What I Remember Most...

This year, many things have been going on, both inside and outside of the classroom.  We have read multiple books, watched many movies and had a lot of discussions.  Outside of the classroom, there have been many things going on like the election, failing finances of our country's businesses, and foreign policy issues.  The things that I remember most about this year have been the business bailout, the issues with North Korea and the issues with national health care.  The business bailout spurred many debates and many articles and vehicles to be read.  This important topic was all over the news and in our classroom.  This event was put into our minds for weeks and still is talked about today...many months later.  The issues with North Korea are also what I remember from this year.  We discussed them about two months ago and just recently they tested more weapons.  The country of North Korea is very debatable and has many issues.  This important topic is one that is very current in our news.  The last issue that I remember from the year is the debate on national health care.  We watched a movie about it, and I think we read a few articles about it.  This very important topic is a highly debatable topic and is still in our minds today.  All the topics that we learned about this year were very important, but out of those, bailouts, North Korea and health care are what I remember most.

My most favorite book this year was probably The Prince or Brave New World.  The Prince was a pretty straight-forward book, which I like.  The topic wasn't my favorite, but the fact that it was very straight-forward made me like it.  Brave New World was also a good one to read.  It was very interesting and really made me think what kinds of things are possible with science.  My least favorite book would have to be the Dialogues of Plato or Heart of Darkness.  Plato was just a very hard-to-read book with many words and sentences that went on and on.  Heart of Darkness...I just didn't really understand the book very much.  Even though it was a short book, I didn't really enjoy it at all.  If there was an area to improve in the class, it would be...well, actually, there really isn't one.  I really liked the class.  I guess the only thing that I would consider changing is the book choices.  I would've liked to have read the Fast Food Nation book, or the book dealing with restaurants.  That would be the only thing that I would change.

Big Brother Article (make up for seminar)

This article really does show some similarities and differences to 1984.  In the book, the government can tap into anything, not just the people who they deem a threat.  The Thought Police can listen to everyone and control all of their thoughts.  The only connection that I see is that they were spying on people in both cases.

The article deals more with listening to people or groups who are a threat to our country, and actually, I don't have a huge problem with that.  If the government has sizable, true evidence that a group or a person could do harm to the people within the country, I think it's okay to listen to them.  If they are plotting to destroy something, they need to be stopped.  They shouldn't be allowed the freedom of privacy.  In saying that, I think the examples in the article were a little off.  I don't see why the government saw any threat in people handing PB&J sandwiches to people.  I don't see this as a national threat.  They weren't shooting or stabbing anyone.  People do have the right to peaceably assemble.  The anti-war protests, an expression of how they felt, were peaceful too and I don't see how they could be a violent threat.  If they were against killing, I don't think they would kill anyone.

I do think, as the article said, the government group went a little far.  They should be examining credible threats, not the people who want to keep the peace.  1984 and the article were very similar.  The book and article both showed the government spying, but in the book; it was in every aspect of their lives.  The government today is only spying on those who were a threat, in the book, it was every aspect of their lives.  I don't think the government means to invade in our privacy.  They want to keep us safe.

North Korea: Choosing Sides

After reading the two sides of this article, and seeing valid sides for both, I agree with both sides.  It seems as though North Korea doesn't want to talk to us at all; if they ever want to, it's only under their conditions... mainly when they need help.  North Korea has its own way of doing things and doesn't seem to need anyone's help-just watch the video that we saw in Senior Social this week.  The children don't want anything to do with the United States or any other part of the world.  They are stuck in their own little world, with their heads filled of Kim Jong-Il's ways.  They are so distant from the world and seem to like it.  

In saying that, I also believe that both sides could benefit from talks with each other.  We'd be able to find out if they have nuclear weapons, and we'd be able to figure out a way to make sure they aren't using them in a terrible way.  We'd also be able to help them with any kind of economic problem they were having, like when they had millions of starving people in their country.  North Korea would also benefit; they'd be able to see where we were coming from and hopefully see what the rest of the world sees.  

It would be best if North Korea and the United States could come together and talk, but in seeing what happened with the 1994 framework, it doesn't seem like either side wants to comply completely... one side more than the other.  It seems like North Korea is happy by itself, and if that's the way they really want it, and their people are happy, then they should do what they want to do.  Talks would be best, but if not, so be it.

