As the man walked into the broken brick, the cut tire gangs hideout, he marveled at his stupidity. “Hey,” he thought, “I’m full of stupid ideas.” As he walked through the hallway he retrieved the Uzi from the fat suit. As the gang faces towards the man they were hiding multiple fingers on the hand no human should have that many fingers. As he pulled out the  Uzi and shot them all the bits.

Tom woke from the nightmare, he sighed and noticed there is a great weight on his chest. He opened his eyes and saw there was a great fat man on top of him. “Time to finish what I started 13 years ago,” the fat man said Tom pushed him off and it ran through the door, screaming, loudly . Multiple shots shot through the door. He ran through the hallway and said, “why are you shooting at me?” “Reasons Demon!” said the fat man and he shot a few more times at Tom. “Crap!” yelled Tom, “that’s my friend Xavier!” “Oh,” said the fat man. “Sorry”

What happens next? You can decide at goldfishfun.com!

Answer in complete sentences-please be formal and serious. 

1# I focused on Atticus because he is very nice and formal and is a great guy.

2#   A few character traits Atticus has are: Smart, cool ( I mean cool like in cool temper.) He (Atticus) losed he his cool after the trial a little bit, but mostly he was the same.

3# Atticus’s key themes were dignity (like in the trial), justice (also in the trial), and selflessness (like when he shot the rabid dog.).

4# My understanding of Atticus grew as I worked on the project, because answering these questions I understand more about Atticus now.

“Fire ants may be famous for their vicious sting. But they’re also remarkable builders.” fire ants build “rafts” using their bodies to avoid flooding. Large ants form “hubs” to bind the raft together. The rafts are strong, light, and flexible. When a flood hits, the raft float on the water because of the air bubbles formed by gaps in the fire ants bodies. .
The article is very nice. Fire ants are smarter than normal people think. My dad thought the same. the article is very unbiased

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: the two names of two cities that ended World War II in the Pacific.    On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima by a B-29 bomber called the Enola Gay.  Three days later, on August 9th, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.   President Truman decided to use the atomic bombs to save lives from a land invasion of Japan that would have cost many more lives and to stop the Soviets from attacking Japan.  The atomic bombs saved millions of lives, believe it or not.  The atomic bombs should have been dropped.

In the strange, terrifying context of World War II, the atomic bombs actually saved lives, at least, they saved far more than they took.  Prior to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese military leaders vowed to fight to the last man.  The war had already turned against the Japanese, with the Americans ultimately emerging victorious from the hard-fought Battle of Iwo Jima, a sulfurous volcanic island turned Japanese military stronghold.  This is a dangerous mentality to have as a leader because it means that you could cause your people to suffer greatly and continue to fight and die in huge numbers long after surrender becomes necessary.  All civilians, even school girls were trained to fight the American invaders.  Death in battle was seen as honorable.  Some historians estimate that the American firebombing of Tokyo from 1942-1945 killed over 125,000 Japanese citizens without bringing a decisive end to the war.  Without the advent of the atomic bomb, America and its Allies would have been forced to take the Japanese mainland using a ground invasion, an operation that could have cost 1 million American lives, and as many as 10 million Japanese lives.  The bombs dropped by the Enola Gay and Bockscar took around 200,000 lives, which is still horrible even when you remember that the land invasion might have killed 50 times that number.  The horrifying, spectacular nature of a weapon that could end this many lives at once while creating a monstrous mushroom cloud of death finally shocked Hirohito and his generals to their senses.  Hirohito had to admit not only defeat, but the fact that he was not a demigod.

The atomic bombs continued to save lives long after World War II ended.  By August of 1945, the Allies beat the Germans and other European Axis powers in the European-African-Middle Eastern theater of the war.  The United States knew it would be competing with the Soviet Union for power and influence in the post-war world in a different way that it would compete with Great Britain and its other Allies.  This is because the Soviet Union was a communist nation run by a vicious dictator, Joseph Stalin, about to become the other superpower on the global stage.  Before the atomic bombs were dropped, the Soviets were readying their great army to invade their close Japanese neighbors from the north.  Again, a land invasion like this would have cost many more lives, besides giving the Russians the glory and influence in the region.  Stalin had already killed 8-13 million of his own people in Russia, so there was no telling how ruthlessly he might govern the Japanese.  The atomic show of force intimidated the Soviets enough to give the Americans the upper hand over them by the time treaties were being signed.  It checked the Soviet Union’s newfound power in 1945, and for decades after, giving us an early lead in the Cold War.

