Month: January 2015

Bees

The three most distinctive noises to our ears must be the scraping on chalk of a blackboard; a baby’s cry and the buzzing of bees! However despite how annoying these sounds may be, without them being known to man, man itself would not be known. We strive from education, reproduce and live on through our children and stay alive due to bees. Yes, bees. A man’s fundamental is a yellow and black flying insect. Biodiversity is the web of life. It is the term used to describe all the Earth’s natural process; ecosystems; genetic/cultural diversities and the connection between all species. We rely on other ecosystems for food, water, shelter, drugs and even the moderation of floods and droughts too. It is this web upon which we are an intrinsic cardinal part and on which we as a race are dependent yet, we as a race are putting all others at great risk. Consider it to be a threaded carpet; if one of the threads holding the carpet together is pulled through, the whole carpet falls apart. Currently we are pulling on several threads in the ‘carpet of life’. Bees are one of the main links us ‘humans’ are breaking.

Bees are vital pollinators to our world. They are responsible for 1/3 of all the food we seek growth in each day. There are other pollinators in the world such as birds; bats, and we could even pollinate crops ourselves. However, this would be an expensive and virtually ineffective process. We simply can’t rely on other pollinators, bees do too much. We are a growing population and we need all the pollinated food we can get. What’s more? They also happen to be the only insect that produces food eaten directly by man. Who doesn’t love honey?

There are currently 25 species of Bee in the UK, however, there used to be double this number. So why are bees dying? We first discovered the problem through Colony Collapse Disorder; climate change; pollution; habitat loss. I’m noticing a pattern, this is harm we are doing! To tackle the problem the government needs to look into the impacts this could have in the future and discover further, what we could do on a wider scale to help them. On a local front, we can all start simply by spreading the word! Most are blissfully oblivious to the doings we are doing to the bees and more importantly the catastrophic doing people are doing to themselves in return. By planting trees/plants bees love, they will live on. They will find habitats and create new life. Plants like this include: cornflowers; poppies; lavender and other shrubs, all of which will also colour your garden. Win, win? You could even consider keeping bees which is an interesting and rewarding hobby for all ages, which throws in the bonus of honey. Bees do not sting as it kills them, so when going to kill a bee…don’t. Let the bees be.

POET:

John Agard

STRUCTURE:

The poem begins with a rhetorical question, which is repeated throughout the first 4 verses, asking the reader what they can see. He follows this question up by answering it with he same reply ‘its just a piece of cloth’. This answers all the questions despite them differing in nouns ie. tent and field. In the sestet of he poem, which i think is only the last verse, the reader asks another rhetorical question but instead using a personal pronoun (I). He doesn’t answer with the usual response but uses instead the world ‘flag’ and enjambment is also used frequently in this poem.

POETIC FORM:

The rhythmic structure of the poem creates a happy and uplifting mood as it reminds the reader of nursery rhythms when they were happy as children. The rhythm scheme is: ABA CDC EFE GHI JKK.

LANGUAGE: 

The rhetorical questions create suspense; a cliffhanger; a sense of unknown which eaves the reader in anticipation. This anticipation is most when all initial feelings are diminished through the use of the following sentence.

The cloth and flag are both metaphors, the flag creates that sense of belonging, but the cloth degrades that. People often burn flags as a symbolic act to insult or prove points, here the metaphor of the cloth does the same, it belittles it…just without the fire!

The final sentence closes the poem features personification and connotes war and conflict. it infers that people do things for there flag/country that they wouldn’t usually dream of doing – war.

KEY QUOTATION:

‘It’s just a piece of cloth’

EXPLAINATION:

The repeated phase ‘It’s just a piece if cloth’ uses a modifier ‘just’ to degrade the metaphoric ‘cloth’s’ importance. It also draws further attention and significance as an adjective, where it is then contradicted by the following line. The importance is on the cloth as it is a metaphor for flag which links to the title of the poem. Being from Guyana, Agard possibly linked the poem with the invasion of the French to take over the country and make it what we now know today as the French Guyana.

Torture

Dear CHRIS FLOYD,

My name is George Davis and I am writing to you in response to the article you recently published on torture. Although I think torture is horrific, I feel at times it cannot be avoided. The act of torture involves deliberately inflicting physical or mental pain on a person or persons. This includes threats to family members and loved ones. Your loved ones being abused for the greater good, is that something you would accept authorities doing and what if you loved one was innocent? We place our trust in these authorities and that would destroy the link I have with them.

