11/18/09

It was very interesting reading both sides of the argument about dropping the atomic bomb. Both readings brought up valid points, but I still believe that it was not necessary to drop the bomb. Also, reading the Japanese grade-school textbook version of the bombing was very interesting as well, because the writing of that article was much more humble and non-bias than the American textbook writing was. The Japanese textbook made it sound as if the Japanese deserved the bombing.

11/17/09

In the reading “The Scientists in Society”, Julius Robert Oppenheimer brings up a few valid points about science. He states that science has changed the way that humans live, and that science is universal in the sense that its nonnational and any man can do it. I feel like science and math, more than anything, are both universal because every human can learn it. Also, I believe science will never die out, because there is always more for the human race to discover about the past or the future.

Reading Progress of Japan, seeing the two different perspectives of the atomic bombing of Japan was remarkable. The first line of the American textbook reads, “The Japanese are defeated”. That just shows, in my opinion, how the Americans thought at that time. They didn’t care if thousands were killed, as long as their enemy was defeated. That’s all that mattered. Also that it only mentions the amount of Americans that died during the U.S. army’s battle through Japan. These textbooks were so bias to the American point of view and didn’t want the children reading them to feel for the Japanese since the Japanese were the United State’s enemy. In reading the Japanese version, adjectives like unsparingly and horrible were used to describe what the U.S. did to the Japanese. I believe it is beneficial for a reader to hear both sides of a story, either to make their side more valid or to know what the other side believes in.

11/8/09

Reading the article, “Environmental Problems and Poverty”, there’s a statement that draws my attention. “Developed nations have a responsibility to help them break this cycle and replace it with an agenda that ensures sustainable population patterns, improved education levels, and increased production and employment rates”. Now, us developed countries aren’t nearly as bad off as undeveloped countries are in those categories, but I don’t believe the U.S. knows how to imply these rules if our nation can’t improve its education levels or increase employment rates. So, how can we teach a country how to do these things when we ourselves still haven’t mastered the technique? How would these undeveloped countries be able to trust us when we still have deforestation and one of the highest pollution rates in the world? I say these things, but I also cannot come up with any other way to help these undeveloped nations. Is there a better alternative?

11/5/09

Reading the “Queer Kids of Queer Parents against Gay Marriage” blog brought to light a whole new argument that I had never heard. I’ve heard of straight people supporting gay marriage, gay people supporting gay marriage, and other straight people against gay marriage. But I haven’t come across any gays fighting against gay marriage. It seems that the gay community, the ones who side with that particular blog entry, believe that the gay marriage movement is becoming more of a political thing, instead of something to actually help the gay community out. They also believe that gay marriage makes it so gay couples are almost “cookie-cut”, like there is a certain standard that you must be to have gay marriage. And the point they bring up about how there are many straight families that aren’t like the ‘Jones’ and that all families have their uniqueness, and that letting gay marriage be allowed would limit this freedom, and would limit a uniqueness to their families. It’s also interesting  because the title of ‘marriage’ has a lot of sentimental value to some folks, and for those that are gay and can’t have that official title, it might upset them. So, when people say if the label of marriage really maters, it might to some.

In the other article, I find it difficult to find justice in it. I guess the Misfit was thinking it was just for him to kill the family, and that he said he didnt do anything wrong. How was just involved in that story?

11/2/09

Upon reading Jared Diamond’s “The Erosion of Civilization”, I was somewhat surprised. I’ve studied past civilizations, and have read about the Middle East and its one-time dominance. But living in this time, where so much misfortune and corruption occurs in the Middle East, its past is hard to believe. Diamond’s point brought up at the end is valid, but how easy is it for us to predict the future? There are obviously signs of when a country is struggling, as we can see in America right now, but it might just be a little blip on the radar. It might just be a slight dip on the graph, and the country will recover. At the same time, you could say, what if that dip turns into a dive?

