I chose the 2010 free response question of "Read the following sources (including the introductory information) carefully. Then, in an essay that synthesizes at least three of the sources for support, evaluate the most important factors that a school should consider before using particular technologies in curriculum and instruction".
I chose this one because it's one that I can relate to seeing as technology is a particularly important part of my life. I personally would have answered this question synthesizing sources A, B-E, and D. I would use source A to mention the factor of "keeping up with technology". This source uses a school as an example that has replaced textbooks with iBooks. The danger of this is that maintenance repairs on iBooks and the cost of keeping up with the latest iBooks and expenses and updates within the piece of technology would be an unforeseen expense to the school, and certainly a far greater expense than utilizing textbooks. I would use sources B and E to illuminate the potential factor of cyber-bullying through connection to online collaboration websites. Both sources talk about sharing information between students online. Source B focuses on increasing the opportunities for students to share and edit each other's work over the internet. Source E talks about "internet propaganda" which can directly connect to internet abuse and bullying. I would use both sources to help readers realize that cyber-bullying and cyber-pressure are two factors to be considered by allowing students to frequently and consistently use computers as part of their school curriculum. The final source I would use would be Source D. I would use Source D to expose the potential factor of students forgetting or not learning important basics due to the rise of computers. Basic skills such as writing in cursive and essay handwriting could easily be lost if students' educations were to be dominated by computers. I would also illustrate how it is difficult to get distracted while reading or writing physically where as doing any form of reading or writing on a computer or piece of technology can easily lead to distraction due to the accessibility of games/internet/etc.
The papers I read succeeded and failed in different ways. One main pattern I saw was the mentioning of "lack of skills" developed by computers. This is the same thought I had and basically describes the fact that learning to do everyone on a computer causes basic skills to be neglected or forgotten. An area where all three essays failed was in mentioning specific pieces of technology, such as computers or handheld electronics etc. All three essays focused significantly on "technology" and "internet" but failed to narrow their focuses to the pieces of technology that most students rely on. The prompt specifically asks students to focus on "particular technologies" and this is where all three essays failed.
I think that the second essay I read, 1B was far better written and more elegant than essay 1A however, 1A scored higher because its writer focused on specific factors where as 1B focused mostly on technology as a whole. I feel that if 1B had narrowed their focus and mentioned specific factors/pieces of technology and made them their focus, they would have scored a 9. The writing and language and composition of 1B was beautiful where as 1A's did not appeal to me at all. While 1A focused on a point that I made, I would not have mentioned "children are spending less time in nature due to the immersion of more computers". I don't think that this is a strong enough point and isn't exactly a factor that schools need to consider. This is a factor parents would need to focus on, not the school. Whether or not students use technology at school will not directly affect the time they spend outside at home.
I think I would have done well on this essay. I understood the prompt, and we did something similar to this last year I believe on the DWA. While this essay could be challenging to write, I feel that my factors and focuses are strong enough to provide me with a good score. I hope we get this one on our AP test....highly unlikely.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Friday, April 19, 2013
Psychoanalytic Criticism of The PWB
I am very happy that I chose this focus out of the basket. I knew immediately that I could have a lot of fun with this connection to the book and really express my thoughts.
A common psychoanalytic question is 'how symbolic is the imagery in the work?'
My answer in the form of examples in regards to the book PWB is as follows:
The white flowers taken over by African dirt. This is important in showing the reader that even the beautiful pure things are not meant to survive the harshness of the African Terrain.
Rachel, the "white rabbit". Like mentioned in class, the rabbit is often a creature symbol of trickery and deceit. We have yet to see Rachel be either of these things, but as a symbol, the white rabbit represents rarity, trickery, and perhaps bad luck.
The "overkill" of fish, dead and left to rot on the river bank. The imagery o dead fish is symbolic of the Father's goal in Africa. His goal is to help "enlighten" the people, And yet we
predict he will lead their downfall. His attempts at creating an easier and better life for them ultimately harms them. The fish is an example of the father trying to do a good thing, feed them, but instead waste fish and plague the village air with the scent of rotting fish (symbolic of death). I think his massacre of the fish is also symbolic of his lack of foresight and understanding of Africa. Back home the fish would have been put on ice and preserved, but he fails to remember this detail and his fish fall victim to the sweltering African heat.
The fake ivory hand mirror. This is symbolic of Rachel's lack of depth. She is concern solely with her material goods and strongly detests sharing with her sister. The facade of her mirror accurately mirrors her shallow ideals and her lack of "true honest" depth.
