Reflection

 * Is writing online different than in a notebook?  In what ways?     

        I feel that writing online is very different than writing in a notebook. When I am online I am much more formal in my writing even if it is for an assignment. When I write in a notebook it feels less official to me. The fact that it is online makes me use better vocabulary and makes me think more about what I'm writing. Whenever a teacher tells me to do an assignment in a notebook I do it a bit sloppily and don't take as much care. I feel like when I write in a notebook I just write the first thing that comes into my head. I think things out more when I do a blog post. If it's a class assignment or homework in a notebook I always end up not doing as good a job as I can.

* In what ways did you benefit from the experience?

         I think I benefited a lot. It made me pay a lot more attention to what I was reading. Normally when I read something, I don't pay attention to the things like the message and the author's craft. I only pay attention to the story. It made me a much better reader, and I couldn't just skip reading on my own time like I could in previous grades. Even if a teacher made us keep a reading log, we still didn't need to think about what we were reading. The blog was also helpful because when we had to do the non-fiction critical analysis, it was good practice writing something opinionated about a non-fiction article.

* Do you think that people are more real online or do we create online personalities that project the best of ourselves? Or something else?

        
         I think people are very different online, or on any kind of social media (even texting). I think a person's online life is very different than who they really are. People try to appear cooler and smarter online, because people can only see what you post. They edit their accounts so people view them in a specific way. However, this may not be who they are. Also, over text, people don't need to respond right away or at all. They have a lot of time to think and word their response, but if it's face to face they can't really do that, so I think you won't get as real of an answer. People may present the best of their personality, or they may present something totally fake because they want to be seen as a different person.

        The author, Colbert King of the article The Wrong Way To Talk About Killings In D.C. wants us the reader to think about the way different killings are talked about in our world, and if they are being talked about in the wrong way. This means he wants people to choose their words more carefully when speaking about crimes, more specifically murder. 

        The way the author gets us to think about this is by giving us an example of a local reported who was shot while waiting for a bus. A man rode by on a dirt bike a shot her even though he was trying to kill someone else. The captain of police said in a press conference that the reporter was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The author disagrees. He say that she was in the right place at the right time because all she was doing was waiting for a bus after work and did nothing wrong. He says that the fact that a person can't even wait at a bus stop with out being scared of being hurt or killed is outrageous.  

        I agree with this. You can never really say wrong place wrong time unless it was a real accident. The fact that the thing happened in the first place is the problem not the fact that the person was standing there. In a way this maybe be police not wanting to take the blame for what happened and are leaving it up to the fact that she jest happened to be there and are ignoring the fact that another person had an attempt made on their life. 

        I am reading the book 1984 with my book club. It is an interesting concept. I think the author is trying to show us where he thinks the world is going. Also the problems with society at the time the book was written. I personally agree with how he thought the world was going and you see a lot of the elements of the society he created in our society today.
        He has created a society where people are under constant surveillance and oppressed by the government. You also see that in our world today. The NSA is constantly watching us and taking in information, this is very similar to the world he created. the thought police are like the NSA in a way. He also has the world run very efficiently and people don't do anything out of the ordinary. You see that more and more as our society becomes more mechanical. Finally he constricts peoples individualism in his story similar to the way the media and government are trying to in our society.
        The author was pointing out flaws and making a prediction about society. He was just about right.

        I read the whole script of the breakfast club. I think it sends a strong message about stereo types. You see a lot of traits of each stero type the nerd, the jock, the freak, the popular girl, and the criminal. But each has a trait that makes them a bit less like that. You also see them bond in detention.
       In this play they have a common enemy, the principal. Because of this you see how five totally different people could form real bonds with eachother. You see it most in the scene after bender shuts the door. The prisipal comes in and asks what happened and even though they all hate him they cover for him. As they are locked in a room together they start to learn more about eachother and each others problems. They discover that even though on the surface the jock and the popular girl seem like they have it made they both actually struggle with a lot. Also that the nerds biggest bully is himself and his parents and that he is actually strong when it comes to people. However I didn't find any thing out of the ordinary with the freak and the criminal. They stay very typical through out the whole movie. Yes they are very well developed characters but I don't feel that they stray too far from their stero type.
        Overall I think that the play does a good job of demonstrating stero types and how they can change and not be as they seem

