I do not enjoy using blogs.
I have used a blog in marketing for about a week. It was the same as Mr. Hughes' blogs.
I do not like anything about the blog. What I like least is how it is inconsistent on which day something is given to us and when it is due. Sometimes I do not even know we have homework.
The system is easy and was always easy.
I would hate it if my other classes started doing this.
I do have the internet at home.
I usually write my blog responses at school.
I learn better if we write out stuff because I always have it with me and I can ask questions about it right then and there.
I do not have my own blog outside of Mr. Hughes class.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Seven Seas of Rhye by Queen
Fear me you lords and lady preachersI descend upon your Earth from the skiesI command your very souls you unbelieversBring before me what is mineThe seven seas of Rhye.
Can you hear me you peers and privy counsellorsI stand before you naked to the eyesI will destroy any man who dares abuse my trustI swear that you'll be mineThe seven seas of Rhye.
Sister - I live and lie for youMister - do and I'll dieYou are mine I possess youI belong to you forever-ever-ever-aah.
Storm the master-marathon I'll fly throughBy flash and thunder-fire andI'll survive - I'll survive - I'll surviveI'll survive - I'll survive - I'll surviveThen I'll defy the laws of nature and come out aliveThen I'll get you.
Be gone with you - you shod and shady senatorsGive out the good, leave out the bad evil criesI challenge the mighty Titan and his troubadoursAnd with a smile.
I'll take you to the seven seas of Rhye- Oh I do like to be beside the seaside- Oh I do like to be beside the sea- Where the brass band plays - tiddly om pom pom- Oh I do like to be beside the seaside- Oh I do like to be beside the sea.
Can you hear me you peers and privy counsellorsI stand before you naked to the eyesI will destroy any man who dares abuse my trustI swear that you'll be mineThe seven seas of Rhye.
Sister - I live and lie for youMister - do and I'll dieYou are mine I possess youI belong to you forever-ever-ever-aah.
Storm the master-marathon I'll fly throughBy flash and thunder-fire andI'll survive - I'll survive - I'll surviveI'll survive - I'll survive - I'll surviveThen I'll defy the laws of nature and come out aliveThen I'll get you.
Be gone with you - you shod and shady senatorsGive out the good, leave out the bad evil criesI challenge the mighty Titan and his troubadoursAnd with a smile.
I'll take you to the seven seas of Rhye- Oh I do like to be beside the seaside- Oh I do like to be beside the sea- Where the brass band plays - tiddly om pom pom- Oh I do like to be beside the seaside- Oh I do like to be beside the sea.
Prompt 2
.Richard Wilbur and Billy Collins both wrote poems about children. Both of them had similarities in their poems but they also had their differences. Each author uses literary devices to make their point.
Richard Wilbur makes the child in his poem a scared little kid. His story is one about a kid who is afraid of an owl. The child is told that the owl is saying, "Who cooks for you". This makes the kid better for he is no longer afraid. His parents had solved the problem and helped the scared kid go to sleep.
Billy Collins writes a similar but different story from A Barred Owl. His story is about a history teacher who tells kids lies because he does not think that the kids can take the truth. The child in Richard Wilbur's is an innocent child but this is not so in Collins' story. At the end the children bully other kids despite the happy stories the teacher tells them.
There is a strong connection between these two books as well. They are both about kids and how we lie to them. In Wilbur's story we lie to them to soothe their fears. In Collins' story we lie to them so that they do not hear such wretched stories as The War of The Roses.
All in all, these two stories are two different stories but are very much alike. Both tell kids lies for what we think is a good reason. In Wilbur's story the lie does some good, but in Collin's story the lies do the kids no good at all.
Richard Wilbur makes the child in his poem a scared little kid. His story is one about a kid who is afraid of an owl. The child is told that the owl is saying, "Who cooks for you". This makes the kid better for he is no longer afraid. His parents had solved the problem and helped the scared kid go to sleep.