The betty crocker cake mix meltdown. This is symbolic of Orleanna's loss of control over her surroundings and sense of adaptability. She was not prepared for what the heat would do to the cake mix. Her meltdown displays her first moment of "losing her cool" it brings us far deeper than just the loss
of the cake mix. Here we realize that she is losing her motherly control. She realizes she no longer has the means to provide for her daughters in the manner that they are used to.
Anatole's face scarring. This section where his face is described is symbolic of Rachel's lack of consideration for things beyond physical perfection. She goes on to tell the reader that the African people seem content with scars as a decoration. Unlike her, the African people know that scars often represent challenges or hard circumstances that have been overcome. Perhaps in many instances those scars were obtained in near death experiences and therefore she has nothing to relate to. Her reaction to the scars, and the description of Anatole's face is symbolic of her innocence and lack of empathy.
A common psychoanalytic question is 'how symbolic is the imagery in the work?'
My answer in the form of examples in regards to the book PWB is as follows:
The white flowers taken over by African dirt. This is important in showing the reader that even the beautiful pure things are not meant to survive the harshness of the African Terrain.
Rachel, the "white rabbit". Like mentioned in class, the rabbit is often a creature symbol of trickery and deceit. We have yet to see Rachel be either of these things, but as a symbol, the white rabbit represents rarity, trickery, and perhaps bad luck.
The "overkill" of fish, dead and left to rot on the river bank. The imagery o dead fish is symbolic of the Father's goal in Africa. His goal is to help "enlighten" the people, And yet we
predict he will lead their downfall. His attempts at creating an easier and better life for them ultimately harms them. The fish is an example of the father trying to do a good thing, feed them, but instead waste fish and plague the village air with the scent of rotting fish (symbolic of death). I think his massacre of the fish is also symbolic of his lack of foresight and understanding of Africa. Back home the fish would have been put on ice and preserved, but he fails to remember this detail and his fish fall victim to the sweltering African heat.
The fake ivory hand mirror. This is symbolic of Rachel's lack of depth. She is concern solely with her material goods and strongly detests sharing with her sister. The facade of her mirror accurately mirrors her shallow ideals and her lack of "true honest" depth.
The betty crocker cake mix meltdown. This is symbolic of Orleanna's loss of control over her surroundings and sense of adaptability. She was not prepared for what the heat would do to the cake mix. Her meltdown displays her first moment of "losing her cool" it brings us far deeper than just the loss
of the cake mix. Here we realize that she is losing her motherly control. She realizes she no longer has the means to provide for her daughters in the manner that they are used to.
Anatole's face scarring. This section where his face is described is symbolic of Rachel's lack of consideration for things beyond physical perfection. She goes on to tell the reader that the African people seem content with scars as a decoration. Unlike her, the African people know that scars often represent challenges or hard circumstances that have been overcome. Perhaps in many instances those scars were obtained in near death experiences and therefore she has nothing to relate to. Her reaction to the scars, and the description of Anatole's face is symbolic of her innocence and lack of empathy.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Heart of Darkness vs. Apocalypse Now
I think we all found the movie Apocalypse Now to be quite entertaining. There were many scenes in the movie that led us to think "wow the movie has dead ringer parts to the story". While some ideas were similar, many aspects of the movie AN were
different from HoD. The main variation I would like to focus on is our relationship and feelings towards "the oppressed". In HoD the reader can feel nothing but pity and sadness for the Africans in the Congo. They are portrayed as shadowy figures who are brutally and ruthlessly worked to the death, if not killed before then. When reading HoD, the reader is allowed to manifest feelings of sadness towards the people. We almost want to save them.
When watching Apocalypse Now, I formed and entirely different opinion towards the "oppressed", if we can even call the Vietnamese in AN oppressed. We can see
the majority of them as victims of war and brutality, but as the US was not physically trying to govern and rule them in AN I do not see them as oppressed. However, As Eric mentioned in his blog, AN may have been a form of Vietnam War propaganda, in which case it would only be logical that we don't relate to the "oppressed" in the way we do in HoD. In the scene where the Vietnamese girl runs in the plaza to throw a grenade in the US chopper, viewers are immediately resentful of the Vietnamese. While this particular scene does not translate into a scene from HoD I think it is still very significant. An important difference between HoD and AN is our feelings and connection to the oppressed. I personally did not relate and want to save the Vietnamese. In HoD I Wanted to see the Congolese freed and yet in AN I wanted to see the Vietnamese lose as much as the US did. As a form of propaganda, and as part of a war film it makes sense that we cannot relate to the Vietnamese, they are intended to be the enemy. But I think it is important to realize that AN is missing the key component of compassion towards the "oppressed" that really drew us into the book HoD.
different from HoD. The main variation I would like to focus on is our relationship and feelings towards "the oppressed". In HoD the reader can feel nothing but pity and sadness for the Africans in the Congo. They are portrayed as shadowy figures who are brutally and ruthlessly worked to the death, if not killed before then. When reading HoD, the reader is allowed to manifest feelings of sadness towards the people. We almost want to save them.