NF Blog Post

        In this article Long-term Study Complicates Understanding of Child Abuse the author wants you to know the causes of child abuse and how some are wildly misconstrued. He wants you to realize that a lot of people even officials look for the wrong things to profile a child abuser.
         The way he gets you to think what he wants you to is he gives you a common thought. The thought that people who were abused as kid are more apt to abuse their kids. He then goes into statistics on a study of midwestern families and he gives statistics that further back up the fact that is is believed that people that were abused are more likely to abuse their kids. Finally however he brings up the fact that over all it is almost exactly 50-50 people who were abused and were not.
          In my opinion it is not surprising that people who were abused are not the most common abusers. I think they may have been so sad as a kid that they would never want to put their own child through that because they can understand how it feels to be abused in that way. However they may feel that they are carrying on a tradition or if the got abused why shouldn't their kids. I also think the fact that they are doing studies about this is great because it can rase awareness about this issue.

Hamlet

        I have just started reading Hamlet. I have been doing a lot with Shakespeare recently and I wanted to do more. I am not far into it so I have not been able to tell much. I am however very interested to see how the relationship between Hamlet and Horatio develops.
        I have not read much but I can see Horatio developing as a very reasonable character. In this way he can counter Hamlets impulsiveness.  You see this come out in the first scene where Hamlet sees his dad's ghost. As the story develops I think the purpose Horatio will serve is to in a way check Hamlet. When there are choices that need to be made, I think Hamlet will rush into them and Horatio will be there to pull him back. Horatio will in a way serve as a form of a conscience to Hamlet. He may oppose him to a point where they fight. It could go to far and they could end up as enemies or Hamlet could snap and get mad at Horatio. He could end up as the main antagonist of the story. He could also just be similar to an adviser to Hamlet. When Hamlet's father's ghost appears and tells him to follow Hamlet, without hesitation follows despite Horatio's protests. This shows that Hamlet may be a very impulsive character that doesn't think things through.
        In conclusion I predict Horatio will counter Hamlet in some way, whether it be good or bad.

     

revised post

        I started a trilogy by Don Robertson a little while ago. The series follows a young boy named Morris Bird III. In the first book The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread he is in elementary school and goes on a adventure to find his best friend. In The Sum and Total of Now he is in middle school and must deal with adolescents and maturing. In The Greatest Thing That Almost Happened , the last of the trilogy he is in highschool and getting ready to go to college. Over the course of the series Morris has dealt with a lot of death. The main part of each book so far has had to do with a death. In the first book he deals with his best friends death. In the second it has to do with his grandmas death. And here in the final book he deals with his own pending death. Don includes all this death to show Morris' truest self.
        Don Robertson makes each book centered around death to bring out the characters truest self in a realistic way. When Stanley, Morris' best friend,  dies you see Morris stop being a kid. When he is traveling to see his friend he is still very innocent, but when Stanley dies you see a change. He stops looking to be helped and starts taking things into his own hands. There are many other people that were hurt from the explosion. He is just in elementary school but he steps up and helps people that are hurt. By doing this he helps you see the change in the character. A death always poses an opportunity for a major character change to to reveal something about a character.
        In the second book Don kills Morris' grandma to illustrate that as much as Morris tries to push his family away he still needs them. When Morris' grandma gets sick Morris takes a real blow. Then on top of it all Morris' family just bickers and fights over his dying grandma's possessions. Nobody cares about his grandma, but she was someone that meant a ton to Morris and he feels like everyone is just pushing him and his grandma aside. This brings out the side of him that is still very kid-like and that he still needs his family to be there for him. But again Don brings out the different sides of Morris, he shows Morris still has strength by having him burn all his grandma's stuff. This illustrates The many aspects of people, again death brings this out.
        In the third book Don forces Morris to deal with his own pending death to bring out his most vulnerable side and to show also how strong he is. Morris shows his true colors at this point. Morris seems to be weak and strong in different ways. Each death brings out new ones. The ones that his own death brings out are the fact that he can crack sometimes even though he puts everything on himself. It also show who he care about most and who he puts ahead of himself. He puts his sister and his girlfriend ahead of him and that shows strength and compassion for his family even after his mothers death. His father pushes him away and that makes him more distant but before his death his feeling comes back. This again shows Morris' truest self.    
        Don choses who and when he kills people to illustrate all the sides of Morris. Each death has its own significance to the arc of the story and to Morris.

