Final Blog! YAY!

1.) I enjoyed the unit we did on censorship because I never knew how complicated it truly was. The “Thin Gruel” article was fascinating and surprised me how much textbook companies cut from their books.

2.) The cloning debate was another favorite of mine. I always thought that cloning was overall a bad idea but the articles we read presented a positive side to it. Along with cloning, the gender selection article was an interesting topic that I never knew much about.

3.) The battle between teaching evolution or creationism in schools was another topic I enjoyed. I never knew that creationism had such a large following of people trying to get it into school curriculum.

My favorite book this year is a tie between “1984” and “Nigger”. “Nigger” really showed the power and the controversy that words can have over people, races and society. I never knew how complex the word was and all its meanings. “1984” was my favorite to read as a story with a plot. In my opinion, it was the best book we read about the future of societies. It required frequent breaks to simply think about what Orwell was saying; I loved how complex the themes were.

My least favorite book was "Heart of Darkness" because it was really difficult to understand. I did enjoy the parts I could understand and I think I'll go back and reread the parts that didn't make sense to me.

*that picture is me escaping :) *

North Korea- Neotiations

I can’t really agree fully with either side on this issue. I’m sure I don’t have enough information to make an educated judgment. In Kang’s piece his message that “A North Korea that feels threatened and perceives the U.S. administration to be actively attempting to increase pressure on it is unlikely to trust the United States” made me wonder why we weren’t trying to work with North Korean. But then again what kind of “trust” could North Korea give us?

There does seem to be a “spiral of mistrust and misunderstanding” that has clouded any treaties between the United States and North Korea. Kang points out that the U.S. will only back down once North Korea stops their military programs. That doesn’t leave a lot of trust in the equation. The author claims that North Korea wants better relations with the U.S. and the U.S. should respond by “negotiating a nonaggression pact with the North”. Another interesting point brought up in the “yes” article was that, just because North Korea has nuclear weapons, doesn’t mean they are “more likely to engage in unprovoked military acts now than it was before”.

Victor D. Cha also had valid points about North Korea. It could be very harmful to simply let North Korea “off the hook” because they did violate laws and there should be a consequence. It would only “validate their perceived success of the strategy”. Cha declares that it must be the North Koreans who make the first moves forwards a solution because any move from the U.S. would be seen as forgiveness. Then he says that if North Korea is unwilling to cooperate with other countries, “there is no choice but isolation and containment”.

I’m not sure either one is right because they both have good and bad aspects. If the situation in North Korea continues to disintegrate there might be a point where the U.S. has to pick the lesser of two evils; I’m not sure which one is worse.

Mitchell B. Reiss’ article focuses more on the alliances that the United States should be collaborating with to address the problem with North Korea. She has a three step plan that she feels would work best for the U.S. Those three steps recommend that the U.S. shouldn’t be going to the North Koreans for their cooperation, but instead building support with Seoul and Tokyo. Step one recommends that the U.S. should but patient in their solution.

Philip Zelikow’s article (“Be ready to strike and destroy North Korea’s missile test”) said the solution was to take action quickly the first time. He feels that the U.S. should sit around and to see what happens but should take action to disarm North Korea. However, his article did have a similarity with Reiss’ because both acknowledged the need for repaired alliances to fix the problem in North Korea.

Censorship

While I knew censorship was quite political, I never realized that it was so wide spread and so varied in its reasons. Most of the time when I hear about censorship it deals with the “Right” side’s viewpoint. But, after reading “Thin Gruel”, I realized that the “Left” side censorship is just as influential (if not more). Both sides are assuming that kids will model “their behavior on whatever they read” but, because nothing can ever be censored enough, they might as well be saying kids shouldn’t read at all.

The “Right” side seems so old-fashioned in their views and it was interesting to note that textbooks 100 years ago had many of the stories they now object to. Diane Ravitch makes a good point that kids “confront, sooner or later, the reality of death and loss”. Censorship from the right focuses on “protecting” kids from the “harsh” reality of life, but they are sure to encounter that reality soon anyway. Plus, by never reading any stories about those tough situations, kids might feel as if they are the only ones going through those emotions, making them feel isolated.

