co-ed VS. separate education

Here's a discussion I had recently...

er>I am doing a lot of research on the subject, and I happen to believe that girls and boys should be educated separately. They learn differently, they have different needs...I really think they would thrive if they were separated. What do you guys think?

me>I disagree 100%. The only way to lucratively educate children is to immerse them in the systems of the world that surrounds them. That means being involved with the opposite sex socially, and being comfortable cooperating with them as well.
Of course people familiar with single-sex education would advocate it. However, I believe such a thing is antithetical to equality and familiarity between the sexes, which I consider to be quite important. Perhaps some studies show different thinking processes between men and women: true, but some studies also show some women think as men and some men think as women! Granted, such studies refer to homosexuality. However, the day we separate education by sexuality is a sad day indeed.
There's a reason why "separate but equal" failed to satisfy the people who got the short end of the stick. The sexes should not be separated any more than should people of differing races and especially classes, but I feel class equality is a much greater goal than gender equality.
That said, I agree that people with different learning patters should be taught differently. I am one of those people, and public school has failed to cater to my unique learning strategy. I am adapting! The point is that gender has little to do with education. We should look at boys and girls as unique equivalents. I feel that same-sex education fails to do this.

er>Well I feel that they can get the exposure of the other sex in college- I feel that girls in particularly, in the areas of math and science might not shut down as much. And also- let's not forget that boys and girls are different! They learn differently and have different needs. It's too hard to adhere to those differences if the class room is mixed up.

me>Do you really think the co-ed experience should be introduced only at adulthood? That seems like a lot of problems waiting to happen, to me.
I addressed that; I believe that it's a specific case for each individual child as we are all so different mentally that it only makes sense for there to be different learning methods presented to us. I do not, however, believe that these learning differences are limited to the differences between male and female brains.
Ideally we would be separated and taught according to our strengths and learning patterns, regardless of gender. Girls will have girls to sympathize with, as will boys. But they will also have each other to reflect upon and brighten their impressions of both. We have differences which should be addressed, but more important are our similarities. Humans, prone to prejudice and megalomania, need to be humbled by recognition that all of us are equal. What better way to do this than to disregard our differences, (which become trivial on the subject of education) including race, gender, and class.
I admit I've digressed a bit.

What do you think?

thoughts

My dad and I like to discuss physics, and time/space a lot. I do a lot of thinking on it.

Today we discussed how other civilizations in the galaxy or universe might be living, and how similar they might be to Earth.

Now, I am a big fan of technology and our universe, so I like to think about what sorts of ways other civilizations have manipulated their surroundings and if they have discovered life.

I guess recent reading has ensured I can't think about these civilizations without attributing too much human nature to them, as we're seeing how that's turning out. It's actually quite depressing for me. I'm so detached from the world we've made that I get depressed thinking it will be the only chance we have, the only hub from which to draw insight.

I guess there's legitimate scientific grounds on which to claim that all intelligent civilizations bear human-esque qualities, but let's be frank: the "human" way, the way we're doing things now, isn't really getting us anywhere!

What if there is a species out there, on a large planet, which has developed formidable technology without desecrating their resources? A way of life without competition, win, loss, or class?

Thinking about it makes the current human system seem primitive, based upon reptilian instincts of violence, dominance and rage. We're smart enough to live without those things. Why do we indulge in them? I don't think I'll ever have a reason.

just the same

It's been a while. Sorry, blog :( I've had a lot of things to do. Too many things. But I've still been reading, and going to school (unfortunately,) so I guess I have a few things to talk about. I finally got diagnosed and treated so I'm doing a lot better health-wise.

The book I want to talk about, Creating a World That Works For All, surrounds a familiar topic for me, but approaches it quite differently. The author, Sharif Abdullah, believes we can indeed save humanity, by taking small and large steps in physical and mental lifestyle.

I have to say, the tone seems a bit similar to some self-help books I've read, but instead of self-help, it's world-help. Which is self-help, in effect. What I mean to say is, it offers ways to help yourself think about the world differently, which makes it similar to Endgame. They both insist that the only way we can save ourselves is to think of ourselves as fundamentally connected to all parts of the Earth.

I'll write more about it later. I want to write more in this blog. My current English class is so dissatisfying, it renders me to a (depraved) state of ennui and frustration. I have not written a single essay or paragraph, even, of anything but stale character analysis and reviews of books that I've written one thousand times before. It's one of the most disappointing things ever. I despise highschool almost as much as I despise sleeping. I still spend about equal times doing both.

I must say I agree with it. It's helped me make a lot of decisions. I'm one of those people who thinks far too much for their own good. I think I want to be a teacher.

A big part of me still wants to work with art, but I think that's because it's so easy for me. I'll figure something out. Probably!

It doesn't feel good to have people give up on you. My grades aren't the best thing ever, so my dad won't let me take college classes, and my psychotherapist tells me that (due to my "condition") I probably wouldn't succeed in college anyway.

It's the first time anyone has ever even suggested to me that I might not go to college.

Needless to say I'm still vehement about going.

I need to impress somebody, sometime, or at least prove them wrong.

I know I can help a lot of people someday, if they'll let me, and if I'll succeed. Success is so fickle in meaning!

I'll start writing a lot more often from now on. I owe it to myself. I have to document something about some part of my life or it's like it didn't happen!

each day

I wake up, tangled in my scratchy comforter, check the clock (it's never later than seven,) and gaze at the bold-print marker scrawl on my white board. "CHIN UP," it reads, and the more I see it the more I feel like I'm mocking myself. A book or two fall to the already littered floor as I rouse myself for tea. Another day, another nail in the coffin.

It's not all bad, I suppose. I have people and ideas to keep me company, and blank paper to excite me.

Actually, it is all that bad. I can't continue to allow people to make important decisions for me, as I've been doing since I can remember. I have to let go of my seemingly perpetual despondence and accept that there are, in fact, things I can do. I do not want to "make it through" my life as if it were some kind of punishment or inevitable hardship, like nearly all the adults in my life tell me.

So, I'm going to take charge of this tiny ship and let it be known that I'll be deciding where it sails, blissfully ignoring the parts of myself that lack confidence.

So yes. I've decided for myself that I will make better use of my time and opt out of what's expected of me, starting the next semester. And let me tell you, it feels good.

It feels good (to be perfectly descriptive) to know that there are always things I can do and make for myself, and eventually for everyone around me.

uneventful

The "inevitable workload" beast of upperclassmanhood has begun to press his thumb upon our backs. Needless to say, I've already fallen behind and started getting sick, which seems to be a theme for me. Ah, well. I expected no better of myself. Speaking of expectations, this year's aren't very hopeful.

I bought Creating A World That Works For All by Sutherland's recommendation, and it is fabulous so far. I'm annotating it, and I'll write some reviews and thoughts on it soon. Sorry I've been so lazy lately, I'm totally sleeping all the time (16 hours a day no joke,) and it's times like these I wish I could be a cat.

On the subject of school, well, to be frank, it's not looking so hot. I don't think my dad's going to allow me to test out, and I've got a heavy load with "college prep" class having me spit up homework for hours each afternoon. I'm not sure, but I think I can "just make it through" this year, too. I'll try, anyway. Last year's English class has probably spoiled me for life, because I'm finding Junior English less and less tolerable. Mr. Stein drives me up the wall. Must he criticize my ineptitude of completing his inane assignments every time he deigns to speak to me? I'm working on it, bub. But I guess such is life, and so is being in a language class you're probably too advanced for (I speak on English and French, actually.)

Not that I want a "college prep" English class, anyhow, come to think of it...

Well, it's too late into the semester for me to really do anything anyway. So I guess I'll apathetically crawl through the rest of the year, wasting my time. Well, I'm already cynical about it, so why not?

