Graffiti, Abstract Art, and Picasso

When we look at graffiti, do we consider it at art?

Is it just a bunch of kids wanting to make their mark on the walls, or is it real art? How can The Birth of Venus, by Botticelli, and the graffiti on the walls of New York, be both filed into the same category?

Graffiti can be amazing. It can be just a bunch of people spray-painting a few bad words or faces on the walls of a city, or it can be a giant, melancholy portrait.

Graffiti is nothing like Renaissance painting. It is nothing like Gothic art. It is nothing like so many old-fashioned things. It tagged along with the coming of modern technology and a changing world. But is it considered art?

Well, it depends. Sometimes graffiti 'artists' will take a face and distortion it, swirling it with colours and making it seem almost Piccasolike. Do they do it on purpose, or is it instinct that is born through the push, as the colours blast out and take shape on the walls? If you look at these two, examples, you'll see the similarities between some graffiti and Picasso. Picasso became a world-famous, respected painter. How can these people, who spray this onto city walls, not be acknowledged like that, too?

The right one is Picasso. You see the similarities, of melancholy expressions, distorted faces, a similar use of colors. The first somehow took shape on a wall, the other took shape on a canvas. 

Do these artists know how their work is similar to Picasso? It can be abstract art, with a wide variety of colors. We tend to see graffiti as just some kids playing around with colors on the wrong material. Sometimes we're even angry, when the graffiti is covering something nice and ruining an effect.

Take this, for example. Is that considered art? Probably not. It's just a bunch of faded, spray-painted words on a white wall. Sometimes the graffiti can ruin a lot of things, breaking a city's charming look.

But then, again, graffiti can be stunning. It can portray political views, perspectives, arguments, and, more importantly, an artist's view of the world. Artists see the world differently than we do. Some just choose to express it differently.  

Graffiti artists may be lonely. They may not be recognized in society, viewed as 'poor'. They may be rejected, they may have no friends, they may be living on the fringes of society. Sometimes these people are invisible, they don't matter in society, and it's not fair. They're not recognized in society. 

I don't know for sure, because I've never met a graffiti artist before. But when I look at some graffiti, I think, maybe it's their way to show their views. Maybe it's their way to make their mark, to let their feelings and perspectives blast out onto the wall. Graffiti is expensive. Just a can of spray paint can cost up to 5 dollars, and a can only lasts for a few words. Imagine, making a huge mural. That can cost hundreds of dollars, and it's illegal to spend it like that. 

No matter how amazing graffiti can be, it's still illegal. I think the cities should recruit as many graffiti artists as they can, take a room in a museum, and ask them to perform some of their skills as an exhibition. Maybe they can have a huge wall, where they pay graffiti artists to show their talent legally. They could show graffiti artists how much abstract art painters like Picasso have influenced their work, without them knowing it. Just think, there is so much potential in the world, and it's being shown in the wrong way. We can all start to recognize these people and ask the cities to hire graffiti artists, where they will finally be recognized as artists, not as some lonely street kids.

Note: The pictures provided in this post do not belong to schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca. They are from Google Images. If this causes any disturbance, please let us know.

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Public Letter to PM Stephen Harper

Schoolgirl's World Reviews has recently received a public letter from a young girl addressed to Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper. This young girl, who we cannot name, has been concerned by the Canadian government's plans to mine in Colombia, South America, for precious gems and minerals, and the immigration program. This letter was written a year ago, so circumstances may have changed.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

