It's hard to breath with no air

In the mindset of things, in the way we elvaluate -
the way we expect the unexpect.
I lost tears when I lost my friend,
I lose tears when I lose my friend,
I will lose tears when I will lose my friend.
Whatever phase, whatever reflection of my life -
the moment I smile, I search her eyes
The eyes that won't be there to shine along my silly jokes
The momeny my heart will search for her
and find nothing
is the moment ill realise she's gone
When her laughter won't join mine,
when her hugs won't be there
When eveything will be need to reset, a new page -
because of her.
For love comes in many forms,
but its purist is friendship.
I thought its silly, almost imature to believe in such a concept -
But I fell. I believed.
Im not religious nor hopeful,
But I somehow had faith and hope and believe in this friendship
the end seems far away, yet is near
the end to a start
the stars shine and my tears drop
the moments we had, the moments we will miss
I know that you'll accompany me through life and your fingertip will be left,
as they say,
'its the traces of memory that keeps you living and breathing'

I will puke english soon; I better get that A..sigh..sigh..sigh..

- ideas n details
- debate whether dr Zinc should come to debate
My motion for the following report is for the request that dr Zinc won't attend nor speak at one of the group's debate meetings. Our school cannot afford to entertain feeble actors, and I will state my following factors as towards the current situation of dr Zinc impending presence.




Dr Zinc is known to have alluring and persuasive techniques to attarct large crowds, but I do not see the reason for a prestigious school such as ours to fall for an act. Dr Zinc does not overall argue, just forms a theater, an act. His words are one that scripted, and would not be suitable for a heated and on going debate. Although people fall for the facade, I believe we should progress past that and look into the perspective of how dr Zinc does not actually persuade through concrete arguments, but through pityful lies. His presence is not appropiate because he is not a debater, he is an actor - and acting will not elevate him to succed through facts and arguments to win, and therefore would not be a adequate figure to speak.



Debating is about figures and statistics, and dr Zinc is about show and illusion of minds. Shedding tears and adapting your voice to lure your audience in is not what we should be learning in the subject. If I wished to have joined a drama school, then Dr Zinc would be more then well-equipped. I have heards of his tall tales about Earth's destruction, and how he conveyed the crowd to cling to his every word. Although his speeches are admirable and could be of help, his lies and theaterics wouldn't be compactable with the real world and the discussions at our meetings.



His act is convincing, but if we wish to be swayed by rehearsed words so easily, we might as well invite any person into our meetings. Therefore, I believe Dr Zinc should not, under any circumstance, come to our debate meetings.

Should a child be raised by the carrot or stick?

          The way you raise a child can be very impactful for her/his future. A parents and a teacher's job is not to limit or decide for the child, but for them to guide him/her- I will further analyse and describe how both the carrot and the stick are the wrong methods of which a child can grow in.
         Let's begin  with the inceptions of the wrong-doing of the stick. Violence is never the answer, and the stick contradicts this statement and implies that it is. Children are at a sensitive growing stage, and implanting punishments not only would not get the message desired across, but would also make them fear it and therefore fear learning. It forbids mistakes, which not only is a lost opprtunity for learning, but also strives child to achieve perfection - which shouldn't be the transmitted message.Also, they will quickly accept the lesson that is trying to be taught but will not actually accept or aprove of it, only want to evade the pain that raises from it.  The child shouldn't be motivated to work under threat, the motivation should come from within his/her desire. The stick outshadows the idea of acceptance and comfort and for it to be known that it's fine to speak your mind. Parents/teachers are not growing the child to be confident, but fearful. By using stick, the trauma and anger is embodied and bottled up inside the child, later influencing him/her to  adapt behaviour in life, and can lead them to be abusive towards others. Parents are preventing child from being comfortable, from speaking and communicating. What parents are doing is shaping the child psychologically to be defensive, evasive, judgmental of themselves and others.  It damages child psychologically, and emotionally leaving raw pain. This could be considered exageration, but this method is extreme and does create extreme results. Using stick builds a persona of anger, spiteful and revengeful that will thinly cover the low breaking self-esteem and confidence that the child actually has.
       The stick is bad, and the carrot isn't less of a bad-doing. The carrot cancels out the idea of any self-motivation, much like the stick. Children don't have their own initative to carry out his opinions or ideas, because he/she will only look forward to the stick. The stick impends and slowly establishes it's roots in the child's mind, setting it'd course towards being depedents on praise and approval. As a parent/teacher, the cultivated

I can't stop this feelin anymore...Gotta work my essay, no delaying anymoree..

Are children better motivated by rewards or punishment?

Social influence: the good and bad

Whether we choose to see it or not, there is a thin string surronding us, a thin string that has no inception nor termination. This string may be thin, but it's resolute is firm; it's set to manevour and maniplute our movements and actions in every day life.

What I'm talking about is the lasso that was designed by society. We never realize it's there, because of it's illusioante path of bringing out features and characteristics of yourself that you may never have used; words or phrases that you may deem that you'd never mention or think of, but in the haunting reality, you will.

The human mind is one that wants to fit in; whether it can or will is another story. It is within us to want and communicate, and the crossroad of what we have to do and the consquences are inconsquetional to the subconcious mind's determination.