In other news, it's good to be in art class again. I should post more art and I actually will this time as soon as my dad sets up the scanner.

School

I've been thinking about school for a long time now, even though I've only been for a week so far this year.

I think I've decided I'd much rather be home schooled than continue public school. I don't want to burden my family, but I could learn so much more in a comfortable, focused environment. And let's face it, self; "just making it through the year" hasn't really worked for you in the past.

I don't want to be in a room with people who don't want to be there. I don't want to be in a place where people act stupid and are judgmental and biased. To be honest, I'd rather not be at home all day either, but my preference is clear.

And if I'm home schooled, I can go to college for the credits I can't earn on my own, which of course will make it easier for me to go abroad.

Well, it's something I want to try.

Is there a concrete reality we must accept?

As humans, we must ask this of ourselves. Are there things we cannot change about ourselves, be they personal, societal, etc?

I always think about this question and how unusual it is that people create some constant, and decide that there is nothing that can or will ever be done about it. For example; "there will always be good people and bad people in the world." Though it's very general, it's also matter-of-fact regardless of its assumption.

Most people would agree with it, though. Hell, I'd agree with it, but agreeing with it makes me wonder about how I define good and bad. If I think about it long enough, I don't really agree with it, because people aren't just born "bad." There are things we can do to make people want to do "good," (not including threats or punishment,) and there are things which make people want to do "bad." Both exist in our world, and since there are so many opinions to be had, it's almost like there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and thus, "good" or "bad." "There will always be different kinds of people with different perceptions in the world," is a much more concrete reality.

This can go for groups of people, ideas, and anything that can be judged. However, we like to judge ourselves and each other more than anything, don't we?

I've been "apocalyptic" for some time now. That is, I don't believe my people on this good earth will be able to prolong their existence on it for much longer. I've made this judgement, and I've made judgments about all the humans that ever existed, for that matter. It's a broad judgement and it's not a progressive one. What I mean is, I believe that my species is destructive at heart ("for the most part," because while some of us would like to change this, our surroundings and excuses prevent us from doing so.)

We are the dominant species on this planet. We pretty much get to decide what stays and goes, and it's always to our convenience. We think we're damn special, and we like to consider ourselves the most intelligent being we know of as well. So of course, anything we do or want to do takes priority over all else. We are no longer merely beings, we are emperors, say many cultures (including and especially my own,) and there will be no interfering with our growth.

This is the concrete reality that has been forged in our hands and branded on our backs. This, and many other realities, are things we'd be stupid to argue with because they're "in our best interest" and we "need them to survive comfortably."

More on this later, I've had a fever for the past week or I'd post more now that school's started!

summer

I had a good summer, in which I did not post because I was so occupied. It was nice to have a really good summer.

I went to France for five weeks, which was excellent. I might single out some events/anecdotes to blog about later, but the point is I loved it. I stayed with a beautiful, lovely family and learned so much.

I learned about parts of France different from my own, and it was also very much an experiment for me. I learned how to live on my own and so much about living with others, whether or not they are culturally similar to me.

So, in a way, it was testing the waters. I've always wanted to leave this place for some reason, and that was the first toe in the ocean, if you will. I liked it so much I'm planning/trying to spend my last year in high school in Japan as an exchange student.

I'm not feeling particularly eloquent right now (as you can see,) but I just wanted to update.

One more thing- I read Endgame: The Problem With Civilization, like Sutherland suggested to me. It was pretty good- I've got way too many thoughts and critiques for one blog, but I did try annotating so I can split it up when I have more time.

Anyone reading this want to tell me about their summer? It's great to feel this good.

FINALEMENT

I'd like to begin thanking my classmates and teacher for a wonderful English class this year. It was a class that I'll never forget, if only because of the laughter we shared. It was so impacting that I plan to continue my blog beyond the school year since I love sharing and commenting so much.


I'll start with this: How do the things you read influence what you write about or how you write it?I read a lot of things. I read the news, books, others' blogs, and plenty of other sources. I love to read, and there's no questioning it effects what I write about. Most of the time I find that after reading a book my writing style changes as well! I use different writing styles to convey different emotions and subject matter, and of course I learn these from the books and blogs I read. It helps my vocabulary and my ability to relate to others- as it turns out, the internet has developed a whole new means of communication that I'm doing my best to learn and exploit. As for subject matters themselves, my writing is heavily influenced by world events, specifically climate change and government. I attended the March 4th protest which did a huge lot to help me realize the gravity of the situation that we're in, and the urgency in which it needs to be righted. As for climate change, those inspirations are around me every day.

I chose books for class that I thought I'd enjoy writing about. This is obviously because I knew that if I read them, I'd have to write about them one way or another. For the most part I chose well; Lies My Teacher Told Me and Fahrenheit 451 were excellent books that I wouldn't hesitate to read again, and writing their reviews was actually quite fun for me. I started to read the blog boing boing, which I love, as well as watch TED talks. I know this isn't what the question was about but the stuff I chose to watch also really effected my writing. Capitalism: a Love Story really opened my eyes to our country's history in the destructive capitalist policy, and helped me to reanalyze the way I see the world. Food, Inc inspired me to give up the corn in my diet for good. If I haven't written about these things enough YET, I know that I will, and I certainly have in my written journals which I'll start to post here as the Summer wears on.

Overall, the stuff I read has been majorly influential in my writing. I know I notice it a lot. And reading is really one of my passions, so I'm happy to be able to write about someone else's stuff! It's one of the reasons I love having a blog, open discussion is always possible. I'm going to keep commenting on blogs for this reason; since I hope whatever I say will be fun and helpful for whoever reads it.

Choose one of your posts. (Your favorite? Your least favorite? The one that surprises you the most when you reread it? Any one you want to pick.) Analyze it in detail, with quotes etc. Well, I'm going to choose beaucoup because I think I did the best job explaining my thoughts there. And that's what a blog is all about, right? And this blog also surprised me in more ways than one. I'm not sure how I was able to describe myself so perfectly. This snippet in particular.

It's through drawing I've realized just how fallible my mind is. It's the detours I've learned to take, slowly replacing confusion with steadfast reality, that allows me to progress.

The best part about it is it directly reflects the way I write, too. Only instead of looking and studying images, it's reading and listening to people. They're almost the same for this reason, and I'm happy to be able to know how I do things because then I know how to improve how I do them. Especially art; because it's pretty much my only consistent hobby. I really enjoy it and despite myself I also enjoy the attention it occasionally brings me.

In this quote I also see a parallel between drawing and writing.

"Drawing has changed the way that I think. As I said before, I now realize my mind's weaknesses, and it helps me to improve them. It helps me learn about how I see the world internally, not through the ideas on the paper, but by the inconsistencies in the manifesto itself. Each drawing, then, is a specific flaw, and I learn from each."

It's really just like that!

I love learning from my mistakes. It's a huge step I too this year, going from secretly feeling victimized whenever someone critiqued me to openly seeking critique. There's no embarrassment in wanting to improve, and I'm glad this class was able to help me learn to think that way. An indirect way of helping me to improve is the comments everyone left. The more opinions I can see and relate to, the better my writing gets because I'm able to make it so that lots of people can read it and have respect for whatever it is I have to say.

Well, at first it took a lot of confidence to post a blog, but as time went on I was able to be courageous in what I was writing about. I got really passionate about some things, which was good for me to look back on because we all grow and learn from our past if we're lucky. A blog does this for me. I used to (and still do kinda) have a tendency to throw away my old writings and art once I've improved beyond the time that I drew them, but having this blog enabled me to keep them so I can appreciate my progress. I even started to keep a sketchbook so I can avoid throwing away my old art (and I'll post some of it later.) I really loved keeping a blog and this class, and the person I've learned to become this year.

Have an excellent summer, everyone. I'm looking forward to even more satisfying progress.

