Summary of both Aesop's fable and Sumerset story

In Aesop's fable "The Ant and the Grasshopper" Aesop talked about how Ant was able to stored some food through his hardwork in the summer time while Grasshopper was dancing, having fun around. But when winter time came, Grasshopper had an empty larder, and he went to Ant weather he might get some food unfortunately, he didn't.
Sumerset described Tom and George as the Ant and the Grasshopper in his story, but the end of these  two brothers wasn't like the end of Ant and the Grasshopper. George, who is hardworking ended up with red face and some little amount of money. While his younger brother(Tom), who act as "Grasshopper" ended up in wealth.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

The Aesop's fable  and the Sumerset story is similar, but their ending was different. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy implies to Sumerset story, and this was due to the way George handled his situatuon. Being hardworking doesn't mean you shouldn't give yourself time to relaxe and enjoy your life. Atleast, you work for the money, and you should be able to enjoy it by yourself. If you don't and you died, someone else would spend it. Nevertheless, I still support the Sumerset story because it hints those people who are hardworking like George that they should know how to manage themselves while they are hardworking. And also, that being hardworking doesn't determine sucess at all times, so they have to take life easy. But the only part I didn't support is the ending. The ending of Sumerset story doesn't encourage hardworking. The way Tom enjoyed his life was bad. It shows that he doesn't care about his family. That is a selfish life. 

Home work.

In "The Ant and the Grasshopper", W. somerset talked about two brothers. The younger one, "Tom", left his wife and two children and his job. He said he didn't like work; he went to different Capitals in Europe to enjoy himself, and he spent two happy years. His older brother "George" spent all his days working so hard aiming that he would retire at fifty-five to his house and enjoy playing golf and cultivates his garden. At the end, Tom ended in Half a million pounds, a yacht, a house in London, and another house in the country with his young and good-looking stature. while George grew red in the face with little amount of money. In the fable, Grasshopper did something related to the Tom, but he earned nothing at the end. While Ant did exactly like George, and he was able to sustained himself during the winter period. I agree with Aesop because his story persuaded the reader to work hard.

Ant and the Grasshopper (Opinion)

What I saw in the story of Tom and George was quite different to what was being said in the Fable "The Ant and the Grasshopper". It was like a "metaphor", but not really because Ant was very busy working and at the winter time he was able to ripe his good hard work he had sowed . Nevertheless, I think the behavior of Tom shows that he was an irresponsible person. He is not family oriented. Behaviors like this has made many men lose their potentials.

The Ant and the Grasshopper (summary)

In "The Ant and the Grasshopper" W. somerset talked about two brothers who were happily married. The younger one "Tom" left his wife and two children and his job. He said he didn't like work; he went to different Capitals in Europe to enjoy himself, and he spent two happy years. His older brother "George" spent all his days working so hard aiming that he would retire at fifty-five to his house and enjoy playing golf and cultivates his garden. At the end, Tom ended in Half a million pounds, a yacht, a house in London, and another house in the country with his young and good-looking stature. while George grew red in the face.  

I am "The Ant"

I am "The Ant"! The reason why I said this is that I always tried to prepare myself for tomorrow. There is an adage that says "Don't brag about tomorrow because you don't know what the day may bring". As a result of this, I always prepare so that I won't get stuck or be looking for help form other people when things are scarce or not available

Summary (Friendship Bond)

In The Friendship Bond" by Mary Brown Parlee. Mary talked about the research they conducted; she said over 40,000 readers express their opinions on what they looked for in close friendship. She said friendship is unlike marriage or ties that bind parents and children or something regulated by law. Mary mentioned trust and acceptance which are the most important elements in a successful friendship. She tells us that according to the psychologist, trust is very important because it allows people to be honest and to share important secret with one another. But Mary discovered that most friendship ends as a result of betrayed.

Interpretation & Opinion (friendship Bond)

In "The Friendship Bond" Mary Brown Parlee says more than 40,000 readers express their thought on what they looked for in close friendships like: what they expected of friends, what they were willing to give in return and how satisfied they were in return and with the quality of their friendships. Mary explained that friendship appears to be a unique form of human bonding. It has it's own subjective principle which is enhance feelings of warmth, trust, love, and affection between two people. She made mention of the questionnaire on friendship that appeared in the march issue of Psychology today, which confirmed that issue of trust and betrayal are central to friendship. Not only that it also suggested that readers should not look for friends only among these who were like them, but find many who differ in race, sexual preference, religion, and ethnic background. Furthermore, Mary mention social critics and how they pointed to the dislocation and isolation that they think grows out of the high mobility rate among Americas and a loss of community supports. In my own point of view, I think social critics are more or less right with their points because nowadays people do not have trust in each other, and also they turn away in time of emotional crisis. Most especially Immigrants which are peculiar people that suppose to be in one fold, but instead they backbite each other; they find it difficult to confide in each other, and turn away to each other when it comes assistance. This could definitely bring isolation and dislocation. But all the same, friendships are alive and well because the survey in the article shows us the part that the social critics do not see.

Response ( Sunday in the park)

There was a time when I was in the parking lot next to my house with friend. Two woman were arguing about the parking space, one was Spanish and the other one was black. According to what I heard, these two woman were living in the apartment next to each other. And most of time they used to disturbed each other especially the black woman by playing loud music at all times. so this particular day, I thought the Spanish woman didn't park very well; she parked in-between her parking space and the black woman's space. Unfortunately, this leads to their dispute. Meanwhile, the black woman had been doing such things for about five to six times said by the Spanish woman. Actually, I didn't watched the whole event. I had to leave since the matter are getting complicated. Probably, they might have resolved the issue because I heard that the matter was later took to the civil court.

Sunday in the park (summary)

In the article by Bel Kaufman "Sunday in the Park", the author talked about two families who were arguing just because of one child threw a spade of sand at the second child. Morton, the mother of the second child felt very unconfortable with the situation, but she didn't react until her husband step in, and the father of the obese child told his son that it was ok to continue throwing the sand if he wanted to because they were at a public park. When Morton heard that she decided to leave the park, because she felt that fighting wouldn't resolved anything.

Sunday in the park" (Opinion and Inetrepretations)

In the article, two family were fighting just because one child throw a spadeful of sand at the child that belongs to the second family when they were playing in the park. As a result of this, the two family begin to have conversations that want to lead to fight. At the end, one family decided to take their child and leave the park. In my own opinion, Violence doesn't solve a conflict at all times especially when it comes to children matters. Most of the time parents like to fight because of their children which creates hatred in some children of different parents, but most of the time we would discovered that these children often get closer despite the quarrel between their parents.

what I like about the story was that, the story looks like a real story. when I was reading it, I felt like I was watching the movie of the article, but on the contrary, some part of it doesn't look like real because the author didn't mention the name of the second family that was involved in the conversations.