Hamlet: My way

Hamlet: Johnny Depp

Claudius: Jack Nicholson

Queen: Meryl Streep

Ophelia: Winona Ryder

Ghost: Al Pacino

Active to Passive voice- Exercises

Self-Test Quiz: The Choking Dog: Exercise on Passive Voice

(Already on Passive voice, with check option)
1.Joanne was delayed by a client when she was leaving the office.

2.A meeting was being held by the tennis club at 6:30.

3.Sheba, the dog, blocked the doorway.

4.Sheba had to be taken to the vet.

5.The vet was worried by her condition.

6.The vet treated the dog while Joanne went home.

7.Joanne was told to get out of the house.

8.Joanne was confused by the telephone call.

9.The burglar was captured by the police.

10.His fingers had been bitten off by the dog.

Exercises: Without the check option

Level 1: Directions: Change the sentences below to the passive voice. (Already in passive voice).

1.These bottles cannot be opened easily by the children.

2.Right outside her front door, the government built a road.

3.As he walked through the store, the antique vase was broken ny Mr. Ross.

4.The changes amazed her when she arrived.

5.Street repairs are being made all month long by the construction workers.

6.His retirement will be celebrated with the party.

7.His oral exam was being discussed right in front of him by his professors.

8.All the homemade cookies were eaten by my son.

9.The hull of the ship had damaged with corrosion.

10.While I was there, the old homestead was visited by some children.

Evaluate While You Read

How to select an article to publish?


First of all, go through the information thoroughly; look at the index or contents. This will guide you -without waisting your time- on whether the content will satisfy you and complete your information. To know if the facts are true and trustworthy, look at other citations.

(to be completed)(can't access EBSCOhost)

The Selfish Gene: Key Terms

When reading chapter 3 of the book, "Immortal coils", it made it necessary for us to understand the key terms a little more. These words form what we've heard to be called DNA. "A DNA molecule is a long chain of building blocks called nucleotides", (Dawkins, Pg. 22).

Alleles: When two genes (who fight against each other) are going for the same chromosome. "...the word allele is synonymous with rival", (Dawkins, Pg.26).

Meiosis: Only happens in the sex cells, meaning, when sperms and eggs are being produced and only recieve 23 chromosomes.

Mitosis: When a cell divides -except sex cells- the two new cells recieve 46 chromosomes.

Start symbol: It's 'like a message' or code that shows the beginning of a protein chain. Ending symbol: The code that shows the end of a protein chain. "The only way to tell whe one cistron -gene interchangeably- ends and the next begins would be to read the symbols on the tape, looking for end of message and start of message symbols", (Dawkins, pg. 28).

Mimicry: Phenomenon where some species (for survival) imitate a characteristic of another species.

Point mutation: Misprint nucleotide sequence.

Summarizing, Paraphrasing, and Quoting

Quoting
Sipher concludes that school laws only produce more disconfort. "Abolition of archaic attendance laws would produce enormous dividends",(Sipher, n.pag). I think it's absolutely true now that it was said, "economists, found little evidence that mandatory-attendance laws increased the number of children in school", (Sipher, n.pag).

Paraphrasing
Original:One reason for the crisis is that present mandatory-attendance laws force many to attend school who have no wish to be there. Such children have little desire to learn and are so antagonistic to school that neither they nor more highly motivated students receive the quality education that is the birthright of every American.

Paraphrased:I don't understand why schools obligate kids to attend class if they don't want to. This means that this people -whose dreams lie on other things rather than school- may cause problems and in result make kids who DO want to learn recieve low and lack of better education.

Summarizing
In conclusion, the article called, "So That Nobody Has To Go To School If They Don't Want To", talks about the harsh laws schools try to inforce -but normally don't achieve. Kids who don't want to go to class just shouldn't do it, but it's something the government and educational organizations don't understand. Statistics have proven that the laws haven't increased the number of kids who go to school, and what's worse, lower the education rate to others.