L'inconnue

"The most kissed face of all time."

I should work on my final, but I'll save that for tomorrow. I'm going to write a story, and I don't know what it's about or whom, for that matter. I don't know yet and I'm going to find out as I write it, disregarding the outlines and plots I've been taught to use for so many years. Maybe then, I'll figure out whether I like it or not, what I'm doing wrong, and if charts and diagrams would truly aid me in my quest to write a story. As if this paragraph weren't disorganized enough, it also serves as a poor advertisement to my plan, and is likely best ignored. Speaking of adverisement, I'm going to post a gigantic art dump soon, with over twenty pictures I've drawn in it.

Glories, petals in powder and cream, grow delicately beside a weathered chest of cherry and brass. Their lives are over, their pink hearts as cold as the valley from which they were plucked, the paled sun a watery beacon in the deep grey sky. A master of thought, a princess of virtue strokes their petals in complacent meditation. Held in a byzantine tangle, led through the throes of some derisory argument. If the moon would appear tonight, she would be lonesome in her witness.

Seven laws and six degrees drew invisible lines through the blue hour. Twenty-two fingers, toes, and eyes altogether, each fixed on a single object of steel by fickle illumination. First was commitment, last was courage, but in the end there would be nothing. No incrimination if it were to progress as intended, not even a single salty drop from a lover's eye. The lover's eyes had been closed forever now, the bitter visage, the tangle of pearls and hair, was to live forever as the last.

What of the betwixt motion, the endless golden field that stretched past the lithe, emerald columns? What of the evening sky? Of the thick, black bust emerging from the west, and slowly looming upon the windowsill, eyes stark as the coal from which they sprung? Yes, he had lessened the golden field. But whatever was left of it had grown tenfold in mind, so vast an expanse that it began to scrape against the sane part, filling the space she had left as well as that which hadn't yet been vacated. It wasn't bad, no, it felt sweet and slow and just as sickening.

THAT'S ALL I CAN MANAGE RIGHT NOW. If you read my blog, please tell me what you think. I need to know what's bad as of yet, or just what could use improvement or whatever you'd care to elaborate upon.

Review: FAHRENHEIT 451

This book is a novel of fictitious nature... or is it? Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury is renowned worldwide for it's analogy, prose, and in many cases, truth. Though the book was written over 50 years ago, many of the delicately disguised problems within it mirror those which hinder our lives today. And it is a fantastic book- elegant imagery, powerful phrases and characters as deep and real as a growling bonfire. In this small novel, boasting only 173 pages, there is detailed analysis of the world around us, fiery and willful aspiration, and dismemberment of the things we've learned to be customary.

I've talked about censorship before- and it seems to be a theme with me, since it was also the fire behind the will of Lies My Teacher Told Me, the last book I reviewed. Both are similar in that they address the present and future of this despicable censorship in our society as well as penetrate the pitifully shallow reasons for its existence. Pitiful are the reasons, perhaps, but the force behind them is far from such degradation. It is that which rules every aspect of our lives, what we see, hear, speak, and even , especially, what we believe.

The character Clarisse draws an interesting parallel to what I would consider to be an ideal member of a respectable society- which happens to be expressly why she is a misfit in Montag's world.

"'The girl? She was a time bomb. The family had been feeding her subconscious,
I'm sure, from what I saw of her school record. She didn't want to know how a thing was done, but why. That can be embarrassing. You ask why to
a lot of things and you wind up very unhappy indeed, if you keep at it. The poor
girl's better off dead... Luckily, queer ones like her don't happen often. We
know how to nip most of them in the bud, early... If you don't want a man
unhappy politically, don't give him two sides of a question to worry him; give
him one. Better yet, give him none.'"
-Beatty to Mr. and Ms. Montag, pgs.
60-61

Clarisse's disposition as well as her inevitable conflict with society is exemplified here, when Beatty begins one of his spiels. Beatty is an interesting character, as well. Corrupted perhaps not just by the societal expectations he lives with, but also himself- the man he forces back. He is cruel, and it seems to me like his emotions, his inhibitions, his humanity and capacity for understanding was banished long ago, appearing only in a faulty feign, even a lapse in composure. There is a question that remains, however: how did he change? We know that he was once on the fighting side, but we do not know why he abandoned it. It is then, in my opinion, a subtle hint at the molding powers of government, or even the fickle nature of human morality when confronted with authority (Milgram experiment anyone?)

The novel was, again, frighteningly similar to much of what I detest of the modern world. Certainly these problems were present at Bradbury's time, and it is depressing that they persist today. Bradbury, however, is more radical than liberal in his depiction of the main character; and for good reason, too. Books, literature, and a free mind are the most imperative elements in a healthy and societally progressive country. Montag and Faber do not merely suggest peaceful and cooperative means by which to change their world.

"After all, when we had all the books we needed, we still insisted on finding the highest cliff to jump off. But we do need a breather. We do need knowledge. And perhaps in a thousand years we might pick smaller cliffs to jump off. The books are to remind us what asses and fools we are. They're Caesar's praetorian
guard, whispering as the parade roars down the avenue, 'Remember, Caesar, thou
art mortal.' Most of us can't rush around, talk to everyone, know all the cities
of the world, we haven't time, money or that many friends. The things you're
looking for, Montag, are in the world, but the only way the average chap will
ever see them is in a book. Don't ask for guarantees. And don't look to be saved
in any one thing, person, machine, or library. Do your own bit of saving, and if
you drown, at least die knowing you were headed for shore."-Faber to Montag, pg.
86

Here is when Faber is convincing Montag of the meaning of books and their infinite arsenal of knowledge, their indomitable prowess of imagery, and other such preachy truths. Montag, then, represents the average Joe. He represents someone who would've otherwise spent his time grinding away his life with little thought or contemplation, just completing his manual labor like so many others. That was, of course, the ideal of his society, and it is supplemented by propaganda and the delusion of Utopia which is so boastfully hammered into all citizens. I think what Montag is trying to tell us is that knowledge and truth can and will purge censorship and corruption, given time, passion, and a powerful mind and will. However, such things are never condones or supported. Who in the long run will master the human race? Will it be the deception of war and the wish to maintain conceit over favorable circumstances, or will it be humiliation, the urge to learn and discover and change, most importantly, grow?

Lastly, what parallels can we draw to this world of ours? Well, there are several I can list without hardly contemplating them. In Montag's world, a large nuclear war is taking place.

The events of the war are censored from the general public unless favorable. This is a truth present in practically every war in known history; especially in the more recent world wars in all countries who participated. Would the same tactic be used if we were purely imbicilic enough to wage a nuclear war? You bet your ass that's a yes. Same with the censorship: in Montag's world, any and all literature is banned if it causes a lick of discussion, any one side of a potential argument. This happened in the Soviet Union when literature and even visual art was restricted to that which supported the USSR, under penalty of jailing and sometimes death. If someone in Montag's world harbors illegal books in their house, even without spreading them to others, they can be burned within their house or euthanized by the mechanical hound.

Lastly is a topic breifly mentioned in the book, but in my opinion worth elaborating upon. One of Montag's wife's friends talks about her children like accessories, merely something to occassionally brag about. She leaves them in daycare most of the time and their school runs practically all day so she never has to see them if she doesn't want to. She says what's fun about them is that sometimes they look just like you and they might be cute. This is undoubtedly something that might have seemed rare and frowned upon at the time this book was written, it was clearly meant to be shocking, and Montag's rant following her words ratifies this. However nowadays this behavior by "mothers" is all too common. I don't think any mother should have any of these opinions and most certainly not only these opinions

In conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It has been really entertaining and contemplatory. Sure, some of it's dated, and even archaic. But it manages to create a timelessness within. It's a wonderful story that I'd recommend to anyone and everyone, and it's less than 200 pages long so it's fairly easy to swallow.