        I started the book The Greatest Things That Almost Happen by Don Robertson a little while ago. I then learned it was the third book in the series I was readying so I stopped and read the second. I started up again now. The series follows a young boy named Morris Bird III. In this book, the last of the trilogy he is in highschool and getting ready to go to college. Over the course of the series Morris has dealt with a lot of death. The main part of each book so far has had to do with a death. In the first book he deals with his best friends death. In the second it has to do with his grandmas death. Even though I have only just started this book the issue of death has already come up. His mother died.
        Don Robertson makes each book centered around death to bring out the characters truest self in a realistic way. When authors want you to see a characters real emotions and the way they are, a lot of times they cheat and use a way that would not work. When someone dies your raw emotions come out. It is a time when you are very fragile and exposed. This is a point where you can explore a characters subconscious emotions. This is what Don does with Morris Bird III. When he sees his friend Stanley killed in an explosion he becomes less aware and all of his subconscious emotions came through. This is the realest part of a person. Ever times a new death occurs you learn something new about Morris. When Stanley dies you see Morris stop being a kid. When he is traveling to see his friend he is still very innocent, but when Stanley dies you see a change. He stops looking to be helped and starts taking things into his own hands. There are many other people that were hurt from the explosion. He is just in elementary school but he steps up and helps people that are hurt. Then when his grandma dies you see that how ever mature he is still young and he wants his family together. But he doesn't get his family together so when his mom dies you see him push his family away and start to reside in his girlfriend Julie.
        Don choses who and when he kills people to illustrate all the sides of Morris. Each death has its own significance to the arc of the story and to Morris

The Sum and Total of Now

This was the second book of a trilogy, and it was very similar in structure to the first. The books are very slow paced yet very complex and confusing. This makes for a very difficult and interesting read. The climax is always at the very end of his books and the beginning is never important. In this one his grandmother is dying but the real action doesn't come until the end. The effect it has is there is sooooo much build to the climax. In some aspects a like it a lot but in a way it feels like the story is cut off too soon after the resolution. In the story the main character Morris is really close with his grandma and it's hard to deal with the fact that she is dying. His family spends all their time arguing over who will get what after she dies and this really hurts Morris because he feels like his family doesn't care about him or his grandma.

Morris and his grandma both go through a lot of struggles in this story. Morriss' biggest struggle is just the fact that his grandma is dying. She has helped him through a lot and he feels like once she is gone he will be alone in the world because he has become more and more distant with his family. When he goes to see him grandma to say goodbye all his family does is fight and Morris gets very upset because he is sad and he feels like no one in his family cares about him or his grandma. His grandma has a big barn full of old stuff and a nice old house and his family can't decide how to split it and that's all they care about. This is why Morris gets so upset. He sees the barn as the problem and he can't comprehend how his family is only concerned with what they can get. He idolizes he grandmother and feels like she is the only person that can understand him and when she is gone he feels alone. 

