Mai Hesham 10B

Winners never quit and quitters never win

[maihesham123]

Informational Text Homework-

1. The main point of the article is to talk about the first female football player who won a prize in the football league.This point was first illustrated when the article says: “Thirteen-year-old Karlie Harman becomes the first girl to win a Washington, D.C., area Youth Football League.” The idea develops as the article goes on. For instance, it starts talking about what Karlie played before football and about other major competitions Karlie won. Also, it talks about Karlie’s team, Thunder, and how the team’s coach, Bob Thomas, who supported Karlie and believed in her. Furthermore, the article describes Karlie’s obstacles that faced her, like being the only girl in the team. Then, the article finishes by talking about Karlie’s future plans for her career, where she intends “to open her own athletic clothing company called KAR-P-O.”

2. Organization:

The article is well organized and presents the ideas in clear, short paragraphs. It is divided into three parts with three sub-titles. This helped me better understand the article because it made all the ideas vivid and divided to clear pars in my mind. For example, I was able to see that the article was talking about Karlie’s achievments and then about her obstacles and future plans. The main strength in this article is that it gives a general idea of what each part talks about with a short, catchy sentence. This allows me to know what to expect in each section, like how it introduces the topic by saying “Karlie Harman becomes the first girl to win Player of the Year in Washington, D.C.,…” which allows us to know that the article will talk about a specific girl’s exceptional achievement in American Football. I would say that the only weakness in the article is that it did not give us any beackground information about when this competition started or how tough the competion was in the specific year Karlie won in.

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to inform us about a female’s achievement on American Football. It successfully did this, for it talked about the prizes Karlie won and the achievements she mad in football. Also, it mentioned Karlie’s many obstacles and described how Karlie overcame these obstacles with success. Then, it informed us about Karlie’s future plans and goals, like her new company. I would say, though, that the article would have better informed us by this purpose if it gave us background information about the competitions Karlie won.

3. Who wrote this article?- This question would help us determine the reliability of the article because we would know how credible the author is ans how much he knows about the topic that he wrote about.

Do the ideas and information presented match my previous knowledge?- This would help us to determine the reliability of the article because it would allow us to compare our previous knowledge to this article and see how much of the article is true.

4. I think that this article is reliable because the author supports the information she gives with dtailed examples, which shows her knowledge to the topic. For instance, she mentions specific years that Karlie won the prizes in, like “in 2012, she won a regions competition of the NFL’s punt, pass and kick contest.” Also, the article mentions many specific qoutes from people who personally know Karlie, like Karlie’s mother and her coach. I believe that first hand sources are the most reliable sources to know about any topic and therefore, I believe this makes the article reliable.

[maihesham123]

Informational Text Homework-

1. The main point of the article is to talk about the first female football player who won a prize in the football league.This point was first illustrated when the article says: “Thirteen-year-old Karlie Harman becomes the first girl to win a Washington, D.C., area Youth Football League.” The idea develops as the article goes on. For instance, it starts talking about what Karlie played before football and about other major competitions Karlie won. Also, it talks about Karlie’s team, Thunder, and how the team’s coach, Bob Thomas, who supported Karlie and believed in her. Furthermore, the article describes Karlie’s obstacles that faced her, like being the only girl in the team. Then, the article finishes by talking about Karlie’s future plans for her career, where she intends “to open her own athletic clothing company called KAR-P-O.”

2. Organization:

The article is well organized and presents the ideas in clear, short paragraphs. It is divided into three parts with three sub-titles. This helped me better understand the article because it made all the ideas vivid and divided to clear pars in my mind. For example, I was able to see that the article was talking about Karlie’s achievments and then about her obstacles and future plans. The main strength in this article is that it gives a general idea of what each part talks about with a short, catchy sentence. This allows me to know what to expect in each section, like how it introduces the topic by saying “Karlie Harman becomes the first girl to win Player of the Year in Washington, D.C.,...” which allows us to know that the article will talk about a specific girl’s exceptional achievement in American Football. I would say that the only weakness in the article is that it did not give us any beackground information about when this competition started or how tough the competion was in the specific year Karlie won in.