The Selfish Gene: Why are people?

I was kind-of confused when reading the first chapter of "The Selfish Gene". It's interesting but I'm not used to read these scientific-investigation themes (if it classifies as one). What immediately attracted my attention were the two main points of the book: altruism and selfishness.
"Before going any further, we need a definition. An entity, such as a baboon, is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behavior has exactly the opposite effect", (Dawkins, pg.4).

It was surprising for me that someone would be interested -as stupid as it seems- in such a thing as a gene. I know that without people being interested in this we wouldn't know anything of ourselves, but what I mean is the fact that someone characterizes a gene as 'selfish'.

After reading the whole chapter I realized that although it's strange, it's a brilliant investigation on a human's behavior. I agree with the selfishness within us, how we think first in us than anything; an instinct of survival. Instead, altruism -as said in the definition- is totally different. At this point I think we are altruistic but not naturally; not everyone posseses it. We can if we want, it's something we can control, when selfishness comes harder to...

The Power and the Glory: Padre Jose

At first sight it’s not that noticeable, but Padre Jose –introduced for first time in chapter two- is an influential character. Reflecting Mexico’s religious problems, he’s a perfect example of the fear caused within the country’s population.

I’m able to compare him to the whisky priest; even though they’re both priests, one has chosen what is seems to be the “right track” and the other if I can say, stubborn. It’s difficult because you can take different points of view towards these two characters; did Padre Jose take the right decision or is he a sinner? Should the whisky priest follow Padre Jose’s steps and calm down?

Padre Jose’s decision is confusing; for some it can be absurd that a priest, whose life is devoted to God suddenly because of fear, marries and lives his life like the rest of the civilians. Why would he do this? It’s like betraying God, the almighty. But, on the other hand, I can also understand how fear may take you to do things you don’t necessarily want to. Worse, when your life is at risk of being over.
Here is why the whisky priest differs so much: he’s always running away from the law, while keeping his real identity alive. Even if he has to do it undercover, he celebrates mass with the townspeople taking a very high risk. I don’t know what would I do, but if you’re sure of your beliefs, it’s ok if to save your life you change your way of living…

The Power and the Glory: am I confused?

When beginning to read this novel I quite didn’t get the point of it (what was it about?). It obviously starts narrating about a guy called Mr. Tench, and English-speaking dentist in a Latin country: Mexico. We are settled in a small town, Tench is sort of the only doctor nearby, and with his own narrations I discover the town’s circumstances: all you can see is poverty.

So, as the book goes on, a very strange character appears –a character which in the future will be the main one- but really makes no different at that time. It caughts my attention because of the mystery he brings along and there’s no clue about his real identity: a priest. Still, and because of the lack of information –or simple confusion- I let him pass (while thinking he’s an insignificant doctor).

After discussing in class I discovered that the stranger, is, in fact, the main character. My confusion went from 0 to 10! From then on, the next few chapters were simply strange, but with time I’m on track now…

Full Name (required)
E-mail address (required)
City State Zip (required)
Telephone Number (required)
Message
Mr. Rice,
I read your article and the first thing I thought was that I simply agree with your ideas about reporter-writer Ryszard Kapuscinski. I admire Kapuscinski's way of writing and most of all, being able to make himself his own main character. I read that in his book "The emperor", "...is Kapuscinski's least characteristic work, in that for the most part, he leaves the narration to others, the courtiers he calls by anonymous initials" (Rice, n.pag).
I love that everything he wrote is absolutely realistic; I learn about the world's history but at the same time I feel I'm reading a novel -which I prefer than reading documents.
I also like when Kapuscinski says, "A person who lived through a great war is different from someone who never lived through any war", refering to his own life. I totally agree with his idea; a person who hasn't experienced in it's own flesh what war's like, will never get the essence of it...