His grandma is dealing with similar problems. She feels that again no one cares about her. She sees what her death is doing to her family and she doesn't like it. She is in constant pain and she suffers a lot. Nobody sees this but Morris. She eventually asks him to kill her. I think this had a very Lange effect on Morris. He now feels like he should do what his grandma wants but he can't. When he does kill her he doesn't understand the fact that this is going to make his family stop fighting and that that was what is your grandmother ultimately wanted for him. Morris burns down the barn that had all of his grandmothers possessions to effectively stop his family from fighting and to achieve what his grandmother wanted for him. This changed Morris because he saw the world as more of an adult he realizes that it's not always easy to do the things that are the best for the people you love.
Morris faces a lot of problems but in the end I feel like he pulls through in a way that is much more mature.understands that even know what she did was an easy it was best for him his grandmother and his family and that even though all they did was bicker and fight over his grandmothers death he still cares a lot about them and he always has to do what's best for the group.

http://zacharygeessuperblog.blogspot.com/ 
        I read Zach Gee's blog post about Scat. I too have read the book and I agree with his analysis of the book. He talks a lot about if justice is served and why he feels it isn't in some cases and is in others. The story is about and illegal drilling operation. The company lights a fire and the main character Duane is blamed.
         Zach talk about how Duane is blamed because of the fact that he committed arson before. He burned a billboard that was advertising the plane company that his mom to when she left him. Zach feels that in this case justice was served, and this I disagree with. Yes burning a billboard isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's still wrong. The company did nothing, and he shouldn't take his anger at his mom out on it.
        Another point he makes is how justice is served for the cub and his mom. They are separated, because of the drilling company. Duane works with his teacher to help reunite them. In this case, I feel justice was served. The drilling company has done a lot of horrible things. One of them was splitting up the mom and cub. When Duane reunites them, justice is served because a bad deed was rectified even if it wasn't rectified by the people who caused it.
        I think overall Zach and I have very similar opinions about the book, and where justice was served. I think he made a lot of very good points even if I don't agree with all of them. 
                

Nf blog post

        In a piece by ESPN's Paula Lavigne she uses a few different techniques. She wants to make the piece as objective and possible and to keep he own personal bias out of the piece. She does this by presenting a piont and then giving a good strong case for one side. She gives evidence and quotes people. Then she does the exact same thing for the other side of the argument. This is a very effective technique. She wants you to form your own opnion and think for your self. By peresenting the information this way it makes you look at the information and form your opnion.
        I think the author supports sports in schools. She try's to keep the arrival as unbias as possible but in her style of writing some of her opnion slips through. There are topics like GPA's that must be obtained by athletes. She only gives opinions for people that want to rais them but gives good strong evidence for keeping them the same. I don't think it was intentional but I think subcountiously she gives stronger evedence for the side she supports.
        I think sports are good to have in school. They teach kids valuable lessons that can not only be used in the class room but also in life. The fact that some people want to take sports out shows me that they don't truly understand sports and what it is like to play. The main argument is that it interferes with school. I play sports and I know it only effects school if you let it. If you put in the time and detication in both areas than you can come out a great athlete and a great student.

Social Action Blog Post

        In the book The Sum and Total of Now by Don Robertson there is no specific social issue. The book focuses on the struggles and issues of a young teen growing up. Morris Bird III faces a lot of struggles as he goes through adolescence, but nothing out of the ordinary. The story is told from Morris' perspective, but I feel that the main excluded voice is that of Morris' parents.
        In this book the parents have no input into Morris' live or problems. There are several different scenes in the story in which you see the parents opnions excluded. Moriss' aunt is dying and he goes through a very emotional time with this. When he is trying to come to terms with this there is nothing  at all said by the parents. They are characters but when he is dealing with stuff they sort of slump away into the background. I actually like the fact that they are. I feel like I can relate to it more because it is how I deal with stuff. The fact that the parents voices are excluded gives you a better incite into a young teens mind. In a lot of books I feel that the kid has a trouble and the parents swoop in and fix everything. This isn't reality. If I have a problem my last choice is to go to my parents, I first want to try to fix things my self. Now because the parents voices are excluded the problems have more meaning and depth to them. When Morris attempts to solve his problems you see a more raw story, and you get a better sense of the character.
        I belive its the parents voice that it's excluded. I think this advances the story and makes it more complex. Sometimes adults try to but their heads into problems they can't understand.  Kids can sometimes when left to their own devices do a great job of solving their problems.