The “Left” side seems to have a justified reason to censor books (after all who wants sexism, racism etc. in their books?) but the truth is that, by being too politically correct, they’re almost moving backwards. As a feminist I see the need for equality but do we really need to cover up the truth? I completely disagree that people in a minority group are the only ones who can write about that group. Different perspectives are what make stories so interesting sometimes. Plus, some women really are passive and some African Americans are athletic so censoring stories so those traits are never represented, we are denying children the right to see all kinds of people. By trying to hard to make everyone equal, the “Left” side is wiping out individuality. (As author Nat Hentoff said, “…political correctness would stifle free expression”).

“Literary quality became secondary to representational issues”. The purpose of these textbooks is to improve kids’ reading skills. I highly doubt that by simply reading a book or story a child will be scarred for life. There are so many other influences that kids have too (like television and video games) that are probably worse than a book. I think the real problem is that people tend to think kids are stupid. But that assumption that kids can’t think for themselves is creating a world similar to the one described in 1984. I don’t think people are really protecting the children, I think they are protecting themselves. By limiting the children’s’ selection of stories we’re only hurting their future, not ours.

1984 Blog #1

What are the Party mottos? What is unusual about them?

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” Their mottos are complete contrasts and they contradict each other. They are oxymorons by our society’s standards.

What is Newspeak? What is its purpose?

It’s the language that the people in Oceania now use instead of the traditional Oldspeak. In the Newspeak words are shorter and less descriptive. The whole purpose is to control people even more because they won’t be able to commit thoughtcrime when using Newspeak.

Why is it essential for the Party to rid the language of synonyms and antonyms?

Again the whole point of Newspeak is control. Synonyms and antonyms eliminate all words except one word from a feeling/etc. In this way, thoughcrimes couldn’t even be possible and people wouldn’t have to be “vanished”. People couldn’t even comprehend rebellion.

How does the Party control history? Why?

They have workers who go into the old newspapers, documents, etc. and change records so that they fit the propaganda that Big Brother is currently representing. They also destroy records of people who were “vanished” and sometimes create people. The history is altered so that people always believe that Big Brother is right and their lies become the truth.

Who is Emmanuel Goldstein and how is he presented to the people of Oceania?

He is a leader of the opposition of Big Brother. His face is used in the “Two Minute Hate” where people are forced to watch his speeches against Big Brother and taught to hate him. He is shown as a sheep in Oceania and at the end of the “Two Minute Hate” his face is shown baaing.

Cloning: "Right" or "Wrong"?

I used to think most cloning was wrong but, as with any grey-area issue, there are positives and negatives. I think that the cloning used to help patients is a good thing because there could be life-saving effects. But I do understand that it could be seen as harvesting humans for our own gain. I’m honestly torn between the two sides and I don’t think I’m in a position to say whither it is “right” or “wrong”.

The use of cloning to protect endangered species is one type I’m for. But I think that only species who are endangered or extinct because of our doing should be candidates for cloning. If we bring back naturally extinct species we will be messing up the natural order of nature. I know the opposition to this kind of cloning says that people will feel less guilty about destroying habitat knowing the animals that live there can be cloned, but I think those people will destroy habitat no matter what. The only real problem with this is the fact that the cloned animals might not have any habitat or niche to return to in the wild anymore.

As for the cloning of humans, I am completely against that. Call me conservative on this one but I just think that humans weren’t made to be duplicated in that way. I also don’t think that pets should be cloned for no reason. Cloning is a scientific tool that has a lot of power and I don’t think it should be used lightly.

Who knows? The future might look like Brave New World. For now though I think there are a lot of moral and ethical questions that need to be answered before cloning takes the next step to humans. Then again, everyone’s moral and ethical range and tolerance is different so human cloning might not be very far off.

Ecstasy and Soma

The problem is that the mind is such a powerful and complex mystery that it seems unlikely that any society or drug could completely control every mind. The problem is that the drug soma is only creating fake happiness instead people having complete happiness. The problem with having truth and happiness combined together is that they can’t always co-exist all the time. Truth can lead to pain and unhappiness but it can make the happiness all the more important.

People like Bernard and Helmholtz probably feel a part of that truth and so they can’t fit in with the happy society. Ecstasy is similar to soma in that it is a hallucinogen. Soma and ecstasy also both raise heart rate and, while soma won’t kill a person in the short-term, they both have long-term effects. Ecstasy can make a person feel temporarily happy but increase depression and anxiety afterwards. Soma doesn’t seem to have that effect. Both create a false happiness that isn’t based on anything.

