Blog #5 (N-Word)

"The best way to get rid of a problem is to hold it up to the bright light and look at all sides, and that's what Kennedy does in this book." I agree with this statement made by Andy Rooney for a number of reasons. First, to solve a problem one must know where the problem comes from. Let's take school as an example. If students come into an advanced math class not knowing how to multiply, the teacher can't just say "It's OK, I will teach you how to multiply this year." That is simply not possible with the amount of material needed to be taught. The school must investigate why the kids can't multiply in order to try to fix it. If they don't find the root of the problem, every year more and more kids will come into class not knowing how to multiply, and every year the teacher will have to teach it. In short, to solve a problem we must investigate the root. In his book, Randall Kennedy attempts to do just that. He investigates the root of the problem. He asks on the first page, "Why does nigger generate such powerful emotions?" He goes on throughout his novel to seek and answer to his question. His concepts range from interracial usage to pure racism. He also identifies the numerous connotations and denotations of the 6 letter word. To blacks it can mean "buddy" or "bad" (in good connotation), or also "thief" or "pure." While if used by a white, blacks mainly see the word with an extreme negative meaning. It's a double sided argument, stemming from the race of the man who uses the word.

For the word nigger there will probably never be an answer. We may never know why it holds some of the public in fear, and how 6 letters can pull intense emotions from the listener.
In "Boston Public" one of the boys said he doesn't know why the word has so much power, and it doesn't matter. Another girl said "that's just the way it is." I believe that we can't let ourselves fall into the "that's just the way it is" attitude. Like Socrates, we must question and seek some sort of answer. We must at least enlighten ourselves to the word nigger.

The website www.abolishthenword.com has a mission to educate the public about the word, and stop it's usage. Like the book Nigger, the website has information on the word and the fear behind it. Believing the history is what causes the turmoil, the website challenges the public to stop it's usage by buying only radio versions of songs, teach the history, and ultimately stop fighting over the word and "Debate & Educate!" Like the book, the website gives the reader history on the word and asks questions to educate the reader.

N-Word Blog

In Randall Kennedy's book Nigger, there are many questions and viewpoints posed to readers. The most interesting idea, in my opinion, it on page 39 of his book. He talks about the black usage of the word nigger, and why he believes it is used. I found it extremely interesting that Randall Kennedy says many blacks use the word to be seen as "real, authentic, uncut, unassimilated, and unassimilable" blacks. While on the other hand, those who refuse to use the word are seen as trying to blend into mainstream white society. This got a huge reaction out of me. I can see where the author is coming from for the most part, but this idea seems racist in itself. If there are two black males, and one uses the word nigger and the other doesn't, the man who openly uses the word sees the other man as not a "real" black. Isn't that racist? The man who uses the word sees himself as "true and pure" and the other man as attempting to blend into whites. To sum this up, the author makes it seem like by not using the word, you are becoming more white. Wouldn't that be racist? To me, racist means judging another person based on skin color or cultural back round. So maybe it isn't racism, but seems pretty close to me. It is a form of racism within a race. This idea isn't really one I can agree or disagree with, but it sure made me think.

Micheal Moore and Socrates

Michael Moore and Socrates share similarities with how they live their lives. Socrates and Michael Moore both believe so passionately in a certain "lifestyle" or set of beliefs, and question the opposing viewpoint. Socrates questions his accusers using philosophical terms and ideas, while Michael Moore uses more blunt, drastic methods. Although they both question the opposing sides in different ways, they both hold the opposite side accountable for it's beliefs. In Dialogues of Plato, Socrates believes the people should have the right to think outside the government. He often voices his opinion, even if it is not the "popular" one. Micheal Moore is the same way, except less "soft spoken." He often very bluntly voices his opinions. Both men are passionate and question the opposing viewpoint, Micheal Moore about his liberal views, and Socrates about the people and their rights.