Critics of the use of the atomic bombs argue that in using them, President Harry S. Truman and the United States brought war to a terrible new level.  Their creator, Dr. Oppenheimer of the Manhattan Project, famously quoted a passage of the Hindu scripture, Bhadavad Gita, “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds” after witnessing the initial tests.  While it is true that the bombs represented a new level of warfare, their mission was to put an immediate end to further fighting.  This mission was successful.  The world might not have been better for more firebombing and death on the ground.  While it was true that they killed innocent people and caused later complications with radiation poisoning, the United States did target Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were industrial cities important to the Japanese war machine.  Because the bombs were new technology, the full extent of the radiation damage was not known at the time.  Still, many argue that lives should not have been taken in part of an attempt to show dominance over the Soviets as a Communist rival.  Hindsight tells us that it was still the right move.  Communist revolutions around the world failed to deliver on their promises of equality and protection for workers while killing tens of millions of people through violence and starvation (well over 50 million in Soviet neighbor China alone)!  While the United States’ development of the atomic bomb forced the Soviet Union to develop their own, the fact that we had it first and developed many of them prevented us from going directly into a “hot” war with these rivals after World War II because of “Mutually Assured Destruction.”  Both sides knew that if one attacked using atomic weapons, the other would do the same, and everyone would die as a result.

In conclusion, the use of atomic bombs by the United States to end World War II was a better choice than a land invasion to end the war.  While a lot of people were killed by the bombs, the Japanese vowed to fight to the last man, so the bombs were needed to end the war.   Also, the use of the bombs intimidated the Soviets and gave the United States a head start in the Cold War.   Although this raised warfare to a new level, it was necessary to reduce the loss of life in Japan and later, throughout the world.  The atomic bombs should have been dropped.

Your child’s future depends on the choices you make about where he or she goes to school.   Charter schools are better than public schools because they provide options for families and foster innovation.   Public schools may still provide standardized tests to track student learning and public funding to support classroom programs.  However, charter schools are more beneficial for student learning.

Charter schools have more advantages than public schools.  Julie Mack of “mlive”, a Michigan media group, notes that charter schools provide options for families. “The neighborhood school is not necessarily a good option for every child” she writes. Even in good neighborhood schools your child may not fit in with their peer group; this can lead to exclusion or bullying and then prevent a child from normal social development. Julie Mack also states, “Some of the most exciting experiences in American education are occurring in charter schools… unconstrained by bureaucracies and union rules,”   This means that it is a lot easier to adopt reforms like a longer school year so students can benefit from three to ten weeks of additional instruction. It also makes it much easier for a charter school to be innovative and come up with specific projects without having to meet all the same text expectations of public schools.

Public schools still hold some advantages. NPR’s Claudio Sanchez reports that a charter school study released by Stanford University Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) concludes that “kids and most charter schools are doing worse for no better than students in traditional public schools.” This should remind us that not every charter school guarantees better results than a good public school.  Standardized tests provide a measure of student learning.  People should expect to find a variety of outcomes just like they would in public or private schools. Julie Mack acknowledges the potential of having school boards appointed by charter organizations rather than the public, writing that  “when controversy and problems arise, charter schools parents have less avenue for protest. Basically it can be a little dangerous dealing with the school let him play by more of their own rules.”  Luckily problems like these can be avoided by carefully selecting trusted charter schools after doing the proper research.The advantages of charter schools still outweigh those of public schools. According to CREDO director, Margaret Raymond, CREDO did find that ” the gains along blacks, Latinos and kids whose first language is not English has been impressive and surprising.”  These traditionally disadvantaged groups make up about a third of the charter school population.

Overall, charter schools are better than public schools because of charter schools are schools of choice: students are not forced to go there. Even if you disagree, go online and search for the statistics. This proves charter schools are better than public schools.

