the first blog assigned :)

When I first came into Mr. Tangen's class, we were assigned to do daily blogs on topics he would post. Coming from a school in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, i had absolutely no idea what a blog was. Our first assignment was to read a text from one of his own personal blogs and respond in our own.

What is a blog? Why don't we just print out our assignments like most teachers do? Will blogs be the future generations books? All these questions have answers which i have only recently discovered. A blog can be a great many things. It can be a personal or made up story, or a summary of a piece of literature that you have read. there are also blogs about all sorts of things; such as, politics, sports, fan clubs, music artists, etc.

One of the reasons as to why teachers prefer to use blogs rather than paper or books, is because they are afraid they might lose the papers. This has happened to me on quite a few occasions, and at the end they always end up finding my paper in a different pile or somewhere else. another reason is to be green! America alone wastes so much paper on stupid things. with blogs you are saving a great amount of trees and oxygen. the last reason as to why i think teachers prefer blogs to books is because you don't have to carry a blog. Colegio Nueva Granada is on top of a huge mountain. In my opinion it is just as high as Mount Everest, and we have to climb it everyday in order to get to school. Carrying books and loose papers around probably isnt the smartest idea when you have the option to carry a laptop or you could just use the computer once you get to the school.

Because the internet is taking over the world at such a rapid pace, book sales have plummeted. People find it easier to just sit at there computer and look for whatever they need with the "click" of a button. This makes the reading of blogs more popular, and it is very unhealthy for people. Overall, i believe that in about 30 years there will be a great decline in books, and blogs will be used for almost all things.

Now that i understand how blogs work, it took me about 4 months to figure them out, i enjoy writing them much more the writing a paper. They are more convenient for everyone!

short story

When i was a teen-ager, I wrote a science-fiction story about Leonardo da Vinci. In it, a young art historian becomes fascinated with Leonardo's otherwordly paintings, with their strange rocky backgrounds, unplaceable landscpaes, and enigmatic not-quite-human saints, their single fingers forever pointing straightly upward. to make a long, and rather shamelessly, rod Serlingish, story short, the art historian eventually discovers, in a previously unknown codex, that Leonardo WAS an alien, that the rocks were the lanscape of his native planet, and that the fingers were pointing longingly back home...

This discovery was fascinating but at the same time scary. Knowing that scientists went on day after day researching the same things and not finding any evidence, yet me, a regular girl, having all the evidence and possibly the greatest discovery in the world was overwhelming. now, I had two options: i could not tell anyone and just continue through life, or i could find a way to prove my discovery and possibly become the world's next Darwin. After a long period of thinking, i decided to share my knowledge with the world... it took 60 years after my discovery before it was accepted into the world of science; however, even though i was 75 at the time, i was given credit and the next space expedition to attempt to find Leonardo's long lost home, was named after me. That expedition and many more were complete and epic failures. I died soon after so I will never know what ever ended up happening, or if the aliens came and destroyed the earth.

leaves of grass

Everything we do has a reason, with this, there are questions to what that reason is. In the poems asked to read by Walt Whitman, he begins with questions about life, but instead of actually answering them, he responds to them with more inquiries. This enforces the reader of the poem to maintain interested and alert to what is proceeding within the poem. Being a new student this year, I did not have the privilege of having Mr. Tangen as an english teacher last year. Instead, I had an extremely strict nun who happened to be teaching english honors. In her class, she taught us how to speak intelligently, and how to use grammar correctly. She also had us write many essays that were many times 5 or more pages. These essays would include rules; such as, no "to be" verbs, same tense throughout the whole paper, same person throughout the whole paper, and different sentence structures in the essay. This lady was a great teacher and helped me improve my english to a great extent; however, entering into Mr. Tangen's class was like entering a class which taught whole new and different language. Most of the class I was completely lost and had no idea how people would come up with the responses they shared in the class discussions. The rest of the time, I was trying to figure out the different technique he wanted us to use while writing our blogs and essays. Throughout the course, I had the privilege of sitting next to Daniel Toro and Pipe Reina. Pipe, being a new student from Miami last year, new exactly how i felt and how different and overwhelming the class was, so he was able to help explain to me when i was mostly confused. Daniel Toro, who is also incredibly smart, also helped me understand the techniques being asked of me. Mr. Tangen wanted us to learn the "if then so what" technique. This was the hardest for me because I was taught that you needed to end an essay with a conclusion and just finish the essay. With Mr. Tangen, I had to make my conclusion, finish the essay, and then see how i could instigate more as if i were going to continue another 5 pages in the essay. This was tough but the choice i made to stay in the class I am sure (hope) helped my english and will make me a better writer for the future.