Independent reading blog post

             I have only just started The Greatest Thing That Almost Happened by Don Robertson, but there is one immediate social issue that pops out. Teenage sex. There are lots of questions surrounding this issue. How young is to young? How should kids handle pressure? These questions aren't answered in the book but situations do give you a helpful insight to what goes on and how to deal with it.  In this book the main character and his girlfriend are put in these situations. I think this book can help kids realize what to do if they are ever in a situation like the ones in the book.
            In the book Morris Bird III who is seventeen has a girlfriend, and at that age they may have sex. His girlfriend Julie doesn't want to. One night Morris is over at Julie's house and they kiss and stuff but Morris trys to go a bit further. She says no. One of the issues is having the courage to say no.  I think this is one of the positive messaage this book sends to teens. It could also help adults understand kids. This book is written from Morris Bird III's perspective. You see what he is thinking in all these situations. This could have real value to adults trying to talk to kids about this topic. In the same scene Morris is thinking about how annoying it is that she keeps saying no. This could help adults teach kids to respect people's choices and body's. A lot of the problems people face talking to kids about this stuff is not understanding how they feel and what they think. This book could actually help people understand kids.
             In conclusion there is a good message in this book. The social issue it deals with is very sensitive and complex. I have not gotten far in the book but it's message has already taken an affect on me and I can see how this will be continued through out the book

argument essay 2

Harper di Liberto-Bell

805

           For years there has been a battle over banning YA books with mature content, and who should have control over what our kids read. This is happening because some people think the topics that are displayed are too adult for teens. Many YA books do have mature content, but it’s nothing teens won’t be exposed to. There are many very popular books that have been challenged, and school boards have very consistently challenged or banned these books. Parents should be the only people to have a say in what their kids read, so access shouldn’t be limited.

           Kids are really able to connect to YA literature. Sherman Alexie writes, “There are millions of teens who read because they are sad and lonely and enraged. They read because they live in an often terrible world. They read because they believe despite the callow protestations of certain adults, that books, especially the dark and dangerous ones will save them. ” These kids’ lives are often similar to some of the kids in YA books. This gives these kids an outlet even if the character is in a situation that’s just as difficult as theirs. They can escape their pain and experience something else. In YA books the main character tends to escape whatever world they are living in, and gets a better life. That’s what these kids want. When they read these books, they see themselves escaping their own world for something better. They are able to connect to the wants and the needs of the character. Alexie was talking to a millionaire’s son, who said, “I don’t want to be like my father,” that young man said, “I want to be myself just life in your books.” He grew up in a rich family. His life wasn’t horrible. He had never been hit or starving, but these books were still able to help him. He connected because he saw what he wanted to be. He saw that he could be free to be himself, and that’s a big part of YA books.

           People that are opposed to YA books say we need to ban them because of content. Now it’s perfectly true that YA books deal with mature and dark material, but sometimes the world is dark. Kids need to learn that.  Alexie wrote, “I write in blood because I remember what it feels like to bleed.” As a child he was abused. He can understand what some of these kids are going through. The content is no different than what some of these kids are going through. And I know someone that opposes YA books will say, “Not all kids get abused and have horrible lives.” This is perfectly true. Not all kids cut, and not all kids are abused, but these kids can still learn and be helped by YA books. It makes them more mature and empathetic. It helps to teach them about the world, and some of the issues our society faces. If there is a specific topic a parent doesn’t want their kid to read, then it’s up to them to tell their kid they can’t read it. If you let someone else make that choice, then that could be taking away a valuable life lesson from a kid. Mary Elizabeth Williams quotes her daughter saying, “Does she get that they’re not called children’s books? They’re called ‘young adult.’ Adult.”  This is a great point. There is really no point trying to hid kids from this stuff. As we grow up, we begin to learn about the world, and these books can help us start to grasp the reality of life.

