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?