the end is nothing but a new begining

So, after today, this blog is going into retirement, its been interesting, and a more fun way of exploring books than entries for sure. I am going to miss this blog, but I will start another one, in fact I will be continuing on a blog a am already on though I haven't written on it much lately, my fellow writers have contributed a lot. I will definitely continue to write on the blog. As for the interwebs themselves, I feel something must be said for the abuse it takes in general, from cussing teenagers, saying things they would never have the guts to say in person, to creepy adults, trying to whisk children who are not careful away. As long as there is freedom on the internet, it will NEVER be a safe place.

This blog has also made me think a lot about... well, just think - A LOT! which is a good thing. Issuses have come up in my mind that I had never bothered to think about before, like whether all of the freedoms we have in America, are good, or bad, also, what is good, is it what is moral, the right thing to do - and what is right - the thing that has the best consequenses, or what is accepted by society as the "correct" thing to do,

I just wanted to say farewell

I'll miss you so much
but it's time to leave now
I'll never forget you

A Hiku, by Eli Rose.

To kill a mockingbird finished I did says I

Hooray! Hooray! Hoopla! Hoopla! (what's a hoopla?) I have finished to kill a mocking bird, and (sopilers ahead, watch out!)

Oh my gosh Boo Radley - saved SCOUT & JEM??? After all they did to him? There are many philosophies in this book, but none so significant as the all important cliche, don't judge a... well you fill in the rest, it's quite obvious, and I would be surprised if my readers ( which I doubt I have) couldn't fill in the - Oh very well, I suppose if there are any people who can't tell what the saying is it's don't judge a book by its cover There I said it, happy? Anyway, this proves true in more than just the outright obvious way, AKA, Arthur Radley saved scout, and Ewell tried to kill The Kids.
Mr. Cunningham, for example, while only briefly mentioned, went with a mob to try to kill mr. ATTICUS FINCH then changed his mind when Atticus's kids showed up and mentioned how they were friends with his child. Outright, you are drawn to hate him because of what he did however, as Atticus tries to explain, he was just caught up in the mob mentality, and while that is no excuse, you can understand where he is coming from.
People sometimes need a slap in the face to realize what they are doing is wrong however they also usually always have some good in them, and deserved to be treated as though they do have good in them.

To kill... A MOCKINGBIRD

To kill a mockingbird one of the best selling, and most critically acclaimed books of all time, has everything to do with philosophy. This book chronicles the ever-twisting story of Jean Louise Finch, (or scout, as she is usually called) Her brother Jeremy (Jem) and her "husband to be" a boy her age, Dill. The part of the story I am concerned with is the trial, the jury votes all guilty, no hung Jury, nothing, just twelve angry men all over again. The jury is composed of white men, all intent on putting an innocent African American man in jail simply because he is an African American.
Racism has, whether americans choose to accept it or not, been part of american until quite recently, as there has always been someone willing to jump to some farfetched conclusion based solely of the ethnicity of a person. Politics played a strong role in making sure the unethical choice always appeared the be the favorable one, especially when the consequences of such a law were foreign and distant, as they truly had no effect of the average person.
The government has limited the rights of many simply because their salary, and pride are on the line. I find it disturbing that such an atrocity could occur in our society of all places, in the place where quote " all men are created equal." It just goes to show that all government is corrupt, no matter which way it is.

Warriors

Re-reading children's books and starting a post on freedom, I would like to comment on the freedom that the cats in the books have. While the warrior life claims to be free and wonderful, in actuality it is limited by rule, after rule, after rule. These rules ( otherwise known as the warrior code.) have limited the freedom of these cats. Even in the wild there must be some sense of order.
Must there always be order, if not, when should and shouldn't there be order? With out order are people really free? I don't believe so, from what I believe, you stop yourself from being free. My logic in this is that, you always have a trait, a flaw, or not a flaw, which restricts you, be it pride forbidding you to act humble, or happiness forbidding you to be sad, you are always restricted, if by nothing more, then simply by yourself. Order is always imposed in some way shape or form. No one can ever truly free for they would be nothing, no thoughts feelings or emotions to guide them. a random, unguided zombie like creation that knows no bounds, like... this is going to sound reaaaaly odd but, like baby almost.
Babies (before they begin to develop understanding of the world around them) act randomly, and will do anything as they have no sense of wrong or right - before they can even be happy or sad. This is the closest we have ever gotten to being compleatly free, and even then we are limited by essential needs, such as food and water, and sleep.
Good night all...

