Definition of Love.

Love is something that people have been trying to define for years. In the dictionary way of defining love, it says that it is a very strong affection that depends on your relaitonship with someone. The biblical definition however compares love to other adjectives like kindness and patientness. The biblical definition also says what love doesn't involve, like envying and boasting.
These definitions are different because in the dictionary definition it is showing what it is to your relaitionships. But, in the biblical definition it does not matter what relaitionship you have with someone. This type of love in the dictionary can even apply to the love you share with your friends. Also, the biblical definition shows what love isn't is while the dictionary definition does not.
I favor the biblical definition because I like how it does not matter what kind of relaitionship you have with the person you love. Also, I like how it tells you what not to do if you love someone. This is why I favor the bibles definition of love.

Rules.

Rules can be very beneficial to citizens. Sometimes I wonder though if these rules are made to benefit the rule maker or follower? I think that there can be rules that cater to all people. One rule I believe that would be good for everyone is to be kind to people. If everyone was kind to everyone than we wouldn't have murders, robberies, and more. Another rule I think would be very helpful to everyone is a curfew for kids. I believe this benefits the rule makers because then there would be less people out on the street at two or three in the morning. This could also be beneficial to citizens because then they would not get into trouble. The last rule I believe to be beneficial to everyone is to have freedom of speech. This benefits everyone because then everyone could say what they want to say and would not get punished for speaking their opinion. These are just three rule that I believe would benefit everyone.

That Crush.

In everyone's life, we develop a crush. It can be nothing at all, or it can be much more than that. In the story "Checkouts" by Cynthia Rylant, a young girl develops a crush on a bag boy. In this story, this crush does not evolve into anything and both characters lives move on. I had an experience like this recently. My cousins and I went bowling in Pottsville. When we walk in, we see a group of boys. Everyone of us start to talk about them immediately as if their ears didn't work and they couldn't hear us laughing. A friend who came along with my cousins and I pointed out that the one boy was staring at me. I laughed and went back to bowling. I then casually look at the group of boys and realize, he was staring at me, while I was dancing with my cousin and singing Train. I'm not going to lie and tell you he wasn't cute, because he was. I just knew there was no way. I told myself, "What's the point? It's not like you'll ever see him again." As the night goes on, my cousins and friend keep saying, "Go talk to him." Being me, I didn't. I'm not shy around my friends, but when it comes to meeting new people, that's a whole different story. Finally, my cousin decides to go get his number for me. Why? I don't know. That's just her personality. As I look up from bowling and I think I see the boy getting annoyed, I walk up to them and pull my cousin away saying "Sorry." My cousin looks at me and says "I was about to get the number, idiot." So now what do I do? As I said before, I'm not very good at meeting new people. So, as the night goes on, nothing happens and I leave without even a name, since my cousin forgot to even ask that question. In the story, the characters regret embarrasing themselves and not making more of a point to meet their crush. This is exactly how I felt coming home from Pottsville on Saturday night. I couldn't help but think about what could have happened if I would have just let my cousin got that number. But now,what can I do? It's not like I'll meet him again, and it's not the end of the world. Maybe I've learned something though, next time, let your cousin get the number.

How Modern Historical Times relates to the story "The Birds"

The story of "The Birds" is a classic story because it can be related to many historical times. It can be related to the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the 70's Energry Crisis, and the L.A. Riots of 1992. These are just some historical times that "The Birds" relates too.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous speech "I have a Dream" changed a lot of lives in America. This speech relates to "The Birds" because Dr. Martin Luther King did not do anything to be murdered, just like the people in the story did not do anything to the birds to be killed. The birds decided to attack the people because they did not like them, just like the people who killed Dr. Martin Luther King and African Americans.
The 1970's energy crisis is related to "The Birds" because the government could not do anything for it's people, just like the government in "The Birds" could not help its people. In bad situations we always say "What are they going to do", but whose "they" and what happens when they can't do anything about it? In the story, it was hard for people to help citizens and everyone was left on their own. In the energy crisis the government could not do much to help the people. This is how the energry crisis is related to "The Birds."
The Los Angeles Riots was a horrible time in our history where the city broke lose and horrible events of fighting happened. I believe this relates to "The Birds" because in the story, the birds take over and fighting occurs. "The Birds" were upset about something and decided to attack just as the people who started the fighting were upset about the verdict of Rodney King. They were angry and hurt innocent people. This is how I believe "The Birds" relates to the Los Angeles Riots.
As you can see, the story "The Birds" is very symbolic and can relate to a lot of historical times. This is why it is such an important story and schools often read and anaylze it.

"The Most Dangerous Game"

In the story "The Most Dangerous Game", Rainsford kills Zaroff in the end. But does he really have to do this? I believe he does. If Rainsford did not kill Zaroff, Zaroff's island would still be a place of hunters and huntees. Zaroff would keep hunting people and he would always win the game. Although Rainsford did not want to be a hunter, he had to kill Zaroff.
The ending of the story and my interpretation of it relates to my understanding of Modernism. The story omitted an ending. This is a lot like Modern stories. I had to predict what I felt was going to happen after the ending. The story also captured an essence of modern life by asking if every one is either a hunter or a huntee. This story relates a lot to Modernism.
Overall, "The Most Dangerous Game" made me think a lot about life. It made me wonder if Rainsford had to  kill and it also made me interpret the ending.