N-Word Bolg #2

Words have power hence the saying, "The pen is mightier than the sword." Words can either build someone up or tear them down. However, the intent of a word such as the n-word cannot be changed.

That is what the website, abolishthenword.com, is trying to say. many blacks were hunged for no reason other than they were black. They are the strange fruit the song is referring to. Also, the main point is that the many that were lynched were called the n-word before death, this cannot be erased.

I agree with Kennedy. With the n-word it does depend on who says it and who they are saying it to that determines the actions/feelings after. If two black people say it, it's meant to mean brother. They are trying to lighten the meaning. However, in the "60 Minutes" interview it was said that they are TRYING to lighten it, but they cannot. This is why when a white person says it to a black person it brings back the original intent/meaning, Hatred.

It is beneficial to examine all angles of the word, this way people are informed about the harm one word can cause. Also, they will be informed about whether it is actually wise to say the word or not. This words origingal intent can never be erased, the best that we can do is to enlighten people about the hatred it spreads and hope that they will chose not to use it. We cannot abolish a word because it breaks the first amendment, freedom of speech, also what other words will America chose to ban. Hopefully, with the intent behind the meaning revealed enough people will ban it from their own vocabulary and then nobody will feel comfortable using it in public at least.

Nigger Blog

This book discusses the controversies of this word. I found two disturbing quotes that to me prove how disturbing and offensive this word really is.

The first is on page 18. "Recalling the difficulties she faced in raising her black son in a household with her white female lover, the poet Audre Lorde noted that 'for years in the name-calling at school, boys shouted at [her son] not--'your mother's a lesbian'--but rather--'your mother's a nigger.' The students thought that it was worse the color of her skin rather than what they say to most lesbian white mothers.

The second is on page 27. The residents of a suburb in the late 1900's thought it was worse to have a "nigger" in their neighborhood than a child molester. They raised no issues when a child molester entered, but once a few "niggers" came around they went straight to the judge to have them evicted. How sad is that. These parents would rather have the risk of their children being molested rather than be around an innocent black veteran who fought for our freedom.

Bowling For Columbine

Moore uses the Socratic method well; he questions everything. He questions why there are more gun rates in the U.S. then Canada. He questions every ones' reasons behind it. For example, some of the American citizens said it was because Americans watch more violent movies and play more violent video games. However, Moore proves this wrong.

Then the Americans said that it was their history was less violent. Once again Moore proves this theory wrong with questioning. He questioned the NRA leader himself. He was asked, "Why are the gun deaths so much higher than every other country in the world?" Answer: "Their histories are less violent then ours." Question: "Germany has a less violent history, what was the Holocaust then?" He questions the answers given.

Crito vs. Socrates

I would have to agree with Socrates because Crito doesn't really make any arguements, otherthan selfish ones. He basically says that he doesn't want to let Socrates die because of what people will say about him, not Socrates, about Crito.

However, Socrates wants to die for the greater good. He says that if he runs that no one will listen to his teachings. He also says that it would be like giving up on what he believes in. Which I agree with, because who would listen to a coward?

Socrate's Quote

"The unexamined life is not worth living." This quote relates to my past, present, and my future. In the past and the present I always ask, "Why?" for everything. I am always curious about what is happening and why it is happening. This makes life interesting to ask questions.

Then this quote can also mean finding out who I am as a person. It is about examining my life after all. This is very important because if you don't know who you are then you're not living, not truely anyways.

Lastly, I want a scientific career. This will definately require asking questions and examining every single detail. My life, wouldn't be mine or worth it if I didn't get my career. I have wanted to be this since I was five years old, so it means a lot to me.

Should Inteligent Design be taught in schools?

I think that in order to fully understand then both need to be taught in schools. This way the students can question each topic, also it goes along with what Amber said in class, being able to question is what learning really is. I totally agree, how else are we to find the flaws and totally understand if we do not question.

Also, what Laura said works too, in evolution they still haven't said how the first organism got here, which means isn't that a flaw. Also, she said that you can't really say how the first organism got here without bringing in a higher being into it. So, isn't that Intelligent Design.

What I've Learned

I found the issue of creationism vs. evolution as interesting. I am a Christian myself so I see the view point of Drummond asking, "How long were the first three days, really?" very important. I now can believe in both evolution, which is taught in the classroom, and creationism, which is taught at home.

