year, I could read it a thousand times more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
