Analyzing Q's Character

     Qfwfq's cowardice causes him to remain neutral when conflict erupts around him.
     When the New Ones receive news on Dinosaurs being sighted, alarm spreads in the village. Confusion erupts within the New Ones: "'The Dinosaurs are coming back!' A herd of strange monsters had been sighted, speeding fiercely over the plain. At this rate they would attack the village the following morning. The alarm was sounded," (105). Although the New Ones do not know what Dinosaurs look like, they immediately assure that the beasts heading towards them were their enemies and prepare for battle. The term "Dinosaur" registers fear within the New Ones; however, the usage of that term surfaces a mixture of indecisive feelings for Qfwfq: "What was I to do?...The call of my blood insisted I should desert and join my brothers; loyalty toward the New Ones...demanded I should consider myself on their side..." (105-106). Qfwfq is hesitant about which side to support if war breaks out between the two species. He is unable to choose between the identity of being a Dinosaur and the identity of being an individual accepted to into the society of the New Ones.
     Rather than accepting one of the sides as a solution, Qfwfq rejects both the calling in his blood and his sense of loyalty. He resolute in running away: "That... night...I left the village. My...impulse was to get as far as possible from the battlefield, return to my secret refuges..." (106). Qfwfq is unable to dedicate himself between the challenging decision of choosing his identify as an individual of the past or as one of the present. He turns away from the options of remaining in the past or living in the present and moving on from the future.
     Qfwfq decides to remain neutral. Rather than encouraging a side, he chooses to criticize both of them: "...I knew full well that neither Dinosaurs nor New Ones were worthy of my lifting a finger for them...I wanted nothing to do with either side: let them rip each other apart in turn! I didn't give a darn about any of them," (106). In the end, Qfwfq dismisses the conflict as an insignificant problem by concluding that neither side deserves his help. He decides not to take part in the occurrence that involves himself the most by avoiding the incident altogether.

Response to Phuong's "Free Write: My 'Best Friend'"

     I found this very funny story on Phuong's blog, and I couldn't help but laugh as I read it. She starts off by saying that she has three "best friends" and I thought she was actually referring to actual people:

          I have notice how much bad luck I have been getting these few days. My three "best friends" are The Sun, Plants, and Bad Luck. These past days, they were very attached to me, especially bad luck. I tried to avoid them but it's inevitable. We are magnets stuck together which is sad for me. 

     When I first started reading this post, I thought that each of these characters symbolized an individual she knew, so I was trying to figure out who she talking about. However, as I read on, I realized that the "friends" she mentioned were non-human characters and that they were truly are her "friends," in the negative way.
     I'm not sure when she acquired these three friends but I do know that they cause her a lot of trouble and torture her to no end and it is the worst when the three of them gang up on her all at once. Phuong even states that:

          These three tend to work together and create my life of torture. Two of them seem "normal" to most people, but beware, every pretty thing/being have a darker side that they don't reveal. I am now trying to ignore them although it failed because the more I try to ignore them, the more they come to me.

     The best way for them to torture Phuong is in the seasons subsequent to winter, either spring or summer. During that time, her allergies are at her worst due to pollen and the sun is at its brightest. In a sense, that is already bad enough but it gets even worse when "Bad Luck" takes a part in becoming one of the torturers.
     Although this may be mean, I somehow find it funny, but it is really messes up for Phuong because she is the one going through the pain. Then again, it;s kind of fun watching her being tortured by her three "friends."

Response to Andy Tsang's "Prologue"

     I found this interesting I-don't-know-what-to-call-it on Andy's blog and it really sticks to me:

John just couldn’t put on a smile today. But who could blame him. A funeral is no place to be happy, especially when you’re the husband or son. There she lay, her face at peace; an expression completely different to mine. It all felt so unreal, like a dream, or more of a nightmare. And as the service ended, people began to clear out, except for John and I. We couldn’t move; our feet were entangled by the roots of our grief. After we paid our final respects to her, and she was whisked away by the staff, we were released from our trance, and grimly walked to the civic; one hand holding the keys; the other holding the boy’s.

     This reminds me of the funeral I went to when I was a kid. It belonged to my grandfather and although I no longer remember much about him, I still remember the day I went to his funeral.
     Back then, in my childish four-year-old mind, I thought that it was just another marginal day, that it was simply another day where my parents forced me to wake up early in the morning to go to some uninteresting place. I only noticed that I was in a church after I was forced to sit on the hard benches and seeing the colorful windows high up on the wall.
     I didn't understand why I was surrounded by relatives: some sad, some teary, and some crying. I suppose I only realized it was a funeral after seeing my grandfather in the coffin, or maybe I didn't realize. I might have only understood what happened after learning what a funeral was years after.
     However, there is one sight I will always remember about that day: my grandmother sitting alone on the bench at the very front, crying silently. Trying to facilitate the pain, maybe.