In life, you make many choices; however, how do you know when you have made the right one? Personally, I dont believe that there is ever truly a dead right choice like in math or english that can be chosen when making life decisions. Instead of there being correct and incorrect, I believe there are only consequences and depending on them and the person, determines whether it was a good decision or a bad decision. Whatever led us to that particular decision is what can be determined as correct or incorrect. But there will never really be an answer as to why you do what you do. There will always be another question that can be asked.

The question in Walt's poem "What is the grass?"(6)allows us to enter into a whole new world of thoughts. Im sure that not everyone walks around, sees a piece of grass and ponders on what grass really is. With this poem, he enters a whole new philosophical meaning to the small leaf. He complicates and explains something most people would find so relatively small and simple. It's grass. Plain and simple plants that flow in the wind. Whitman explains and describes this plant in words that even young children would understand.

By repeating the words "Or I guess..."(6) He continues to show that there is no real answer. There is always another question that inquires further into the subconscious level of the mind. This occurs when you think of something too hard. When the answer is so simple that you question it further and further until you dont even know what the right answer is anymore. This disease of the mind can be great for writers, but personally, i think i shall stick with my simple answers. :) just kidding

Nice Guys Finish First... Most of the Time

Chapter 12 uses a different method to describe the ways of nature and the animals within it. Dawkins creates a certain special game and named it "The Prisoners Dilemma." In this game, there are three players involved. The first player is the banker. He is the judge and pays the winnings to each player according to how they play the game. The other two players play the actual game. The game is designed to see which of the two players is the nicer, and it is also designed to see which personality wins the game. In the game, the two players each receive two cards. The cards are labeled: cooperate and defect. The game proceeds like this. Player one stands between the two other players and tells them "ready, set, go." When this has occurred, the other two players choose one of their cards and hold it up. If both players choose "cooperate," then both shall be rewarded the same amount and it is considered "fairly good." If both players choose "defect" then the players shall be penalized the exact same amount and it would be considered "fairly bad." If player one defects and player two cooperates, then it is considered "very bad," and player one would be greatly fined. If player one cooperates and player two defects, then it is considered "very good," and player one would receive the highest payoff amount.

This game although tricky to understand, it has a theory to which the players must act upon in order to win the game. Both players must find an efficient strategy in which both players can benefit from each other. It is a difficult game because it takes a while for the players to conceive this concept and put it into action. Even then, the other player must also take part in the strategy in order for them to win. Dawkins uses this game to relate to nature. Like with birds, if one removes the ticks from the other, the other may decide to return the favor or not. If he does then they both win and benefit equally, but if he doesn't, then he will benefit the most and the first bird will lose the cost of his actions.

Dawkins did not find this game satisfying enough; therefore, he continued his research and came up with more strategies such as the "Tit for Tat" strategy, which depends on both players copying exactly what the player before chose to do, and the "axelrod" strategy, which implies forgiveness of the opposite player and envy of the opposite player in order to defeat and win the game. Dawkins shows many examples of how he applies his theories to nature. He uses every aspect in his games to match an aspect in nature and in the animals habits.

Women Always Win :)

Since the day the earth was created, there has always been a fight between the sexes. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses but only one can be the top. the amount of males to females in an litter should be about the same in order to keep an evolutionary and stable balance. if the balance were to be disrupted by a grand amount, their would be a change and their would be a great net loss.

All parents want to have as many offspring as possible so that their gene may grow and always be prosperous, but this depends on how much a mother gives to its offspring in the gene pool she gives. the less he gives to each of her offspring, the more offspring she is able to have in her lifetime. the catch to this strategy is for the mother to get her partner to invest more genes so that she will have a greater supply and can give more offspring with other partners. This selfish act results in more offspring, but with different genes mixed together and a difference in the environment.