Brave New Babies

I think that having the ability to determine gender has both pros and cons. The deciding factor (of if we should use this technology) should be whichever one (pros or cons) outweighs the other. But really that is an opinion and therefore will probably be debated for a long time. Personally I believe that deciding the gender of one’s baby has more cons to it. As the article states, history has shown that cultures will value one gender over the other and, with the new technology, it could lead to gender discrimination (the chart really has nothing to do with gender preselection but it has some interesting facts on gender discrimination). It also seems unfair that only relatively well-off parents could afford such a procedure. And with all the things we waste money on, should it really be on a child’s gender when either gender should be good enough?

However, I don’t think that people shouldn’t go as far as say that this technology will lead to choosing intelligence etc. because, again as the article states, there are more factors to those characteristics. What I object to is the desire to create a “perfect”, “balanced” family. There is no such thing as a perfect family and the desire for perfection shouldn’t be the goal of a family anyway. I think that if parents aren’t ready for one gender then their not ready for either; they should be able to be happy with either gender. Plus, the fact is some of those gender-chosen babies might be gay or transgender probably destroying the “perfect” family image that the parents created. If someone was really focused on one gender, there are a lot of babies who need adoptive parents. But in the end, gender shouldn’t define how much a parent loves or wants their child.

Health Article

In the Sydney Morning Herald on April 2, 2009, an article was published about a need for better veteran mental health care. The article describes how a report will be published soon about the number of suicides among veterans and the quality of care veterans are receiving. The government is apparently working with veteran groups to improve their system of care. The Australian government says that the system has improved but that is still could be better. This article is similar to reports we hear on the news about the American health services for veterans; there have been scandals about their care in the past. It seems both health systems need
to be changed.


Article found on: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/veterans-mental-health-could-be-better-20090402-9kr1.html

Brave New World Reaction

Brave New World is like most science fiction novels when it tries to describe a world both drastically different from our own but still has a resemblance so the readers can somehow connect. I was a little horrified with the way no one seemed to show emotions in the new world; it seems to me that emotions are what definitions humanity and without them, the people act like robots. As for the connection with today’s world, I think the fears some people have for technology are addressed in Brave New World. It’s on the news a lot about how people are against stem cell research because some believe it will lead to cloning or “baby farming”. Brave New World is interesting because when Huxley wrote the novel, it was probably based on trends or fears he saw in his own society. Huxley took some social taboos of his time (and some are still relevant today) and made them the social norms of the future.

Iran and "The Prince"

David J. Rusin is a very strong persuasive writer, but I still disagree with him. Are we really a nation “…of heightened peril”? Can Iran really be a major threat when they have yet to make the bomb and are moving so slowly? Technology does enhance the terrorist operations, but it doesn’t seem to be enhancing Iran ’s. I agree that the Islamic Republic probably shouldn’t get a bomb because of its unstable nature, but I don’t see the need for a preemptive strike.

Rusin uses Machiavellian principles to support his argument and, while it is a classic novel, the same methods and rules may not be as relevant in today’s world. We have a more complicated global world that has more consequences for impulsive actions such as preemptive strikes.

His piece also argues that the United States is the last chance for the world and that, if we don’t act, no one will. I think that the belief that the U.S. is the only nation that can ever solve anything is misguided and egotistical. Rusin again tries to use Machiavelli for proof that we should strike first by saying that the U.S. shouldn’t be afraid to be feared because being loved isn’t safe. I disagree because the U.S. is bordering on being hated which Machiavelli says should be avoided. A country can be feared and not hated according to Machiavelli but the U.S. has not achieved this with Iran .

Another argument Rusin makes is that to delay war with Iran is immoral (if it would cause peril down the line). But I think that war in general is immoral. Rusin is using the typical do-or-die approach to his argument. He plays with readers’ emotions and tries to convince them that they have to attack Iran first or face destruction. I don’t think the situation is so “black and white”; it’s in the shade of grey.

Heart of Darkness: Part 3

“In seasons of pestilence some of us will have a secret attraction to the disease--a terrible passing inclination to die of it. And all of us have like wonders hidden in our breasts, only needing circumstances to evoke them.”

In your response include what this statement means, how it applies to Heart of Darkness, and at least one other book you have read so far in Senior Social.

