N Word

After reading the book I do agree what Andy Rooney says is applied in the book. However, I don't agree with him personally. I agree with what the other lady had said against him: "We as the whites, need to address the problem and not use the word, however the blacks need to realize it was the past and get over it." That is somewhat of what she said, but I do agree with her. As whites, we don't need to instigate the problem, but as blacks, they shouldn't hold that over our heads (however WE SHOULD NOT use the word!!). While browsing the website I had seen that they had cards you could buy and all though I did think that it was a neat way to spread the word of NOT using the N word, I just don't understand if they are trying to "abolish" the word, why keep bringing it up in all these forms and not just leaving it alone. It's like digging up a grave--what's in the past cannot be changed but you eventually have to get over it...well that's sort how I think of it. Kennedy had showed both sides of the arguement however most of the issues were still towards teh blacks. Starting on page 65, there was a newspaper that was published stating a lot of foul language describing their teacher because he was black. I couldn't believe when I read that because that would never happen today. Especially in the school newspaper!! I think it is good to explore the word, like reading the book, for example. I think everyone should be aware of it, but then again, it's also something we need to move on from as a country. I guess it's really hard to say and very confusing also, when we think about the actions we take on becoming educated with the past...I think it depends on the person if the word can lose its meaning. Of course when we hear the word, as whites, we take a step back and say or think "Whoa, you shouldn't be using that word..." It's basically like an instant reflex, like at the doctors office when they tap your knee and it comes forward. We know its bad, we, as a person don't use the word, however, when it is used around us, we stop and think. So really, I don't think we can change the intent of the word no matter if we use it "friendly" or not because it has a past. And we can't change or erase the past. To me, words don't have power at all. There are tones obviously that may irritate me; for example, if people are being mean to others, but if someone calls me a name, I am definatly not affended by it. Words are very small to be, however this may be different for someone else.

N-Word Questions

1.) There is definatly more than one meaning to the word. Again, it all depends on who you are. The semantics of the word has definatly decreased as time went on. In the early 1900's the word was used with strong hatred towards blacks because they were "worthless in other peoples eyes." Over time, people have nonsegregated the societies. I really don't think it's used in our community, I can't really say if it is used a lot or not 'cause I'm not everyone, but I really think it's not as big of an issue as it was earlier in the years. For me the word is offensive, but I'm not colored so I really don't know what it's like to be called that. Words don't take a huge affect on me so it very hard to say. My parents generation, well, when they seen the book they were shocked that we were allowed to read it. If this word was used in a racial community, they wouldn't think anything of the word. They would use it because that's what they are accustomed to. I think that by using the term nigger, towards people, is very cruel, and shouldn't be happening, but it does. Well, I really think that no matter what, nigger should not be used in any cirrcumstance. It doesn't matter who uses it, where they use it, it really has the same affect.
2.) I understand where she is coming from for the most part, but since I have not been in her shoes, for me, it isn't as big of a deal. I don't think she was right because this teacher, Danny Hanson, wants to help his students understand the meaning of the word and no matter how you use it, it is inappropriate and harmful. Bottom line, he wanted to inform this new generation of the meaning behind the word nigger. To Marla Hendricks, it probably would have made a difference if Danny Hanson was black because then to her, he would have known what he was talking about because he would have "history behind it." I thought Boston Republic was a really good show and it really did explore the topic well. The program hoped to achieve peoples attention on the word nigger should not be used, pretty simple I suppose. I think it has succeeded for the most part. There are always going to be racial people in the world, but I know that it has gone down a lot.

Auto Bailout or not?

First, I am not very familiar with the topic, so my understanding of this may not be so good...

I chose the NO side, because we have been doing fine without the major 3 and I'm pretty sure we can continue doing fine without them. They deserve to be locked up for what they did. Maybe I'm not understanding this, but I don't really see how their deaths can creat a "tsnami of job losses" as it says in the YES side. I really agree with the NO side when they say how they should face bankruptcy court just like every other failing business. I strongly believe in that too. Just because you made a great auto industy, and made millions, doesn't mean that when you eventually do go bankrupt, you definatly shouldn't just be given loans to you just because your "special" (kind of like celebrities in a way).