Socrates believes that by escaping he would be "bowing to public opinion, reversing the conduct of his past life, and making a hypocrisy of his statement (that he would prefer death over exile)." Crito, on the other hand, believes that by dying, Socrates is "playing into the hands of (his) enemies." Both have valid arguments, however, I lean towards Socrates' argument. By escaping, he would not be living a life "just" to the rules and laws. The Law and Justice article ties into this reading because Socrates knows his death is not just or fair, but he is still willing to die because it is a law he must follow. The law vs. justice article and "Crito" are very similar because they both talk about how justice is in the heart and soul while law is simply stated and doesn't seem to have emotion attached. In a way, he seems like a martyr to die for his cause. Like Cates in "Inherit the Wind," Socrates will bring his belief even more to the public eye. Also, this situation is comparable to anyone who has died for his cause..the cause gets more attention.

Socrates says, "I can not repudiate my own words." By this, he means he cannot turn down or reject his own words. Socrates is a man of his words, and rejecting them would only be "playing into the hands of (his) enemies." His argument is stronger because he desires to "practice what he preaches." If he was to escape, he would be breaking the law and sentence of the court. Crito believes he should not "play into the hands of (his) enemies." Isn't Socrates doing this by going against his beliefs? If Socrates truly is a man of his word and does what he believes is righteous, then he will not escape.

Apology Blog

"Is there anyone who understands human and political virtue?" This quote, from Socrates, is very rateable to my life. My interpretation of this quote: no single man can even be close to understanding mankind. Eveery single day I am effected by this theme. So many times I attempt to understand why others act the way they do. We believe psychology can help us understand man, as well as new research and discovery. These things prove to be helpful. However, mankind is unbelievably complex. There is simply no key to unlocking the human mind and it's virtues. In my opinion we will never be able to fully comprehend man and his motives. I can barely understand my own actions sometimes, let alone others. For example, our world has a spectrum of people. We have the extremely "rebellious" to the over the top "righteous." Who can truthfully explain why some men act "poorly?" No one, because there is only one person inside our minds: ourselves. No man has the knowledge to explain other's actions. I selected this quote because of my interest in mankind. I am a person who observes others, trying to figure them out. It wonder why I do this. I know that I will never one hundred percent understand a person, but it doesn't seem to stop me from trying. I often have to remind myself that mankind is so complex; men and women spend their whole lives trying to understand man. This question stood out to me. My answer: man will never understand himself. To me, that is a humbling statement...there are obviously bigger things out there.

1st Quarter Blog

The idea of "Nature vs. Nurture" is very interesting to me. Not only did we learn about the two opposing viewpoints through Jack London's White Fang and William Golding's Lord of the Flies, but also through packets and taking sides articles. Although I felt these resources were very beneficial, what I really enjoyed were the seminars around this theme. Through these in class discussions I gained an understanding of where others sit on the topic. During this unit, my belief on "Nature vs. Nurture" changed almost day by day. One day I would believe man is effected by nature, and the next day I would believe society (nurture) molds man like clay (Jack London's simile). Besides the facts and logic, I learned to keep an open mind. Because I kept an open mind on the topic, I was able to better my final opinion. I was able to better my final opinion because I had seen both sides of the argument evenly, and could make a more educated answer of my opinion. I hope to continue to keep an open mind on all topics not only discussed in this class, but any other debates I may come across in my life. The unit on "Nature vs. Nurture" not only taught me two sides of a debate, but how to listen to both sides in order to have a more solid opinion.

Blog #8

"It is fair to require students to understand something but there is a difference about learning and believing" (Matzke). This simple quote from the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design packet sums up the very complicated issue of teaching intelligent design and or evolution in public schools. Although evolution may be a science, there are gaping holes in the argument. What fills these holes? A higher power. Who is this higher power. No one knows for sure. Therefore, we must BELIEVE in who/what fills that gap. Belief is a personal experience, and no one can tell another what to believe. Intelligent Design forces children to have a belief on a very touchy subject: religion. I believe Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools.