When watching Apocalypse Now, I formed and entirely different opinion towards the "oppressed", if we can even call the Vietnamese in AN oppressed. We can see
the majority of them as victims of war and brutality, but as the US was not physically trying to govern and rule them in AN I do not see them as oppressed. However, As Eric mentioned in his blog, AN may have been a form of Vietnam War propaganda, in which case it would only be logical that we don't relate to the "oppressed" in the way we do in HoD. In the scene where the Vietnamese girl runs in the plaza to throw a grenade in the US chopper, viewers are immediately resentful of the Vietnamese. While this particular scene does not translate into a scene from HoD I think it is still very significant. An important difference between HoD and AN is our feelings and connection to the oppressed. I personally did not relate and want to save the Vietnamese. In HoD I Wanted to see the Congolese freed and yet in AN I wanted to see the Vietnamese lose as much as the US did. As a form of propaganda, and as part of a war film it makes sense that we cannot relate to the Vietnamese, they are intended to be the enemy. But I think it is important to realize that AN is missing the key component of compassion towards the "oppressed" that really drew us into the book HoD.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Reading Difficulties Pages 102-118
"In a few days the Eldorado Expedition went into the patient wilderness, that closed upon it as the sea closes over a diver. Long afterwards the news came that all the donkeys were dead. I know nothing as to the fate of the less valuable animals. They, no doubt, like the rest of us, found what they deserved. I did not inquire. I was then rather excited at the prospect of meeting Kurtz very soon. When I say very soon I mean it comparatively. It was just two months from the day we left the creek when we came to the bank below Kurtz's station"(Page 105, 3rd paragraph). In this section the narrator talks about the fact that the donkeys of the Eldorado Expedition all died. This part confused me because it jumps around a lot and it was unclear to me why this particular section is significant? Also when the narrator says the part "They, no doubt, like the rest of us, found what they deserved", he is seemingly referring to the Donkeys, but the language of "they found what they deserved" is difficult to decipher. This section could mean many different things and while the language itself was not difficult to understand the meaning of the section as a whole was.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Heart of Darkness Quote
"The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much" (Page 70).
I believe that this quote is the thesis of the book. In this quote Joseph Conrad completely captures the essence of
the fight for domination of the Congo. In most instances throughout history land was conquered or sought after by stronger countries because the desired land was inhabited by people thought to be lesser beings. Why would there be any room for moral conflict when capturing land if it's peoples are "less than human"? This quote captures the idea that strong countries tend to oppose any group of people who look, behave or seem different from it's people. Humans tend to fear things they do not understand or can't relate to. Conquest is by no means a pretty thing. Conquest is often sparked by fear or greed, as noted in not only this book but in King Leopold's ghost as well. While some of the goals behind conquest may be noble, the abuse of land, resources and people is "not a pretty thing". This quote wants it's readers to understand that even the slightest variation in culture or appearance could be enough motivation to sparks a countries desire for conquest.
I believe that this quote is the thesis of the book. In this quote Joseph Conrad completely captures the essence of
the fight for domination of the Congo. In most instances throughout history land was conquered or sought after by stronger countries because the desired land was inhabited by people thought to be lesser beings. Why would there be any room for moral conflict when capturing land if it's peoples are "less than human"? This quote captures the idea that strong countries tend to oppose any group of people who look, behave or seem different from it's people. Humans tend to fear things they do not understand or can't relate to. Conquest is by no means a pretty thing. Conquest is often sparked by fear or greed, as noted in not only this book but in King Leopold's ghost as well. While some of the goals behind conquest may be noble, the abuse of land, resources and people is "not a pretty thing". This quote wants it's readers to understand that even the slightest variation in culture or appearance could be enough motivation to sparks a countries desire for conquest.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Chapter 17: No Man Is a Stranger
I am posting this from my iPhone so prepare for spelling errors to run rampant. I did the first half of chapter 17 for our presentation tomorrow. The first half of this chapter extends most of it's substance to illustrating the slow but steady downfall of Leopold's control over the congo (I know finally!).
The first section of this chapter highlights the movement of "African Testimony". The court system in
the Congo during that time was white ruled. White men and many African de facto officials didn't fear the legal system because it was inefficient and unjust. KL basically created a Commission of Inquiry of Rule. He sent for three commissioners who would make it their sole purpose to listen to the horrifying testimonies of the African people in the Congo. For the first time African people in the Congo had a "voice" and a chance to tell of the atrocities of king Leopold and his followers...or so they thought. It turns out that the general reports (reports were never written in detail) never were read beyond the commissioners themselves and were locked in the state archive in Brussels until 1980.