Is Pakistan an asset in the war on terrorism??

Before reading this article my opinon was already with the YES side because they have nuclear weapons and because they are close (in distance to the countries we are against in the war on terrorism. I didn't really have any knownledge in the topic, though.

At first in the summary (first page), the article talks about how the US and Pakistan have been in a teeter-totter relationship. We weren't friends with them and then we were, and then incidents happened and then we couldn't trust them, and it seemed to me, that we, the US are/were only using them. I think that because they have a nuclear weapons program and because they agreed to help us with ending terrorism. Obviously we would agree because that is what we want, but in previous cases, we also turned our back from them just because they didn't really have or give what we wanted.

I chose the YES side, with Teresita Schaffer because he/she?? gave better reasoning than the NO side. Teresita talked about four major issues in South Asia including: Securingand strengthening peace, controlling and ending terrorism, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and knowhow and developing a concept of regional security that fits the changing face of Asia. In the securing and strengthening peace section, it talked about Pakistan's relationship with India. Pakistan and India both believed that a peace process means good politics. This person also believes that Pakistan is the key to controlling terrorism, which I also believe is true. The US built a new trust with Pakistan after 9/11. There were two opinions we both had agreed on and they were cooperation against terrorism and on the understanding that this was a goal both countries needed to pursue for their own reasons. Then it goes on talking about Pakistan's decision to end its support for the Taliban government in Afghanistand. Then there was the issue that democracy should be restored in Pakistan but that probably wouldn't happen for awhile. Then the article talked about nuclear proliferation and how their nuclear scientist in Pakistan, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan had engaged in a nuclear black market solely on his own, without government authorization. The US remained in peace with Pakistan because they still trusted that Pakistan wasn't going behind their backs on the treaty. The security article really didn't catch my attention as well as the other topics did. This pertained more to China, Japan and Indonesia. The security didn't really give me a whole lot of involvement on where the US stood.

The NO side gave facts that we could have caught on a commerical..LITERALLY! The topics pertaining to Osama bin Laden, and the hunt for him. They didn't do a whole lot of research into their topics. Instead of fighting against Pakistan and the issues that were wrong, they focused on topics such as Osama and how we shouldn't trust Pakistan because that is where all the terrorist are.

Republic

Book II

1) Plato is interested in the education of the guardians of his ideal republic (or his beautiful city, the kallipolis) and he recognizes that they must be both gentle and high-spirited. How does Plato propose to educate them in such a way that they embody both characteristics? What does he propose as his curriculum? Is such a blending of antithetical traits possible in the self-same person through an educational program?

Plato dictates on the education they all will recieve. He also does this with the city and what is allowed in. This is because he believes that education determines if the body is healthy or unhealthy and he couldn't have any unhealthy souls in his beautiful city. He rules out poetry, but allows hymns to the gods and eulogies for the famous. Plato allows some places restraints on painting and architecture. Although he feels "guilty" because he really does enjoy these other educational choices, he feels it is best for the city.

2) Specifically, why did Socrates not want the major stories of Homer and Hesiod about the gods to be told? Is education primarily the process of looking for role models to imitate?

He doesn't want to expose these stories to the children because the Gods that are in them are shown up as bad people. He wants to protect them from hearing these things, especially spoken by him because then they will see him as one of these people. He doesn't believe that these words are true. He sees them differently and doesn't want the children to be educated on lies. If someone is teaching something to someone, yeah, people do look up to them as role models.

Book III
3) What is the sign of a bad and shameful education in a city? 405a-d Hint: it has to do with doctors and lawyers. What are the basic principles here? What kinds of people make the best doctors and the best lawyers or judges?

Rulers make the best of both doctors and lawyers. The basic principles of a doctor is that doctors should be trained to treat the healthy, who suffer from small illnesses (nothing too complicated). But when it comes to chronically ill people, they should not be trained to deal with them. And when it comes to lawyers, they should be allowed to lie for the good of the state. No one else is able to have this ability to do this. However, it is not right.

