Because I have little else to do...

There isn't a word in the dictionary I hate more than zephyr.

Say it. Spell it. Think about it.

Stupid word.

(And no, I do not mean Zephyr. I mean zephyr. The word, not the name.)

Horrid, isn't it? It tastes strange on my tongue. And really, that probably isn't a proper reason to hate something, but if I'm allowed to say "I hate potatoes", then I should be allowed to say "I hate zephyr" for the same reason. Even if I don't actually hate a thing, I'm allowed to say I do just because I strongly dislike it. Isn't it interesting how people so often misuse the word hate? Hate is a passion, a consuming fire. It's bloody hate! It's wanting to kill and maim and destroy, it's wanting revenge and suffering. It's an obsession of angry hearts. And people say "I hate broccoli."

And really, I don't know why I chose to post here today. There are four other sights waiting for updates and editing, and I come here, where probably two people at the most will read this and most likely neither of them will care to finish it.

But that's alright.

I dislike (and it amuses me how I typed and had to erase 'hate') how people often say that no one can write for themselves. True, plenty of writers write for the money or the popularity (I won't say any names, but 'vampires' should be a big enough hint...). But then you can read something else and see such an emotion in the words that you feel as if you're intruding on a private, intimate moment. And it's alright, because the writer wrote his or her feelings and then opened their heart to be seen by anyone who cares to look. I daresay that those moments were written purely for the benefit of the writer, and then shared in order to benefit the world.

What really bothers me, though, are signatures- the ones on checks and formal letters. They all look like something a two year old would leave on the wall in permanent marker. The purpose of a signature is to prove your identity. If the signature is ineligible, it's purpose has been defeated by its existence. That should by rights create a paradox!

Friendship in Julius Caesar

A true friend is a weapon and a shield. A false friend is a deadly poison in the cup.

Julius Caesar had his share of both. There was the friend that would stab him in the back... literally. And then there was the friend who would start a war to avenge his death.

Through Brutus and the conspirators, Shakespeare represents friends who were not loyal to any but themselves. Through Antony and Octavian, he shows loyalty that lasts until and after death.

Leadership in Julius Caesar

In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, there are several examples of leadership.

Cassius, a shrewd general of the Romans, leads Brutus to believe that Caesar is too powerful and must die for his ambition. Leading Caesar into the hands of the conspirators, Decius provides another example of leadership. Antony even leads the audience at Caesar's funeral to turn against the conspiritors.

Any ability can be used in a good or bad way. As a weapon, leadership can be used to right a wrong, or to save lives. It can also be used to take them away. Using leadership, the characters in the play displayed this fact acutely.

Sophomore .5

Alright, so half of our Sophomore year has been completed. So... what?





Well, it seems like it's been only a few weeks since we all went to our first class on the first day of our 10th grade year. For me, time has moved like a hazy, half-experienced dream. I know the highlights, and some of the lowlights, but the vasts amounts of time between them are lost to me.

Sophmore year... not that remarkable so far. And really, I'm perfectly alright with unremarkable. It's unexciting, but it sure is easy. And really, easy is acceptable right now.

7 Habits (#2)

The book The 7 Habits Of Highly Effective Teens by Sean Covey talks about four basic personality types: the Win-Lose, Lose-Win, Lose-Lose, and Win-Win personalities.

To me, no personality can be into a single, narrow category. People aren't always one way or another. In fact, some people might not even be more of one thing than another.

There are certain situations, preferences and biases, that affect a person's attitude. With some people, they have one attitude, and with others they have another.

I think Mr. Covey was trying to abridge a subject that should have had it's own book into a single chapter. Human attitudes are simply too broad a subject to write a few pages on and then say that those pages have everything there is to know about attitudes and personalities.

Writing this book, Sean Covey seems to have only barely touched on human personalities.

7 Habits (#1)

My English class is reading The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens by Sean Covey. While I don't necessarily like the book, some of the things it has talked about have really been applicable to my life.

For instance, "Begin With the End In Mind", the second habit, talks about knowing where you're going before you even get started.

The chapter says that this approach to things can help you get them done faster, more efficiently, and with a better mind-set. I think that that is 100% true.

Sometimes, certain things are harder to do than others. You just don't want to do them and you absolutely can not make yourself get them over with. But when you pause for just a second and think about how you'll feel once you've done whatever it is you need to do, it is suddenly far, far easier to go and accomplish that task.

Also, there is something called a personal mission statement, a motto that states what your life is all about.

To have a personal mission statement is to have laid out the most basic guidelines you want to live by.

I'll be working on my own mission statement, and I'm sure many of my classmates will be as well.

Honestly, people. Whatever happened to good literature?

The things I HATE about the Twilight Saga:

1. That they're called a 'saga'. Why can't it just be called a series? Is it special or something?



2. The 'vampires' aren't even vampires. Call me crazy, but isn't a vampire an evil demon that feeds on human blood, is scared of the Christian cross, burns when exposed to sunlight, and hates the smell of garlic? How is that Edward? He ate pizza. Last time I checked, most pizzas had garlic.



3. Bella. I think Stephanie Meyer decided to make up the weakest minded, most boring, unremarkable character that she could just to see how many people would actually like her. I mean really... the girl is... ridiculous. She's a stereotype MarySue damsel-in-distress. I can't find a single character discrepancy that would make this type of heroine figure even remotely acceptable.



4. The books are sexist. They give the impression that a woman is only important if her man is. The woman is weaker, the woman is always in distress, and the woman is utterly nothing when paralleled by the man.

So, people tell me why these book are appealing to you? Is it the extremely subtle (but very acceptable) eroticism between Edward and Bella? Is the the perfect of Edward's devotion to Bella (or even hers to him)? Is it the fact that some women apparently still like the damsel to be small and helpless, always being rescued by her leading man?

Are these things what have made the series (sorry, saga) so appealing? Have these things gained thousands of followers despite the bad plot line, underdeveloped characters, unintelligent writing, and cheesy, naive romantic notions?

Honestly, I thought the only good characters were Jacob, Jasper. They were the only real ones. They had character flaws, but I had to love them anyway. They were just an arrogant boy with jealousy problems who didn't always know the best course of actions, and a man who loved his woman and had a dark past and evident demons.