The next section of the chapter highlights Leopold's intense infatuation with France and slow building hate for all things Belgian. In his older years he traveled abroad by ship or private railway cars, spoiling Caroline with luxurious homes designed after French architecture.
Thanks to the campaign of morel and the commission inquiry reports given
to Leopold and then leaked, he was being pressured to extract himself from
the Congo. Due to the fact Leopold was becoming increasingly pressured to release his grasp over Congo he decided he would sell it and for a handsome price. He ended up selling it to Belgium in exchange for them taking over 150 million dollars in debt and paying him 50 million in gratitude and financing his building projects including the Grand Leopoldian Center for World Conferences.
Next in the chapter we learn about a man named William Morrison, a fierce ally to William Sheppard and loyal friend to Morel. Morrison encouraged many fellow ministers to speak out about the Congo atrocities. At this time missionaries and Presbyterians began being watched closely for Leopold had issued a decree mandating 5 year jail time for any calumny against a Congo Official. During the end of Leopold's rules the Compagnie du Kasai was trying to extract as much rubber as possible. The Kuba people in this region started rising against the rubber terror. The Kuban people reaped havoc on white trading posts and eventually 180 of them were killed. Sheppard wrote a story detailing how their lives went from peaceful to horrifying due to the rubber boom. The Compagnie due Kasai was outraged and exploded on Morrison and Sheppard demanding a retraction. Morrison and
Sheppard were legally vulnerable since they printed the article in the Congo which morel re-printed in Britain. Soon British vice consul started investigating and the Kasais stocks started to plummet. The company decided to legally punish Sheppard and Morrison to which they replied with a statement that they would rather go to jail than pay the fines. Morrison and Sheppard were ready to go to trial with more than a dozen Kubans by their side ready to testify in their defense. Morel called his friend and ally Emile Vandernelde and asked for a recommendation for a for a good lawyer for the men. Vandernelde revealed that he was an attorney and decided to take the case himself Pro Bono. He was a leading figure in European Democratic Socialism. When criticized by Belgians for traveling all the way to Africa to defend a couple of foreigners he replied by saying "No man is a stranger in the court of justice".
My Quiz Questions are:
1.What is the significance of the title?(Hint, last line)
2.What happened to the testimonies given by the Africans? And what does this show about the integrity or power of the commission?
3. Why was Sheppard's story about the Kubans such an outrage? What was the resulting effect of his story?
(The remaining quiz questions on Enlly's Blog Post)
The first section of this chapter highlights the movement of "African Testimony". The court system in
the Congo during that time was white ruled. White men and many African de facto officials didn't fear the legal system because it was inefficient and unjust. KL basically created a Commission of Inquiry of Rule. He sent for three commissioners who would make it their sole purpose to listen to the horrifying testimonies of the African people in the Congo. For the first time African people in the Congo had a "voice" and a chance to tell of the atrocities of king Leopold and his followers...or so they thought. It turns out that the general reports (reports were never written in detail) never were read beyond the commissioners themselves and were locked in the state archive in Brussels until 1980.
The next section of the chapter highlights Leopold's intense infatuation with France and slow building hate for all things Belgian. In his older years he traveled abroad by ship or private railway cars, spoiling Caroline with luxurious homes designed after French architecture.
Thanks to the campaign of morel and the commission inquiry reports given
to Leopold and then leaked, he was being pressured to extract himself from
the Congo. Due to the fact Leopold was becoming increasingly pressured to release his grasp over Congo he decided he would sell it and for a handsome price. He ended up selling it to Belgium in exchange for them taking over 150 million dollars in debt and paying him 50 million in gratitude and financing his building projects including the Grand Leopoldian Center for World Conferences.
Next in the chapter we learn about a man named William Morrison, a fierce ally to William Sheppard and loyal friend to Morel. Morrison encouraged many fellow ministers to speak out about the Congo atrocities. At this time missionaries and Presbyterians began being watched closely for Leopold had issued a decree mandating 5 year jail time for any calumny against a Congo Official. During the end of Leopold's rules the Compagnie du Kasai was trying to extract as much rubber as possible. The Kuba people in this region started rising against the rubber terror. The Kuban people reaped havoc on white trading posts and eventually 180 of them were killed. Sheppard wrote a story detailing how their lives went from peaceful to horrifying due to the rubber boom. The Compagnie due Kasai was outraged and exploded on Morrison and Sheppard demanding a retraction. Morrison and
Sheppard were legally vulnerable since they printed the article in the Congo which morel re-printed in Britain. Soon British vice consul started investigating and the Kasais stocks started to plummet. The company decided to legally punish Sheppard and Morrison to which they replied with a statement that they would rather go to jail than pay the fines. Morrison and Sheppard were ready to go to trial with more than a dozen Kubans by their side ready to testify in their defense. Morel called his friend and ally Emile Vandernelde and asked for a recommendation for a for a good lawyer for the men. Vandernelde revealed that he was an attorney and decided to take the case himself Pro Bono. He was a leading figure in European Democratic Socialism. When criticized by Belgians for traveling all the way to Africa to defend a couple of foreigners he replied by saying "No man is a stranger in the court of justice".