4) Out of these who have been so educated, who is to rule and who is to be ruled? What is the basis for the selection of rulers? How does the “myth of the metals” reinforce this? What is to be the lifestyle of these rulers? Is this a reasonable proposal?

Socrates tells the people the "myth of the metals" so there is no questioning on who rules. All the citizens were born out of the earth. They all have to act patriotic. In the souls of the people who are fit to rule, they are gold, the people who are capable of being substitutes when needed are silver, and those who are suited to be producers they are either bronze or iron. If they are mixed with the wrong metal, the city would be ruined if they ruled. And when they have children, they must take on the same role as their guardians.

The Crito

1. Compare the setting of Plato's Apology to the setting of the Crito. Where does each dialogue take place, how many people are present, and what is the significance of these dramatic details?
2. Some readers think Socrates went along with his execution because he was already old. Would things have been different if he were younger?
3. What made Socrates so attached to Athens, but even more devoted to his way of life that he was willing to die rather than give it up? Is Socrates a martyr either for the Laws of Athens or the cause of philosophy?
4. Crito claims that by suffering an unjust punishment Socrates will play into the hands of his accusers. Why does Socrates counter that his escape would corroborate the jury’s verdict to convict him?
5. Why does Socrates tell Crito that "whatever he suffers from others", one would still not be justified to escape the punishment of the laws and the community of the city Does Socrates' argument that it is wrong to harm even those who do one harm make sense

1. In Plato's Apology the setting was in the court room where many Athens (Athiens) were present. In the Critio, the setting took place in Socrates prison where only him and Crito were present. This is a dramatic detail because both Crito and the Athiens want to look good to the people so they try and convince Socrates the "right" decision to choose. Crito is Socrates friend, who is trying to get Socrates out of this mess, telling him he doesn't deserve the punishment he has recieved. He is trying to get Socrates to see that this is wrong, and by accepting the punishment and not doing anything about it (protesting) is not right. While Athiens convince Socrates he is the bad person corrupting the youth and it's all because of him that people are bad.

2. I don't believe that Socrates went along with his execution becase he was old. He went along with his execution because he was not going to change his opinion, his beliefs and his way of life just because other people didn't accept it or like it. Socrates stood his ground and I think he would have done the same thing if it was 50 years earlier.

3. In the beginning of the Crito, Socrates explains to Crito that even though he may have a good idea in his escape, it is not right. On page 44 Socrates says, "For I am and always have been one of those natures who must be guided by reason, whatever the reason may be which upon reflection appears to me to be the best; and now that this fortune has come upon me, I cannot put away the reasons which I have been given: the principles which I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor, and unless we can find other and better principles on the instant, I am certain not to agree with you..." This passage shows that the Athens made him value his life and his beliefs by tricking him to make them look good by killing him.

4. Now that Socrates is getting another point of view of his punishment, he knows that he has been tricked into an unfair death. However, if he asks for another trial and tries to stand up for himself, he will be going against his philosophy.

5. Socrates tells Crito this because he knows that the city is more powerful than anything and he wouldn't stand a chance trying to change their mind. I believe that he does make sense to the point of view on doing harm to those who do harm to you is not right. He explains to Crito he can't do anything about his punishment even though it isn't right, because that's not about his philosophy.

The Apology

Questions:
1.What are the charges against Socrates?
2.What are Socrates' main arguments of defense in regard to each charge?
3.Why does he take such care to avoid securing his own acquittal? He could have begged for clemency, used his wife and children to get a pity vote, offered a reasonable alternative sentencing, promised to behave differently.
4.Is he really an example of a man who lived and died by his own philosophy? Or is he a self-appointed martyr? Are they mutually exclusive?
5.Is there virtue in being a martyr?
6.Do you believe that Socrates believes himself no wiser than any other man? What exactly does he mean by that?
7.And finally, is retaining one's ethical dignity (living by one's principles) worth dying for? For Socrates? For you?

1. Socrates is charged with impiety (lack of recongizing God) and corrupting the young. He was found guilty and sentenced to death.