Democracy in America

Morals and the argument and just and unjust are very similar. People that are just are said to have good morals. Those who are unjust are said to have bad morals. Alexis de Tocqueville says that the majority, ‘possesses a power which is physical and moral at the same time, which acts upon the will as much as upon the actions,” (59). His opinion is that the majority has more power than just a single ruler. I agree with him on that point because one main leader can speak to the mass, but a a majority can move a mass of people into doing something. Kofin Annan’s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture starts off with a small example, and then broadens to his general ideas. This is a great skeleton for a speech or essay for that matter. He grabs your attention with a specific story, and then fills in with facts and general info, before closing by coming back to that same story he began the whole speech with.

Civil Disobedience and ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ Readings

The Civil Disobedience essay was so thick and really hard for me to read.  The point brought up in paragraph 8, about When a honest man can rebel, is interesting. It says that when the country is ‘unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army’, that’s when you can break laws and revolt. In the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Reading, Martin Luther King speaks so kindly, yet so assertively. Take the couple of lines at the top of page 216. “It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative”. He has a way with words that lets him assert his point without trying to sound too overpowering. I believe, based particularly on the Martin Luther King reading, that it is time to break a law when the law begins to  damage people. You cannot have laws that do damage (mental or physical) to a certain group of people, because thats not just. Like Martin Luther King says, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (pg 218).

Justice

The definition of justice, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is the following: The quality of being (morally) just or righteous. Now, when looking at the plethora of super heroes at the exhibit, I could see that all the super heroes were depicted as being the main figure of the picture and they were the one that everyone looked up to. All the super heroes also had perfect bodies: It didn’t matter if it was a man super hero or woman super hero, they both had the big muscles and skin-tight outfits. When I see this in comics, I think that the writers must think its right for the superheroes to have perfect bodies. That must be the just thing to do. Also, the villains always had a scowl on their face, and were particularly ugly as well. The villain seemed to be shadier, and not as flamboyant as the super hero. Justice, in this case, relates to super heroes since they all do the right thing, in fighting crime. They also serve justice since some of them try to blend in with the average person.

2 Questions on Walton and Beauvoir

1) I can see a great amount of similarities between Simon de Beauvoir’s essay and the recent article by Lisa Belkin called, ‘The Way We Live Now’. I brought up the point in my last blog that I don’t agree with Belkin’s point that woman are succeeding only because men are failing. Beauvoir has a very similar statement, ‘ They (women) have gained only what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they have only received’. Both writers have similar styles in that they don’t give many props to their own gender.

2)Box 3: “If a woman has a special gift–which doesn’t happen often–I do not think it right to reuse her the chance and means of studying…[but] such a case must always be regarded just as an exception”(Richter)

Reworded: If the rare situation of a woman having a special gift comes up, don’t deny her means to achieve. Just consider it a one-time thing, not a regular achievement.

The Xanith/ Why Do I Wear Hajib?

After reading ‘The Xanith’, I still wasn’t clear what the difference between a homosexual and a xanith was in their society? Also, not even on the topic of the xanith themselves, but just seeing all the basic rules in their society for women, like not being able to leave the house at night without the husband’s consent or having to wear a burqa, made me realize how radically different the American society is from the muslim world. I do believe some of their rules are too harsh on women and that women should have the right to be equal to men, but I don’t think our society would be able to function with those types of rules. Seeing how much more modern America is, I don’t believe we’d be able to keep up our modernization if we had to live with rules like that. Reading ‘Why Do I Wear Hajib’, i saw a sort of, flip, in the theory that wearing a hijab brought a women down. I’d think that some women would hate wearing that, but Sultana writes that it, ‘is actually one of the most fundamental aspects of female empowerment’. Also reading the handout called ‘The Way We Live Now’, it brought up a lot of valid points about how women have been getting their jobs. It’s sort of a harsh article, and makes seem like women haven’t really done any of the hard work, and it’s just because men are wilting, that women are growing. I don’t agree with that, but it’s a well-written article.