I strongly disagree with your  thoughts and decisions about immigration and people from other countries visiting. Remember that you were elected only because you were the majority out of the minority, which means that really, you were elected, but not because the  majority of Canada's citizens voted for you. You are destroying Canada's values. You believe in economy, but only the economy of the richer. One by one, you are taking away what makes Canada Canada. Canada is known for its welcoming of immigrators, people who want to visit Canada, but you are closing Canada from the world. Yes, you are making Canada popular by hosting important events such as the Olympics, and  a Royal Tour by Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, and that is excellent, because tourists will want to come and see Canada, which will improve the economy, which is your top priority. However, you are not allowing much tourists to come, and therefore you are blocking tourism, which does not help the economy. Canada is fortunately excluded out of the European economic crisis, and will if the economy thrives, but you are only helping the economy for certain people. Tourism brings much money, and will continue, but you are asking for too much, in my point of view. In my experience, as a Canadian citizen, I know people in Bogota, Colombia, who wanted to come and visit Canada for only a week or so. Unfortunately, the decisions made by you about tourism and immigration made it very hard for the people I know to come. For example, they returned my acquaintance's passports, but only returned it to one of them, and held on to the other one for weeks. What if an emergency had happened where the passport was needed?  How can people communicate if they can't share a language? All of the workers at immigration and tourism should capable of speaking the language needed to communicate with the people. I thought you were doing your best, but this is hastily done work that obviously was not given the proper attention. Then, the questions asked were not necessary. Some were very personal and extremely random, such as, do you do drugs, or do you traffic drugs, which no one would say yes to. Then, they had an excuse: one of the people I know would suddenly decide to move to Canada and live there as an illegal. People who fill out the tourism sheet are specifically saying they want to visit, not move to Canada. Anyway, people who visit Canada obviously have the ways and money to go to Canada,  and how can a person who has the ways to visit Canada want to live there, if they are content where they are. Finally, the people, following your orders, asked so many questions and held on to a passport for so much time, and found that many excuses, that the people I know where finally so exasperated, that they changed their minds about going to Canada. One of Canada's values is that it welcomes immigrants and people from other countries, and they bugged these people so much and did not welcome them, that they changed their minds. I am 100% sure that these are not the only people that have changed their minds. This is certainly not good for the economy. So please, all I am asking you, is to try to dedicate some more time to this subject and try to improve it instead of leaving it messed up. Then, mining is another problem. You are taking Colombia with your team and taking precious stones, semi-precious stones, and minerals from Colombia. Colombia is home to 10 percent of the world's species, with more than 1,821 species of birds, 623 species of amphibians, 467 species of mammals, 518 species of reptiles, and 3,200 species of fish living  in Colombia. About 18 percent of these are endemic to the country. Colombia has 51,220 species of plants, of which nearly 30 percent are endemic. This mining is destroying the habitats, and causes global warming, which is one of the causes of why the 2012 winter was short and warm, and which is why the festivals had to buy snow. Mining causes pollution, habitat destruction, and forces natives to go somewhere else, thanks to you. Natives and Indians have lived in Colombia for decades, keeping a low profile and living honestly, and have never done anything to you, who, with your mining, are destroying Colombia's lush rainforests and biodiversity. You are forcing Colombians out of their homes, which really, is like when war forces people out of their homes. Canada's economy is flourishing, and it looks like you wants it to be as good as it can be, even if it means destroying rainforests, killing species, forcing people out of their homes, and increasing global warming. I believe Canada's economy for everybody should be at its peak, but not because some of it has a dark history. By doing all of these things, Colombians are suffering now, are breathing toxic air, animals are dying, global warming is continuing, and now where a rainforest once stood is a desert, or rows and rows of stumps of trees, where it will take maybe a century or more for the rainforest to return, if at all. If you want economy to thrive, like I do, you should find better ways to make it so, such as tourism, welcoming immigrators, finding sources that have no risk of being wiped out or come with grisly side effects to sell. Canada should not mine in other countries and ignore protests, Canada should be content with what it has and not steal. Like Severn Suzuki said, "We have more than enough, and yet we are not happy." Canada is winning a bad reputation, and I'm hearing it everywhere. You can choose not to listen to my warnings and words, because I am only a child, but if you do, you will help Canada's reputation, you will help save our crashing world, and you will protect a country. This is a noble act, and you will be remembered for it. Thank you for reading this and I hope you will consider my words.

Sincerely,

A Canadian Citizen

Similarities and Differences Between the Parthenon and the Pyramids of Giza

Although this may seem like a boring subject, there are things that the world never compares. These two historical monuments are so different and so alike at the same time, from different eras. This assignment was accomplished over a  year ago, but it finds how similar and how different two things can be. 