2. Socrates main argument was that he was the wisest of all men because he knew nothing. He describes the knowledge of a poet, a politician and a artisian for the first charge of impiety. For the second charge he interrogates Meletus, who is the man who is mainly responsible for bringing Socrates to the jury. He asks him a series of questions. The interrogation started with the question "You think a great deal about the improvement of youth?" Socrates questions him asking who is the improver of them. Socrates is being accused of corrupting the youth because he is supposively atheist.

3. In the beginning of the Apology he told the readers he will speak in his accustomed manner of honesty and truth. He wants to tell his story and get a message out to all that being honest and telling the truth...!!

4.To me, Socrates seems like he is a person who lives by his own philosophy because of the way he is expressing himself. "Necessity is laid upon me: 'I must obey God rather than man'" (page 24). He preaches in front of everyone his philosophy and the way he must obey God not the Men of Athens on page 23. I think he was a man who lived and died by his own philosophy. I don't think he is a martyr at all. He doesn't suffer death because he talks about religion through the whol Apology. He talks about what he believes and it is God. The two aren't mutually exclusive because he preaches about his philosophy.

5.I think there is some virtue in being a martyr. Sometimes people stand up for what they believe in and if not renouncing their religion means they have to die, then sometimes it is worth it. I can see why it's worth it because to a lot of people religion is more important than life.

6.On page 10 he says: “I went about searching after a man who was wiser than myself: at first among the politicians; then among the philosophers; and found that I had an advantage over them, because I had no conceit of knowledge.” This quote makes me think he wants everyone to think he is equal with everyone else and isn't wiser than anyone else, but his character shows that he does think of himself wiser than most.

7.Yeah!! I think it's everything. Why would someone want to live their life letting other people rule their life? That would be a life not worth living. For Socrates and for me. It is worth dying if a person is standing up for what they believe in.
a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief

Electoral College

The Electoral College should be changed. When voting for president the people should be the main vote not the Electoral College. Since the Electoral College has the overriding of the votes of the people, then why should we even get a chance to vote. I don't think it's fair that one person who may be opposite of his/her state gets to override what the people think. One person should not be in charge of over 50,000 citizens votes, ALL votes should count!

Law & Justice

I pulled this quote out of the article on page 109 because I felt this statement summed up and made the whole article: "Are we not more obligated to achieve justice than to obey the law? The law may serve justice, as when it forbids rape and murder or requires a school to admit all students regardless of race or nationality. But when it sends young men to war, when it protects the rich and punishes the poor, then law and justice are opposed to one another. In that case, where is our greater obligation: to law or to justice?" This quote to me, tells me what Zinn is saying. He is saying that we can either achieve justice or obey the law, but not both. There are so many different ways to go around this statement espcially if people start throwing in different scenerios like the example above. I don't believe there is anyway to come to a peace with law and justice together. He describes in his piece that from the democratic theory, law is only a means. He also describes how obedience and disobedience is an attachment-like to the law and thinks that disobedience could possibly lead to anarchy. I think he describes a great example from history. Zenn questions his readers about the black movement in the South and if that lead to anarchy. As a result, after all the chaos, the country became stronger and "a healthy reconstitution of the social order toward greater justice."

Inherit the Wind

DRUMMOND: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise in heart" (pg 126).

To me, the quote means that if someone is willing to question other people or stand up for what they believe in and not be afraid of getting judged or even shunned for it, they will be more successful then the person who is too afraid to show what they really feel. Inherit the wind means being able to take on any obsticals that may come in one's way.
I think it is a good title for this play because the title is ironic given the circumstance. The title is from Proverbs 11:29, one of the books in the bible. The book talks about how wrong it is to teach evolution in school, which is presented by a religious title found in the bible.

Intelligent Design Is A Science!!!

