Monday, December 15, 2008
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.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
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.
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).
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).
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)