Ryszard Kapuscinski, Polish Writer of Shimmering Allegories and News, Dies at 74

I tried to find an op-ed article on The New York Times and found an interesting article about Ryszard Kapuscinski's life and death, written by Michael T. Kaufman. Here, the writer shows its admire towards this amazing author, and I can also say I feel the same way.

Kapuscinki traveled the world for almost four decades, collecting his own experiences, especially conflicts in the third world. He was part of 27 coups and revolutions and his writing's are characterized by the explicit descriptions of the atmosphere, people and climate, ect., of where these conflicts were. I think he is one of a great author, not many authors -if I can say any- get to write about this topics and above all, lived this in their own flesh.

I learned that Kapuscinski's fame grew when he started to write in The New York Times magazine, where I found this article. Four books were published based on his life and research; "“The Soccer War,” which dealt with Latin American conflicts; “Another Day of Life,” about Angola’s civil war; “Shah of Shahs,” about the rise and fall of Iran’s last monarch; and “Imperium,” an account of his travels through Russia and its neighbors after the collapse of the Soviet Union" (Kaufman, n.pag).

“There is, I admit, a certain egoism, in what I write,” he once said, “always complaining about the heat or the hunger or the pain I feel. But it is terribly important to have what I write authenticated by its being lived. You could call it, I suppose, personal reportage, because the author is always present. I sometimes call it literature by foot.”
I admire Ryszard Kapuscinski after all he's done. His life started in a small town, in a humble family, but his interest for the world took him much further than he expected. Winning prizes and master's degrees show me the wisdom and perseverance in this man's head, and if I can say having the courage to enter a world not many people would...

Kapuscinski's Reports Hit Communism at Home

I was trying to listen to this report, but a Verizon Wireless propaganda pops up and then there's nothing else. I hope this doesn't affect my blogs or that I'm missing one...what can I do? I'll still complete The Soccer War's blogs.

Sand War: Algeria vs. Morocco

I followed the advice Mr. Tangen gave me about researching a little more on the Algerian-Morocco War; best known as the Sand War, if I'm not wrong. It says, "The Sand War occurred along the Algerian-Moroccan border in October 1963, and was a Moroccan attempt to claim the Tindouf and the Bechar areas that France annexed to French Algeria a few decades earlier", (Google, n.pag).
I learned that before the French colonized Africa, parts of Algeria belonged to Morocco. War began after their independence, when both the Algerian army -conformed by the country's guerrilla called FNL- and Moroccan army confronted in the areas of Tindouf and Figuig. Algeria was in great disadvantage because of its primitive equipment, while Morocco disposed of advanced armery. The funny part comes here, when with this advantage, the Moroccan army couldn't get into Algeria, and three weeks after a series of failed attempts, the Organization of African Unity with the help of the Arab League took over and gave an end to it. On February 20, 1964 the two countries signed a peace treaty.
Still, this war left uncurable wounds; Algeria and Morocco had a lot of differences (eg. Algeria's Arab and revolutionary government and the Moroccan conservative monarchy). There was no agreement over the territories of Tindouf until the years of 1972, and it made a harsh impact over these to governments; some of its leaders were sentenced to death as a result.

After reading the history behind this two countries I find it kind of boring because of the failure of it, neither one of the countries got what they wanted. It's funny it lasted three weeks and that Algeria with such a lame army survived over this. I realized it's one of those wars where no side wins (we always wait for a winner, suspense...) and how can Morocco, a much more advanced country couldn't penetrate Algeria. We, as we learn history, always develop admiring thoughts towards countries who've fought for justice and won it...how can this war be an example of this?

Ahmed Ben Bella: The Father of the Nation

I took the liberty of researching a little more on this special character from "Soccer War". I was suprised to see how first of all he was called "The Father of the Nation", I hadn't realized he'd been such an important person in Algeria. Known most of the time as an unstoppable anti-colonial struggler, Ben Bella had to suffer a lot to get to the point he did. Prison was one of his obstacles before even getting to be President, but that didn't stop him.