Parthenon and the Great Pyramid of Giza

By Leticia 

There are 7 Wonders of the World, all of which are evidence of history, bloodshed, culture, and important pieces of history in the human race. Two of those Wonders are the Greek Parthenon, located in Acropolis, Athens, Greece, and the Great Pyramid of Giza in the Sahara Desert, Egypt. Both are marvels of human architecture, and have similar things, but yet are so different. For example, the Parthenon was built by the Greek Empire from 447 BC to 433 BC and took less than 9 years to be built, while the Pyramid was built by the Ancient Egyptian civilization in 2560 BC and took 20 years to be built, making it the oldest man-made structure on Earth. The similarities and differences have been found, and this article bears them.

30 years before the Parthenon was built, Persia and Athens fought, leaving Athens in ruins. The Athenians won the war, but the city was destroyed. Pericles began a campaign to restore Athens and to build the Parthenon, a temple to worship Athena, goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, crafts, etc, and to “show the wealth and exuberance of Athenian power.” During the 5^th century and forward, over 30, 000 Athenian men gathered in Acropolis to vote. The men voted in favour of Pericles, whereas, in Ancient Egypt, the pyramid was believed to be built for 4^th dynasty Pharaoh Khufu. When a Pharaoh gave an order, the task was done without an inquiry, as the Pharaoh ruled over Egypt. In Greece, democracy existed, although it was exclusively for male Greek citizens, and in Egypt, democracy did not exist.

Building the Parthenon required the incredible sum of 469 silver talents, which now is easily over 100 million dollars. Some people believe the building of the Parthenon cost up to 1 billion dollars, while the price of the Pyramid was approximately 250 to 300 million dollars today. The Parthenon, as I said earlier, was built to worship Athena and to “show-off” Athenian power, whereas the Pyramid was used as a tomb to mourn the Pharaoh and give him things such as oil, flour, grain, jewels, and gold to help him in the afterlife. The Pyramid has a completely different architecture of the Parthenon. The Pyramid has a square base, while the Parthenon has a rectangular base. The Pyramid is the only pyramid to have ascending and descending passages. The Pyramid has a point and is made of four triangles put together and forming a point at the top, while the Parthenon is made of 46 marble columns, has a flat roof, statues adorning the outside, several rooms on one floor, and altogether has a different architecture. It has 10 main rooms, excluding the entrances, and consists of 2 air shafts, the Pharaoh’s chamber, the Queen’s chamber, Old Tomb chamber, and the Burial Chamber, while the Parthenon has one main room, which once held Athena’s giant statue made of gold and ivory and which was robbed by another empire and later destroyed during the Crusades. Surrounding it were several corridors and another large room as seen in the picture under.          

As you descend through the Pyramid’s shadowy passages, a cramped, stuffy air engulfs you due to lack of light. The only form of illuminating the dark Pyramid was to attach a flaming torch to the wall, which added to the eery, mystical appearance. The Pyramid had few windows, but some small holes in the sturdy walls allowed people to peer through and see a narrow view. In the Parthenon, the area was much more open, and there were places where light could enter and illuminate the Parthenon. The Parthenon is 65 feet tall, whereas the Pyramid is 481 feet tall, and was the tallest man-made structure for 3800 years. It is estimated that it took 2.3 million blocks of limestone for the Pyramid.

Both, however, were built by the powerful influences of religion and tradition, for the Greek goddess Athena formed part of mythology, and was at the time considered a religion. If Athena had not existed, the Parthenon may have lost some of its glory, for the people, architects, and builders may not have put their best work if there was not the reason that Athena could reward them and that they would please her. The statue that once stood would probably never have been built in her honour, Athens’ name wouldn’t derive from Athena, and the Parthenon would not be dedicated to her, nor would the statues embellishing the roof of the Parthenon showing Greek mythology. As for the Pyramid, the belief of afterlife was most likely influenced by religion and the gods (Ubaste, Ra, etc), and the Pharaoh could have had a completely different tomb, and much less magnificent. The tradition of pyramids must have thrived then, or else the Pharaoh may not have elected the same style of architecture, certainly not one that would take so much time and money, and because on the Pyramid there are signs and inscriptions engraved on the stone of gods performing things and stories etched on the rock. Both buildings were made of stone and by ancient civilizations, and both were once rich in gold, jewels, ivory, and other precious stones. Both are now known in the world, both are rich in history and culture, and although they are very different in some ways, they are similar in others.