Thin Gruel

These articles were really interesting, and actually, very entertaining to read.  I had a good laugh when I looked at some of the banned words in textbooks.  Snowball, snowman, pop, soda, pickle, salad oil? How are all of these words offensive to people? The images were interesting to read about too.  Why can't we draw older people with a "twinkle in their eye" or girls as neat? I don't see these as stereotypical at all.  These images are what we see in our world.  It doesn't mean that boys aren't neat or that younger people don't have a twinkle in their eye, it's just how the author wanted to portray a character in their book.  In the actual article, I don't really see why we ban books, even if there are some scenes that aren't great.  If people don't want to read that part, skip it or don't read the book, but let someone else make the decision for themselves if they want to read the book.  The book, Go Ask Alice, is a very vivid account of drug use, but it should be for the person to decide if they want to read it or up to their parents.  People, if the books are banned in school, do have other means to get them anyways.  They could go to the bookstore or the internet.  

For the books that are controversial like Brave New World, 1984, etc, I believe that it should be up to the person.  The book should be available for anyone to read, not censored because believe it or not, the things that people don't want others to see can be found in other ways, like television or the internet.  

I do see the connection to 1984.  In the book, Big Brother wanted everyone to act the same and only see what he wanted them to see.  In a sense he censored the world around them.  It's the same when people want to ban books; they are censoring what other people might want to read and learn more about.  

The individual should be able to make their own decision of what they want to read or not.  

North Korea

The two articles both seem to hint at the same thing; they want the United States to talk with North Korea about their nuclear weapons.  The first article has three different steps that the United States should take to deal with North Korea.  We should, according to the article, wait until they are ready to talk, then, we should move our focus onto Japan and South Korea and build our relationships their, and then we should welcome South Korea and China into the PSI and make not take part in the acts of North Korea.  The other article talks more about the tests that North Korea could and would do with their nuclear weapons.  They say that we should be ready to go after and destroy them.  The steps that the second article says to take is to destroy the tests and then go on to have North Korea stand down and stop their tests; we would give them a warning for them to stop.  This article too says that we should be with our allies; we should think of their security, our security and eventually how to get through to North Korea.  

1984 Blog #1

1. The mottoes of the Party were "War is Peace," "Ignorance is Strength," and "Freedom is Slavery."  The mottoes seem really backwards; they seem to refer to people throwing away their compassion, freedom, and peace in order to live in the world that they are living.  Their world seems to embrace war, ignorance, and slavery-they want everyone to be the same and not show who they are.  They want to control everyone.

2. Newspeak is the official language of Oceania.  The purpose of Newspeak is to meet the needs of IngSoc to provide expression for world view and make habits of IngSoc devotees.  It's also to make other thoughts impossible; they want people to act the same and not think for themselves.

3. It's necessary for the Party to get rid of antonyms and synonyms to make it simple.  They are able to use one word to mean what many words meant before.  For example, good can be made into ungood or plusgood to mean terrible, horrible, great, splendid, etc.  Only two words are necessary, not multiple.

4. The Party controls history be getting rid of the people's information when they die.  If they pass by natural causes or hanging or so on, they discard the information that they ever had on the people.  They want the people to live in the present and not know about the past.

5. Emmanuel is the enemy of the people.  He was a traitor to the party.  He is shown to the people through digital pictures that they can see wherever they go.  His face is seen everywhere!

Cloning

As scientifically advanced as it is, I do not believe that we should allow cloning in our country.  I don't believe that it is right to take cells from a person or animal to create a "blob" of cells to make a new person.  Even as great as it may sound, to use cloning to make extra organs isn't right.  Even though the cells aren't big, only 100 or so, those cells were meant to grow into a person or animal.  It's not right; by cloning these things, we are taking away a life.  For animals, I believe that there are plenty of animals in the world that need loving homes already; making a copy of a past animal is almost selfish.  It won't bring the original animal back; it won't know the person like the other one did, and it might not even act like the old one.  Plus, like I said, there are thousands of animals waiting for forever homes; they are already alive, unlike the clone-animals, and need a loving family.  Food cloning seems really weird; isn't there enough food already that can be made? I'm not really opposed to that, if it doesn't have to do with animals.  Fruit, vegetables, those are okay.  Cloning people isn't natural and shouldn't be allowed.  Who knows what could happen to those people, and we already have many people on the earth already.  If there are natural clones, twins, that's great, but I don't think we need to go around making clones of people who are already living.  Cloning is very scientifically advanced and great-sounding, but I don't think we need it in our world.