My Quiz Questions are:
1.What is the significance of the title?(Hint, last line)
2.What happened to the testimonies given by the Africans? And what does this show about the integrity or power of the commission?
3. Why was Sheppard's story about the Kubans such an outrage? What was the resulting effect of his story?
(The remaining quiz questions on Enlly's Blog Post)
Thursday, February 28, 2013
"Psychology of the Seriously Screwed Up"
When reading history books I tend to find myself dozing off into the world of my own creative imagination. While history books are designed to be factual, specific, and generally a timeline of events, they are usually everything BUT creative in terms of intrigue and excitement. At least in my experience. King Leopold's Ghost does not follow this generalization. This may be the first historically accurate book I have read that has held my interest from day one. This may be because the book is focused on analyzing the psychological effects of conquest and colonization on rulers and explorers, or maybe because the book seems more like a fictional adventure novel than a historical account.
This book accurately and uniquely allows the reader to step into that time period and understand why the people who invaded the Congo did what they did, and shows us how screwed up they were from a mental standpoint. This book illustrated to me that with exploration not only comes financial wealth, but wealth in mental insanity and instability as well. King Leopold would be considered in modern terms an Egotistic, narcissistic, tyrannical ignorant ruler. His exploration and conquest within this book is not highlighted by the rewards he reaped, but by the mental toll and corruption placed within him and his "regime". The atrocities committed by him were great, and their attempted "justification" is in a way established within this book through the assessment of King Leopold's psyche.
It is made clear in the book that rulers of that time were often forced to fulfill a moral or physical obligation to their family and kingdom. Readers of this book are well aware that Leopold's upbringing played a significant part in his "downfall" as a ruler. Every ruler has the potential to be successful and powerful, but Leopold instead succumbed to his greed and desire to prove himself to his family. Throughout the entire book his moral corruption and blindness is illuminated and the different personalities and moral conflicts of other characters such as Stanley or Sheppard are highlighted as well. This book not only accounts for a large part of history in the sense of "what was accomplished and written down for generations to learn about" but also the "forgotten things". The things that people should remember about history but aren't given the chance to. Rarely does a book allow the reader to enter the minds of its subjects and in a way give the subjects a chance to "rationalize or justify" their actions.
Through this book it is made clear that rulers often have ulterior motives than just doing "what is right by the people". In our own country as well as foreign countries, currently and in past history, greed, hunger for power, and desire for conquest and famous recognition runs rampant within a leadership role. Leaders often bear a psychological toll and decay as a result of their exploits. Whether their legacy is remembered in history, their conquests or their achievements, rarely is their state of psychological stability noted. This book opened my eyes to the knowledge that there is a whole other side to history that often goes un-acknowledged. While understanding the psychology and reasoning behind the decisions of Leopold and the other subjects of the book has helped me to understand their real motives, it does not justify their actions in any way shape or form. The account of this book allows the reader to understand exactly HOW some of these men were able to commit or witness the atrocities produced in the Congo and WHY the men did what they did. It takes important characters in history and changes them from "characters" to relatable (or at least understandable and analyzable) people.
This book accurately and uniquely allows the reader to step into that time period and understand why the people who invaded the Congo did what they did, and shows us how screwed up they were from a mental standpoint. This book illustrated to me that with exploration not only comes financial wealth, but wealth in mental insanity and instability as well. King Leopold would be considered in modern terms an Egotistic, narcissistic, tyrannical ignorant ruler. His exploration and conquest within this book is not highlighted by the rewards he reaped, but by the mental toll and corruption placed within him and his "regime". The atrocities committed by him were great, and their attempted "justification" is in a way established within this book through the assessment of King Leopold's psyche.