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to inform us about a female’s achievement on American Football. It successfully did this, for it talked about the prizes Karlie won and the achievements she mad in football. Also, it mentioned Karlie’s many obstacles and described how Karlie overcame these obstacles with success. Then, it informed us about Karlie’s future plans and goals, like her new company. I would say, though, that the article would have better informed us by this purpose if it gave us background information about the competitions Karlie won.

3. Who wrote this article?- This question would help us determine the reliability of the article because we would know how credible the author is ans how much he knows about the topic that he wrote about.

Do the ideas and information presented match my previous knowledge?- This would help us to determine the reliability of the article because it would allow us to compare our previous knowledge to this article and see how much of the article is true.

4. I think that this article is reliable because the author supports the information she gives with dtailed examples, which shows her knowledge to the topic. For instance, she mentions specific years that Karlie won the prizes in, like “in 2012, she won a regions competition of the NFL’s punt, pass and kick contest.” Also, the article mentions many specific qoutes from people who personally know Karlie, like Karlie’s mother and her coach. I believe that first hand sources are the most reliable sources to know about any topic and therefore, I believe this makes the article reliable.

[maihesham123]

This is how I found my Google Account today!!

[maihesham123]

Ebullience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mux4fZ0jj8

[maihesham123]

Vindictive

Although he claimed he is not a vindictive person, the King still slits your throat if you eat an apple that he wants.

[maihesham123]

Ebullience

Because of her ebullience on the jumping board before the race, she toppled into the water and got disqualified.

[maihesham123]

Bombastic

The scientist's bombastic speech about his boring discovery lasted for a whole hour, causing everybody to sleep!!

[maihesham123]

Pick a scene from the novel and then add music to it. Write a paragraph about how this song would work well in this particular scene of the book

I chose the song of 'Let it go' from the movie Frozen to be put in the scene when Christopher decides to leave to London and starts walking towards the station until he meets the policeman( after sitting in the cafeteria for 2.5 hours). I think this song works well (of course with editing the 'she' to 'he') because Christopher fears the train travel and constantly has to remind himself that his father's house is not his anymore, and that he has to leave his father and his computer so he can reach to London, even if it means he has to overcome his fear of strangers and his fear of the unknown to become the new person and to have the new life that he wants. It is like he is 'letting go' of his father, past, house and life and he cannot 'feel' any fear of this anymore, and he is going to learn how to use strengths in logic to balance the weaknesses in communication and smash the bounds and barriers he has had all his life, like Elsa when she 'let go' of her kingdom, sister and past life, stopped 'fearing' the people's words and started to learn how to use her 'strengths' (of turning things to ice) to balance her weaknesses. Therefore, I think the song of Let it go fits best with this scene.

[maihesham123]

Do you like Christopher? What about his father? And his mother? Are they good people? Do you sympathize them when they behave unskillfully, or blame them for their faults? Write two paragraphs.