The Parthenon and the Pyramid have lasted for thousands of years, they have been rocked by earthquakes, looted by robbers, burned and crumbled by fire, wind, and water, beaten by wars, deteriorated by air pollution, but yet have survived all of these blows. They are shadows of what they used to be now, but they are still magnificent and dazzling, there are still the marks of the wars, earthquakes, robbers, and of the builders that constructed this, of the men that ordered it to be built, of the determination and how the impossible was made possible. The marks of all of these events are etched on the rock, engraved there forever, proof of how brilliant we can be. Every bead of sweat that trickled on every builder’s brow was worth it. Pericles and Pharaoh Khufu were amazing men, Greece and Egypt were incredibly advanced civilizations, the costs to build these structures was mind-blowing, the architecture was astounding, and the way that man, with its bare hands, was able to build these astonishing things. The Parthenon and the Great Pyramid of Giza are marvellous structures, and are similar in some things, yet so different in others.

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Shop Organic, Ignore Modified

Shop Organic, Ignore Modified

What makes us choose to buy organic, or to buy modified food?  

The question is worth a billion. We, as humans, were made to ask questions. When man first evolved, one of the things that made us an advanced species was that we asked questions, we worked to figure out the answer. People like Ptolemy, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Donatello, and many other people got their answers because they pressed and worked to find out the replies to the many questions that now give us privileged minds and the capability to discover. Questions form part of our everyday lives. Students in classrooms ask questions, teachers ask questions, chemists, scientists, astronomers, and many more people ask questions. We, as humans, were given the gift of curiosity, the gift that was is one of the reasons of why we have such an advanced civilization. But there are still many questions that have no answer, and some of us forget to ask questions about daily things that affect our lives. One of them is our food choices, and why more of us buy modified food than organic food.  

Firstly, what is organic food? It is when a farmer grows animals or plants naturally, feeding them food without chemicals, pesticides, hormones, genes, genetic material, and such, while the animal or plant grows without a single thing that was not handled by man. As a result, the animal or plant is prone to disease, because there are no pesticides to kill the bugs, there are no hormones to make it larger, and there are no genes to change its physical appearance. Therefore, it is harder to grow organically-raised crops or animals, because often, the crops or animals are killed by insects, they are weaker, and they are raised naturally. Part of the cycle of life is death, so if the animals had been wild, it would not have affected the food chain when they died. However, when the animals do die in farms, there is less meat or vegetables to be sold, and the effort is more to have them healthy, so therefore the price is higher. In the case of fish, however, fisherman are hired to fish from the sea, which is also a greater task, as the fish are wild and have had no supervision during their lives.

Secondly, modified food is when an animal or plant is raised with chemicals, genes, genetic material, hormones and pesticides. For example, to avoid that insects eat a crop, it is sprayed with pesticides so the insect dies before it can feast on the plant. Then if some chicken has been fed chemicals, when it’s in the fridge, it will stay the same for a longer period of time, because the chemical compound will not allow bacteria to eat the chicken. Ham could be modified so it’s fat free and for dieters, and animals can be genetically modified so they grow larger and look better. Some foods will say organic, and it doesn’t say the percentage of the organic in it. Some foods are 70% organic, others are 90% organic, some are less, but the best percentage would be 100%, which means that absolutely nothing man-made or manipulated by man has even touched the product. 

The question is, those pesticides kill insects, what are the effects on us? When those hormones are injected into the animals, what does it do to us? When those chemicals are fed to the animals, what do they do to us? Media (newspapers, news, etc) revealed that in the U.S. fish companies were growing salmon in terrible conditions, feeding them hormones and chemicals that made their flesh white. The company then fed the sickly salmon pills to taint their flesh a healthy pink. When we eat that, what are the effects on our body? Information from the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program (PDP) reveals that 90 percent or more of conventionally produced apples, peaches, pears and strawberries have pesticide residues. People have commented that fruits are unusually shiny, and are actually coated in wax to make them gleam. On Socyberty, a reputable website, in the article of Think Before You Bite, it was stated that Azinphos methyl, a hazardous neurotoxin forbidden in Europe is found on the apples that we feed our families with. It also informed that “there is growing scientific consensus that even very small doses of pesticides can adversely affect people, especially during the vulnerable periods of in utero and early childhood development when organ systems are maturing most quickly, when toxic defenses are least established, and when early programming of risks for chronic disease later in life takes place.” Pesticides have been known to link to cases of chronic diseases such as neurodevelopment, Parkinson’s disease, and cancers. Although it is not scientifically proven, I believe that these hormones, genetic material, pesticides, and chemicals are affecting our genes and DNA, changing them like radiation does. For example, it was discovered that strawberries have fish hormones injected into them to make swell and look ripe. If the strawberries DNA’s and genes’ are changing with these hormones, then it is likely that our genes and DNA will change. If a cow has been fed pesticides and its interior is swamped with the pesticides it has eaten, it is possible that it will affect us as well, for the digestive system can be easily worn out by substances that are killing other living creatures. Cows and humans are both mammals, so it is possible that these pesticides are affecting us as well.