Thank you very much for considering my review, and I hope you'll consider also Fahrenheit 451: the book that flipped my perspective on the past, present, and future United States forever.

FAHRENHEIT 451

DEAR IRENE

"Patience, Montag. Let the war turn off the 'families.' Our civilization is flinging itself to pieces. Stand back from the centrifuge."
"There has to be someone ready when it blows up."
Faber, Montag. pg. 87

Faber, trying to dissuade Montag. They make an interesting pair, they're very separate although they believe in the same things.

"Pity, Montag, pity. Don't haggle and nag them; you were so recently of them yourself. They are so confident that they'll run on forever. But they won't run on. They don't know that this is all one huge big blazing meteor that makes a pretty fire in space, but that someday it'll have to hit. They see only the blaze, the pretty fire, as you saw it."
Faber to Montag. pg. 103

I don't really feel like dragging quotes that tell what happened next, so I'll summarize it again with my thoughts and stuff

So basically, Montag does something really stupid by bringing out a book of poetry in front of his wife's friends. His house is set to be burned down when Beatty finds out about it. It's Montag who has to burn down his own house. Afterwards, he kills Beatty who had found the earpiece that Faber gave him. So then the mechanical hound goes after him and injects some poison into his leg, but all is not lost for he just blasts it with the flamethrower and meanders over to Faber's place once his leg stops...tingling.

So I guess he manages to get to the river unscathed even though all the authorities are after him

There's a lot I can say about it. It was certainly a dramatic plot twist. I like how Beatty was speculated to have had wanted to die, interesting based on his disposition.

I'll be honest, I'm not quite finished yet. I'm in a terrible mood

love, Irene

the rules

Of loving/dating. The unspoken code, if you will.

I'll try to outline what I do know about the American dating traditions even though I have no experience to speak of.

The rules differ from place to place, person to person. There's many different kinds of relationships, as well, even within the romantic spectrum. Some people like to date on and off with a group of people they associate with, but think of as reserved for romantic interest rather than friendship. Others prefer one person to proudly go steady with. The level of secrecy is perhaps the most personal. Some people feel confident enough in their parents to let them be one of the first people to know, but most people my age will just tell their friends. Some people don't tell anyone at all, preferring to wait for someone to notice, or perhaps assuming it's none of anyone's business. (This is the French way. A French couple never introduces a romantic partner to their parents as that kind of partner unless things are marriage-serious.)

Perhaps there are rules we can all agree on, then. Let's discuss the cultural differences in relationships that you'd notice if you went to a new place. Formal relationship rules are found in places like Germany and Japan whose culture generally requires that people are quite reserved about their thoughts and feelings. There are things all couples are supposed to do, like make chocolates on valentine's day or buy a bouquet of "the right flowers" to express your love to someone. Flowers, especially roses, and their colors matter a lot in Europe. Red can mean passionate love, while lavender represents infidelity. But in places like France, Italy, or Spain, it's a lot less formal. There's a good atmosphere for lovers and people are culturally, well, enamored by love. In France they don't really use an official relationship status. They keep things cool and casual, and it takes a lot of stress and conflict out of the situation, in my opinion.

I can't speak personally about the American dating experience because I don't really have that experience. I've been lent a jacket in the cold before, and bought a meal, but those occasions weren't with an American nor were they in America. So, here I guess I'm just awkward about the whole thing.

High school relationships here SEEM pretty casual; but I think there's a lot of unnecessary drama brought about by the stress and confusion that specific relationship titles and such bring. There's so much pressure in it all that I'm not sure I'd like to be involved in that bullshit myself. I guess I'm just casual about the whole thing, really. I don't really care one way or the other. In general, I think people in american high school take themselves and their relationships way too seriously ( not that the taking themselves seriously thing was anything new.)

Also, text message dating? Fucking ridiculous.

FARENHEIT 451

This book has been really good so far. Sure, some of it's dated, and even archaic. But it manages to create a timelessness within. It's a wonderful story so far, and it's even separated into 3 parts already to make my life easier.

I know just writing a summary is boring but I'm going to write some of the events that happened that were significant so we can keep on track. First of all, Clarisse died. That was pretty terrible, for me, and especially for Guy, who considered her the first friendly person he had met in a long time, perhaps his whole life. Guy also had to burn an old woman's house down, but before he did he managed to swipe a book (scandalous!) Anyway, that the woman burned along with her house full of books really rattled Guy. So much so that he decided to take a day off, sick in bed. Still, his boss comes to his house to lecture about the important roles these fireman play in preserving the lifestyles people like to lead... he talks about how books only brought argument. However, all this was not enough for guy. He decides to meet with a retired english professor from the old days, before people stopped majoring in english and the colleges went out of buisness.

Whew, that was a block of text. Well, here's some quotes that I found interesting.

"After all, when we had all the books we needed, we still insisted on finding the highest cliff to jump off. But we do need a breather. We do need knowledge. And perhaps in a thousand years we might pick smaller cliffs to jump off. The books are to remind us what asses and fools we are. They're Caesar's praetorian guard, whispering as the parade roars down the avenue, 'Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal.' Most of us can't rush around, talk to everyone, know all the cities of the world, we haven't time, money or that many friends. The things you're looking for, Montag, are in the world, but the only way the average chap will ever see them is in a book. Don't ask for gaurantees. And don't look to be saved in any one thing, person, machine, or library. Do your own bit of saving, and if you drown, at least die knowing you were headed for shore."
-Faber to Montag, pg. 86

This is part of Faber's response to Guy's crazy proposition to bring books back into the world. You see, in Guy's universe, all books are sought out and destroyed. They have started and won two nuclear wars, and the citizens are heavily sheltered from the rest of the world.

"'The girl? She was a time bomb. The family had been feeding her subconscious, I'm sure, from what I saw of her school record. She didn't want to know how a thing was done, but why. That can be embarassing. You ask why to a lot of things and you wind up very unhappy indeed, if you keep at it. The poor girl's better off dead... Luckily, queer ones like her don't happen often. We know how to nip most of them in the bud, early... If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides of a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none.'"
-Beatty to Mr. and Ms. Montag, pgs. 60-61

Some things don't need further explanation. I think this quote fairly outlines the attitude of the government in Guy's universe.

beaucoup

I'm actually glad we're writing blogs today because I have a lot to say. Here's what I think about my hobby of drawing:

Would you like to know why I practice so much? It's because when I was very small, maman told me that if I practiced enough I could draw absolutely anything that I could imagine in my head. In a childish determination, I took up the hobby and brought it with me throughout my years. I wanted to do something only I could do, maybe even learn things about my own thoughts in my drawings.

I feel differently now, I know that no one mind is truly unique. Now, I draw not to manifest my fickle ambivalence, but to relate to others. It's only when others appreciate my art that I appreciate it as well. An unloved art is usually trash, anyway.

When I draw, it is still from a series of pictures in my mind. I remember scraps of reality, invent other bits, and paste them together through my fingers. Concept is almost foreign to me for this reason. It's one of the reasons I'm not as good at drawing as I probably could be. It's through drawing I've realized just how fallible my mind is. It's the detours I've learned to take, slowly replacing confusion with steadfast reality, that allows me to progress.

This is why drawing is interesting for me.

I don't like to think of myself as an individual. If someone likes the images it's because they're familiar with them, and my reality is the same as anyone else's. I have functioning eyes, and they are the only creative tools that help me improve. I am in no way unique, to be honest, the thought repulses me. I can't ever detach myself from any living human being on this planet earth. We are all one singular group and I am a small addition. It is all that I am and all that I ever will be.