Regarding your scenario where a terrorist plots against London and the suspect refuses to talk, I do appreciate that ‘No Comments’ are utterly useless. So do you feel it is right then that the police resort to more drastic methods of torture? I feel that would be morally wrong. Since the middle of the last century torture has generally been regarded as wrong, so wrong in fact that the UN Convention Against Torture allows no exceptions, even in circumstances such as war or while fighting terrorism.

A poll in 2006 showed that 72% of Britons were opposed to torture under any circumstances – even where it is used to save lives. I feel it treats people as a means rather than an ends and I don’t feel it would be fully effective anyway. Surely someone sinister, much like the person in your scenario, is more likely to co-operate in a more comfortable environment. I know I would, wouldn’t you? The reality is that torture would be pointless. Evidence obtained through torture is not admissible in British courts. However, it is a necessity for police or security forces to act on information obtained by torture. They would have no choice to ignore a claim of a criminal offence, regardless of its origins.

Governments have used torture to keep themselves in power; to enforce their particular political philosophy; to remove opposition and to implement particular policies in the past. For example China’s one child policy. If a woman was to have more than one child, she would be indirectly tortured; benefits completely cut; cut access to healthcare. Let us marvel at how the government’s backing from it’s people grew dramatically after this policy. This was horrific in my opinion. Yes, the policy set out to do what was intended to but there were certainly better ways around it. Much like how there are different ways of discovering the truth by not inflicting torture.

Mr Floyd, you argue that torture, while wrong, could be the ‘lesser of two evils’, and that it should be allowed if it is the only way to prevent a ‘greater wrong’. For example, it might be ‘tolerable’ to torture a person to get information that would enable authorities to prevent a bombing. I argue that torture is a ‘moral absolute’ that it is always wrong, and so can never be justified by any form of ethical ‘cost-benefit analysis’. Using the British police and their struggle to correctly handle torture responsibly as an example, I feel that the responsibility to torture is overwhelming and the temptation is too difficult to contain, considering the rare occasions where it is successful.

You and I will both have differing opinions on what torture actually is and it’s for that reason that I think it is partially unavoidable. In your article you have been very selective on what you portray as torture. You have expressed the use of violence in terrorism as the only form of torture, is that truly the case? Depriving a Mother from her child, that’s torture for both them in my opinion. Yet when a woman is arrested for a crime she needs to pay for, the baby can’t go with her, baby will ultimately end up out of her arms. Is that not torture for that woman or her child? I ask you. This kind of scenario is more common than the plot for a huge terrorist attack in which the police have no leads as you showed. That is why I think ‘torture’ is unavoidable.

Regards,

George.

Final draft.

‘We will shortly be arriving at Honolulla. Please ensure you have all your personal bags and articles safely stored in the overhead lockers or under the seat in front of you. Please fasten your seatbelts, before assisting someone else and make sure your seat is also in the upright position. Turn all electronically active devices off now. Cabin crew are making their way through the aircraft to check all landing precautions have been correctly carried out. Thank you for flying with us today.’

The announcement strangely echoed merrily throughout the small gangway of the aircraft, an unusual tone for a cabin stewardesses with the stress of a long haul flight. Nonetheless, it heightened Jo’s mood dramatically and after paying attention attentively to the announcement she quickly buckled up. Alan returned to his seat beside her and she assisted Alan in fastening up too as she just couldn’t wait to land. Despite Alan not being at his wife’s side for most, the majority of the flight, it was still pleasant for the both of them and they soon landed.

Jo had, for the first time managed to get Alan to take this break away with her. Getting him to leap from his rather humble ladder, home, and come away with her this once. After getting off the plane, Alan did have his regrets but undeterred, they both made their way to rather small looking terminal like every other passenger from the plane. The terminal contained a passenger desk; alongside a security desk; which ran parallel to the check in desk; which was attached to the unmanned information desk. The terminal on the whole was immaculately clean, had great staff, a modern image but just too minuscule.

As passengers fought to reunite themselves with their bags, Alan popped off following the air crew to duty free whilst Jo hung back patiently waiting for their bags to become visible. Their bags did, being the only 2 left. Alan returned even happier, despite his hands being empty from all the joys of duty free and they both hopped into the taxi waving good-bye to the building that would soon end their holiday and went to sleep when they got to their hotel.