I find it easier to agree with both then to have to decide between one or the other. One is all belief, the other has proof. However, both together, are a force, they have belief and proof. So, this will help with my future studies; I want to go into biology, which is a science feild. So, know my beliefs and my studies might not collide as bad.

Extra Credit of Rendition

I don't agree with torture; in this movie the man was completely innocent, but he still said that he did it just to make the torture stop. So, how valid is the information from doing this. Also, they treated him better as a terrorist than when he wouldn't give any answers. What message is this sending? Another thing when he returned home there was a complete change in him. After something like that no one would ever be the same again, and in this movie he wasn't the same man after this. Lastly, this doesn't just affect the person in torture, this also affects the family. He was an American citizen, with an American family, but yet no one was told what happened to him, they didn't know if he was alive or dead. How is this fair to anyone?

Inherit The Wind

The playwrights imply that the themes of their play are timeless and universal because no matter what day and age these themes will still be relevent. For example, evolution vs. creationism, that is still discussed today. Religious people are still debating what Drummond said, "How long were the first three days before the sun was made." So, could evolution have happened?

Also, separation between church and state, that still goes on today. There are still people who say that there is not a complete separation between these two. Some say that the government tries to teach morality.

Lastly, stand for your beliefs even if you have to stand alone. Cates had to stand alone, but he still did, just like today. There are so many quotes or songs about standing up for what you believe or you'll fall for anything. In this election that is going on if you go on to Obama's website it says that he had to stand alone when going against the war in Iraq.

Should Promoting Democracy Abroad be a Top U.S. Priority?

I agree with the no article because it made better arguements. The Arab's don't trust the U.S. because Bush keeps contradicting himself. How can we help if they won't allow us too? Also, the reform programs did nothing, but cause lots of debt, and it didn't help much. The no article also gives ways to help so we can promote democracy, so the no article is more of there are things that have to be done first then promote, which is what I thought.

Should Arab democrats believe us? The United States has had past support for autocrats, President Bush in November, but we are preaching democracy in the Middle East. Contradictory much? Then some Arabs doubt that President Bush's staying power on behalf of Iraqi democracy, they also doubt that was his goal. Would you follow somebody you couldn't trust? I wouldn't. Also, the United States put itself in a bind when they said that everything will go well with Iraq. Because of this if we fail in Iraq we fail with the Arabs and they loose all trust in us.

Training morocco's feeble parliament; assisted elections commision in Yemen's de facto one-party state; convened a group of Arab judges; education programs, "English in a Box" for Jordanian and Moroccan teachers, Internet connections for Yemeni high schools, and a "child-centered education program" for North Africa and the Gulf. All of this adds to about $3,431,425,000, all this money to help, but none of these stand a chance for a tangible political change.

First, the U.S. government must do a better job of coordinating its assistance programs for civil society with its diplomatic agenda. Then American foreign policy must communicate to Arab governments that states that are actually changing the ditribution of political power will enjoy better relations with the United States than those that talk about reform but fail to implement it. Finally, the United States must trust that shared interests with its Arab interlocutors will mediate the tensions that an effective democratization effort is bound to create.

Is Torture Okay:: Yes or No

I would agree with the no side because it makes a better arguement and because I personally don't agree with torture. The United States stands for freedom and torture is the complete opposite of freedom, as said in the article.

The no article states that with the tortue comes the fact that you have to break a person, and after that the person can never be the same again. In order to break a person you turn him into something subhuman, you enslave him. To me that is compeletly morally wrong.

Also, with torturing comes the fact that how can you know if the detainee is actually telling the truth? In order to stop the torture they would say anything, even if in reality they knew nothing. I expecially agree with this part after watching the movie Rendition; he lied just to get the torture to stop. And on top of that they had no proof to hold him or to torture him, there was no reason for this man to be there. The man broke down and said that he was a terrorist and he was treated better as a terrorist then as a prisoner.

3:10 to Yuma

This movie did have nature vs. nurture in it, but somehow I can't support my view with the movie. The man who was to be put on the train to Yuma was supposed to be a very bad man, but he really wasn't. However, he basically raised himself. His mother left him at a train station reading nothing but the Bible for three days. That doesn't sound like a very good upbringing.