How do I learn new techniques? It's mostly experimentation. I haven't taken a class in school in two years though I'd like to. Last year, I took a summer class at OSA, where I learned a lot about anatomy and it also really helped me. If you're looking to improve your drawings I highly recommend sketching a nude model or just sketching from life in general. As for techniques, they are usually learned from experimentation. Anyone can tell you a technique, but it's up to you to apply it and the only way to learn how to do it is to try.

Often, someone tells me that they wish they could draw as well as I do and that they probably never will. This is terrible! Everyone can draw, absolutely everyone. And everyone is a different artist. We all have styles, technical skill, and an eye for color, shape, and movement. But practice is the only way we can apply these things to a still piece. It's not only about creating a pleasing aesthetic, it's about expressing your mind. Indeed, each drawing is an impression of the mind's interpretation of one thing or another.

Drawing has changed the way that I think. As I said before, I now realize my mind's weaknesses, and it helps me to improve them. It helps me learn about how I see the world internally, not through the ideas on the paper, but by the inconsistencies in the manifesto itself. Each drawing, then, is a specific flaw, and I learn from each.

Well, that's really everything I can say about drawing. As usual feel free to ask questions though.

My psychotherapist called me existentialist and nihilist.

S: (n) existentialism, existential philosophy, existentialist philosophy ((philosophy) a 20th-century philosophical movement chiefly in Europe; assumes that people are entirely free and thus responsible for what they make of themselves)

S: (n) nihilism (a revolutionary doctrine that advocates destruction of the social system for its own sake)

I think that I agree with her but it really depends on your interpretation of the word "meaning." Meaning, hmmm... I think that humans are nothing more than a biological being, an animal at best. However, I think that in our realization of the universe, of the smallest building blocks that compose us and most of the universe, it is our duty (as a responsible, intelligent species) to investigate these things above all costs.

What do I mean? I mean that there is absolutely nothing more important, meaning-wise, than to discover the structure behind our lives and our world. Personal needs are totally useless in this respect. It's true though, that you could consider this investigation to be a personal need on my part. What I mean is, for once in our lives, ONCE in the history of life, we need to think beyond our conceit.

4,000,000,000 years of evolution, and we are finally on our way to the most important questions in life. 3,000,000,000,000 cells in each of us, triumphing in their evolutionary success, and we are able to contemplate that from which we spring. We must not waste these numbers.

off topic

Absurdism. I'm contemplating it, or what about it there is to contemplate. It's closely related to Nihilism and Existentialism, which for me is admirable.

Yes, if I am given the opportunity to contemplate a philosophy, I will do it. I have been contemplating this one.

For me, it's as if I can't really find meaning in anything, so we are on each others' level there. It is not my duty to live for any ideal, or moral, or and especially religion, so it agrees with me. I like to focus on what I am, a human. A member of a very large group of organisms and that is absolutely all there is to it.

So from that perspective, my perspective, the only thing I can do that is remotely productive and positive is to help people and make them happy. It is what I like to do, it's the only thing I care to do. I wish I was better at it. I have no wish to "satisfy myself" with the opportunities my lifespan could provide, no. Not marriage, children, money, pride or otherwise. I am not a person of ideals and morals. I am realistic, and the realistic nature of my life is that I am a member of a group. It is my best interest to better that group in any way that I can. I'm trying to slide along the corridors of existence with as little negative interference as possible, to act as a positive being in all respects...

For that matter, I am no kind of moral individual. Life has taught me that death is essential even if sudden, even if painful. Death is not to be regretted. Memories and opportunities may be a thing to be mourned, but there is no respect in death. Death is as primal as time itself. Do I fear death? No. Do I wish it upon others? No. But deaths are a tragedy and an atrocity when initiated between the hands of brothers. War should not exist for this reason. We cannot consider ourselves even remotely responsible for anything if we allow war and nuclear weapons to continue in this world.

So, what then? This too is human conceit, isn't it? I'm beginning to think that human conceit it the root of all evil, if you consider evil the destruction of the environment, society, and the world. Well why not? We like being conceited. There isn't, obviously, any other force that we would call "equal" that could even attempt to challenge our position in this world. And yet with every gallon of gas burned, we're ensuring the downfall of our species and so many others. Eh, it seems like I can't help but to get apocalyptic every now and then. I just like thinking about the future.

I can't really expect much to change right now. There's simply too much stupidity for anything to get done. Stupidity and conceit, that is. What can I even hope to expect from my own generation? If history is any kind of lesson, then probably not much if anything at all. Sure, there are small steps we can take. But these steps are indeed too small, and much too far in between. In my lifetime, the realization of climate change has occurred, but not much else. The iron grip of the rich and frantic has prevented any major progress. The more I see of the world around me, the less hope I have for my generation and thus future generations. Frighteningly contrary to my usual enthusiasm, I find myself feeling a need for an apocalyptic event. What if humanity could start over? What if we could take our knowledge of sciences and mechanics and history and create a world in which we wouldn't have to worry about any of this?

That's what I would call a utopia. A balanced and controlled population of people devoid of conceit or small mindedness. People who progressed for the good of their people rather than the good of themselves.

Some people would say humans are too primal to achieve peace. I beg to differ. If we can send a fucking spaceship full of living organisms to the moon and back, our possibilities are essentially endless. Excuses should have no effect on our reality.

It might not make sense to everyone, but it makes perfect sense to me, not that my sense is worth much.

FAHRENHEIT 451

Dear me,

I decided to read this book, a classic, because I am interested in propaganda and it seemed like a good choice. It's much shorter than my last book, 179 pages. It's fiction, and figurative. It's well written and melancholy, real but more surreal... It's a lot of things. I suppose I should analyze a quote, then.

He felt his smile slide away, melt, fold over and down on itself like a tallow skin, like the stuff of a fantastic candle burning too long and now collapsing and now blown out. Darkness. He was not happy. He was not happy. He said these words to himself. He recognized this as the true state of affairs. He wore his happiness like a mask and the girl had run off across the lawn with the mask and there was no way of going to knock on her door and ask for it back.

This is the moment in which Guy takes her words to heart, her being the girl he met, Clarisse. He takes them to heart perhaps too much. Yes, it is perhaps an act of over-contemplation. But he knows that he is not happy, and it comes at him not like a baseball or an orange, firm and ripe and aimed square in the face, it comes to him rather like a swift and unforgiving tide. In a single pulse, the cover is wrenched away, the cover that lay stagnant for as long as he chose to ignore it. It is him, now, she has discovered him, and he is alone in his house with his wife who has downed sleeping pills like a child might candies, her breath faint as the dull flicker of a cat's ear in a quiet room. He is left unsettled, yes, for his wife had quite scared him half to death, only to retreat obliviously in the morning. Guy is bored. He is not happy. He is perhaps, what he knows is wrong with his actions manifest, and it hangs around his shoulders like a limp but grotesquely weighty corpse. It is such a thing you cannot forget.

And then, in this quote below, we see some of Clarisse's nature, perhaps. She is told she is peculiar and their conversation reflects it, she is observant but carefree, really.

They walked still further and the girl said, "Is it true that long ago firemen put fires out instead of going to start them?"
"No. Houses have always been fireproof, take my word for it."
"Strange. I heard once that a long time ago houses used to burn by accident and they needed firemen to stop the flames."
He laughed.
She glanced quickly over. "Why are you laughing?"
"I don't know." He started to laugh again and then stopped. "Why?"
"You laugh when I haven't been funny and you answer right off. You never stop to think what I've asked you."

It is, of course, a story of a man who does atrocious things but never stops to question them until he realizes how atrocious they are, until he realizes that law is not a pair with righteousness, that some laws can and should be broken for the greater good. Of course he would not stop to think yet, then, no such person would search for meaning, for thought. His thoughts were bland. However after this conversation his thoughts are errant, intense, pounding upon his conscience as roughly as a furious lion, as quickly as a bat out of hell. It's admirable, entertaining. We'll see.