Being Bored

     What does is mean to be bored? Does it mean having nothing to do, having nothing you want to do, or you just want to be lazy and not do anything? I don't know. Seriously, I don't know.
     People throw around the word "bored" all the times, yet they never really stop to consider what they are truly using the word for. Whether it is at school or at home, the word "bored" is often used in many various ways and the most common phrases are "I'm so bored." and "This is so boring."
     Let's use an example, and because I am writing this blog for Sutherland's class, I'll be mean and pick on him. Today is Tuesday and you are already tired of school and classes because it is sixth period Sutherland's class. You go into the classroom and sit down in the regular seat just like any other regular day. Sutherland starts class with his usual blabber about whatever he might be talking about. After a while, Sutherland hits his beloved bowl a bit too loudly, pissing you off, to get everyone's attention. Then, he truly starts classes with some kind of strange topic talk that leads into a Quickwrite: "So! Let's talk about...(skip, skip, skip)...You have ten minutes and...Go!...(skip, skip, skip)...and the ten minutes is over!" Then comes the discussion you entirely don't pay attention to because ever since class has started, you have only been think about one thing: class being boring.
     Why is that? Why would an individual be bored? Out of the three possible choices, which was the individual's reason? I don't know the answer to this question. Maybe everyone has a different answer, or maybe there's no answer at all. I suppose how an individual chooses to reply to this question would depend on who the individual is because different individuals have different opinions.
     If this question came up for you, how would you answer? Would it be one of the three possible options or something else? Respond or comment if you want.


P.S. If you, Sutherland, read this, do not be offended by the example. It is entirely random and made up. I was bored so I ended up typing about being bored.

Response to Shiyun's "The Rich and The Poor: Part 1"

This is the interesting quote I found on Shiyun's blog:

      Poor people and rich people are really different in a way. Although rich people may have lots of money, poor people seem to have a much better life. I noticed that poor people mostly have trustful friends, nice, and independent; while rich people don't have trustful friends, they are mean, and not independent. Either way, they still have some similarities; both will got to school, have a family, and the knowledge is equal.

     In a sense, I agree with parts of what Shiyun is saying, but I also disagree with her. True, rich people are different from poor people in various ways, and both rich and poor have similarities. However, I do not agree with the areas where Shiyun states that poor people have a "better life," trustful friends, and are nice and independent while rich people have distrustful friends and are mean and dependent.
     Shiyun does not really define the terms "rich people" and "poor people" so it is hard to determine which individuals she is talking about. The terms she uses can vary depending upon which individuals she is comparing. Millionaires would be considered as "poor" when compared to billionaires; however, these millionaires would also be considered as "rich" when compared to the regular "working class" or those in poverty. In addition, the terms "rich" and "poor" can even be used in areas where there is poverty. For example, someone who is able to make ten dollars a day will be considered "rich" compared to another who makes less than ten dollars a day.
     In addition, I do not agree with her statements about rich people having unfaithful friends, and are negative and dependent while poor people have loyal friends, and are positive and independent. For one, I do not believe friends can be accounted for as part of the argument because an individual cannot control the thoughts and behaviors of their friends: they are their own beings and have their own ways of thinking, whether a friend is loyal or not is decided by the friend themselves. Moreover, there is no absolute saying that a "rich" person's personality is necessarily negative while a "poor" person's attitude is positive because every individual's personality is unique. A rich person has every possibility to be positive just as a poor person has the possibility to be negative. Additionally, whether a person is dependent or independent depends on the opportunities given and experience gained or the course of their life. As an example, a person cannot live on their own if they do not know how to cook or how to take care of themselves just as a person cannot survive on their own if they are unable to receive enough income to support themselves. Therefore, being "rich" and "poor" does not determine who an individual is.

My Vocabulary List

1. derive
2. acquisition
3. commission
4. compensation
5. constraint
6. discretion
7. facilitate
8. marginal
9. sector
10. subsequent

Debate Rebuttals

In Phuong and Crystal's opening statement, they said

In Hammurabi’s code, it states “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, therefore, a life for a life. Society needs to know that when someone sheds innocent blood, a high price is paid not only by the victim but also the murderer through the means of execution. Take for example the case of Timothy McVeigh, after killing 168 people with a bomb, we doubt that anyone can say that he deserved to live. If McVeigh had lived, who can say that he would not have arranged another bombing or kill more people. Only by sentencing the murderer to death will it ensure that the “killer will never kill again”.

However, they are contradicting Hammurabi's code with their example of Timothy McVeigh's death. If they execute McVeigh, it will only satisfy gaining revenge for one of the killed individuals. Moreover, it is also impossible to fulfill getting revenge for all 168 people because it is impossible to kill the same man 168 times over. Furthermore, by saying that the only way to make sure a killer will never kill again is to sentence that individual to death is incorrect because this is making an assumption that criminals cannot change, that people cannot find ways to amend for their mistakes, and that people are unable to forgive and forget. As a side note, even if the killer dies, it doesn't make the killed victim come back to life. A man is dead once they are dead. In addition, Phuong and Crystal states that

Killing, by definition, is the taking of a person’s life. However, it does not only mean taking the life away from a person, but also family away from family.

However, this point is insignificant. Although it is true that the death of an individual is the taking of a person's life from that person and its family, the execution of the murderer is also the taking of a life from an individual and its family. To relate back to the example given by the opposing side, wouldn't the death of McVeigh also be the taking of a life from a family? Wouldn't it be the same concept as the taking of a son's life from his parents and a brother from his siblings? Thirdly, the opposing side states that

Killing is a crime. It is against the laws of justice.

This point is also contradicting itself because executing a murderer or a criminal is still the killing of an individual. Although permission has been granted and the execution is technically legal, who has the right to decide whether that individual's life is to be ended or not? In addition, our opening statement said that this system is ineffective because "an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind", meaning that the cycle of death will never end if everyone live up to the statement of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and therefore, a life for a life." This is because the individual who injects the lethal poison, fires the gun, or uses whatever method assigned to end the criminal's life still technically ended a life with their own hands; therefore, that individual would also be considered to have killed someone.