It means that some people are drawn to evil actions (“the disease”). It almost describes a human incapability to avoid what could hurt and, are instead, attracted to it (“inclination to die of it”). The statement is saying we all have these dark thoughts within ourselves waiting for “circumstances” of the “disease” to draw them out of us. In “The Hear of Darkness”, Kurtz is drawn to that same “disease” and leaves the European way of living behind. Marlow is too attracted to the idea of Africa, but soon realizes that his curious nature has brought him into a reality he knows nothing about. The statement is also like “Inherit the Wind” where all the towns’ people probably had these “wonders” on their minds dealing with evolution. They were drawn to the courtroom and the trail because of that “secret attraction” and, perhaps some, like Mr. Cates, had an “inclination to die of it”.

Heart of Darkness: Part 2

1. What are the important things he learns from this exchange?

First of all, the conversation is about Kurtz and Marlow learns that he wants to take over the manger’s job. He also learns that Kurtz had an ivory business and that Kurtz had gotten ill around then and didn’t fully recover.

2. What is the uncle gesturing towards at the end?

He hints that the manager should just kill the man because no one would ever find out in that environment.

3. Summarize Marlow’s meditation on the cannibal crew. What is he impressed with?

Marlow is impressed that the “cannibals” don’t attack him or the crew because they must be so hungry. The money they are paid is useless to them and the rotten hippo that they brought with them was gone so Marlow is surprised that they can restrain themselves.

Darfur

While David Rieff makes a strong argument, I disagree with most of his opinions. He claims that people are forgetting that politics are involved in the problem. All he seems to be saying is America is unpopular and if we step in with Darfur we’ll be seen as invaders. I don’t think that has to be the case, and I don’t agree when he says there are only two outcomes if America interferes. I believe that the situation is complicated, but when human beings are killed it’s not that complicated that there should be a question of whether to help or not. Rieff also claims it should be the work of the U.N. While the U.S. did make a mistake in Iraq, the U.N. isn’t that much better (Rwanda).

However, I don’t entirely agree with Lawrence F. Kaplan either. He claims that “Darfur can be saved by one thing and one thing alone: American power”. I think it’s arrogant to assume that America has ultimate power. This shouldn’t even be a debate; in America or the world. As Eric Reeves said, “How many must die before the world says, ‘Enough?’”

Heart of Darkness: Part 1

1. Who are the two narrators of the novel? Describe the situation and characters on board the Nellie.

Marlow and a man who is listening to Marlow’s story as they sail aboard the Nellie. They are sailing on the Thames which implies they are in England.

2. As he begins his story, what does Marlow emphasize about England's history?

Marlow says that England’s history is based off taking over places that can’t fight back. That it was built off imperialism.

3. Marlow says, "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. . . . something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to" . What does he mean? Is this a justification of imperialism and colonialism?

He’s saying that the treatment is unfair, but there nothing an individual can do about it. It’s too big and so there is no point in trying to stop the inevitable. I don’t think it’s justification for imperialism and colonialism because accepting things the way they are is a weak way of living. It might be the way things are now, but it doesn’t always have to stay that way.

4. Comment on Marlow's discussion of maps in part one. How does this relate to colonialism?

The maps represent the uncharted parts of the world during Marlow’s childhood. Africa, however, was being filled in with rivers and such but it was still a mystery land. That intrigued Marlow and he wanted to explore. Basically, colonialism was a big reason why the maps were being filled in; countries wanted more land and so they sent out more explorers to find it.

Stay With the U.N. or Not?

I don’t know if we should stay with the United Nations. I used to be so sure that the organization was good for the world, but it seems, like any organization, it has its flaws. I don’t agree completely with either Seastrand or Monitor. There are drastic flaws in the Security Council as Seastrand pointed out. What I don’t think was mentioned, though was all the other programs that focus on such things as education or sanitation. After reading this packet and watching “Beyond the Gates”, I don’t think Monitor is correct in arguing the U.N. is only getting better and the United States should stay involved the way it is now. Are there inherit problems with the U.N.? I think so; the evidence points to that conclusion. Could the U.N. be remade? I’m not sure, but maybe it’s worth a try.

“…it is unlikely that universal peace will ever be attained” (G. Edward Griffin, The United States Should Withdraw from the U.N.). I don’t care how many scientific theories there are claiming it’s human nature, I still believe the world could achieve peace. Whither or not the U.N. has a role in that goal, I don’t know. But it’s worth a shot.