Waxes can be used to make fruits shiny, trap moisture underneath, and keep products fresh longer, but the pesticide that has been sprayed over the fruit will be trapped underneath and cannot be washed. When we eat fruits, it is as if we took an amount of pesticide with the flavour of a fruit and swallowed it. Whenever we eat pesticide-sprayed products, the pesticide is accumulating in our organisms and it is toxic to us, making us more vulnerable to diseases as it weakens our systems. When the DDT began to be used on crops, it fell across the food chain. The insect ate the crop and died, the mouse ate the dead insect with DDT in it and grew sick and died, the cat ate the mouse and died, and it went all up the food chain until finally, the eagle and the peregrine falcon ate the animal plagued with DDT. Because the peregrine falcon and the eagle have a stronger organism, or there was something in the chemical, the birds did not die. But the eggs shells’ were weak, and soon the chicks were hatching with deformations, simply weak, or the shell broke too early. This chemical almost wiped out two species. The funny thing is that there are still chemicals just are harmful as DDT that are still on crops, and they have not been banned by the government. If DDT was so poisonous, how would it have affected our bodies when it was still allowed to be used? It could have destroyed our digestive system, it could have changed our genes, it could have damaged our body extensively. We are still eating foods that are showered with pesticides that can be fatal to humans. It is much cheaper to buy modified food, mainly because it’s easier to grow, it lasts longer, and it looks better. One might say, “the ham I eat is fat-free, it’s for dieters, it’s modified so it’s healthier for me. The chicken I have in my fridge has lasted for 3 weeks and it hasn’t gone bad, it tastes exactly the same. The food I’m buying is so much more economic, I’ve saved a lot of money now. There’s more food in my packages now. My food looks so much more delicious. Everyone is eating what I serve now.”

But have you asked yourself exactly why the chicken in your fridge has lasted so much without going rotten? Have you asked yourself why these companies are selling everything so cheaply? Have you wondered how they make the ham fat-free? Have you asked why the food looks delicious? Have you asked, “what are the effects on my health?” We are humans, and we were made to inquire, to ask, to discover. These companies haven’t yet given the replies to answers, because if they tell us that they are injecting hormones and genes that could be dangerous to our health, that they are spraying foods with pesticides that could harm us, we won’t buy their products with the hard-earned money we worked for, they are trying to find things that we won’t inquire about. These companies don’t care about your health, they only care about the money in your wallet. If they cared about your health, firstly, they would tell us the negative things about their products, they would tell us the positive things, they would tell us that there are risks. No, they tell us the food you’re buying is healthy, nutritious, and delicious. They try to fool millions of people with the face of a farmer or fisherman glued onto the package. They know that their products could be dangerous. After these accusations by people who have discovered their ways, an organic company bombed with accusations would let someone select a product and test it to make sure that it is healthy, and that it won’t harm your health. But they refuse to have studies done, they ignore the accusations and cover the stories up quickly.