I like Christopher because I think he is trying to cope with the negative things around him, like he trying to find a solution to how he is going to get to mother, or he trying to become an astronaut even if he knows that he has a disability. Also, I like Christopher because he tries his best to get to what he wants and does not get stopped by any factors that he realizes are slowing him down or are giving him a disadvantage. For instance, on his way to London, even though he does not like over crowded places, he takes the challenge so that he can reach to his mother. Also, when Christopher wanted to find who had killed Wellington, he chatted to strangers, which is, according to him, a great challenge to do because he feels really scared to do it. Another reason of why I like Christopher is because of his logic. Of course sometimes he has too much logic, but I also like how he analyzes things and gives us things that we never thought about, like how he talks about why he counts red cars or yellow cars to see if the day was good or bas, where non of us thought about his reasoning to be actually kind of convincing. Therefore, because he tries his best to make things work for him and because of his logic, I like Christopher. I do not like Christopher's father because I do not think he had the right to think in place of his son. For example, he decided for Christopher that he would not like to talk to his mother and therefore he did not show him the letters. I also think that he was selfish because when he did not tell his son that his mother is alive, he did it to keep his mother away from the house. I believe that Father wanted to take revenge from Mother even if it meant that his son was going to get hurt. For example, Christopher did not get a chance to tell his mother good bye because Father refused to get Mother back in. And even though at the beginning he seemed a caring father, we realize that he is making up for his mistake in an indirect way. Still, though, it is not enough to care to make up for your mistake. He should have told Christopher about the whole truth. Therefore, because I think that Father's actions seemed good but were actually selfish, I do not like Father. I also do not like Mother because I think she is not responsible and she is also selfish. For example, she left Christopher because she wanted to live a life without being responsible of a disabled boy, which shows that she is not responsible. Another example to show her selfishness is when she says that because of her constant fights with Father, she left the house, even though she knows that she has a son who needs her. Here, she decided to live free rather than care for the person who needs her, which shows her selfishness. Therefore, because she is both selfish and not responsible, I do not like Mother. Mother and Father both did many mistakes that led to hurting Christopher. I do not feel any sympathy towards them because they showed selfishness and they were irresponsible. They both also completely realized that they were wrong but still refused to apologize, like when Father said he was going to tell Christopher when he was older, which means he knows that not telling Christopher is wrong, or like when Mother said in the letters that she knows that leaving her son is an irresponsible action, yet she does it anyways. Therefore, because Mother and Father know they were wrong but still continue in their way, I think this makes their mistakes not accepted.

[alya-aq-blog]

“Portraying people with disabilities in entertainment media is unfair.”

I disagree with the fact that portraying people with disabilities in entertainment media is unfair. Of course there are some entertainment media that portraits people with disabilities in a rude way, but that happens to people with no disabilities too. People with disabilities shouldn’t feel as if they’re different than us, because they aren’t. Portraying people with disabilities in entertainment media can actually benefit the people in many ways.

Portraying people with disabilities can teach people about that particular disability. Some people aren’t that aware of the struggles or what a person with a disability may go through everyday, this could give people more sympathy to people with disabilities and make them more understanding when that disabled person does something unacceptable or wrong in some way. For example if I have met someone like Christopher, with Asperger’s Syndrome, I would’ve thought they were rude or disrespectful for doing certain things (an example is hitting people when being touched), but because I’ve read the book, now I know why they would’ve done that. Knowing certain behaviors of people with Asperger’s Syndrome (from Christopher) helped me understand why they do certain things.

Also, sometimes seeing people with disabilities makes you feel more thankful for what you have. People should always feel grateful towards what they have, not everyone has what you have. Also people with disabilities, they have things we don’t have. Nobody is perfect or has everything, so everyone should feel appreciative for the things they have. For people with disabilities, seeing others go through the same struggles they go through everyday would make them feel like they aren’t alone. For example seeing Christopher having difficulties communicating with others made me feel fortunate to have the social skills I’ve got (even though I have bad social skills). A person with Asperger’s Syndrome might have never or rarely seen a person with the same disability. That person might have read TCIOTDITNT and felt like they weren’t the only ones going through these obstacles that differentiate them from other people.

All in all, I disagree with the statement that says that portraying people with disabilities in entertainment media is unfair. Actually, I think not portraying them in entertainment media would be unfair because they aren’t any different than us. There isn’t anything wrong with showing people what a day in a life of a disabled person is like. We always portray able-bodied people, how would it be unfair to portray disabled people? We are all the same. Also portraying disabled people would help others by teaching them new information and making them feel thankful for what these got. It would also teach disabled people to be stronger and feel like they aren’t alone.