Billy Collins writes a similar but different story from A Barred Owl. His story is about a history teacher who tells kids lies because he does not think that the kids can take the truth. The child in Richard Wilbur's is an innocent child but this is not so in Collins' story. At the end the children bully other kids despite the happy stories the teacher tells them.
There is a strong connection between these two books as well. They are both about kids and how we lie to them. In Wilbur's story we lie to them to soothe their fears. In Collins' story we lie to them so that they do not hear such wretched stories as The War of The Roses.
All in all, these two stories are two different stories but are very much alike. Both tell kids lies for what we think is a good reason. In Wilbur's story the lie does some good, but in Collin's story the lies do the kids no good at all.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Prompt
The Metamorphosis uses symbols to make the book more meaningful. Franz Kafka was a writer who loved to use symbols. The symbols are important to this particular book. The whole book is a bunch of symbols used to teach us a lesson.
A symbol that was used was Gregor's room. Gregor was trapped in his small room, almost as if it were a prison. As a bug he stays in his room so that nobody sees him. In this sense it is not just a prison but a safe haven as well.
Another symbol in Metamorphosis is Gregor's furniture. Even though Gregor can not use his furniture anymore he is still attached to it. When his mother and sister take his furniture away he feels like his room is empty. His furniture was something dear to him and it was taken away from him.
Gregor's father is another symbol in the book. He is the authority in this book. If he thinks Gregor is out of line he will make him pay. He is also the one who decides what happens to Gregor since he is the leader of the household. The father ultimately runs the show.
All in all, there are many symbols in Metamorphosis. Each one has its own meaning and adds to the book significantly. Franz Kafka's use of symbols gives the book a deeper meaning then what you see at first. If you read the book more than once you begin to see different things that you would not have seen the first time.
A symbol that was used was Gregor's room. Gregor was trapped in his small room, almost as if it were a prison. As a bug he stays in his room so that nobody sees him. In this sense it is not just a prison but a safe haven as well.
Another symbol in Metamorphosis is Gregor's furniture. Even though Gregor can not use his furniture anymore he is still attached to it. When his mother and sister take his furniture away he feels like his room is empty. His furniture was something dear to him and it was taken away from him.
Gregor's father is another symbol in the book. He is the authority in this book. If he thinks Gregor is out of line he will make him pay. He is also the one who decides what happens to Gregor since he is the leader of the household. The father ultimately runs the show.
All in all, there are many symbols in Metamorphosis. Each one has its own meaning and adds to the book significantly. Franz Kafka's use of symbols gives the book a deeper meaning then what you see at first. If you read the book more than once you begin to see different things that you would not have seen the first time.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
A Hunger Artist
Why are there hunger artists?
What is the significance of 40 days?
How does this man live for 40 days without food?
How many hunger artists are there?
Why is this man in a cage if he clearly has no desire to eat?
The hunger artist use to be a huge thing. People would come during all parts of the day to see the hunger artist. The whole city viewed him at some point in the day. The man could eat nothing except for a little water he used to moisten his lips. There were people appointed to make sure that the man ate nothing, even though this was completley unecesary. He had no desire to eat anything. This gave the people some relief because they knew this way that the man was not cheating.
The hunger artist was the only one that could truly admire what he did though. Everybody else had no idea wether he had really gone for forty days except for the hunger artist himself because nobody had the time to watch him day in and day out. Of course the hunger artist was the only one who knew how easy it was though. He did try to tell people it was easy but nobody believed him.
When forty days had gone by the impresario ended the fast. A large celebration took place for the hunger artist. The cage he was kept in was opened and music blaired as two women took him out of his cage to a table with food on it. The hunger artist did not want the food though. He wanted to go longer and become the greatest hunger artist ever, but the impresario forced the food into his mouth and evrybody took a toast.