FIRST ARTICLE
Yes, intelligent design (ID) should be taught in schools. I believe that this course should be manditory at least one year for all students, however if school districts and/or parents aren't okay with this idea, this class should be an option for students. On the 5th page when they talked about teaching ID in California, Casey Luskin stated "Evolution is taught dogmatically—it is one-sided. Students should be taught strengths and weaknesses of evolution." True, evolution (ID) is one-sided to the teacher that is teaching the class. Even if the district had one teacher for the whole school, nation wide, there would be millions of different teachers teaching this one-sided intelligent design class. However, this con should not stop us from teaching this class. Another part in the article is when they talked about that schools cannot teache religion as a science. Yet, they go on saying they can teache religion if the curriculum calls for it (they gave an example of history). For me, I don't see the difference.

(By the way, this was my favorite article so far)!!!

THE ONE PAGE ARTICLE (2nd PAGE ARTICLE)
For me, I think that a lot of people aren't okay with this class (ID) becuase like in the second article stated: "There is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID." I also believe this
"ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry," that they also stated in the second article. This article states a lot of facts pertaining to why a lot of people don't believe that this class should be taught as a science, as well as why it should be.

Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be A Top US Priority?

I started off neutral with the topic. I agreed with some issues that Wittes brought up and some issues that Siegle brought forth. However, after reading the whole article, I began to write and all the things I listed for Wittes were stronger than I had for Siegle. So I agree with Wittes that promoting democracy abroad shouldn't be at the top of our list. However, I don't understand how it is a key part of the war on terrorism. I also believe that the world should have difference in it and by making us all the same with the democracy government, I could see it causing problems.
In the beginning of the packet it said "while a world populated by democracies is likely to be more peaceful than others, a world of countries going through the process of democratization may be more unstable and conflict-prone." I'm not certain which person this would fall under, but my guess would be Wittes and the "NO" argument. I agree with this statement a lot.

Presidential Candidate Selectors

The results of all 6 of my surveys were pointing at Barack Obama and the Democratic side. I really wasn't surprised since I knew what my opinions were to begin with. They all support what Barack Obama says. However, I was surprised on the 4th survey results when my top match came out to be Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. I had 100% match. I was 82.35% for Ralph Nader and 76.47% for Barack Obama so those were pretty close. Another surprise was the last survey. I was a centrist, more closer to conservative. After reading what a Centrist is though, I agreed with the answer. It says Centrists keep an open mind.

Dead Teen Walking

Both White Fang and Dead Teen Walking, relate to the theme nature vs. nurture. In the article, it tells us a true story of a teen, Shareef Cousin, 16, who was convicted of murdering a 25 year old man, Michael Gerardi, and was sentenced on the death roe, in New Orleans. He was one of 63 juvenile offenders on death row in prison in the U.S.
I believe in nature vs. nuture, however as a society, we cannot make excuses for teenagers that rebel the law and murder because of how they were raised. This is my opinion, however it is still on a teeter-tauter after reading White Fang. I can understand both ways and I feel more strongly that there are no excuses for murder, but then going back and reading what Cousin had to go through as a child and being hit in the head, I feel bad for him and then I think about the reasons behind him killing were not out of hatred toward the man he killed but his father, his family and his childhood. Yet, even with all those excuses, there are always choices a person can make, then to murder.
White Fang definatly changed my opinion of this article. Normally, I would say that there is no excuse for killing a person; "Children mature enough to murder are mature enough to be punished for it" (pg 3). In a way I still think like that, but I can fully understand the nature vs. nuture. In White Fang, he was raised wild, then brought into a "family" where he had to obey a master that was cruel to him and where the other animals didn't except him. He was beaten and tormented, so he had to become a strong, vicious beast to survive the hurt he felt deep inside. "They were White Fang's environment, these men, and they were molding the clay of him into a more ferocious thing than had been intended by Nature" (IV.3). As soon as he was free from his master, Scott took him in and showed him love. White Fang had changed into a loving dog basically. This book did show that the nature vs. nurture theme worked. "The basic life that was in him took charge of him. The will to exist of his body surged over him. He was dominated by this mere flesh-love of life. All intelligence was gone. It was as though he had no brain. His reason was unseated by the blind yearning of his flesh to exist and move, at all hazards to move, to continue to move, for movement was the expression of its existence" (IV.4.).