[maihesham123]

I totally agree with you that it is fair to portray people with disabilities, because the law bans anybody from taking a picture, video or audio of any other person and share it. Therefore, if a person of a disability appears on media, this means he accepts it. Also, like you said, other people with the same or different disability know that there are others who face the same problem and therefore, would feel more confident. A third reason for why I agree with you is because if anybody was on the media because of his disability, then for sure he achieved something, like the Egyptian swimmer who has 32 medals in swimming competitions even though she is disabled. This encourages other people with a disability to become like her and achieve what she achieved. To sum up, I think that it is not unfair to portray people with disabilities as long as they approve of it because it encourages others to do the same as they did, or to become better.

[blackaliensheep]

What’s with this Tumblr Lesson hashtag thing?

[maihesham123]

This was our English summative for the the piano lesson. We had to post our answers on Tumblr. Don’t worry!

[blackaliensheep]

Oooh! Thanks for letting me know! Whooaa your summative is cooler than ours! TOT Good luck though! I hope everyone would get great marks! \(^o^)/

[maihesham123]

Thank you☺️ what was your summative?

[blackaliensheep]

What’s with this Tumblr Lesson hashtag thing?

[maihesham123]

This was our English summative for the the piano lesson. We had to post our answers on Tumblr. Don't worry!

[maihesham123]

I chose Titanic as the song that Berniece would like most and get inspired by it.

I think Titanic is the song Berniece would be inspired by because it describes how keeping your loved ones in your heart can keep the memory of them alive. Also, if you truly love somebody, you will remember them forever.

[maihesham123]

“The more you know about your legacy the more liberated you are” Berniece believes that the legacy is the base for a person’s future and it is what we should value most.

[maihesham123]

Pick a character from the piano lesson and write one blog post as your character.

I chose Berniece as my character. A long story has happened that changed a lot in my life, in many different aspects. I felt fear that I never felt before at home and in my room, because Sutter's ghost appeared there to me several times. And even now, after I knew how to keep Sutter's ghost out (by playing the piano) I still do not feel confident in my room because Avery, who was chosen as a preacher, did not succeed in kicking the ghost out. Only the piano did, so now I have to play it constantly. And when I am alone or with my daughter only, one of us is always on the piano (because now she also fears the ghost because she saw him as well). Still, though, even if I fear being in the house alone, I learned a lot of things from the legendary piano. First, I learned that keeping one's legacy is not by keeping the objects your ancestor used but by keeping the acts and memories. For example, my daughter never knew how this piano came home or why her grandfather died, she only knew that the people on the piano were her ancestors, and Boy Willie was the one who taught her that. I, on the other hand, did not tell her how it related to her past because I did not think it was important to keep the legacy. But when I learned that playing the piano was the key of protecting us and of keeping our ancestors alive and of keeping their memory, I decided that it is the story that matters the most. Therefore, the first thing that the piano changed in my beliefs was the belief in what legacy is. The second thing that I learned from the piano is how if you are hurt from somebody's death, you should work harder to keep them with you and you should get help from them rather than leave anything they had untouched. For example, I felt sad for the death of my father and I did not play the piano but now, I keep him alive by remembering his songs and by playing on the thing he got killed to keep: the piano. After all what happened in the last couple of months, I do not feel that I have a good relation with my brother Boy Willie. He is still not mature enough and he only thinks about himself. Also, I would suppose that he only wanted the land for his future, not so he can keep the land our father was enslaved on when slavery was there. So I no longer like him as much, but he is still my brother so even though there is tension in our relationship, I still wish him a good future.

[deeplifequotes]

Don’t let excitement make you announce things prematurely. Be silent until you’re sure; and even when you’re sure, don’t give too much away.