The hunger artist lived on fasting while taking short breaks between fasts. He did this because he wanted to. He was too old to change professions anyway. Eventualy he joined a circus where he was once again put in a cage for peole to watch him. At first people would come to look at him but after a while nobody paid attention to him. It was well over forty days but nobody knew exactly how many because nobody took track, not even the hunger artist. Nobody really cared for him. The Cage and everything around it was untouched and pooorly maintained. People began to forget he was even there until a supervisor found him. The supervisor asked the hunger artist if he was still alive and he said yes and told him not to admire him because he had to fast since he did not like any food. that is when he died and was replaced by a panther who brought lots of spectators.
What is the significance of 40 days?
How does this man live for 40 days without food?
How many hunger artists are there?
Why is this man in a cage if he clearly has no desire to eat?
The hunger artist use to be a huge thing. People would come during all parts of the day to see the hunger artist. The whole city viewed him at some point in the day. The man could eat nothing except for a little water he used to moisten his lips. There were people appointed to make sure that the man ate nothing, even though this was completley unecesary. He had no desire to eat anything. This gave the people some relief because they knew this way that the man was not cheating.
The hunger artist was the only one that could truly admire what he did though. Everybody else had no idea wether he had really gone for forty days except for the hunger artist himself because nobody had the time to watch him day in and day out. Of course the hunger artist was the only one who knew how easy it was though. He did try to tell people it was easy but nobody believed him.
When forty days had gone by the impresario ended the fast. A large celebration took place for the hunger artist. The cage he was kept in was opened and music blaired as two women took him out of his cage to a table with food on it. The hunger artist did not want the food though. He wanted to go longer and become the greatest hunger artist ever, but the impresario forced the food into his mouth and evrybody took a toast.
The hunger artist lived on fasting while taking short breaks between fasts. He did this because he wanted to. He was too old to change professions anyway. Eventualy he joined a circus where he was once again put in a cage for peole to watch him. At first people would come to look at him but after a while nobody paid attention to him. It was well over forty days but nobody knew exactly how many because nobody took track, not even the hunger artist. Nobody really cared for him. The Cage and everything around it was untouched and pooorly maintained. People began to forget he was even there until a supervisor found him. The supervisor asked the hunger artist if he was still alive and he said yes and told him not to admire him because he had to fast since he did not like any food. that is when he died and was replaced by a panther who brought lots of spectators.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Writing Prompt
In Brave New World Bernard Marx is a man who, in his head, is pulled in conflicting directions. He is trained to be part of a united people but he feels like an individual. Bernard is often looked down on by others because he is different but he can not help the way he is.
The first of the two sides of the conflict in his head is unity. The world he lives in is all about unity. Bernard could give in to this and be happy, at least on the outside. On the inside he would be discontent because he is an individual who is not like the others. For all the soma and fellgoods in the world he would never feel the same as everbody else; he would never be truly happy, but he wants to be happy so he wants to be part of the crowd.
The other sidde of this conflict is to be an individual. He can think for himself and do whatever pleases him instead of whatever everybody else is doing. This way deffenitley suites him better. From birth he was always different. He is not the same physically or mentally. He would be better of being an individual.
This conflict within Bernard's head is of large significance to the book. The main theme of the book is individuality versus unity. Bernard's conflict allows us to decide which we think is better. It gives us an example to use when we think about which is better.
All in all, Bernard is a large part of Brave New World. His conflict between individuality and unity contributes a lot to the meaning of the book. In the end Bernard chooses individuality because he does not fit in with everbody else. Happiness and unity is not for everone.
The first of the two sides of the conflict in his head is unity. The world he lives in is all about unity. Bernard could give in to this and be happy, at least on the outside. On the inside he would be discontent because he is an individual who is not like the others. For all the soma and fellgoods in the world he would never feel the same as everbody else; he would never be truly happy, but he wants to be happy so he wants to be part of the crowd.
The other sidde of this conflict is to be an individual. He can think for himself and do whatever pleases him instead of whatever everybody else is doing. This way deffenitley suites him better. From birth he was always different. He is not the same physically or mentally. He would be better of being an individual.