Ben Bella's biography talks about a specific anecdote in his life; eventhough Ahmed was against French rule in Algeria, his first language was French. Once, years before being President "...when Nasser (former Egyptian President) brought Ben Bella to speak for the first time to an Egyptian audience, he broke into tears because he could not speak Arabic", (Wiki, n.pag). It has been said that he refused to teach his own daughter French because he wanted her to learn Arabic first and not be in the same position he was. I can see that his position was revolutionary and that him, lots of Africans were absolutely tired with the French colonies.

I'd be desperate if I discovered that I couldn't even communicate with my own people, in his case Egypt. Still, Ben Bella created close ties with this country, which helped a lot, and it was before independence. Ahmed was chosen the President after independence, and I thought it was sad to see that he was taken to prison after being deposed by his BEST friend Boumedienne; why would he do that? I think he was a great man, that with hard work rose all the way to President and it's admirable all he achieved: made Algeria part of the United Nations, created a victorious defense against the Morrocan invasion in 1963. Maybe he wasn't a perfect man or maybe I have to read more about him, but his heart wanted the best for his people...

Can we identify with Algeria's conflicts?

Referring to the book "Soccer War", by Ryszard Kapuscinski, I can see the harsh reality in Algeria. Poverty is a great deal, and it's a clear result of social and political problems. The war in Algeria, that lasted seven and a half years , left uncurable wounds and it's reflected even today.

The situation between social classes is very clear, and I can say that we, colombians, can identify with it too. Colombia's social classes are very unbalanced, by this, I mean that the low class is ridiculously big, whether the middle class isn't. It would be great if the middle class had the majority of the population, our security would increase substantially. We, as a high class in a third world country, are more than ignorant when we talk about reality. We are aware that poverty exists, but as we've always said, we live in a bubble. In Algeria, the same thing happens: "It is striking...that these people are generally strangers to Algeria", (Kapuscinski, pg. 101). It would be nice if a country could unite, no matter what race, ethnic group or class.

Comparing Colombia to Algeria in another aspect, the displacement of people due to war is absurd. I read that "three million Algerians were driven from their villages and confined to reservations or resettled in the isolated regions", (Kapuscinski, pg. 101). Here, hundreds of people are taken out of their lands and forced to go to the big cities, where it's very hard for families to survive. War causes extensive losses, and an entire country can desintegrate because of it.

Why are Arabs the bad guys? Stereotypes?

I was wondering, why are Arabs both in novels and in films the bad, scary guys all the time? From what I've seen, Arabs are personified in every work as complicated and conflictive people. Like Meursault said, "The day of my arrest I was first put in a room where there were already several other prisoners, most of them Arabs", (Camus, pg. 72). And concidentially, he has shot four times and Arab.

My opinion about all this is that the Arab society and most of all, their religion, is based on a strong commitment to their God. So, these people feel they owe their creator something, and as they are 'called' by Him, they sacrifice in honor. It's somehow related to today's world; terrorists since 2001 and before, have been attacking and attempting to places like New York City and London. This is a result of an inner conflict with this countries themselves, but all the attempts can be said are suicidal. But why suicidal? These cultures show their strong beliefs by offering themselves; killing themselves and harming others.

I can also relate the Arab reality in films and novels to our reality here in Colombia. Colombia has been a country known for the 'wonderful' marihuana and cocaine, all around the world. It's not our fault countries who blame that we're a bad place continue to buy drugs and at the same time be the ones that create a harsh image about us. We wouldn't be how we are if there weren't any big powers who supported us with THAT kind of business. So, my point is, we also appear everytime a gringo in a movie says marihuana or cocaine, it's the same old comment: "The best weed is from Colombia!" Or if they want to refer to illegal businesses, or terrorists, or assasins COLOMBIA is the word (or Arabs). I know and I can face the fact this conflicts are present, but some people could help end them instead of highlighting each one.
Can we base ourselves on a stereotype?