It is made clear in the book that rulers of that time were often forced to fulfill a moral or physical obligation to their family and kingdom. Readers of this book are well aware that Leopold's upbringing played a significant part in his "downfall" as a ruler. Every ruler has the potential to be successful and powerful, but Leopold instead succumbed to his greed and desire to prove himself to his family. Throughout the entire book his moral corruption and blindness is illuminated and the different personalities and moral conflicts of other characters such as Stanley or Sheppard are highlighted as well. This book not only accounts for a large part of history in the sense of "what was accomplished and written down for generations to learn about" but also the "forgotten things". The things that people should remember about history but aren't given the chance to. Rarely does a book allow the reader to enter the minds of its subjects and in a way give the subjects a chance to "rationalize or justify" their actions.
Through this book it is made clear that rulers often have ulterior motives than just doing "what is right by the people". In our own country as well as foreign countries, currently and in past history, greed, hunger for power, and desire for conquest and famous recognition runs rampant within a leadership role. Leaders often bear a psychological toll and decay as a result of their exploits. Whether their legacy is remembered in history, their conquests or their achievements, rarely is their state of psychological stability noted. This book opened my eyes to the knowledge that there is a whole other side to history that often goes un-acknowledged. While understanding the psychology and reasoning behind the decisions of Leopold and the other subjects of the book has helped me to understand their real motives, it does not justify their actions in any way shape or form. The account of this book allows the reader to understand exactly HOW some of these men were able to commit or witness the atrocities produced in the Congo and WHY the men did what they did. It takes important characters in history and changes them from "characters" to relatable (or at least understandable and analyzable) people.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
The Response of Western Nations Q. 6
Do you think that Western nations, such as Great Britain, France, Germany, and the U.S. should respond differently to atrocities around the world today? Should they have done more? Why?
I think these particular questions are difficult to answer. I think that the United States, as a whole, should play less of the role of "global peace-keeper". Over the years we have received the unspoken title of world policeman as a nation. While in past times we have been in a position of power and wealth, currently, our nation is broken. Our economy has rapidly declined over the past 10 years and we have countless problems on our own soil. While there are atrocities taking place all over the world, it is not solely the job of the United States to protect against and end these atrocities. As for other Western nations such as Great Britain, France and Germany, they should be taking greater efforts to protect against global atrocities on soil they own or occupy. Part of being a world power is taking responsibility for one's people and protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. Like Alberto mentioned in his blog post, if countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany want to take responsibility for the land they own in different countries, then they need to step up their efforts to protect against atrocities against their people. There are of course examples in history where Western nations were unable to protect against atrocities in their own motherland. For example, taken from the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide by Leslie Alan Horvitz, the Oradour-Sur-Glane massacre took place in France during WWII and the French were powerless to stop it. The Oradour massacre was the worst atrocity to take place on French Soil. The Massacre took place 10 days after D-Day, before French Soil was re-taken by France and the Allied Armed Forces. In summary of the Oradour events, the French town of Tulle was recognized for killing and mutilating the bodies of 62 Nazi Soldiers who had surrendered themselves to the resistance. The SS commanding officer of that section of France found out about the massacre of Nazi soldiers and with the help of the mayor, destroyed the entire town. French men were hanged, an approximation of 500 French citizens were killed in Tulle as the response of the SS officer. Had Great Britain or the United States tried to intervene in this situation, the massacre could have been stopped. The atrocity committed by the German Officer and his followers did not take place over a day, but over the period of a week or more. Whether or not Great Britain or the US were able to step in does not matter, the question is whether they should have or not. I think that it is incredibly difficult to judge the level of commitment Western Nations have to other countries or territory. I think that if a nation has the power to aid those victim of atrocity then they should. But it is not our job, or our nations job, to dictate how another country should respond to a global crisis. Each atrocity has its own specific details, moral conflict, and question of who should step in and when. It is challenging to label how a country should respond to individual and unique situations.
This is an image of a building in Oradour-Sur-Glane after the Nazi massacre and destruction. Atrocities will never stop occurring, sometimes they are unstoppable, but whenever Western nations are in a position to provide aid they should.
