LAST BLOG

Favorite Book: 1984/Brave New World - I liked these two books the most because it shows us what our world could be like someday because of the advancing technology. I thought it was very interesting learning through these books on what life could be like because of what we are donig now.

Least Favorite Book: Heart of Darkness - I really didn't like this book because it wasn't as beneficial learning like the other two listed above.

Three things I found valuable:

• I learned about what our world could become in the books we read: 1984 and Brave New World (which are my favorite).
• I thought reading the taking sides packets or any of the articles we had to read was valuable because it kept us up with the news (even though we didnt like reading them).
• Reading Three cups of Tea was very valuable because it helped us with our project. It made us think about helping out the community too.

What I would change: I think it helped a whole bunch when you had given me the worksheets that were questions about the overview of the book. It helped to understand the book so much easier and it was a lot more helpful in seminar discussions. So having questions about each chapter would be so

taking sides

I think we should at least attempt making ammends with North Korea if they are willing to do so as well. Our former president gave his Axis of Evil speech and directly pointed at them saying "they are our Axis of Evil." After that, they were offended and hated us. So really, Bush started the fire, giving us no option or choice to make friends with them. Both countries have broken their promises so I believe we both should negotiate.

Thin Gruel

In “1984” in terms of Newspeak and the destruction of words Syme says to Winston
“Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller”. After reading the “Thin Gruel” article, do you see the connection between the Newspeak of “1984” to the censorship of our language and vocabulary today? Make sure you use specific examples and information from the article to defend your view.


This article had a hugeeeee connection relating to 1984 and the present. I think that it's rediculous now-a-days that we censor everything because they don't want children to read about an ideal past. Both the political left and the political right agreed that "children will be shaped by what they read and will model their behavior on what they read." This is why so many things are censored because they think if we read something that shows rebellious behavior, then we are going to show the same behavior as we read. I think there should be some censorship--to a point, but I think it has gone overboard and is increasing as the years keep passing. In one of the articles that shows the words that are banned, the word doorman caught my attention. It is banned because it's sexist. I believe that is rediculous how they ban words because it's sexist and that the correct word would be door attendant. What I thought about was when they say "..all men are equal.." How isn't that sexist then?? I think that soon we will be in a Newspeak kind of world with the intense censoring that has already happened. There is a point where words can get out of hand, but if its not in a REAL offensive manner...where can we draw the line..

North Korea Articles

The first article, by Mitchell B. Reiss, is the article I agree with. He talks about the US should negotiate with North Korea (in the three steps). Reiss thinks we need to negotiate by simply telling them one thing then waiting for a resonse. While waiting, we would make ammends with our other allies that were "bruised in the past" and reconcile, showing North Korea we can be trusted and really want to help them.

The second article, by Philip Zelikow, shows a more violent way of MAKING North Korea negotiate with the US in any way we want. I don't agree with this article at all because he criticizes the gov't instead of fillling the readers in on actual facts that could pursuae the reasons for his method of negotiation:bombing. He makes a huge deal about "testing" their nuclear missels and for having them. But why are we aloud to have weapons, but no one else...?

I chose the first article because there were no bombings involved. I don't understand why we should jump to the method of bombing and going to war with yet, another country just because we can. That is how I see a lot of our problems we have been presently dealing with; that is everyone's first resolution...BOMBING.

1984

1. war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. the three slogans are antonyms to us.

2.Newspeak is the official language of Oceania. It's purpose was two things: one was to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc and two, make all other modes of thought impossible. A-everyday words B-political words (compound words) C-scientific and technical terms

3. They need to keep their vocabulary as little as possible, weeding out all of the antonyms and synonyms so they can't express themselves as much. The less they know is better. An example is from page 28: "The thing that now suddenly struck Winston was that his mother’s death, nearly thirty years ago, had been tragic and sorrowful in a way that was no longer possible. Tragedy, he perceived, belonged to the ancient time, to a time when there were still privacy, love, and friendship, and when the members of a family stood by one another without needing to know the reason. His mother’s memory tore at his heart because she had died loving him, when he was too young and selfish to lover her in return, and because somehow, he did not remember how, she had sacrificed herself to a conception of loyalty that was private and unalterable. Such things, he saw, could not happen today. Today there was fear, hatred, and pain, but no dignity of emotion, or deep or complex sorrows." This passage shows the comparison of what life used to be like to what it is now and how they used to be able to love and have friendships. Now family doesn't matter and people aren't there for eachother without reason or logic.

4. The Party is able to manipulate the past because they have control of the present. They do not let anyone keep records of their past such as documents or photos. This makes people believe whatever the Party wants them to believe because their memories become unreliable.

The Party not only controls the minds of people, but of every source of information there is.

5. Two minutes of hate.

cloning

After watching the cloning video, what is your view of cloning? Do you agree or disagree with cloning? Within your answer make sure you keep in mind questions like; should there be limits or restrictions to cloning? Are there benefits to cloning? What forms of cloning do you agree with (if any)? Therapeutic (organ), reproduction, food, and animal cloning?

I disagree with cloning. I don't believe there is any reason for cloning a person with the same features because really, what is the point?? I don't think cloning should be aloud, so I think it should be completely restricted. The benefits for cloning that I can think of is to have another one of the same person, but how could that be a benefit when we are all suppose to be 'unique.' Since I don't believe in any type of cloning--I look at food cloning and still ask the question WHY...?? So in all of the forms of cloning, there is absolutely no reason for it. It is also not morally right.