A man. A woman. A child. A dog. Believe it or not, all of the following seemingly adapt a social behaviour tht would be accepted and rejoiced for a group to accept them. In this article, I will mention only the human concepts of 'fitting in', of 'dissolving into the background', and will further give birth to ideas and theories of my own.

if you noticed the order of which I put the list, you'd be observant and perceptive enough to understand how I mentioned a man before a woman, and a human before an animal. It's upsetting to realize the ladder of importance that we created; the ethics of what matters most. Above a woman and a man, we're barely animals - jst because our senses are much more developed, does an equalize us acting in manners that define us as better or on the top of the cycle of nature. we are nature, and whether we choose to blindly ignore it or to adapt our life to it, it is the truth. The core of our being.

Nature works in mysterious ways, and is often the one scientists turn to when it comes to questions about ourselves. For example, the loopholes of which we percieve women as. 

A woman is regarded as an inferior; whether by religon, nature, job-wise or not, it is them that are often a step down from men. This obviously was impacted by history's view of a woman, and it's lingering touch that leave it's inky traces on our minds. A woman was known to be feminie, known to have to please the man according to him.

obviously, times have changed enough to realize that women have their own minds and opinion and often find it disrespectful when a man critcises her looks - yet, women still find the need and strieve to look good, to have a sexual appeal to achieve anything. You rarely find a man in position of needed a diet, or when in a job interview been questioned for more.  Society impacts the way a woman still thinks she needs more attributes, to be closer to perfection when it's least common for a man to be pressured to look good.

That's not to say a man doesn't have his own pressure to behold and grasp - the pressure of simply being a man. What makes a man more of a superior to a woman? It's the presence of dominance, the control that he beholds and wears as a frail mask to attempt and show his position. The pressure of being a man - of being masculine - the machoism of having large muscles, of a strong presence. What is masculine? Something that is typical of  a man; Typicality being key word. What is typical is what'ss expected, and what is expected is what is given; thus the climbing of a man being a man. Just like the colors black and white, what's a woman and what is a man is clearly separated. For men, atleast. Women often are comfortable wtih male settings; example, football or even wearing tuxes. Men find uncomfort in it, because they are not living up to their title if they do anything even close to the word woman - why is the pressure to men being men higher then a woman being feminie? or are tehy both the same?

This way of categorizing and labeling influences the decision and actions of today's world. Male homosexuals are often persucted and insulted for being homosexual. Contrary to popular belief, I have a theory that most homosexuals aren't accepting because of their partner-choice, but because of their social act- because being homosexual, to some, may be signficant to losing the title of what it is to be a man. Homosexuals are deemed to be more effemnite by both media and society - which leads to some generalisation and sexism.

Not all homosexuals are effemnite, just not like all women are. What troubles me in the haterd of homosexuals is the underlying tone of devaluation towards women and the unstable male self-esteem.

Think of a scale - on one end, there's a woman and on the other a man. Where would you place a homosexual man?

Stasticaly speaking, closer to the woman. Why? because homosexuals are seen as men who h

Blog, so much to do, so little time

oh,oh what're u waiting for

Coursework
Spanish
TIv
Business
WHOA
TATA
TATA
WHAHAHA

Makes sense here, makes bullshit there

I think the reason why men are so uncomfortable with gays is because they're openly less manly and more feminine, and in a way, more confident then straight men will ever be


you're gay, so if you do something that's slightly female, like idk, go to a mall

you can't be insulted for it

but for a straight male...its the end of the world



I have often thought of the reason gays are not tolerated. I looked at statistics which state that women accept homosexuals far more then straight males do. I wondered why that is, and went into a deep mind-whirl of theories and conceptions.

Often when men insult each other, they tend to use synonyms for homosexual. Why? What is so horrific, so offending to a male to being gay?The general act of liking another male, or the fact that most homosexuals are, perhaps, not as much of a ‘man’?

What this statement implicates is that not only how men and women are affected by the pressure of society, but the view that the world still has of women.

Men declare themselves men by their attributes; by their strength, their character and the way the act.

Article + Later THE POEM BITCH

Dracula

In case the wanted posters did not get it's message across, the once-in-a-year play of 2011, Dracula(played by Alex Puiu) is coming soon. The props are being made, the actors are rehearsing,  and the stage is being set - the stage that's a bit different from last year. A bit, as in, a complete different place- our school. Most might be critical after long succesful years in Tenderica Theater, but  fret not, for our school will not be a school when the show will start. Our school will be a castle illuminated by the moon, haunted by vampires and seen as a sanctuary for bats.  If you might have crossed the English room, you may also have seen pale arms with veins bursting out  - the arms were created by our lovely angels and many others who came on Saturday to offer their help . It is only the start of what it's sure to be a unique and personalised play.
 Different students are contriubing; whether it's behind the curtains or infront. If you wish to help in any way, you can talk to ms Angela who's sure to involve you. If not, come support your colleges in one of the biggest events of our school.

 In a mini-interview with ms Angela, she excitedetly talks about everything involving the play, and describes everything with vigrous enthusiasm. "I'm amazed by the dedication and enthusian of our students, even though this is a crucial time of the year with the exams coming - they have show determination to take part." She says, grinning from ear to ear. 
 This year there will also be activities and competitions going on before the play begins. The CAS group has made something for us to start the play with, and a certain caterpillar is involved. The audience will be invited to dress up in a Dracula-themed manner to win a prize, and you will see a make-up booth in case you're interested in a new style. I'm sure I don't have to promote the infamous cakes that are being sold