                              

The opposition also says that YA books display a distorted reality where everything is horrible. This is true to an extent. The whole world isn’t horrible, and not everyone’s life gets messed up, but it does happen. To take YA books away from kids would blind them to the fact that some people have issues things like this. This would be a shame. Kids need to know about things like this. If we tell them that things in YA books are distorted, that is in most cases just plain lying.  Alexie writes, “they wanted to protect me from sex when I had already been raped. They wanted to protect me from evil when a future serial killer had already abused me.”  This is proof that the world YA books portray is not distorted. “When some cultural critics fret about the “ever more-appalling” YA books, they aren’t trying to protect African American teens forced to walk through metal detectors on their way to school, or Mexican American teens enduring the schizophrenic life of being an American citizen.”… “They aren’t trying to protect the poor from poverty, or victims of rapists. They are trying to protect their privileged notions of what literature should be.” This further illustrates that the examples aren’t hideously distorted, and that stopping kids from reading YA books won’t protect them.     

YA books shouldn’t be banned. These books provide valuable lessons.  If you take away YA books, then you are cutting off millions of kids from something that brings them joy and teaches them life lessons. Even though YA books deal with dark topics, the lasting effect is only good. These kids don’t need to be hidden from this. These books can change the way teens look at the world, and make them more mature. It gives them skills to face the world, and if you want to take that away something is wrong with you.                                     

Independent Reading Blog Post

        H.A. Dorfman, a sports physiologist sets out to teach you many things in his book The Mental Game of Baseball. This book teaches you about the mentality required to play the game at your best. In each chapter he focuses on a specific aspect of the game. He wants to teach you things you should focus on or things you should avoid thinking. As an example, one chapter he talks about negative reinforcement. He talks about how saying things like I hope I don't strike out only plants the image of you striking out. Which only makes it more likely you will strike out. If you say something like I want to hit a line drive the image of you hitting a line drive in planted in your head so you are more apt to hit one. He also wants me to know what mentality to have in very specific situations. He wants me to know how to not let pressure affect me in clutch situations or in big games.

        He gets this information across in several ways. One is that he uses lots of quotes from players and coaches. This is effective because it gives you real world examples. Another thing he does is give specific games and situations that players have found themselves in. Then he gives examples of different mental approaches these players could have. He also gives you the probable outcome of each one. Finally he sometimes takes you out side of baseball and even out side of sports and gives you real world examples like if you have a big presentation to give or an important test you need to take.
        I have had some experience with things like this. As a long time player this book made me look at the game it a different way. Everyone assumes that sports is just about physical abilities but it's not. I learned that when players go out on the field they have to be very mentally focused and prepared. I always went out there with no mental plan. Now when I play or watch a game it's a different kind of experience.

NF Responce

        In the article "Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood," Sherman Alexie wants me to think that YA books don't harm kids, they in fact help them. He talks about the fact that for many kids YA books are an escape, and not just for the under privileged. A millionaire's son spoke to Alexie. "I want to be a writer," he said. "But my father won't let me. He wants me to be a solider. Like he was." "I don't want to be like my father ," that young man said. " I want to be my self. Just like in your book." This show that books like this can help kids living in poverty or in riches. These books teach kids that they can be themselves. When kids with horrible lives read these books it gives them hope. They see people in terrible situations pushing back and standing up for themselves, and that inspires these kids to do the same.  He wants the reader to know that YA books have inspired and helped millions of kids.

        There are many ways the author makes me think and feel what  he wants me to. One thing he does is he points out flaws in his opponents' argument. He talks about the fact that no kid has ever said anything about having trouble with the mature content in his books. Also, he gives personal anecdotes. This is very effective because it's his personal experience, not just some study. He gives examples of lives that his book has changed. Another thing he does is use very powerful language. Words like; "redemptive" and "condescension". He uses these words to describe some things that Meghan Cox Gurdon said.  All of these techniques are very effective.