The Stranger: violence

I've gotten to the part in the novel where Monsier Meursault meets and talks with his neighbor Raymond Sintes. Raymond Sintes is the typical promiscuous guy, who lives alone in a filthy, dirty apartment. He plays with girls all the time, but when someone does the same thing to him, he's hurt to the point he implies violence to solve the situation. Raymond asks some advice from Meursault about how he can teach his mistress a lesson. In my opinion, you don't need to teach a lesson everytime you've been hurt, I mean, there's other ways people can learn from their mistakes.
Getting somewhat closer to my point, violence, just the way Sintes teaches his "girlfriend", isn't the way to solve a situation, and less when there's a close relationship between two people. I totally disagree that Meursault decides to act as a witness in front of the cops when he sure knows that Raymond didn't have the right to hit the girl as he did. This "machismo" situation haunts every society, even ours. Why do you think some men's way out is to hit violently their partner when they know it's not correct? Cowardy?

Is it useful or not??

I don't know if someone else has noticed, but I've been asking myself, why does Meursault wants us to know every single detail of every single thing? I'm not saying its useless-but in result the story plot moves very slowly. I can read it and think it's an interesting way of writing, but I would like it to have somewhat more action and less monotony. Meursault describes exactly how the green, tall trees move under the hot sun, which in some ways makes it easier for the reader to make up an image, but still can bore others. I'm the kind of reader who doesn't need a whole bunch of details given to understand a story, what kind of reader are you? Do you think it's useful or not? Why? Hope I get some opinions!!!

The Stranger: isn't it strange? (same copy, the problem was the font color)

I found quite strange the fact that Monsieur Meursault -main character in the novel- sees his mothers death as an annoying event, like if he'd just been cursed for life. It makes me think... if my mother passed away most of my life would. She (and my dad obviously) are the only two human beings that I know for sure would give their life for mine. They're my unconditional support; they gave me life!!!
I was awed when Meursault says things like, "... I could feel how much I'd enjoy going for a walk if it hadn't been for Maman", (Camus, pg. 12). This line can be analyzed many different ways, but I took it like Meursault thought his plans of taking a walk had failed because his mother had died. I mean, instead of remembering good old days with his mom, he was sort-of blaming her and saying, "because of you I can't enjoy my life now". He shows a bored attitude towards the funeral's preparation instead of making it a remarkable last "gift" for her, the most important woman in his life.
I feel the main character has an egocentric personality; maybe it'll change along chapters, I hope so. He doesn't give much importance to who he's sorrounded by; it's all about me, me, me and only me... what do you think?

The Stranger: isn't it strange?

I found quite strange the fact that Monsieur Meursault -main character in the novel- sees his mothers death as an annoying event, like if he'd just been cursed for life. It makes me think... if my mother passed away most of my life would. She (and my dad obviously) are the only two human beings that I know for sure would give their life for mine. They're my unconditional support; they gave me life!!!
I was awed when Meursault says things like, "... I could feel how much I'd enjoy going for a walk if it hadn't been for Maman", (Camus, pg. 12). This line can be analyzed many different ways, but I took it like Meursault thought his plans of taking a walk had failed because his mother had died. I mean, instead of remembering good old days with his mom, he was sort-of blaming her and saying, "because of you I can't enjoy my life now". He shows a bored attitude towards the funeral's preparation instead of making it a remarkable last "gift" for her, the most important woman in his life.
I feel the main character has an egocentric personality; maybe it'll change along chapters, I hope so. He doesn't give much importance to who he's sorrounded by; it's all about me, me, me and only me... what do you think?

Intro to CNG senior english

First I need to introduce myself: I´m Maria Angela Mejia and I´m taking Senior English here at Colegio Nueva Granada. I´ve created this blog for all of our senior interests (in english class) and discussions about what we will be taking along the course this next semester. Hope we can make this blogs as interesting and fun as well instructive!