According to Richard Buggs in the article "The Guardian," Intelligent Design "does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition-only scientific evidence." How is this so? There is absolutely no scientific evidence of a "higher power," there is just a hunch. What if man is just not smart enough to figure out the answer to how the world came to be? It seems as if man can't find the answers, so takes the easy way out and says it is just beyond his mental capacity.
Also, Intelligent Design completely does rely upon a religion. One must believe that there is a "higher power." What is the difference between a "higher power" and God? Do scientists have any evidence to prove there is a higher power? No. Therefore, it forces the student to believe in something that cannot be proven. It forces the student to have a religious belief, whether the pro-intelligent design side likes it or not. Religion does not belong in schools, so Intelligent Design doesn't either.
In the movie"Flock of Dodos" it was said that "you cannot scientifically prove Intelligent Design." Because of this, Intelligent Design is totally faith based. The definition of faith is "belief that is not based on proof" (Websters Dictionary). Intelligent design has no scientific proof. Also in the movie, it was said that all Intelligent Design is just "repackaged creationism." I couldn't agree more. What is the difference between creationism and Intelligent Design? Nothing except the evolution of the world. Who put it there is exactly the same for both.

Law and Justice, Blog #7

"Absolute obedience to the law may bring order temporarily, but it may not bring justice." This quote, taken from the "Law and Justice" packet sums up the lack of difference between the two concepts. Both are connected. Without laws, there would be no justice. Laws bring order, while justice brings peace. To have peace, we must have order and laws. Man naturally will want what is best for him, and laws keep man in check. Keeping man in check will give peace. This topic is actually very relateable. Over this last weekend, I saw a very good movie called "Law Abiding Citizen." The whole plot of the movie revolved around a man who desired revenge of anyone who got in the way of his "justice." His family was killed, and the defense attorney gave the murderer a deal because he wanted to uphold his "98% conviction rate." This man wanted "justice." Justice is defined as the fair treatment of all human beings. Therefore, justice brings peace. He knew the law, and that the murderer was still going to get off easy regardless. The law may have been on his side, but justice was not. Law is just what we must abide by to maintain "order" (Law and Order). Both however, are necessary. To keep justice and order, we must have laws. The history goes back to when laws were much more personal and by mouth or common respect for others. Now, laws are all written and impersonal because of our times.
Law and Justice work hand and hand.

Inherit the Wind Blog #6

"It might have been yesterday, it could be tomorrow." This quote is taken directly from the note preceding the play Inherit the Wind. This quote is, in fact, true. The theme of government, "interfering" on citizen's lives is prolific and will always be an issue that cannot be resolved. In the time of the play (1925), Bert Cates is on trial for teaching evolution in classes. Today, teachers are getting disciplined for teaching sex education in classes. No matter what the issue is, someone is always going to disagree. That one person is always going to believe government has nothing to do with it, and that person will always be angry with the way it was handled. Let's face it, there is no way to make everyone happy. The playwrights imply that there have always been, and always be issues concerning government involvement. The note says, "...the issues of their conflict have acquired new dimension and meaning in the thirty years since they clashed..." The playwrights are saying that the issue has evolved; the issue of government involvement. When should the government back down and let the people live their lives? That answer will never be agreed on.
The relevance of these themes are very evident to date. For example, in the class video "Sex, Drugs, and Consenting Adults," there was a case of a man who was jailed for smoking marijuana. He said it was a "victimless act." He also said he was participating in this act in his own home. To an extent, this is believable. However, who is to define "victimless act." Isn't this man the victim? Shouldn't the government protect him from himself? That is another answer less question. This connects to the play. By Mr. Cates teaching Darwin's theory, there technically is no victim. The townspeople believe the children are the victims, although not hurt on the surface. The court's job is to figure out what the issue is, and if anyone is truly hurt. Again in the movie, a reverend said that if we make things illegal, the push for these illegal things become violent. Yes, this may be true. The other side says that making these things legal is like saying it is OK to, for example, do drugs or buy pornography. Who wants to live in a society where these things are legal?
The play Inherit the Wind is more of an allegory than a play. The issue of evolution, although still relevant, represents any issue that the government intervenes on. The topic of government involvement is a touchy subject that will never be resolved. The playwrights make this evident in this play.

Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be A U.S. Priority?

Although America always wants to help other countries, I believe those countries should have their own government at their own discretion. I believe America should not intervene on other countries, just as we don't want other countries in our business.
First of all, money is a huge issue. In our current economic times, can we really afford to be sending our troops over to Iraq and other countries to "promote democracy?" The article sates that The Middle East Partnership Initiative spent just under 28 million dollars. Only about 2 million went to organizations to help them expand their work. Where is this money coming from and why are we supporting this cause? Second, we are not providing a positive example to Iraq, our current "fix." American liberalism has only caused the people "death and chaos", not positive government like we would have hoped.
The other side of the argument says that in order to keep peace and earn it back is to make democracy a global government. I couldn't disagree more. Other countries believe their form of government is best, like we believe democracy is best. In our class discussion, you told us about a foreign exchange student who was from China. When a remark was made about communist China, he backed up his country and government he believed in. Asking for one type of government is like asking for one type of religion.
America, unless it can prove it is a country with few flaws, should be concerned with government directly influencing America, not worry about what other countries believe is right.

My View on Torture, Blog #4

First of all, let me start off by saying the issue question for this packet is ridiculous. The question reads, "Is It justifiable to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Duress?" It should say something along the lines of, "Is it OK to torture people we think could be terrorists?" Sounds different now, doesn't it?
I believe that torture is never OK. The argument for "interrogation techniques" is severely flawed. First, calling torture "interrogation techniques" is showing the embarrassment of those for that side; one can't be embarrassed of something he supports. Second, in the article George Bernard Shaw says there should exceptions that should be made in the case of the "ticking time bomb." In class we had a discussion about the hypothetical situation of a bomb in New York City. If someone is in custody and the government is absolutely 100% sure this person knows where the bomb is, is it OK to torture that person? There is rarely a time where we know the person in custody is 100% guilty. There are very few things in this world we can be sure of. There is no excuse to torture another human, even if there was a way to know for sure. My favorite argument of the other side is "Well, we should torture this person to save thousands." Again, maybe we would save thousands, maybe not. Maybe the bomb is fake. Maybe this isn't the person. Maybe there was miss information. It is never OK to torture because it is extremely unethical, and we cannot be sure of the information (possibly coming from another man being tortured to make his own pain stop).
The fact is, there will always be someone or some force out to get us. What shows true character is not stooping down to that forces level. Krauthammer explains a very important point. Torture spreads. Sure, it may be effective at first in a small prison, but once word gets out that it works, it will spread like wildfire. Krauthammer also explains how at first torture was isolated, only used in the most extreme cases. Within months of that, it spread to Iraq at Guantanamo Bay and also Abu Ghraib. Krauthhammer's quote is brilliant when he says, "The lesson is that it is impossible to quarantine torture into a hermetic box; it will inevitably contaminate the military as a whole."
Who wants to support a country with the belief that hurting others is OK?