        I agree with Sherman one hundred percent. I have read many YA books and I don't see the world as a horrible depressing place. That is the basis of the oppositions' argument. They think it's not smart to introduce kids to the subjects in these books, but they are forgetting that these books aren't for kids. Also, we can find all this and more online.  They say someone that has suffered from abuse, for example, might have a relapse, but that is just not true. They can connect to these books more than anyone, and it helps show them that they aren't alone. It shows them that if they a bad situation you can get out of it, and you can have hope. I think that this is a very important message to get across to all kids, even those that don't have horrors in their life.               

YA Book Review

        The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread by Don Robertson is a great story about adolescence, growing up, family and friendship. A young boy, Morris, and his sister set out a cross his town to see his best friend Stanley. When he reaches Stanley's house there is a gas explosion and Stanley is killed. Morris is devastated and alone with his sister finds safety. On this journey Morris learns that life is cruel, and unforgiving.

        The author writes,"He wondered what had happened to Stanley Chaloupka." As Morris drags mangled bodies through the streets on his friend's cart he thinks this over and over throughout the story. Morris is in shock and can not except that his only real friend is now dead. This line also illustrates he finds the situation confusing. The author goes on to say, "Stanley Chaloupka was undoubtedly the worst handsoccer player in the history of the world. He was even worse than clumsy old Alex Coffee, The Human Garbage Can. He was what the other boys called A Slop."  Morris learned through his friendship with Stanley Chaloupka that people will be tough on you. Even though Stanley was considered A Slop, a big part of the story was that he always smiled.  He learned from Stanley Chaloupka, however, that if you stay true to your self and are happy with who you are everything will be okay.  "Tiddlelump went the wagon careening, Sandra shrieked. Morris Bird III grinned. Her ran towards good old Stanley Chaloupka, and he heard birds, and then up jumped a huge hot orange ball, a great big fat whoosh of a". This is the moment when Stanley Chaloupka dies. Morris and his sister are severely injured in the explosion. He becomes an adult in this moment and proceeds to shoulder the burden of one. He is still in denial of the fact that Stanley Chaloupka is dead, but he steps up. He encounters a woman who is severely burned and dying. She has been abandoned by many people and many more are rushing past her. Morris, who can hardly stand, takes this woman and puts her in his cart along with his sister. He sees the horror of her injuries, he sees the fact that she had been left abandoned in a gutter, and he does something. I believe it is in this moment that Morris sees the world for what it is -- not a typical one for nine a year old boy. He sees the cruelty, but also the good.

        The world is not always a good place. There are terrorists, there are natural disasters, but there is good. There are people like Morris Bird III out there that have good in their heart. They see the horrors in the world, and they learn to deal with them. 
                   

Argument Essay

        Across the world children are not given much freedom or choice. Our lives are largely controlled by adults. The small freedoms we have are typically monitored. A large aspect of this problem is not being able to choose extra curricular activities, or quit if you don't like them. Many parents say that you need to teach them perseverance and that sometimes you need to do things you don' t like. This is ridiculous. That's why we go school. Children should not be forced to stick with extra curricular activities that they don't like.

        Many people are opposed to letting kids choose. In the article "Should Parents Make Their Kids Stick with Extra Curricular Activities" one mom says, "Kids don't get to pick whether they brush their teeth or get a shot so why let them choose to quit." This is closed minded and horrible. Kids need to be given a choice. Quitting an extra curricular activity is not like brushing your teeth. You do that to be healthy. The whole point of an extra curricular activity is to do something you love.  Kids do have the maturity to make choices by themselves. To not let them is a very negative influence on their life. You're teaching them that they won't have to make decisions and are discouraging them to think for them selves. This limits real world skills. "Michelle Obama has gone against the tide by forcing her daughters, Malia and Sasha, to take up two sports: one they choose and one she selects." She should not do this. She is not her daughters. It's not her playing the sports so why make them play a sport she likes. I understand it can be hard for some parents to accept that their kids are not just like them and I can understand that you want them to like things you like, but if they don't you just have to accept that. A good example of this is my life. I was born into a family of artists and I'm an athlete, but my parents have always supported me. Sometimes they say I should try this or that, and I try it. But, if I don't like it they let me drop it.  "The latest research shows that kids who practice making their own decisions with the help of parents actually build up their brains and develop important skills." This is helpful, but if your child goes through life with you helping them make decisions they won't grow as much as if you give them the choice. Because you are helping them they won't learn the consequences of making a bad choice which is important.
     