Unknown (via deeplifequotes)

[maihesham123]

"Violence can be a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation"

I completely disagree with this quote because I believe that responding with violence, like Christopher did when he knew his father had lied to him, under any circumstances is not acceptable. First, I believe that violence is not acceptable because I think that when people act violent, others get hurt in the way. Just to give the simplest example possible, if for example, in one of the school’s classes somebody hits another, and there is no proof of who started the fight, then both would be punished, which means that an innocent got hurt from a violent action. Instead, if they would have made a debate, then they would have never been punished and it would be clear who is wrong. Another example is World War Two, when millions of Russian soldiers died to save their country, yet Stalin, the dictator who led them, did not even get scratched. Here, the person who deserves to be hurt was not, yet the innocent soldiers were either killed or disabled. Also, violence does not solve any problem. For example, when Christopher and his father fought, nothing changed from the fact that his father lied, their feelings toward each other just became worse and they just hurt each other. Another example is war, when two armies just kill each other mindlessly, and then the two countries sign a treaty. Here, the problem was not solved until both countries accepted that violence would only hurt them and would never give them what they wanted, so they try to reach to a fair ground. It would be cheaper in both money and people if they solve their problems from the beginning in the correct way. To sum up, I think that violence is not a right way to react to any problem, both because it does not solve any problem and because it hurts the wrong people most of the time.

[madani19-blog]

I am afraid that I don’t agree with you completely. Similarly, I don’t support the idea of violence but I think that in some cases being violent is necessary. Violence can sometimes be a reasonable response to a situation but, it all does depend on what the situation is. I think that violence should only be used when there is no other choice left. 

Let’s take this example: if a Dictator is trying to take your rights away there shouldn’t be any reason why you would accept and go on with your life. You should use violence as a way to get your rights back. In this case there is no other way. Another example in which violence could be the only solution is WW2. The British and French soldiers were practicing appeasement but this did not work. When they actually attacked- used violence-  Hitler stopped and dictatorship fell. Contradictorily, when father hit Christopher after he finds out about his book, this in my opinion is not a reasonable response to his situation, because father could have just simply gotten rid of the book and not make such a huge fuss about it. In such a case violence can be said to be not a responsible decision because there could have been another approach to the situation.

Sure, violence alone does not achieve anything but when it is joined with a structured ideology then meaningful change can be realized. It is not the act of violence itself that is evil but rather the intention behind that act.

[maihesham123]

You said that during World War II, violence was used by France and Great Britain, but I do not call this violence, I call it self-defense, since they started with violence. Violence is the UNLAWFUL exercise of physical force, while self-defense is the action of protecting yourself from an attack, or resisting an attack. Here, it is clear that Hitler started violence, which is what caused huge numbers of deaths, yet France and Britain only reacted by defending themselves. If they wanted violence, they could have easily started with violence without trying to resolve the problem with a treaty. Your dictator example is also explained similarly. If you look through history, you would never find a violent action that lasted for long, because humans are designed to live in liberty, but there is a difference between violence and self-defense. Even if violence solves the problem for now, it either causes bigger problems or the same problem is repeated, only worse because there is greater hunger from each side to win and more will for revenge. For example, when World War I ended, the Treaty of Versailles was unfair and violated the rights of the Germans, which cause the death of over a third of the earth’s population in 1944 by starting World War II. No war would have started if the Germans were not in such a strong feeling of will to revenge. Another example is how when Hiroshima was bombed, the death of people was stopped temporarily. Still, though, until today, many Japanese inherent genes that gives them a permanent disability, which gets me back to the point that wrong people are hurt in the way. In this case, people who were not even alive in 1944 were hurt. I also disagree with you about the possibility of a good intention of violence. There are always advantages behind violence, even if they are personal and are not known at the time violence occurs. Hitler claimed he wanted the glory of Germany, and Stalin said he wanted the glory of Russia, and they both called what they did as a good intention act, and for some time really, people believed. Today, we see the real reasons behind their acts. Hitler and Stalin wanted the glory of their names. Therefore, violence comes always with a bad intention. But even if there is, as you say, a ‘good intended’ violence, the results were never good, or at least not better than a debate or a discussion. At the end, I would leave you with this question: would you ever change your mind about something if somebody hits you? Or would you do that thing to stop the hitting? And might you change your mind if somebody tries logic with you?