Until next time,
Irene

Lies my teacher told me...3?

It looks like I totally forgot to do the last weekly letter. My bad. I'm just going to put this here because I like my series to be completed. (It's probably too late for a loser like me, huh?

I'll end my letters with a final note on our concepts of the politically correct. I actually let a teacher, Ms. Kelly, borrow the book since I was done with it and she was interested.

So, why don't we learn about 9/11 in our modern world history textbooks? Even the multiple wars we started back in the 90's? It's not like our books are too dated to include these things, no, it's because apparently we have a tendency to censor things we consider controversial. Like there's no such thing as being neutral in history textbooks.

To tell the truth, I haven't heard much news of the war recently. Maybe it's because I don't really care. I should care but I don't really, and I feel like it's probably mostly exaggerated or otherwise not the whole truth and it will be at least twenty years before kids are allowed to learn about it in school. I wonder when we'll stop being in the war.

I wonder when all of mankind will stop warring. I think it's more likely that we create a nuclear winter. I'm kind of off topic now but seriously guys

I can't really think of anything else to say but at least I made a third letter

sincerely Irene

Review: Lies My Teacher Told Me

(Please excuse my incompetence regarding the quote format. Any suggestions, corrections, and critiques are willingly accepted and encouraged.)

Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong

James W. Loewen has written a groundbreaking coalition of analytical essays, separated by chapter, which work to enlighten us to the various inaccuracies that can be found in all of 18 leading American history textbooks. It poses to us subjects we should all be familiar with- and goes on to reinvent our ideas on the subjects into an unbiased and accurate truth. Chances are that if you read the book, you will come across many facts that will disagree with what you've learned from your history textbook. A refreshing and scathingly courageous addition to any library, Lies My Teacher Told Me will recreate your knowledge of American history forever.

In this review several questions will be attempted; the first being: What were the author's purposes in writing this book, and how can you tell? How well was this purpose achieved? Well, there are clearly several purposes that can be assumed to exist upon reading a book like this. The author's intent was clearly to spark distrust in the American high school education, but it was also to propose solutions to the myriad of problems which appear. It highlights the unsatisfactory content in our textbooks, but doesn't hesitate to show us situations which challenge that content- situations in which teachers or the community have risen up to create better understanding of the crucial information ignored by the majority of our textbooks. Here's an example:

"Many of the books that criticize American education are published by companies that also put out the textbooks they criticize. One of the glories of capitalism is that somewhere there are publishers who will publish almost any book, so long as they can stand to make a profit from it."

"Across America, new, more accurate historical markers and monuments are going up... Perhaps we must conclude... that the power elite did not have its thumb in every pie."

"On the other hand, if textbooks are devised by the upper class to manipulate youngsters to support the status quo, they hardly seem to be succeeding. Instead of revering Columbus et al., students wind up detesting history. Evidence suggests that history textbooks and courses make little impact in increasing trust in the United States or inducing good citizenship, however these are measured."

This selection of quotes has been chosen to draw attention to the myriad of ideas and facts that are brought together to create an unbiased and informative piece of literature. The author clearly states his distaste for the capitalist grip on our American history education, but doesn't hesitate to remind us that at least some of our youths and faculty are aware of these problems and are simultaneously working towards the truth they desire. Clearly, Loewen is confident in change, but at the same time argumentative, which is considered by this reviewer to be an admirable quality that does his critique well.

A less general but equally important topic that Loewen addresses is "the invisibility of racism in American history textbooks," which is surely a topic of interest for American high school students. As a high school student experiencing history class, it's very easy to recognize the tendency to ignore racism in the textbooks. When racism is addressed, it's done very mildly, usually without firsthand evidence of the horrendous treatment many groups of people faced throughout history. While that's arguably an optional addition to a text that aims to properly explain an instance of racism, there are hardly any alternative and equivalent options at our disposal to properly define the horrors that racism brings.

Another intriguing question is posed, and that is "for what groups or audiences was this book intended?" Clearly, the book is aimed at several different kinds of people. Not only ones who have been directly affected by the lies produced in our leading history textbooks, but others who might perhaps be concerned with the situation. In this reviewer's case, it was because a student who had not yet begun an American high school history class wanted to know about the inevitable prejudice that was present. In every person, there is a deep-rooted desire for truth. It's this desire that drives us to engage ourselves in muckraking books such as this. We know that our world, and specifically our country is imperfect in race relations and many other areas, so an enlightening text would surely be beneficial in teaching us to be skeptical of all the right things.

And surely, it is in everyone's best interest to be skeptical- blind trust can lead to disaster, especially when it deals with material that is taught to our youth. The youth is indeed the most dependent of all. We are forced to attend school and must learn what they have to tell us, no matter our opinion, which is often times undervalued. Thus, without books such as Loewen's, there is nothing within our grasp which we can use to make a legitimate challenge against the material that is forced upon each of us. His book is considered by many to be an indisposable tool against the tyrannically controlled information that appears in nearly all American history textbooks.

Of course, we cannot limit the relevance of this text to the youth alone, for all educated American-born citizens have at one point been subjected to the information in American history textbooks. Many of them may never have encountered evidence contradictory to that which they acquired in their education. Whilst many Americans may accept the corrections found in Lies, it is perhaps fact that many of them will guard the beliefs they first learned many years ago. Fact because without fail, history has proven to us that a new generation is imperative for change of even this small magnitude. In my opinion, it is then no longer a matter of convincing the people who run the textbooks now to change; rather, it is a matter of recreating the system ourselves. It is our job to delve into the unforgiven depths of neglected history and bring back with us an assurance that our children, the children of our brothers and sisters, will know the truth.

Lies my teacher told me

Heeeeeey so I pretty much just decided to join your group on the fly after realizing that I had the book you had and that I somehow didn't have a reading group yet. Hope that's ok! I'm looking forward to an exciting time.

I don't know about everyone else but I sure learned a lot from this book. It's like in class, when we heard from the Green Collar book- I had just assumed that what I had been told about the future/past was true and until then there wasn't any legitimate evidence challenging it. Yeah! I feel totally enlightened!

SO, after reading so much criticism, how do you feel about our history textbooks? I realize that we're all probably in world history right now but some of the ideas were universal, like the one about never showing nudity or suffering in school texts. Nudity is a huge unnecessary taboo that I've addressed before, but I digress. Suffering, however, is censored I think not because it is mentally scarring, but because it scars our opinion about war. It's one thing to read about casualties and horrors that civilians faced. It's quite another to have visual verification of these things. We live in a country that has always glorified war, for better or for worse. Of course our history texts would be no exception- rather the epitomizing of the whole thing.

The author also brings up the point that the public should have a say in what they think their youth should be learning, as stated by one of the publishers. With this, I have to say I disagree a bit. We can't let the community censor information, or we prolong the ignorance that the community may or may not be aware of, right?

I knew there was censorship in my textbooks. But I never thought it would be this bad, especially all around the country. Actually, I think that I did.

I know it's not just America who has these problems. Many countries have their own individual problems with censorship. Lots of kids in Japan and China don't know that anyone ever landed on the moon. My dad pointed out that it was probably because America was the only one to put a base there, and they probably didn't want to teach kids something so exclusive. Speaking of which, the science program in the US (poorly funded as it is) has decided to stop manned missions to space, which disappointed many formidable scientists.

Also, I thought the racism thing really rang true- how minorities generally do a lot worse in history classes. It makes lots of sense why they lose interest when their people's inevitable contribution isn't addressed.

That thing about Columbus... augh. I mean, while reading that paragraph, I knew it was lies, which was the worst thing. They didn't even try to disguise it. And I'm sick and fucking tired of history books making it look like the non-religious are the enemy. "Oh, columbus was a humble, religious man we should admire" bullshit.