starting the Giver - Again

What does it mean, to leave your family? I mean, what does leaving what you have come to know as right really mean? does it mean that you are betraying the part of your life that lived with your family, betraying your family as well, or does it simply mean moving on. at 18, all children are considered, officially, adults. They get voting rights, considered as individuals (pay taxes) etc. However, what is the difference between this, and running away. You are not an adult - the only difference. Legally, you are still under your parent's custody. to shift positions from child to adult, can that happen before 18? legally, no, however I believe that you can. If you have to take responsibilities on for yourself, fend, in any way, for yourself, I feel you have reached adulthood. Perhaps not willingly, however I am of the opinion that you are.
If you have suffered abuse in the past, does this warrant leaving family behind? If someone abuses you in your family, are they still family. Is family, family through blood, or through love, can you be unloved and still have family. My opinion is that family is only family so long as they care for you, respect you, and most importantly love you. You cannot have family without love. Jonah's parents don't know the meaning of love, does this mean that they are not family. They have cared for him, doesn't that warrant respect? My opinion is respect is warranted only if they positives of your life outweigh the negatives of it. Jonas watched his father kill a child, and knows he killed many others, however he still helps the community. To me, murder = outweighs any positive that may come up about the person in question. To forcibly take a defenseless life sickens me. If I were in the position of Jonas, his father deserves no respect, he murders, and does not feel. But - is it his fault really - after all, he is completely INCAPABLE of feeling. Should that be pitied and not thought of as wrong. Though the actions taken by his father are wrong, is he himself guilty - ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, but what about inability to understand it, inability to follow it? I feel his actions were wrong, and jonas should not have to live with this man, however, he should be pitied not punished.
In many ways, the giver is more family to Jonas than his father. The Giver loved him, taught, and respected him. He let him go when he was ready, but prepared him for the world. I He openly helped Jonas, taught him, and helped him understand the world. the meaning of family is not blood

It is love.

children's books

revisiting children's books has taken up much of my time as of late, as I have not been able to get to the library, so I flip through books that I owned from previous times. One of these books was the Percy Jackson title, I noticed how many morals they manage to cram into these books. MAny of which seemingly are all standards long ago seemingly thought to be ethical. But out of all the ideas viewed in the books, "follow your heart, do what is right, don't lie, etc., one thought disturbed me greatly; how could all of these morals be followed, as in, some of these rules do not always work in real life, don't lie, for instance, you should be able to lie to protect loved ones, spare feelings, etc. Also, could these techniques be used to alter what children believe, some lessons of course are universal, but what about more cultural standards?
I was also wondering about the religious views of children's books. Could a book have religious tones to it, and if so, is that okay. I believe it is. In books such as chronicles of Narnia, and A Wrinkle in Time Christian beliefs are mentioned, but it is not as if they are being forced upon children. I believe that only when ideas are trying to embed themselves in peoples minds, and trying to erase all other beliefs, they should be eliminated. Not that I'm at all for religion being taught in schools, as history or anything else, as it is a group of peoples beliefs and not fact that are dealt with in religion.
I don't know if its possible for science to exist with religion, however, I feel a Wrinkle in Time does a nice job holding the two together. in my eyes (THIS IS AN OPINION) religion should be examined but not taught.

(and I didn't post this on thurs. because blogger wasn't working - whyyyyyy?)

A wrinkle... IN TIME????????? What?????? No way!!!

I love this series sooooo much! In this story, the Murry family, mother and father are theoretical scientists, working to better mankind, the father is working on a tesseract, a way to travel trough space, when he suddenly disappears. much to my dismay a spoiler must be the rest of the following post. If you have not read this book, click 1)because you must read this book. Now I would like to point out, that this story is a coming of age for Meg Murry. Originally, I assumed that Charles Wallace Murry would come of age simply because he is the youngest, and seemingly, and in some ways is, the most innocent. Charles is also in some ways, the most vulnerable, as he is not used to the evils of this world, however Meg must learn to deal with herself as a person, as a gift, Ms. Whatsit gives Meg "her faults". Meg grows up to become a beautiful smart woman who is married to Calvin, the boy who accompanies her on her journey to the mysterious planet of Camazots.
Charles wallace remains absent from many of the other Wrinkle books, however Madeline claims that he is still alive. This author has written beautiful work and developed the characters wonderfully along the course of the story. Some references are made to the bible , however, instead of detracting from the book it, like all of Madeline's other information, has a sturdy basis in our world, instead of her science fiction one. The story forces us to think in more ways than can be counted.
For this book, thank you Madiline