I think these particular questions are difficult to answer. I think that the United States, as a whole, should play less of the role of "global peace-keeper". Over the years we have received the unspoken title of world policeman as a nation. While in past times we have been in a position of power and wealth, currently, our nation is broken. Our economy has rapidly declined over the past 10 years and we have countless problems on our own soil. While there are atrocities taking place all over the world, it is not solely the job of the United States to protect against and end these atrocities. As for other Western nations such as Great Britain, France and Germany, they should be taking greater efforts to protect against global atrocities on soil they own or occupy. Part of being a world power is taking responsibility for one's people and protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. Like Alberto mentioned in his blog post, if countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany want to take responsibility for the land they own in different countries, then they need to step up their efforts to protect against atrocities against their people. There are of course examples in history where Western nations were unable to protect against atrocities in their own motherland. For example, taken from the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide by Leslie Alan Horvitz, the Oradour-Sur-Glane massacre took place in France during WWII and the French were powerless to stop it. The Oradour massacre was the worst atrocity to take place on French Soil. The Massacre took place 10 days after D-Day, before French Soil was re-taken by France and the Allied Armed Forces. In summary of the Oradour events, the French town of Tulle was recognized for killing and mutilating the bodies of 62 Nazi Soldiers who had surrendered themselves to the resistance. The SS commanding officer of that section of France found out about the massacre of Nazi soldiers and with the help of the mayor, destroyed the entire town. French men were hanged, an approximation of 500 French citizens were killed in Tulle as the response of the SS officer. Had Great Britain or the United States tried to intervene in this situation, the massacre could have been stopped. The atrocity committed by the German Officer and his followers did not take place over a day, but over the period of a week or more. Whether or not Great Britain or the US were able to step in does not matter, the question is whether they should have or not. I think that it is incredibly difficult to judge the level of commitment Western Nations have to other countries or territory. I think that if a nation has the power to aid those victim of atrocity then they should. But it is not our job, or our nations job, to dictate how another country should respond to a global crisis. Each atrocity has its own specific details, moral conflict, and question of who should step in and when. It is challenging to label how a country should respond to individual and unique situations.
This is an image of a building in Oradour-Sur-Glane after the Nazi massacre and destruction. Atrocities will never stop occurring, sometimes they are unstoppable, but whenever Western nations are in a position to provide aid they should. Friday, February 1, 2013
Senior Project Paper
I think that main thing that I did well in my Senior Paper was that I clearly explained each of the different programming languages. I described them, in easy-to-read text, and their different functions. Without understanding the basic history of the languages and what they are used for, it's difficult to understand the point of my paper, to compare and research the three languages I chose. Just like any mathematical subject, programming isn't that difficult to understand. Once the basic math behind the langauges is explained, the languages are fairly straightforward to describe. Learning them is an entirely different paper focus altogther. I did learn Python for my project, but desrcribing how to use Python and how to program with it was a challenge I encountered. If I could go back and make changes to my paper I would have gone more in depth on how the uses of the languages vary. I described the uses but I didn't go into great detail on how the uses vary. I guess that how the uses vary can be fairly strightforward but I think it would have been more informative for my reader to have the variations in uses actually written out.
Responding to Mrs. G's research questions
1. My topic is researching Nuclear Energy, specifically Nuclear Fission, and discussing whether it seems like a good source of energy or bad source of energy. I will evalulate its benefits and negatives by researching its affect on the environment, people, scientists and renewable energy.
2. The most useful thing I have come across in my paper is a sub-page of a UC Davis website called ChemWiki. It completely explains the science behind Nuclear Fission in "reader-friendly" terms. Meaning it isn't a website written by some rambling Nuclear Physisicst, it is created by scientists who know how to write to their readers liking.
3. Based off of the current amount of research I have completed. I think that it would be wise in the best interest of America and other countries to explore Nuclear Energy. As long as we can provide for safe plants, completely eliminate the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, or the mis-use of Nuclear Power, then it would be the cleanest most powerful form of renewable energy we could harness.
4. The one benefit of the topic I have chosen is that although it can be confusing, once I clearly explain the science behind what Nuclear Fission is, how the energy is discovered, and how the reactions are created, the rest of my paper will be understood easily. The only confusing part about Nuclear Energy is the science. For Example, Uranium is the main element that Nuclear Energy is derived from. Uranium is a heavy radioactive element. Uranium occurs in MOST rock forms, and is found just as commonly in the Earth's crust as tin. As found on World Nuclear Organizations website "Like other elements, uranium occurs in several slightly differing forms known as 'isotopes'. These isotopes differ from each other in the number of uncharged particles (neutrons) in the nucleus. Natural uranium as found in the Earth's crust is a mixture largely of two isotopes: uranium-238 (U-238), accounting for 99.3% and uranium-235 (U-235) about 0.7%. The isotope U-235 is important because under certain conditions it can readily be split, yielding a lot of energy. It is therefore said to be 'fissile' and we use the expression 'nuclear fission'." This basic science makes it clear for the reader to understand why Uranium, a base radioactive element, can produce Nuclear Energy.
5. One piece of research I came across that was new to me was the fact that when properly stored and taken care of Nuclear Energy is exponentially cleaner and better for the environment then coal or fossil fuels. This discovery sparked my interest because I immediately questioned why we haven't already switched over to Nuclear Energy completely.
