thoughts

1. Women are more compassionate and less violent than men.

I am going to attempt to not rant about this. If I do, please forgive me.
In no way are women more compassionate and less violent than men. Women are people in the same way men are people. They each have their own personalities. Some women may be compassionate and nonviolent. Other women may be heartless. Either way, they are not inherently one way just because they're women. This statement is basically saying that men are evil. I know quite a few men who aren't evil. I can't even say how many times I've heard people say to me, "You're funny, for a girl," "Wow its so cool that you aren't fashion obsessed like most girls," or even, "OMG you like to go on roller coasters? But you're a girl!" But therein lies the overarching problem in society. We cannot seem to separate ourselves from the biases that govern us.

2. Sometimes you have to do things other people consider wrong to get ahead.

I'm going to have to say neither on this one, mostly because I can look at it in more than one way. On one hand, there are plenty of things one might have to do to get ahead that are wrong. On the other hand, there's always more than one way to get ahead. The wrong thing is probably the easy way out. If you want to get the highest grade on a test, you can either study or you can cheat. Cheating is wrong, but in no way can you say "I had no other option." But in another sense, you can look at Robin Hood. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor. In that case, the people it helped outweighed the people it hurt. But then again, Robin Hood didn't steal to the point where the rich people were suddenly poor. They were still rich. So in a way, he didn't even hurt them that much. But still, stealing is wrong
I suppose that doing something wrong is just wrong, and we shouldn't do it. I guess one just has to think about how important getting ahead is to them.

hits and misses

I've grown more this year as a writer than I ever have before. The main reason for that is that I've had to tighten the reins on a lot of things. A good example of this is the Research Paper.. In no way could I be lax about anything. I had to watch for things I wouldn't have to worry about in, say, a personal narrative, or a blog post. I struggled with the Research Paper, and, in some ways, the Literary Analysis, in the sense that I had to step outside of my comfort zone. I wasn't as free.
I know that these assignments and their corresponding struggles helped me because of this Purple Hibiscus paper I just wrote. About a week after I said I was going to write it, I almost backed out and took the test. But I went ahead and started to write it, and I realized that I was using techniques I had learned in the other papers. I made an outline, similar to the one I used for my research paper. I embedded quotes. It was far less stressful than I anticipated. If I had tried to write this paper, unguided, at the beginning of this year, it would have been disastrous, but now, things are looking better.

comments

Bea:Who is my family? Response
John:What have you learned in your teens?

reading strategies

Although this isn't the hardest book I've ever read, I have had to learn some new strategies to get through this. I guess one of the main things that I've had to do while reading this book that I generally don't have to do is reread things on my own. I've read passages, said, "ok I have absolutely no idea what just happened," and reread it until I figured it out.

I've found that annotations really help me do this. If I'm having trouble connecting something, I can look at previous annotations rather than having to search through half a book. It makes it easier, and it also helps me notice things I would not notice otherwise. Finally, I think discussing the book with my tablemates has helped me quite a bit. They notice things that I don't notice, clarify things that I was confused about, and I can do that for them.

NY Times

101. How often do you cry?

I'm just going to say straight-up that I cry a lot. If I feel any extreme emotion, I'm probably going to start crying. It's just who I am. I also seem to get into cry-worthy situations more than most people. Movies and books make me wail. When my parents are angry at me, I cry. When I'm frustrated, I cry. When I'm tired, or stressed, or worried, I cry.
I feel like I cry this much because I just feel better after I've cried for awhile. I feel like it takes some of the pressure off. It doesn't explain why I cry when I'm really happy, or relieved, but it explains most of it. I read somewhere that crying is unscientific, that there shouldn't be any correlation between emotion and overproduction in tear glands, but here I am. It probably irritates my friends that I cry so much, but I don't think it's going to change.

comments

James:Political News Story
John:News Article

political response

Brexit: What would 'no deal' look like?

When looking for an article, I was searching through CNN politics for something that appealed to me. All I could find was healthcare, healthcare, healthcare. I didn't want to write about healthcare, and, moreover, I didn't want to write about Trump, so CNN wasn't much help. Then I turned to BBC and looked in their US politics section. Still, all I found was healthcare and Trump. I decided that if I were to write about something that wasn't healthcare or Trump, I would have to leave the US. So I did. I looked in UK politics, and that was how I wound up with an article about the Article 50 negotiations.
Simply put, the Article 50 negotiations are the negotiations taking place in the UK after Brexit. There are three main issues that need to be addressed. They are:

1. The Exit Agreement. This is outstanding payments and relocation of EU bases that were in the UK. Technical stuff.
2. Trade agreements. This article states that "It is not yet clear whether trade will feature in the Article 50 talks," but trade agreements would talk about how leaving the EU would cause trade problems.
3. Transition Agreement. The UK wants to be gone by March 2019, or, the bare minimum of the Article 50 time frame. But the Prime minister says, "No one wants a cliff hanger," and that she would prefer a "phased process of implementation." I would have to do a little more research to be able to explain this fully.

A lack of agreement in the Article 50 negotiations would basically mean full separation, or, as BBC put it, "red tape." Passports would be required. A license to trade in other countries would be needed for each individual country; an EU license would no longer work. They would fall back onto World Trade Organization policies. Passporting agencies in London that could once operate around all of the EU (channeling lots of money into London) would suddenly be confined to London. They would lose free trading rights with their biggest trade partner: Ireland. In short, the UK would lose €60bn should a "no deal" scenario happen.

It is too soon to know what the UK and the EU will do, but I am sure that a "no deal" scenario would wreak havoc on both parties. They will both lose money, trading opportunities, and straight-up convenience. What I believe is that a deal will be made, but it may take the full two years. Neither party really wants a "no deal," but neither party wants to bend either. And I do think that if the UK is unhappy with the terms, they will walk away before they agree to it, no matter the consequences. And I think that this will cause issues in the future that the UK is not able to see, because they may need those advantages the EU can give them in the future, and they won't have them.