As seen throughout history, not only do females commit this selfish act, but males as well. Males on the contrary are more prone to investing less genes and having more partners then females are prone to invest less in their own offspring. Females avoid this act by waiting a long time in order to rule out who are the worthy suitors to which they will have offsprings with. Prolonged engagements and courtships are also very common in women when avoiding this selfish act of the male.

Battle of the Generations

Chapter 8 has different point of view and different focuses. In the beginning, Dawkins describes mothers as machines which produce a child similar to themselves. like machines, mothers try to duplicate their own genes and pass them onto this new machine being created to live in this world; but unlike machines, they cannot be exactly duplicated or copied. Genes can work in an order and follow instructions like machines, but they do make mistakes more often, and they also have then genes of the father which they have to incorporate into their offspring. Each offspring a couple has is very different. it has many similarities and comes from the same genes and parents; but its effect is entirely unique and can never be duplicated by another sibling from the same makeup. This is a difficult process and Dawkins shows it as simply as the work a machine does when running its regular course.

As said before, brothers and sisters are as closely related as mothers and their children are; therefore, a mother gives the same amount of genes (1/2) to each of her offspring. because of selfish greed which has already developed at the age of birth, each child wants his or her mother to invest more genes into him or her then into the rest of the siblings. The mother will naturally only invest the same amount into each, but the act of selfishness is reinforced at the young age of the child, which will characterize most of its behavior for a good amount of the child's life.

Different species handle this jealousy in different ways. each of these ways are prone to help its particular specie to get ahead in the race of natural selection. Some birds lay their eggs in different species nests because when the egg hatches the normal action the young bird would take would be to kill the other unhatched eggs with its sharp beak and kill the other birds opportunity to be competition for food from the mother. This act is passed on throughout generations and the trait is never lost. when the mother returns with food, the child would be happy and show it in some obvious way for the act he has done and for the ease it will now be to have the food brought home by the mother. This obvious act would please the mother and give her inspiration to go get more food and nurture her child, giving the child the new idea that by doing this it can manipulate and receive whatever it wants.

Aggression :/

All the chapters of the book, The Selfish Gene, have a way to describe life in a different way. It uses different parts of the novel to show different aspects of life in the point of view of Dawkins. This raises the question, "Which of these descriptions is true and which is false?" In chapter 5 of the book the genes are described to have strengthened their instinct and awareness of the other genes that are dangers to their elimination in the natural selection process. These machines with minds of their own are aware that they can be deceived easily and if done, they shall not be victorious in the selection. The spots in the selection are few and any competition from any species could be detrimental to the gene. the selection not only chooses the genes by the greatness of the specie, but it also values how well the gene uses its surroundings and environment for survival.

A genes environment includes everything around it at all times. Not only does it include the rocks, rivers, and setting; but it also includes the other genes which are also in the rigorous race for survival. In order to use all of its environment to help its chance for survival, the gene must use the other genes in its environment to its advantage, and it must use the other genes' skills to help them with their own chances in the race. This "using other species for your own good" became known as an individual interpretation of animal aggression. This made known that it was not only the homosapiens who could and would kill their own species in order to win the benefit of the situation, the other species would also kill and do whatever they could to get them further ahead in the race to survival.

What the species in the race fail to realize is that it would be more beneficial to them to be more like doves. These harmless creatures have been in the race for a long time and do not deceive their own family specie or any other specie alive in their environment, even if they cause a threat to their chance of survival. Being like a dove would help them because it is easier to be selected as a group them to be enemies always on the lookout for the other, killing each other off as life goes on without the help of natural selection. Instead, each specie uses its talents and strengths to try and outwit the other genes. This theory is a conspiracy and the only negative effect of a conspiracy is that it, like the trust once held within the species, can be abused. People can add and take away from conspiracies according to their own personal morals and beliefs. most people agree with this conspiracy of the most beneficial thing for all is to act like harmless doves, but the ones who strongly disagree and have good arguments against it will make conflicts with anyone and everyone. This leads us to the answer that each description depends on your own point of view. Dawkins gives his ideas as another option to add or think about other than your own.