Issue 20

From reading this article, my opinion sided with Andrew Sullivan. I don't believe in wars and so my opinion was already at the "No" side. I couldn't believe the opinion of the "Yes" side of Charles Krauthammer. First, he says "...we don't do that because we do not descened to the level of our enemy...because we are civilized. Even though terrorists are entitled to no humane treatment, we give it to them because it is in our nature as a moral and humane people." Now my question is, then what was Abu Ghraib?? Then, he talks about McCain and how his position on torture is incoherent, but what is still best for this country, and he agrees with him. I think that Charles Krauthammer has a one-sided opinion that only looks at the torture onto others that deserve it, only because they look like they could be terrorists. Also, what made me disturbed is how he made a scenerio on the first page of the "Yes" side, second to last and last paragraph. Here is a hypothetical question, yet is explained as if it happens everyday. I can understand if this situation ever came up and you knew who was planning to bomb a city, you would want to get information out of him anyway you could, but you can't just go around assuming these things, which is what they were saying earlier in the article.
The "No" article was interesting to read, especially since I agreed with what Anderw Sullivan had to say. One of my favorite lines in this piece was "Something broken can be put back together, but it will never regain the status of being unbroken--of having integrity. When you break a human being, you turn him into something subhuman. You enslave him." I think those few lines summed the whole "No" side article up. I believe that it is not right to torture people for benefits regarding yourself or other people. It is hard in a situation knowing you could save your country if you could get this information that would prevent millions dead. But the actions someone could take are more than just torture, unlike what some people may think. These peopel have options and if they don't want to look at all of them, they have to live with the pride of saving their country, yet torturing someone who never deserved the torture (if they were innocent). I just don't believe that anyone deserves punishment like that to experience.

Morals

I thought this article gave a really good understanding of the way humans behave and the difference between each individual. Our morality of good and evil varies from one another, yet the concept is the same for all of us. For example, in the article it talked about the way we as humans are capable of dumbfounding kindness. One minute we need someone the next minute we are stabbing that person in the back. For some reason, this act of kindness will always lead to meanness towards a person.
The Moral Ape concluded that the give-and-take process is the same as humans. However, I didn't get a very good understanding of the empathy in animals (First paragraph on the third page). I understand the 'I feel your pain' scenario, but I don't understand the experiment they used. How could they put stimulants into someone to feel someone elses pain. I don't know I am really confused about that part.
I really enjoyed reading about the scenario that of the trolley dilemma. Saving someone versus killing someone is combined to a 5 to 1 ratio and to save the 5 people you are faced with a choice to kill one person. Some people, cannot make that decision. For me, I think I would be able to make the decision of killing 1 innocent man in order to save 5 lives. It's hard to think about and say that I would when I haven't been put in that situation. And it may be completely different when you're actually under the pressure to choose at that moment could be different.
I believe the article on How We Stay Good. "It's the people around us who do that teaching." Our surroundings change us every day and make us who we are; good and evil.

September 11

On September 11, 2001, I remember coming in the kitchen to get cereal for breakfast. I had just woken up. The kitchen television was on and my mom was watching it. The breaking news was on. My mom had said something along the lines of "Planes have crashed. The twin towers in New York." It's a little sketchy. I didn't understand what she was saying. After eating breakfast and getting ready for shcool, my mom drove my sister and me to Bryant Elementary where I was attending fifth grade, in Mrs. Parenteau's class. As soon as we got in the classroom, the televisions were going. The whole day we had to watch the news and what was happening. I remember the teacher's trying to explain to us, little kids, on what was going on. All I knew was this was big. After school I remember coming home and my mom and dad talking more about the attacks. "Tourists..." Wait what?? I was confused. Aren't those people exploring sites. "Terrorist." My parents were trying to explain the difference to me, but I wasn't understanding. A couple days had gone by and the news got to my grandparents that my grandma's sister's husband's brother had died in the attack. He was working in the building. Still, this whole terrorist attack was unclear to me and I can only remember the television pictures and videos.