Studies need money to buy the utensils to do their studies, the workers, and the things that are necessary. When a company needs to have a study to prove something, they donate money so the study will prove that the company is doing something well. What are the effects of the hormones that made the salmon’s naturally pink meat turn white, the pesticides that don’t let insects eat the fruits and vegetables, the wax that makes the food stay fresh and shiny? If they are linked to diseases, and if they are probably changing our genes negatively, then we shouldn’t buy modified food as often. If we buy these foods, then it is likely that our families will have deformations, that there will be decades of health problems and tears. It isn’t scientifically proved yet, but by using our common sense, we can see that something strange is going on. Yes, it is all right to buy modified food once in a while if the organic food is costly, but if you always eat modified food, then it is very likely that you could have health problems in the future. There is the saying, “better safe than sorry.” People have said that during hurricanes, tornadoes, and disasters that have happened. We have to be prepared if these things can happen. If in the future we do have health problems, deformations and death plagues us more often than ever, the treatments, surgeries and appointments would turn out more expensive than if you bought organic food. It isn’t fatal if you could learn to buy modified food once in a while. But if you want to cross out a possible problem in your life, and a problem that could change you and your family, then buy organic food. We are all human, and we have the power to define ourselves and to choose our decisions and way of life. Pico of the Mirandole said in his Oration that man was situated in a privileged position, under the angels, but over the animals. We can choose our way life, and companies may try to fool us, but we now know the risks of eating modified food.

 Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Artists Against Bullying - True Colors [Official Video]

This is irrelevant but it's a beautiful, hopeful song that has to be shared.

Why Is Biofuel Better than Other Renewable Energy Sources? by Leticia

First off, what is biofuel?
Well, it comes from biomass, which is actually something that has been recently living, such as animal waste, carcasses, etc, etc. Biofuel isn't known very well in the world for powering our lives. In fact, it's used mostly in developing countries to get electricity. But is it better than:
Wind power
Hydroelectric power
Solar power
Geothermal power?
Well, we'll see.
First, biofuel is renewable. We're not sucking up coal, natural gas, and oil for electrical power. Instead of using up all of our resources, we're making the most of our surroundings. Since the beginning of time, animals have been around - and with them, their waste and carcasses later on, which we can use to transform for electricity. But we're not blocking rivers and stopping the trout reproduction, like hydro power. With coal and natural gas, we're using up all we have fast, and it's not reliable. Eventually, we'll run out of this nonrenewable fuel and we'll find ourselves stunned and lost. Instead, biofuel is renewable and will continue being around forever. It's constantly available and we have no fear of running out, whereas with nonrenewable energy sources, it will eventually run out.
Biofuel is also reliable. For solar and wind power, it depends on the weather, so we can't rely on our power sources. Who says it'll be rainy one day, windless and dry the next, or sunny and windless the other? Weather is unpredictable, and we can't rely on it for power. True, solar and wind power is efficient, but we don't know when we can use it or not. Biofuel, on the other hand, doesn't rely on much. We'll have this source for a long time, and not much will be able to wipe it out. It's very reliable.
Next, biofuel is also cheap. Geothermal power, solar power, wind power, and hydro power is very expensive to gather and create. A dam is very expensive, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to create. Solar power is just as costly. Let's not even think about geothermal power, drilling holes into thinner surfaces of the Earth. It could cost millions of dollars! Instead, we can just go to the nearest farm and collect animal dung for biofuel. A farmer might not even charge for that unpleasant task! It's simple to collect, but it's still pretty hard to make. Turning animal waste into fuel! That's a true transformation, but it's only a hint of human brilliance.
Biofuels also help the environment. Plants create oxygen and clean our air, which is now filled with pollution! We can grow so many crops intended for biofuel and clean our air at the same time! That's very effective. Especially because we're ensuring childrens' futures. Eventually, they'll grow into adults, and kids wouldn't want to grow into a desert that was once a beautiful forest, or a run-down town that was once a big city. By using biofuel, we are reducing pollution and protecting the environment that has been our home for thousands of years.
Countries are beginning to use biofuel more often now. Biodiesel - "a diesel-like fuel commonly made from palm oil" (National Geographic) is used more often in Europe now.
But biofuel also has a downside. It takes a lot of chemicals to purify animal waste and carcasses into fuel. We end up throwing in lots of chemicals to process it, and lots of it ends up polluting the environment, so it's not perfect. And, if we're using biodiesel more, palm plantations are actually wiping out corn, wheat, potato, and other vegetable plantations. That means farmers are getting less to eat and fuel is becoming more important than food. Palm oil makes a lot more money than, say, potatoes, so people will naturally plant palm trees and abandon potato crops. However, biodiesel is renewable and we're making the most of our surroundings.
But, with coal and natural gas available, we don't need to worry about those things yet, do we? But those problems will eventually come. Electricity makes things so much more easier for us, but we've become dependent on technology, and if it's not available, we'll be lost. Utterly lost.
What do you think? Is biofuel better than other renewable energy sources?