This conflict within Bernard's head is of large significance to the book. The main theme of the book is individuality versus unity. Bernard's conflict allows us to decide which we think is better. It gives us an example to use when we think about which is better.
All in all, Bernard is a large part of Brave New World. His conflict between individuality and unity contributes a lot to the meaning of the book. In the end Bernard chooses individuality because he does not fit in with everbody else. Happiness and unity is not for everone.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Harrison Bergeron Response
We try to make everybody equal in our society and that is what Vonnegut is satirizing. I think the story argues that it is better that everybody is not equal. Therefore, the theme of this story is equality.
Diana Moon Glampers is an unrealistic character. No one person is capable of controling the whole world. She would have been stopped by a rebel long before she gained absolute power.
This story is told through the eyes of George and Hazel's. It is more effective this way because Harrison is too crazy to be a likable main character.
What Karen and Charles Wood say is not true. Some people are just more capable them others. This is the way of life and there is no way of stopping it.
Diana Moon Glampers is an unrealistic character. No one person is capable of controling the whole world. She would have been stopped by a rebel long before she gained absolute power.
This story is told through the eyes of George and Hazel's. It is more effective this way because Harrison is too crazy to be a likable main character.
What Karen and Charles Wood say is not true. Some people are just more capable them others. This is the way of life and there is no way of stopping it.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Why the Future Doesn't Need Us
1. How does this story remind you of Robot Dreams?
2. How does this story remind you of Brave New World?
3. Do you think it is possible for robots to have a mind of its own?
4. Do think these people are mad and don't have a clue of what they're talking about?
5. Would robots even have a reason to take control?
6. Do you think robots would be harmless or blood-thirsty?
7. Is it possible to set up the three laws or is that a bunch of nonsense?
2. How does this story remind you of Brave New World?
3. Do you think it is possible for robots to have a mind of its own?
4. Do think these people are mad and don't have a clue of what they're talking about?
5. Would robots even have a reason to take control?
6. Do you think robots would be harmless or blood-thirsty?
7. Is it possible to set up the three laws or is that a bunch of nonsense?
The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas
This story has so many unexplained things. I try to piece together what is not there, but I can not. The story is so out there that I can not even imagine what could fill in the blanks. But enough of that, what they do to the child is horrible. They treat him like he is not even human, but it must be done. For one person to lose all happiness is better than for everbody to lose it.
This story can be compared to 1984 because in both stories certain people are persecuted for the good of everbody. In this story it is the boy; in 1984 it is everybody who is taken away by the thought poolice. They are sacrificed so that everybody else can live happily in the utopia. If both societies did not do this everything would be turned upside down. Omelas would not be happy and Oceania would not have complete control over its people.
This story definitely uses lots and lots of descriptive writing. Everything is described to the smallest detail. Sometimes it seems to much detail is used. To much detail can bore people. Also, I did not need to know about the sores and the kid's butt, too much information.
1. What is the place in the mountains and why do they go there?
2. What happens when they see the child that makes them leave and why alone?
3. If you were in there place, would you sacrifce one child for the godd of the whole community?
4. Would you be able to live with yourself knowing what you are doing? Would you try and save the child?
5. Does the child ever think of trying to escape or is he contempt with where he is? Maybe he has given up all hope. Maybe he chose to do it. Is he angry with the townspeople? How did they chose the child?
This story can be compared to 1984 because in both stories certain people are persecuted for the good of everbody. In this story it is the boy; in 1984 it is everybody who is taken away by the thought poolice. They are sacrificed so that everybody else can live happily in the utopia. If both societies did not do this everything would be turned upside down. Omelas would not be happy and Oceania would not have complete control over its people.
This story definitely uses lots and lots of descriptive writing. Everything is described to the smallest detail. Sometimes it seems to much detail is used. To much detail can bore people. Also, I did not need to know about the sores and the kid's butt, too much information.