Overall the book has posed quite a few infuriating situations that seem beyond our grasp, but I know that to change them is within reach. Also like the green collar thing. It seems far off, but if we work together, that future is a riveting possibility. Yeah! In fact, just today I had a conversation with some guys online. The starting post was

"Most of you will die from the effects of climate change."

It was on an anonymous community where hundreds of people post every day, and I decided to take part in the discussion as well as read some of the responses.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the main emotions people had were "OK hooligan, go back to the looney bin." That response really offends me, anyway. I mean, it's not a question of possibility at this point. If people do not change, it will happen, and people do not seem to understand that at all. You can't just ignore that in favor of your saccharine delusion that as long as you get to live the way you want to, everything will be fine and dandy.

I promise I'm not getting too off-topic, but I'll bring it back home now.

The reason why we keep having these problems is because of our parent's laziness. That's right, it's not that the youth has all the power to change things- the generation who willingly and happily passed on all their problems to their children is largely at fault. Think about it- I've talked to a lot of people 40+, and they all have "accepted" that the world is the way it is and there's nothing that they can do to change it. They've stopped trying because they know that the prime of their life is over and they aren't responsible anymore, apparently. It's a huge pattern that I see everywhere, and it's really ridiculous because honestly, our only purpose in being born is to secure and invent the future as an optimal world for the next generation to live in.

I know that it's my responsibility as a youth, but a huge percentage of the population is these older people who are so closed-minded and delusional. Clearly, it's up to us to re-invent selflessness for the benefit of tomorrow.

haha tl;dr sorry

-Irene

a lot of things

Over the break, there have been many things on my mind.

I'll start with a little response to the video gaming TED talk we listened to a while ago. I talked about it with some people, and we all decided that the one thing that we can't make a part of life is the instant and ever-present gratification that we get in games after completing tasks. A game can tell you exactly how well you did something and always gives you an oppertunity to improve. It can gaurantee us a brighter and more exciting story if we do well, which is something that never happens in the uncertainty of real life. We even have real people who are also online to tell us that they appreciate what we do, which makes the gameverse seem even more real. I think it's the breaking of the fourth wall that really makes the games so addicting- imagine having a huge place full of like minded people set on making friends and becoming better at something. That sounds like the ideal workplace, right? That's probably why everyone spends so much time gaming.

During the break I watched a movie that I'd been wanting to see, "Capitalism: a Love Story," which is really just what it sounds like. I love the films that Micheal Moore produces, because they shine a bright and revealing light upon things that we all experience and maybe are a little concerned about, but don't think we can fix. I think his films (especially this one) are here to show us that the power to change things really is and always will be in the minds of the people. That's a similar theme to the change that we hope to experience in the public school system, but I digress. This film really enlightened me to many things that I hadn't even thought about. It bravely and boldly explores the content and flaws or our country, highlighting the disappearance of the middle class.

Another documentary which similarly calls for reform is "Food Inc." I really enjoyed watching that. I was already aware of many of the things it talks about, but it was great to have them all put into perspective and analyzed. I would recommend this film to everyone, especially those who are adamant about their lifestyles.

Both films clearly represent the need for reform in this country, and call for simple changes in the population's lifestyle in order to make their dreams a reality.

I'm sleeping all the time lately.

Oh hey I have a great song:

more stupidity

Alright. I need to post another blog this week since I found this article. There's a very enlightening video within it, which is 15 minutes long so I don't expect my few readers to listen to the whole thing. However, in the first four minutes you can see the facts in statistics about the irrational and hateful prejudice towards atheists in the United States, a religious country.

The narrator of the video is a very passionate atheist, which you can see immediately and throughout the video. He uses very striking facts about our society and people to show the terrible things many of us inflict unto our children by telling them lies about religion.

It's very bold, this video, and it does not hesitate to get right down to the facts. I really admire the narrator for that, because looking at what we're dealing with it is quite obviously no time to beat around the bush.

I am an atheist. I always have been. And though my parents are/were no sort of conservative christians, they still told me what was "right" about their religion and discouraged my adventuring into other religions and values. This is something that I very much resent, especially from a religion that I have grown to detest. It was childish of my parents to do this and while I do not hold it against them, I wish that they had given me a choice, because I cannot remember a single time in my life when I believed any of the far-fetched lies that were shoved down my throat about religion. I know that I've talked about this before, but it's this kind of evidence of prejudice and stupidity (and, as mentioned in the video, bigotry) that we need to address.

Let's go back in time a bit. Now, while it's undeniable that religion brought good things to our society, it has brought far more bad things. Looking to the middle ages, we see that religion had almost no positive effects. People lived their lives terrified of divine judgement, artists did not venture from traditional and bland religious artwork for centuries, and many innocent people were killed in ignorant fear. The crusades represent a huge and undeniable relation between catholicism and violence that is still true today. The Jews were prosecuted for a very long time as well, even though they believed in the same god as the Catholics and did not bring anything negative to society, in fact just the opposite. I could go on, but the fact is everyone knows, or rather should know, these truths about the atrocities that god-fearing people have brought and continue to bring to the world.

I mean, look at this country. When it was founded, it was clearly meant to be a country in which religion played no part. We didn't want to have a government that was at all similar to the monarchy we were under. Obviously, this dream is not yet realized. Why do we allow one group of people to have so much influence over all of us? Why are atheists, the neutrals of the group, also the most hated? Atheists are proven to be far more intelligent than their religious counterparts. Is it because Americans fear what is different and advantageous? Haha, I don't want to start sounding like a bigot myself. Well, moving on.

One thing which I found to strike especially true about the video is to NOT TELL OUR CHILDREN LIES ANYMORE. Why do we toy with children this way? Admittedly it's fun to have them believe in things like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but we give them a choice in this. We don't force them to believe in and worship these idols weekly or year round. And most often children grow out of these things. But with religion, children aren't given a choice. They aren't given straight answers or proof, and they're told to deny logic and reason if favor of some huge lie, and they really pay the price. Just look at the statistics pertaining to criminals and their religions as well as child abuse.

It's just another thing that we cannot allow to continue! I'd really like to hear your opinions on this as well as any comments on the article or video.

current goals

Reading over my whole blog, I can come to one conclusion: my goals have changed as my writing has matured.

By that I mean, quite simply, the blog has given me what I consider to be a much more sophisticated and well-rounded writing style (though still opinionated.) The greatest thing that I can honor the blog with is that it opened my eyes to a myriad of ideas and thoughts that I alone wouldn't have been able to conceive. I continue to be surprised and intrigued by my classmates' writing, and I am so grateful to be able to nurse this opportunity. In fact, it's not just in blogs, but in our class discussions. I find that when the class stops and thinks about something together, we reach a level of greatness that none of us could have assumed on our own.

At first, I thought I'd talk about 'topics,' like things I like or have been doing recently, since that's what I'd seen in other blogs, and it pretty much seemed like the only option in something like that. But since then, I have broadened my horizons and learned that there are so many other things you can do with a blog, especially with a connected group of students like ourselves. I made a lot of progress in how to express my opinions and reasoning properly, which I find to be very valuable both in a blog and elsewhere.

Reading blogs on the internet has been a very joyful experience for me, even when it's not someone I know. I feel like I can have debates and conversations with anyone, anywhere who decides to share their thoughts and ideas, and I can! Admittedly I haven't made many comments, but the ones I have made I tried to put a lot of thought into. This new quarter, the last quarter, I'll bite the bullet and make lots of comments.

Oh, and I'd also like to start posting more art. I'm in bed right now with mono and pink eye (oh gods!) so I'm totally not about to go get up and scan this but here's a webcam photo.