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Book Review: Main Street Series by Ann M. Martin

Main Street Series
(Photo is book #8)


Main Street Series

10 books
Type: Community life and friendship.
Style: Family-friendly, close-knit community, showing close friendship and community, not very descriptive or richly written.
Length: Fairly short - about 190-200 pages, print is fairly large. Better for younger children that can read well.
Age rating: 8-12
A series that shows a community helping others get over tragedy, forming relationships and bonds, close-knit friends and neighbors, etc. It's not a very rich book - just a bit of fun or amusement to take a break from deeper subjects. May be tedious for older readers, but amusing and entertaining for younger children and tweens.
Overall grade:  to 

A cute series, showing how friendship and community life can help you get over tragedies and overcoming problems and challenges. It's nicely paced, taking a somewhat sleepy, boring town into something more exciting. Overall, a pretty good read.

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Book Review: Young Fu of the Upper Yangtze by Elizabeth Foreman Lewis

Young Fu of the Upper Yangtze

Award-winning
306 pages
Type: Historical fiction
Style: Fairly descriptive, intensely involves life lessons and old sayings, old-fashioned speech.
Length: Solid read, a bit long for younger readers but nicely sized for older readers.
Age rating: 11-20. Highly recommended for older readers who can follow along easily.
A well-written novel, a door into times, very accurate and capturing the old-fashioned Chinese times. Young Fu is a complicated, interesting character and his story is as well. It has a lot of life lessons that can be valuable to young readers.
Overall grade:

A good novel, some beautifully written sentences, good morals, solidly written, and portraying the main character, Young Fu, quite well. A good book to be enjoyed, but may be hard to read for some people. Overall, a good read.

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Book Review: The Owl Keeper by Christine Brodien Jones

The Owl Keeper



306 pages
Type: Adventure/fantasy
Style: Descriptive, third person point of view.
Length: A nice size, fairly long for a younger child.
Age rating: 9-15. Highly, highly recommended for children 8-12 years (an excellent reading for very good readers ages 8-13)
A fascinating, elegantly and expertly written novel ideal for good readers, a perfect amount of descriptions, very well written. Not inappropriate at all, good use of language, but may be hard to grasp for slower readers, demonstrates a love for nature and to maintain the importance of the environment and fighting against government propaganda and dictatorship.
Overall grade:

A very skilfully written novel, portrayed very well, fast-paced, suspenseful, and demonstrates the importance of thinking for yourself, the environment and animals, and friendship. However, it may be too quick and hard to read for some readers, but overall, excellent.

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Book Review: Hatchet by Gary Paulsen

Hatchet

186 pages
Type: Adventure, fiction, survival-type
Style: Not elaborately descriptive but portrays feelings and characters quite well.
Length: Well-sized, a little too short for fast readers, long enough for slower readers.
Age rating: 9/10-14
A book that grasps the survival/adventure story, describing in depth the main characters feelings and how humans can adapt to their surroundings to survive. Not inappropriate at all, although some more sensitive readers might cry in some parts. Easy to understand and follow.

Overall grade:

A well-written book, demonstrating human brilliance, adaptations, and intelligence. A relatively simple plot turned into an interesting story. Quite well-written, an excellent reading. An excellent book, highly recommended for children, shows how we depend on nature and its beauty. Overall, a very good reading.

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Book Review - A Dog's Journey by W. Bruce Cameron

A Dog's Journey

336 pages
Type: Fiction, animal point of view, tearjerker.
Style: Fairly descriptive, first person point of view, deftly written.
Length: A nice size and length, excellent reading.
Age rating: 12+ (mature read)
Kissing, bulemia, a troubled adolescent lifestyle, a rocky relationship between mother and child, and may trouble younger readers, but not a depressive book. Just shows some different lifestyles.
Overall grade: 

A Dog's Journey by W. Bruce Cameron is a touching, heartfelt book beautifully crafted and showing the loyalty of a dog and its owner. It has a good amount of descriptions - not too flowery or heavy, just sketching a quick picture of the characters. Good plot, demonstrating literary ability and very sentimental and emotional. Shows life, loyalty, navigating through the maze of life, rejecting unhealthy influences and deciding what is best for yourself. Overall, a great read.