I went to the 52 boats memorial at Liberty station on Memorial Day. To celebrate Memorial day, there were lines of American flags. The 52 submarines were from World War II. There are two lines of Memorials, parallel to a field. For memorial for each ship is made out of smooth, black, marble. If you look closely at the number of deaths, you can see how many submarines crews didn’t make it. One of the boats, the Swordfish was never found. There was also a plaque celebrating the lives of submariners who didn’t go down with their ship. Some of my favorite ships were the Bonefish, the Snook and the Swordfish. I learned that submarines were much vulnerable than they seem.

Snort, snort

one hoof in the bright, golden, sand.

Fleas dive-bombing my eyes.

The harsh crackle of the cattle prod.

I break into a quick trot to go into the ring.

“And here’s Halitosis Harrrrrry! The famous bull! ”

The Anncouer drones on, I stare into the matador’s pupils.

His loose black clothing looks wraithlike.

His cruel, dark, I pierce my large, brown, bovine ones

A twitch in my foreleg makes me paw.

The smooth, yellow, sand is beautiful.

The air is tense.

The bloodthirsty crowd is silent.

I charge

James Surowiecki of New Yorker Magazine recently compared the ban on sports betting to Prohibition.  According to Surowiecki, “The ban on sports betting does exactly what Prohibition did. It makes criminals rich.”

Prohibition started in the 1920’s when several unions joined together to ban alcohol. Growing women’s movements saw temperance, or abstinence from alcohol, as a way to reduce widespread domestic violence against women and children. World War I pitted the United States and its Allies against Germany and the Central powers. Because breweries were (and continue to be) associated with German culture, beer suddenly became “unpatriotic.” The war effort brought with it an emphasis on frugality, so Americans began to reconsider whether or not it was right to use “good grain” on  alcohol. Temperance union and interest groups (including the Ku Klux Klan) ultimately proved more organized and influential than proponents of keeping alcohol legal at the time, leading to the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act, establishing Prohibition and its problematic effect––enriching a new class of lawbreakers!

As mentioned, drinking came under fire during WWI  because it was thought of as an unpatriotic waste of good grain. Also, alcoholics were regarded as a drain on the wartime economy because they didn’t work that hard since they could not focus and therefore they were an impediment to production. Many of these prideful Americans were also ardent churchgoers calling for or participating in the ban called for by religious leaders, Protestant and Catholic alike, many of whom considered drinking a sin (or poor choice leading to other “unholy” acts).

Sadly, alcoholic male heads of household tended to “drink” up their paychecks at the local saloon. This led to some of these broke and belligerent men beating up their wives and kids. One can see why the Women’s Temperance Union wanted to prohibit, or ban, alcohol in general. Other more moderate groups wanted to prohibit hard spirits, not all alcohol in hopes that it would solve these problems.

A major effect of prohibition was the rising high crime rate and growth of illegal enterprises. Feeling the pressure of a poor economy and job market, many “average people” turned to the underground alcohol trade as an opportunity to make money. “Rumrunners” were people who “ran” beer, rum, or other spirits from the Caribbean or Mexico to the United States. “Bootleggers” were people who strapped alcohol to their legs to smuggle (or otherwise sneak) it to speakeasies, underground bars that sold all the rumrunners’ and bootleggers’ contraband liquor.

Naturally, gangsters wanted a piece of the illicit action, and so played a huge role in Prohibition. At one point the infamous gangster Al Capone had more than 2,000 speakeasies and earned $60 million annually. In order to get this money, he and his crime syndicate committed 522 mob-related murders. He is said to have killed five people himself, but the only thing the government was able to convict him on was income tax evasion.

Prohibition ultimately proved economically disastrous for an overburdened country it forced to support a massive, corrupt enforcement agency and suddenly overstuffed prison system. When prohibition was repealed, the government had more problems to deal with than when it started. Having a poor economy before the Great Depression did not help much due to the fact that more unemployment was going on since Prohibition banned distilleries, eliminating those jobs and diverting the money they brought to mobsters like Al Capone.

By the end of Prohibition, there was a higher crime rate fueled by organized crime bosses, and the price of untaxed alcohol increased. Americans had to pay higher taxes to support enforcement of the ineffective Volstead Act, and still, the problem of widespread alcohol abuse remained. Eventually, these complications forced legislators to bring Prohibition to an end by passing the Twenty-first Amendment, repealing the disastrous Eighteenth and its ban on liquor. Now here is the big question. Would prohibition work today?