It was my first time attempting a comic-book style. I drew it with fine/regular point Sharpie on notebook paper, but I had to up the contrast so it wasn't as blurry, which means you can't see the detail. so later I'm going to scan it. I'm proud of this because I drew it without sketching anything in pencil! Some of the proportions are off, and the rifle could be drawn better, but I never know how to draw guns anyway. I learned a lot about drawing in this style by doing this, and it was really fun but my Sharpie ran out of ink so it'll be a few days before I do something like this again. It looks so badass. I should draw more badass things. Would it be a bad idea to post an art dump with like 5 pictures? I'll do it anyway, since this is my blog.

One thing I'd like to get out of my blog is critique, but I don't think this will happen. It's a dream though. I guess if I asked for it it would be more likely so I'll start asking for it.

Time Traveler's Wife III

Dear wives,

I don't really know what to talk about/I kinda feel like shit right now so I'm just going to go to the ol' open-ended character analysis.

Henry. Oh, Henry, so strong and manly you are. So stunning, handsome, smart, etc, and I know that makes everyone swoon, but I can't help but be... bored. Of course, Henry isn't without his flaws, which are... being temperamental and time traveling I guess. Then again, this is coming from a man who can't even appreciate his own ability to time travel, which of course the author makes an attempt to justify. Yet, Henry seems too perfect. That, and the whole relationship he shares with Clare is a little creepy.

I'm not just pulling it out of my ass, I mean it's seriously cause for concern. He forces child Clare to house him and get him clothes and food, and spends much time "playing" with her... teaching her French? Alone, in an isolated field. At like, age 30+. I don't care if the man claimed he was my future wife, if I was six years old and I kept seeing a naked man who knew my name and everything about me, I would be out of there. I guess the book just kind of expects you not to notice the ridiculous age difference between the two. And Clare keeps this man in her mind for practically her whole life.

Now now, not as if true love isn't possible, but people change. I find it hard to believe that Henry would happen upon a beautiful, brilliant redhead at age six and woo her for the rest of her life. Because Clare literally stays totally faithful in waiting for like eighty years. I suppose this guy is just too good to be true, except, you know, he harasses your childhood memories and is gone for large amounts of time without warning. I really don't care what anyone says. No five year old can read college textbooks and contemplate the theory of evolution... not even Gary Stu here.

On to Clare... Hm. Is it just me or is the whole sexism thing totally coming into play in modern literature nowadays? I can't even begin to describe how much Clare irks me. She is the stereotypical faithful wife, waiting forever, never losing faith in her husband although he's been known to play quite a few shenanigans. She's also beautiful and pale with long, pretty hair and a sweet face. She's also an ~*~*artist~*~* which means she's in touch with her emotions, apparently. And her emotions are boring, really, really boring. I saw no multi-facetedness to this character whatsoever, and it continued to make me angry through the duration of the book.

I'm no feminist, but I do like my characters to be interesting.

It seems like you guys found these characters interesting. Why? Please describe to be what you thought about them was so intriguing, because I don't get it.

-Irene

P.S. Please ignore the snark in this letter. I'm kind of pissed off.

case against conception

As many of you know, the Earth is grossly overpopulated with all the wrong things. Not only massive energy and resource consumers such as ourselves and the animals and crops we cultivate, but our carbon footprints... the pollutants that we "require" to lead a normal life in our current society.

We are very conceited beings. We value our individual lives above all else, even our entire race. This is because we do not like to think of ourselves as members of a collective, rather, individuals, which personally I find to be laughable. Our "superior intelligence" does not divide us so from the rest of the animal kingdom, and it especially does not divide us from ourselves. This is not arguable. This is a matter of complete truth which we once understood, and hopefully, in time, we will understand again.

Nearly every person I talk to, young or old, wants to be a parent at some point. Who wouldn't? Not only are our major role models parental figures and parents themselves, it's our instinct to want to conceive, and throughout human history it has served our species well. It continues to serve us well, from a certain perspective, but now that we have begun to forcibly tip the natural balance in our favor, the consequences are visible and drastic.

So, what is our solution? There are many obvious solutions, one being something we encourage in the unmarried masses yet scandalize amoung the married couples- remaining without children. By scandalize I refer of course to the "terrible and cruel" method the People's Republic of China uses to regulate its' population, which still bursts at the seams. Of course, a nation like ours would never hold such a blatant noose; not at all, we prefer to encrypt ours into the fabric of our financial scheme.

We are not rabbits. We are intellectually and physically capable of refusing to have children. But we live in a society that permits and helps its' residents to help only themselves, and lead only the most comfortable lifestyle in parenting. The average age of mothers is creeping up. Women do not want to waste their youth with babies, because our medicine allows them to wait two, even three decades past biological adulthood to conceive. We want to have children, we think our knowledge and DNA is unique and precious and our legacy simply must carry on. We wish and aim to be better parents than our own, and we find the miracle of birth magical and special enough to be a necessity in our timelines.

Continuing from just the age at which women give birth and the selfish comfort associated with it, it is ever so evident that we are becoming lazier and lazier parents. Look back to the obese family of the mother who was never taught to cook. She will not teach her children to cook, and she will probably never wean herself from fast food entirely. Her parents were much too lazy to spend their time building their daughter an ideal lifestyle. The cheapest and fastest was enough, which is a grotesque warping of priorites if you ask me. Did she have a choice? No, she was not aware of her choices, if they were hers to make. It's likely that her parents in their negligence stripped her of many choices as well.

It's no sort of complex problem to me. It is very simple... When people decide to have many children for their own enjoyment and satisfaction, even if they are not financially able to provide for their children the oppertunities that they should want, it is clearly a selfish endeavor. Did the parents ever stop to think..? It is one thing to want children, yes, perhaps we all truly wish to raise a child of our own. Adoption would definitely solve this simple wish. It is another when in our overpopulated society people value their own DNA above the wellbeing of the entire human species, which is in fact jeopardized in lifestyle and health by this overpopulation.

The problem immediately segways into the environment, even ignoring the situations of those who are incapable of becoming employed due to unfortunate circumstances. Where will our food come from when our population doubles? In America alone, the majority of citizens not only lead sedentary lifestyles but also are completely dependent upon major corporations for our food, these corporations which then must destroy grassland, forest, and other environments to make way for our crops, our chicken, our cattle. Americans do not want to return to the farming regime most of their ancestors relied on for centuries, they would prefer to fuel this destruction. Americans indirectly and intentionally destroy these environments for their own personal comfort, never looking back, and they are not alone.

Even food is not the beginning of the end of this problem, which, like so much else, is coated in hidden costs. Energy is a large one, our main supply being coal. Recently, we decided to build several nuclear powerplants to supply us with our growing need. I was shocked and appalled upon mentioning this to adults I trust and getting a supportive response. My own father praised Obama's decision for it's "clean energy." But radioactivity is never clean, once we strip the material of its' energy, they must be placed somewhere, and they are highly toxic. We cannot bury them, for they will enter our water supply eventually. There is no way to relieve ourselves of this poisonous material and we are resorting to it because we refuse to stop. We refuse, amoung all the consequences, to sacrifice our lifestyle for our future as a race, which we continually jeopardize with every selfish move we make.

I'll end this by bringing it back home. My father had four children with two wives. Each of his wives would not have married him if he were not willing to father their children, because children are apparantly the most important thing. I loved my mother, and I do not need to ask her why she did this, even if that was possible. I don't care if this whole opinionated shitstorm of an essay is biased and rude and cruel, I think it is the truth. Most girls I talk to want children.

You know what, girls? You may have your babies, but I beg you, please, do not concieve them. There is so much that we can already do to help this situation, this dire trend, and that is just one thing. An adopted child will be as much your own as one with your DNA, and guess what, we all share the same DNA, so it's not like your gene pool is going to end with you.

For all I can say about this topic, it's essentially that I've made the desicion never to give birth until this overpopulation is corrected.