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Book Review: The Lost Summer of Louisa May Alcott by Kelly O'Connor McNees

The Lost Summer of Louisa May Alcott

376 pages
Type: Historical fiction
Style: Graceful and descriptive
Length: Good size, a good reading.
Age rating: 11+
Very good but for 11 and up, may be hard for younger children to understand.
Overall grade: 

The Lost Summer of Louisa portrays a young, energetic, independent Louisa, with a good use of words and good descriptions. Leticia and Elise found it both intriguing and well-written. Kelly O'Connor McNees writes this novel elegantly, stylishly, and keeps the reader hooked. Excellent for a book club. Shows sacrifice, big choices, independence, change, the start of a new life mingled with romance. Overall, highly recommended.

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Should Textbooks be Replaced by Laptops?: Leticia

Note: Some of these facts may be inaccurate - sources were not entirely reliable.


People now use laptops to replace TVs, books, information, and lots of other things - including textbooks. According to university professors, 85% of students will have an electronic device in class. Eventually, all of the 85% will use their technology inappropriately. These new, sleek, ultra-modern devices are rapidly replacing textbooks, and dilemmas are emerging. Students and computer companies like Apple want textbooks to be replaced by laptops in class, but some teachers and school boards are opposed. You may want laptops to become the new source of information, but I'll tell you why they shouldn't and show you some things you might not know.

Everyone wants good grades, right? They can help you get to a good university and later a good job. But think, a laptop in class is a whole world of disruptions. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and Netflix are suddenly available to be accessed. Students can play games, check their emails and chat, wasting valuable learning time. During their tests, they will be bewildered, since they didn't listen. They'll get bad grades that limit chances to a good university or college. Grades and the level of educationwill slump, and children that wasted their time will get bad jobs that won't help build the country.

Still not convinced? In addition to being disruptions, computers have short lives. The average computer will last 4 years, and constant use will shorten their brief lives. Planned obsolescence makes it so that computers crash and eventually need to be replaced. Imagine all of the time wasting fixing, updating, and buying new computers when books can last for years! Laptops also carry dangerous chemicals that poison the Earth and contribute to global warming, affecting the fragile food chain. There are 500 million computers in the world that end up harming the environment, slowly decaying in landfills. With schools using laptops that end up poisoning the Earth, the rate of global warming would skyrocket up! What's the point of closing coal mines to help the future generations if we're going to multiply our use of computers?

Lastly, thousands of dollars would be spent on computers. The average school has about 300-500 students. There are 100 million elementary schools in the world. On average, the world would spend 4 000, 000, 000 in elementary schools alone, if each child had a laptop! Cut that in half and it's still an enormous sum. This only lasts for 5 years! A math textbook costs 100 dollars or so, while a cheap laptop costs 300 dollars. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of dollars we'd save by buying textbooks! This money could be spent on better education and material, public health and transportation, and so many more things to ensure a high quality lifestyle.

Are we really going to spend this money on 5 year lasting laptops? We're endangering our future, poisoning the Earth, killing animals, making students more vulnerable to bad grades, helping people think they need laptops, and wasting money. We should invest these giant sums into better thins. This has to stop now, or we'll be in big trouble! Because of these reasons, I think laptops should not replace textbooks.

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca

Welcome to Schoolgirl's World Reviews

Welcome to Schoolgirl's World Reviews, a site entirely created by two budding young schoolgirls, Leticia and Elise, who want to share their ideas and opinions about the world with everyone. Do you think Google is making us stupid? Should computers be replaced by laptops? What do the Parthenon and the Great Pyramids have in common, and what are their differences? Should we buy as much organic food as we can, or should we stick with the cheapest? What about global warming? What do you think?

Questions like these will be answered by Leticia and Elise, and they'll give their opinions and reviews. You'll find book reviews, movie reviews, and thoughts and opinions. Stay tuned for the posts!

If you would like to ask a question, contact Elise at eluriana@ymail.com, and Leticia at leticia.ah10@gmail.com, for them to answer your questions!

Copyright © 2013 schoolgirlworldreviews.blogspot.ca