Ectasy and Soma

The movie dealing with ectasy had to do with people getting a feeling they wanted to get because it "felt good." The book BRAVE NEW WORLD had people injecting themselves with soma, so they could shut out the real world and feel happy. Both of these drugs are used for the same thing. They both give people a feeling that they "can't get" in the real world. The drugs are an escape from all bad things.

Position on Brave New Babies

I don't believe that babies should be created through embryotic devolopment unless someone is incapable of producing the eggs themselves. I really don't agree with choosing the sex of your baby. Dr. Mark Hughes tells us that he won't help his patients who ask for the option of choosing their babies sex. He tells him "We're not going to do that." He states that it discredits the value of an individual life, which is what I believe too. I think that if someone creates a life, it's suppose to be an amazing thing...so now why would someone want to choose what their baby is going to be; it's like saying that they wouldn't be happy with that baby. I think they should stop all of this research for higher technology in creating babies before they take it too far. It's unethical, and morally wrong.

Universal Health Care

http://www.miscelaneasdecuba.net/media/pdf/Article-Hirschfeld-Press.pdf

In this article, a woman goes to Cuba to research the universal health care system. While she was there, she found that many Cubans are not satisfied with their health care. They had made complains that their doctors were unhelpful, that the best hospitals and clinics only servered to political elites, and a lot of the medical supplies were stolen from the hospital and sold on the black market. They also criticized the way their data was unreliable and the atmosphere was horrid--because with certain diseases surrounding the premisis such as TB and HIV.
Cuba's Health Care system has a severe shortage of medicines, medical equipment and other supplies.

Machiavelli and the Mullahs

David J. Rusin states that there are three principles that Machiavelli could guide President Bush by. The first is self reliance. The author, Rusin states many examples of how the US Government trusted others to do things, and the people they entrusted the tasks to, failed. This example was found in The Prince, when Machiavelli was stating that "a leader must act decisively in pursuit of his objectives, rather than relying on others to accomplish them." An example includes when the major Al-Qaeda leaders were hiding in the Tora Bora mountains and Bush made a poor decision on trusting the local Afghani fighters search for them, instead of sending US troops. The Afghani fighters CLEARLY, let them escape. Rusin also states that he believes that if we were to ask the Secretary Council, they will try to prevent us from acting because China, Russia, and France all have interests in Iran. The second is the importance of being feared. In this principle, Rusin talks about Muammar Qaddafi's pledge to dismantle his weapons programs because we overthrew Saddam Hussein. The author states that "Islamic extremists do not fear death, but they fear loss of power." I agree with Rusin's theory on how we need to make them fear us. The third is the need to take the initiative once conflict is inevitable. I think that, yes, eventually they will be just as powerful, if not more, than us and will be able to "beat" us. I do believe we should stop them, before anything major happens, however...we are bringing this on ourselves. We make all these decisions for other countries and think it's okay. Now, that these countries are becoming "knowledgable" we are fearing them...WELL WE SHOULD!! ;D

All they want is to make us Muslim.While David Rusin makes some good points, I thought this war was on terrorism, not the Islamic religion.

Should we...or Shouldn't We??...

I can never completely agree with the no side or the yes side.



I agree with the yes side because I think everyone deserves a second chance. I mean really, Darfur themselves, really haven't gotten their own chance. They just get the short end of the stick because of Iraq's behavior in the past.

The no side had made a point that the US already was "proved catastrophically wrong in Iraq" why would it be any different now, and what has changed since then. This part I don't agree with. I think everyone deserves a chance, but that is more of a moral conscious decision. I also agree with the no side because it is dangerous for our troops. We think we are "so irresistbile" that these questions shouldn't be taken into account. So I definatly agree that we risk a lot more than we think, and should...Sometimes I think the only reason we do so, is because there is nothing else to do..?? This side also had a lot more reasons why Davis Rieff didn't believe we should send US peackeeping troops to Darfur.

"Okayyyy, so I guess I agree more with the NO side than the Yes side..." ;)

Part II

Marlow is lying on the deck of the steamboat he is repairing, when he overhears a conversation between the Manager and his uncle, the leader of the Eldorado Exploring Expedition.
What are the important things he learns from this exchange?
Marlow learns that Kurtz is planning on turning the station into beacon civilization and moral improvement. Kurtz wants to take over the head management position. He learns that these two people are planning a conspiracy to hang a man who is troublesome.
What is the uncle gesturing towards at the end?
Anyone who stands in his way must be hanged. That Kurtz needs to die.
Summarize Marlow's meditation on the cannibal crew. What is he impressed with?
"savages" "inhuman"
Well, at first he realizes they are hungry because they couldn’t trade on shore. He wants to help these savage. He finds it funny that the other men don’t agree with his decision.

Supporting the UN or Not Supporting the UN

Personally, I think we should get out of the United Nations because they haven't been able to prove they can keep conflict between their countries. Although that statement would make a lot of sense on many levels, it is also necessary for us to be there in the United Nations to help the smaller countries. They need us to help them. As the United States, we need to support the United Nations of further wars between countries. I don't see how it is hurting us, right now. "The U.S. can, at significantly less cost, wield great influence over world events and achieve U.S. policy goals by remianning fully engaged in planning and implementing UN peace operations." That is why we should stay in with the UN. Now, my theory...
I understand that if we withdrew from the UN we wouldn't be able to come back....BUT what good is it doing for them anyways. We are there, supporting them, and doing whatever we can to try to help them. Since they haven't shown that they can keep their countries in line, then what has all of our help done for them...?? NOTHING! I also think why not try something new. Withdraw from the UN and see what happens.