Dead Teen Walking

The reoccurring theme of Nature vs. Nurture helps man try to decipher and understand actions. Nurture affects how man is molded. For example, White Fang in the novel White Fang became only as vicious as he needed to survive. Society, and his surroundings, hardened him. Like the young black boys in the article "Dead Teen Walking," White Fang learned to fight in order to ensure his own survival. Those boys grew up in some of the toughest conditions imaginable. Being young boys, they looked up to older men who were not good examples. After figuring out how important it was to have others backing one up, they joined gangs and often found themselves in quite a bit of trouble. I was disgusted by what Republican Governor Pete Wilson of California's spokesman said in the article about 14 year old boys being able to be on death row. He claims the gangs use young boys as the "triggermen" because gangs know younger boys won't get the death penalty. He says "We need, as a society, to see if there is some action that can be taken. And, by God, the death penalty is a deterrent." So, if I am correct, this man thinks we should all think killing a 14 year old boy is OK? Is rehabilitation not an option? It seems to me that society isn't willing to fix a problem it created. If Nature vs. Nurture is, in fact, true, we should be trying to fix the root of the problem: how these boys are raised and how society around them acts.
I am totally, one-hundred percent against the death penalty. I don't care what age the offender is, what he did, or what he says. Killing is wrong, plain and simple. There is a quote out there that says "Why do we kill people, who kill people, to tell them killing is wrong?" I find our country to be rather hypocritical (ex. other countries are not allowed weapons of mass distruction, but we can have them set up and ready to fire). In our class discussion we learned that about 70 innocent people died on death row in the last 5 years or so. That is simply not acceptable. It sickens me how easily this is comparable to Abu Ghraib. We tortured (and most likely killed, even if the government won't admit it) hundreds of Iraqis in search of some far-fetch information only some would have. America figured, "Hey, what the heck, so we tortured some innocent men, but we did get really important information for our country." That is an attempt to rationalize what happened, and not many buy it. How is that any different to death row? OK, so we kill some innocent guys, but we also kill some really, really bad ones...so it's fine. It wasn't OK in the case of Abu Ghraib, and it isn't OK in the case of death row.

Abu Ghraib

The scandal of Abu Ghraib will forever be an example of America taking matters way too far. Through "harsh interrogation techniques" (torture) American officials attempted to receive important information from Iraqis. However, after physical AND psychological torture, these officials only received information from an estimated 20 to 25% of detainees. The theme of nature vs. nurture is a prolific idea which will endlessly torture man and cause him to do things he wouldn't normally do. In Lord of the Flies by William Golding, power was almost more important than the idea of being rescued. Ralph and Jack were in a constant power struggle, and when power was gained, the thirst became an insatiable quest for more. Those two characters can be compared to Charles Garner. He had power over prisoners, and he used that power. Unfortunately, Garner wasn't able to control himself with this power and exercised control over living beings (like the little boy in the pond with the stick in Lord of the Flies). On the other side of the idea of nature vs nurture, there is the belief that society effects man. Like the novel White Fang by Jack London, society (higher ranking officials) effected the actions of soldiers working the prison. Some questioned the "techniques," but ultimately didn't ask questions. This proves that man will be effected by outside forces. It is hard to believe anyone would treat another human being so poorly, even if told to do so, but this shows society effects man's actions drastically.
The "disciplinary" actions taken against the people involved are absolutely horrible. I believe these people should be punished with more than a couple of years in prison. Under no circumstance is it OK to treat people like those soldiers treated those prisoners. The opposition may say they were just doing as orders told, but the soldiers should have known better. How they acted was/still is an embarrassment to our country and what we are supposed to represent. Also, the fact that there are pictures disgusts me. These solders took pictures with the detainees while they were nude, in "stress positions," and on the floor. I can't believe in these pictures the soldiers are smiling, thumbs-up and proud. The most disturbing picture to me was the one with a woman soldier, by the body of the only reported homicide of Al-Jamadi. The soldier was sitting by it with a smile on her face. She said "it was supposed to be just a dead guy." Maybe she didn't know he was murdered, but why would anyone take a picture with a dead body?
I understand the times and conditions were rough, but in no instance is it OK to treat humans like the Iraqis were treated at Abu Ghraib prison. This is yet another example of man at his worst, and how he attempts to rationalize it.

Senior Social Blogs

Out of the two books assigned this summer, Lord of the Flies was my favorite by far. I am really interested in the psychological part of humans, and that book really touched upon why humans act the way they do. The author, William Golding, did an excellent job in using strong characterization to create humans who represent a larger group of people. Lord of the Flies was a well written novel that portrayed humans and primal instincts which we unknowingly fight. I didn't care for White Fang because of the authors writing style. Jack London wrote with lengthy descriptions and I felt the whole book could have been half the size, and the reader would have still received the same message that society effects man. I found myself becoming increasingly uninterested as the story went on.