In the early hours of the morning, Alan’s phone rang, though he didn’t answer it. He stirred and put the phone down, despite expecting the call. He slowly opened his bag beside him, and drew a blade 5 inches in length. Jo bustled in her sleep but Alan put an abrupt end to her movements, forcing the knife quickly between her ribs. Jo’s eyes opened and blankly and stared at Alan, she continuously gasped. He pushed the knife deeper until the hilt hit bone. Alan pulled the knife out, blood dripping from his hands and phoned for medics.

‘She’s been stabbed! Help this lady! Come to the Harrow Hotel room 13. HURRY!’

Alan ended the call, throwing his mobile and the knife from the balcony to their place of discovery later that day. The sirens and lights of the approaching ambulances and police cars soon overpowered the dim light roads and the crashing of waves against the beach. The hotel was beginning to flood with emergency personnel. Whist they were making their way to Jo, Alan sprinted down the hallway of the hotel to a fire exit. Hearing the sirens ringing constantly in his head, Alan reconsidered, was this a mistake? Had he risked it all for nothing? As Alan opened the fire exit’s door, a car was waiting. The engine revved and the identity of a grown man was no more.

Frankenstein and Tempest Plan.

Theory: Both characters developed their monstrosity quickly though rejection and self disbelief.

Intro: Explain my theory and how it will be explored during the essay.

Para1: Outline why I think both of them are actually monsters to clarify it to the reader allowing them to understand why I am using those 2 characters in particular using examples.

Para2: Show how quickly both of the developed as monsters throughout the book and compare how each of them did. Show how the books panned out and how they compare.

Para3: Show that they both became to be from bad choices in life like rapping Miranda and killing that lady (sort that out!). Compare these.

Para4: Show that through rejection from the fatherly figure they became monstrous. Caliban = Prospero & Frankenstein = Victor. Use examples.

Para5: show how both characters didn’t think they were worth living. Ie. Looks and outsider. Show that/how their surroundings and communities have rejected them. Use examples.

Con: Round up all points and finalise.

Dear Elizabeth ,

In todays world, the use of slangs i dominant, whether that be when texting or talking between old and predominantly young people. Is the slang used by young people of today such a bad thing? I will highlight both sides to this argument.

Some people fear that slang is a preventative in our world of today and that because someone uses it they are not as smart as someone who does not. This is not necessarily true. Using slang is not always rude words like ‘cool’ or ‘nice’ used by the older generations as well as the young are not rude, or do not make some appear less smart. It is better to use formal language in an interview for example but it should be able to change depending on the situation. As long as people are able to separate social life with business life through adapting and restricting the use of slang in a professional situation there is no harm. I would like to believe that everyone have their own way of talking to their friends and families, and that they use slang as and when.

People have the right to be unique and this should also come own to the idiolect too. We all strive to be unique and this should be no different in the way we speak or choice of words, much like our appearance.

A lot of people use slang without knowing and this is no different to William Shakespeare. William Shakespeare was a man that used a lot of slang in his plays, words such as nervy, puke and assassination were included, nevertheless he was not seen as a man that could not communicate, but a man that had a talent for it. It is used in everyday life and we cannot escape from it as we have been brought up around it, it is a part of us that is inevitable.

Others disagree as they think that it can impair peoples lives greatly like when getting a job. People want to hire potential employers that are able to communicate unmistakably. How is that going to be possible when slang only prevents young people from conversing clearly and making them ill-equipped for the future? It is going to be hard for young adults that use slang to face the real world, because slang is not prohibited in today’s work setting. It is the contrary, it is obligatory to speak in correct grammar in order to keep a job. The understandings of slang words are so different in every city that it is going to be impossible for them to take care of themselves, unless they decide to stay where they are forever.

Some think it affects childrens schooling too they think students perform poorly in formal language tests because they’re out of practice when it comes to using. Saying ‘yeah’ in lieu of ‘yes’ is a common problem and one which is never tolerated in the classroom or in tests/exams. Some slang words are new and older persons may not know them. Using these words can inhibit conversation greatly. Sometimes a language gap resulting from slang usage can manifest a language block between people of different generations.

I think that slang is appropriate in certain informal circumstances but it is not only you idiolect that changes, it is your appearance, facial expressions, it all does. This is when I think slang that has been built into your accent and idiolect is appropriate.