Then the boy never listened to his father. He had a mouth on him and had a huge ego. He also loved to hurt his father by putting him down, but he was raised with care. In the end, his nurturing did win; he wanted to stay and help the man that had helped him, his father.

I think in this movie nature wins the arguement. I can't seem to spin it to make the nurture come out on top.

Dead Teen Walking

The article "Dead Teen Walking" connects to White Fang because of some of the issues brought up in the article. For example, Nature vs. Nurture, is brought up in both White Fang and the article. Some people in the article state that if a child is mature enough to murder then they are mature enough to be punished for it. Others, thought that since most of the children on death row were subject to child abuse then it wasn't completely their fault and should be cut some slack. That is another thing that White Fang and "Dead Teen Walking" have in common. They both mention abuse being a major cause of destructive behavior. In White Fang, Beauty Smith was abused as a child and he then in turn abused White Fang. The children on death row were abused and in return they "killed."

I am completely against putting children on death row, expecially if they were abused in their home. Yes, adults are abused and committ crimes too, but they have been out of the household for a while and away from that environment. However, a child/teen, the abuse happened yesterday. Also, teens have hormones running haywire in their systems, add that to peer pressure, hecktic lives and you have a destination of disaster. I'm not saying that these are excuses for them to get away with their crimes, but for me it does get them out of the death penality.

Reading White Fang did not influence my opinion on this matter at all. I'm a very stubborn person and once my mind is made up, it stays that way. I never thought that the U.S. did have children on death row, but I thought that that was a good thing. I also thought that children being put to death in third world contries was insane so I never wanted it to happen here.

What Makes Us Moral

After reading the Time Magazine article "What Makes Us Moral" it did not change my oppinion one bit. Of course, that could be because I am bullheaded, but my oppinion didn't change. The article did list facts for both sides of the arguement, but to me the facts for nurture stood out the most.

For example, when the preschooler was told no food in the classroom the student followed the rules. When the teacher lifted the rule the student was happy to eat in class. However, when the teacher said it was okay to push another student off a chair, the student hesitated. The student said, "No, the teacher shouldn't say that." The student has morality embeded in them; it was taught to them, it was nurture. Just like in White Fang the grey cub knew love from his mother and father, and Scott, but when it was taken away from him he grew angry. At the end of the book White Fang was happy and lovey with the puppies; it was embeded in him.

Humans are normally taught from birth about morality. It is proved with the dilemmas given to the people while they were in an fMRI. Also with the tests of 'I feel your pain.' In the book Lord of the Flies when the kids first got to the island the moralities were still intact.

White Fang vs. The Lord of the Flies

I enjoyed White Fang the most because I thought it had a better story line, better descriptions and I agreed with the author more. In Lord of the Flies I didn't really care for children killing eachother, that just didn't appeal to me. Also, there were more exciting and guessing parts in White Fang. For example, the what's going to happen next question, I asked way more while reading White Fang then with Lord of the Flies. In White Fang the author agues that it is nurture not nature, which I agree with. I believe that the envioronment that one is brought up in will tell whether there will be evil or not and how much.

Schindler's List

The article talks about the holocaust and how people would try to hide the Jews. Also says that most Jews were hidden as a group and by a group instead of just a neighbor. In the movie Schindler had help with "hiding" his workers and "hid" more than a 1,000 Jews.

The article also talks about how the hiders didn't see a Jew they saw a person. At the end of the movie Schindler says that he didn't do enough, he didn't save enough PEOPLE. "The car, why did I keep the car? They would've bought the car. There is ten people. Ten more people." Schindler was upset with himself for not saving enough people, he considered himself selfish for keeping anything instead of selling it or trading it for at least one more person saved.

The movie and article also say the Holocaust was an act against humanity. That was why people hid the Jews in the article. Also, why the commander was hanged at the end of the movie.

Did Communism Threaten America's Internal Security After WWII?

In my opinion yes, Communism did threaten America's Internal Security. I also thought the "yes" arguement was better.

The information in the "no" arguement said that thte First and Fifth Amendment rights were suspended. Laws/Amendments are necessary for security and equality for the American people. These Amendments were not followed because of the fear of Communism. What really turned me away from the "no" arguement was the mentioning of McCarthy. McCarthy hurt innocent people by accusing them without proof. Does that not prove that Communism hurt America's security?