1. What is the place in the mountains and why do they go there?
2. What happens when they see the child that makes them leave and why alone?
3. If you were in there place, would you sacrifce one child for the godd of the whole community?
4. Would you be able to live with yourself knowing what you are doing? Would you try and save the child?
5. Does the child ever think of trying to escape or is he contempt with where he is? Maybe he has given up all hope. Maybe he chose to do it. Is he angry with the townspeople? How did they chose the child?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Goals
1. My top three colleges are: Michigan State, University of Michigan, and Central Michigan
2. My GPA goal for this year is at least a 3.8
3. My AP English exam goal is at least a 4
2. My GPA goal for this year is at least a 3.8
3. My AP English exam goal is at least a 4
Asimov Reading Response
In some ways this book can be compared to 1984. In this book all robots must answer to humans with no questions just as all citizens of Oceania must answer to Big Brother. The three laws were made to make sure that no robot would hurt humans and do everything that was told to them. ...robots obey orders. In the book Asimov writes, "They do the work you see them do and they do it readily and without trouble."(pg. 8,par. 6) This is because of three laws that keep the robots in line. The diffrence between the reading and 1984 is that these robots are kept in line to protect humans which is a good thing, but the people of Oceania are kept in line to make them do whatever Big Brother wants which is not good at all.
If George and Asimov were to sit down and have lunch together they would probably talk about how everybody has made millions of spin-offs of their ideas. Big Brother and the three rules for robots have been used in every book of its kind ever since. If the two of them had to agree on something it would be that it is wrong to take control of something, be it a human or robot. I think this because they both write of people or robots trying to overcome somebody's rule. The two of them would disagree on the fact that robots are worth saving. Asimov would say yes because that is what his book is about. Orwell would say no because they are pieces of metal. There is no evidence to back this up but that is what I think.
If George and Asimov were to sit down and have lunch together they would probably talk about how everybody has made millions of spin-offs of their ideas. Big Brother and the three rules for robots have been used in every book of its kind ever since. If the two of them had to agree on something it would be that it is wrong to take control of something, be it a human or robot. I think this because they both write of people or robots trying to overcome somebody's rule. The two of them would disagree on the fact that robots are worth saving. Asimov would say yes because that is what his book is about. Orwell would say no because they are pieces of metal. There is no evidence to back this up but that is what I think.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Watts' article assignment
Watts' thesis is what does it take for young men or women to be on the inside.(pg.3, 1st par.)
To Watts', religion just does not seem to fit in with the world today. If you tried to explain the Bible to a modern man he would be very confused.(pg.4, 2nd par.)
We should work with nature instead of trying to conquer it.(pg.8, 3rd par.)
Watts' explains the new experience as, 'a new feeling of what is to be "I"'. What I think he means is that we should live our own lives and not be ruled by a book.(pg.11, 2nd par.)
Myth is a fable but at the same time something we make sense of life with.(pg.12, 1st par.)
You find your true identity by letting things take their course.(pg.21, 2nd par.)
Just like the song and the book, their is a thing that everybody agrees is true. That thing may or may not be true, in this case it is religion. Watts tells us to not believe everything that is told to us. He says,"Just as money is not real, consumable wealth, books are not real life. to idolizescripturesis likeeating paper currency."
To Watts', religion just does not seem to fit in with the world today. If you tried to explain the Bible to a modern man he would be very confused.(pg.4, 2nd par.)
We should work with nature instead of trying to conquer it.(pg.8, 3rd par.)
Watts' explains the new experience as, 'a new feeling of what is to be "I"'. What I think he means is that we should live our own lives and not be ruled by a book.(pg.11, 2nd par.)
Myth is a fable but at the same time something we make sense of life with.(pg.12, 1st par.)
You find your true identity by letting things take their course.(pg.21, 2nd par.)
Just like the song and the book, their is a thing that everybody agrees is true. That thing may or may not be true, in this case it is religion. Watts tells us to not believe everything that is told to us. He says,"Just as money is not real, consumable wealth, books are not real life. to idolizescripturesis likeeating paper currency."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)