I think kids should not be forced to do or stick with extra curricular activities. One mom says, "my kids don't play hockey because they begged for sticks at age two, they play because my husband plays and I skate and it's a command passion." That is good parenting. She isn't saying you have to play hockey because your dad plays it, she's letting them play it because they love it. "They ski and snowboard because we live less that five minuets from a small mountain with slopes." Their location is the thing that effects what they do in this situation, not the parents. "Not quitting has a cost: Hours spent at the piano are hours not spent finding something you love." I can connect with that experience. I did play the piano once. I gave it up because school, baseball, and piano was too much, but baseball has been and always will be my greatest love so I continued with it.

        Choosing to do or not to do extra curricular activities may be a small issue, but it branches out to larger topics. This is about kids being given a voice in situations where they would normally not have one. It is also about growing and maturing as a person. The choice of doing or not doing or quitting or not quitting and extra curricular activity is very small, but it can effect your life in the long run.                  

faithful elephants

           Faithful Elephants by Yukio Tsuchiya is a story about the death of three amazing elephants at the hands of war. When Tokyo is bombed an order is sent out that all dangerous zoo animals must be killed. Many animals died unnecessarily and it took a toll on the zoo keepers who loved and cared for them. In the end, war tends to have the greatest effect on people who are not involved.               

            The elephant trainers are effected by the war. The zoo keeper recounts to the narrator,' "The elephants are dead! They're dead!"screamed the elephant trainer as he ran into the office. He buried his head in his arms and cried, beating the desktop with his fist."   This illustrates the trainers despair at the elephants death. They feel powerless because they couldn't do anything about the elephants dying. At one point the keeper broke down and fed them to try to keep them alive and the fact that his efforts didn't stop the elephants from dying made it hurt more. The trainers have no part in the war but their lives have been effected because of the elephants. ' "The trainer could stand it no longer. 'Oh, Tonky! Oh, Wanly!' he wailed, and dashed to the food shed. He carried food and pails of water to them and threw it at their feet. 'Here!' he said, sobbing, and clung to their thin legs. 'Eat your food! Please drink. Drink your water!'" This shows how deeply he cares for Tonky and Wanly, and how much he wants them to live a little bit longer. ' "Above them, in the bright blue sky, the angry roar of enemy planes returned. Bombs began to drop on Tokyo once more. Still clinging to the elephants, the zoo keepers raised their fists to the sky and implored, 'Stop the war! Stop the war! Stop all wars!" ' The trainer blames the war for the elephants being killed, and the misery of everyone at the zoo. 

           War in never good and even though it is tough on the people in the war it can be hardest on civilians, for example, the keepers and even the elephants and all the animals that had to be slaughtered. This story illustrates that not all the horrors of war happen on the battle field, some happen in our own backyard.              

Million Dollar Throw by Mike Lupica is a touching story of friendship, pressure and perseverance. Nate Brodie is a star quarterback, and just when his family is on the brink of poverty he wins the change to win one million dollars. A local company is giving away the million dollars to who ever can throw a football through a hole at half-time of a Patriots game. To add to his pressure Nate's best friend Abby is going blind. Nate struggles with losing her, because she is sent off to a school for the blind. The pressure of all this begins to take an effect on Nate. He starts to play terribly in his games, and begins to question if he can make the throw. He begins to practice non-stop for the throw he will have to make. He does this while still searching and even making a trip to Boston to find a way to help Abby. He discovers a doctor in England that has been successful in doing a surgery that would cure Abby. Problem is it's a million dollars. When it's half-time at the game and Nate runs onto the field he gets to have a chat with his idol, Tom Brady. Then he steps up and throws a perfect spiral through the hole. He gives all of the money to Abby now that his dad has found employment, and Abby regains her sight.