Also, the "yes" arguement was better because it brought up the "Venona Project." This uncovered U.S. government officials passing information to the Soviet Union, the Communists. They also brought up two other hightly sensitive documents, The Secret World of American Communism and The Soviet World of American Communism.

Letter Home #2

April 1914

Dear Pa,

The army isn't that bad, but the front is horrible. The trenches fill with water and my friends are dropping like flies from trench foot. Meaning they get to go to the hospital and out of the front. Now they are making us change our socks and powder them twice a day. I don't understand how we can when there is never a dry day when we can stop running from the shells. In the past four months there were about 20 dry days, if that. The food that we have is eaten by rats, I hate those things. They get into everything, all the food that we finally receive is taken by those fat and dirty creatures.

I will be home on leave in a few months, keep my bed warm. I'm excited to see everyone. Tell everyone hi for me. Oh, and before I forget don't tell mom about the front. You know how she worries, we don't need that. Just tell her that it isn't as bad as what people are saying.

Sincerley your son,

Joseph

Letter Home #1

November 1916



Dear Mom,

This war is gruesome and I cannot see how people can call this a holy war. The soldiers come in here sick, dying, or dead. If they are alive they beg for an escape. Some of the soldiers come in with missing arms, legs or have bubbles on their faces. I feel so bad because I cannot take all of their pain away. The soldiers are giving up so much for me and there is nothing I can do for them. The soldiers who come in with gangrene have to get an amputation, which is messy, but the worst are the ones who come in from the gas. The ones with gas die a slow and painful death. Their face bubbles, they feel like they cannot breathe and this lasts for weeks and there is nothing to be done to ease the pain.

They will do anything to stay away from going back to the front. I'm going to tell you something, but you cannot tell anyone. The doctors here let some of the soldiers pay to say that they cannot go back to the front. I don't know what to do anymore the soldiers shouldn't have to go back, but the doctors accepting pay like that is wrong. Please help, oh and p.s. I'm fine and healthy.

Sincerely your daughter,

Molly La'Fronte

WWI Reaction Essay

When I first started reading these I thought that I knew about most of the things that went on in the battles, but I was proven wrong. I mean I knew about the rats, the disease, the shell shock, and I knew about the weather, but I guess not as well as I had previously thought. I did not know all the gross details.

I knew that the rats ate the corpses, but I didn't know that the rats would also eat the wounded. I knew that their was diseases going around like gangrene, but I didn't know about the trench foot or trench fevor. I did know about shell shock, but I didn't know about the different levels of shell shock. I didn't even know that people would claw at their own mouths when they had it. Lastly, I knew that weather plays a huge part in battles, but I didn't know that it would rain so much. I guess it never registered before that the trenches would fill up and the soldiers would have to still walk/run through.

Like I said I knew about the things that had happened in the war, but not as in detail as these articles. Some of the things mentioned in the article I had heard before, but it never really registered. For example, the weather, I had heard that it was raining a ton during the war, but it didn't register before that the trenches would fill.

Extra Credit Blog: Various Viewpoints

I think that all the reasons for America's foray into imperialism were right. I don't think that it was just one reason, I think that it was all of them.
America was peer pressured into some of it. America was new and getting stronger. As a young and still new country America needed to prove itself, and so did its leaders. America needed to be the best, to prove itself.
Also, feminism was coming around causing some to feel more fiminine and less manly. The country wanted to prove that it was still "manly." So it had to again prove itself.
Expansionism was huge. People were always wanting more land anywhere they could get it. More land, more power, more everything. Also, the economy was expanding. If the output was great that lead to needing more materials, meaning imports.
Everthing was connected, if one thing expanded everything did. If one thing became feminine everything did, which meant that the country would have to prove itself. Everything was all about power.

Was Reconstruction a "Splendid Failure"?

I agree with the yes position. This position realizes that the reconstruction era was difficult, but also realizes the good that came along with it. The Southerners had a hard time getting back into the Union and had to agree to terms they didn't like. The newly freedmen had difficulty with the new political power they had attained.

Reconstruction took longer than if Lincoln would have been there, but reconstruction still happened. The Union was saved, it took awhile, but it happened. Yes, the blacks were still treated poorly, but it was a foot in the door. They had a foot hold, they received their freedom. They were also given citizenship and everything that came along with it. For example the right to vote, own property and right to happiness.