2. The most useful thing I have come across in my paper is a sub-page of a UC Davis website called ChemWiki. It completely explains the science behind Nuclear Fission in "reader-friendly" terms. Meaning it isn't a website written by some rambling Nuclear Physisicst, it is created by scientists who know how to write to their readers liking.
3. Based off of the current amount of research I have completed. I think that it would be wise in the best interest of America and other countries to explore Nuclear Energy. As long as we can provide for safe plants, completely eliminate the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, or the mis-use of Nuclear Power, then it would be the cleanest most powerful form of renewable energy we could harness.
4. The one benefit of the topic I have chosen is that although it can be confusing, once I clearly explain the science behind what Nuclear Fission is, how the energy is discovered, and how the reactions are created, the rest of my paper will be understood easily. The only confusing part about Nuclear Energy is the science. For Example, Uranium is the main element that Nuclear Energy is derived from. Uranium is a heavy radioactive element. Uranium occurs in MOST rock forms, and is found just as commonly in the Earth's crust as tin. As found on World Nuclear Organizations website "Like other elements, uranium occurs in several slightly differing forms known as 'isotopes'. These isotopes differ from each other in the number of uncharged particles (neutrons) in the nucleus. Natural uranium as found in the Earth's crust is a mixture largely of two isotopes: uranium-238 (U-238), accounting for 99.3% and uranium-235 (U-235) about 0.7%. The isotope U-235 is important because under certain conditions it can readily be split, yielding a lot of energy. It is therefore said to be 'fissile' and we use the expression 'nuclear fission'." This basic science makes it clear for the reader to understand why Uranium, a base radioactive element, can produce Nuclear Energy.
5. One piece of research I came across that was new to me was the fact that when properly stored and taken care of Nuclear Energy is exponentially cleaner and better for the environment then coal or fossil fuels. This discovery sparked my interest because I immediately questioned why we haven't already switched over to Nuclear Energy completely.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Why You Truly Never Leave High School
Don't you just love it when posts don't post? I logged out before it finished posting apparently and in the process kept it from actually completing the upload. Anyways Here Is my Tuesday In-Class response to "Why You Never Truly leave High School" By Jennifer Senior.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Personal Choice Blog
This weekend Instead of making food I actually went to a fancy restaurant to try food that I aspire to make. On Friday evening I went to a restaurant in Crockett called "The Dead Fish". Their menu contained everything from crab to pasta to steak. I wouldn't necessarily call it a surf and turf restaurant but it had similar qualities. I saw many people order the steak but seeing as the restaurant was known mainly for it's seafood I weighed all of my options. I saw giant plates of fried calamari being brought out to tables. They had many different options for sea food. I had trouble deciding whether I wanted to try pasta (my usual favorite) or some sort of seafood dish that is unique to the menu. I have been wanting to create a seafood dish for quite some time now, but I have had a difficult time figuring out what sort of dish I want to make.
I finally decided to order crab fettuccini, figuring that pasta with seafood is something that would be practical for me to try and make. My friend ordered the crab lasagna. I got to try a little bit of both dishes my but dish was the favorite of the evening.
Pasta is one of my favorite foods and anything smothered in garlic and butter sounds like a wise choice to me. The crab tasted extremely fresh, the crab meat was cooked to perfection. It was white with just spots of pink. The noodles were thick and when the bites were paired equally with pasta and crab they made an amazing treat. The crab lasagna my friend ordered was equally as delicious as my own plate. It wasn't typical lasagna composition. The lasagna was a square of compacted angel hair noodles, with crab and lobster mixed with garlic and butter. The top of the lasagna was covered in a "pepper-jack" esque cheese. My experience at the Dead Fish was definitely an enjoyable one. I plan to make crab and lobster fettuccini for my next personal choice. I think it would be a delicious treat for my family and I.
I finally decided to order crab fettuccini, figuring that pasta with seafood is something that would be practical for me to try and make. My friend ordered the crab lasagna. I got to try a little bit of both dishes my but dish was the favorite of the evening.
Pasta is one of my favorite foods and anything smothered in garlic and butter sounds like a wise choice to me. The crab tasted extremely fresh, the crab meat was cooked to perfection. It was white with just spots of pink. The noodles were thick and when the bites were paired equally with pasta and crab they made an amazing treat. The crab lasagna my friend ordered was equally as delicious as my own plate. It wasn't typical lasagna composition. The lasagna was a square of compacted angel hair noodles, with crab and lobster mixed with garlic and butter. The top of the lasagna was covered in a "pepper-jack" esque cheese. My experience at the Dead Fish was definitely an enjoyable one. I plan to make crab and lobster fettuccini for my next personal choice. I think it would be a delicious treat for my family and I.
This is the view from the Dining Area
Thursday, January 17, 2013
My Friends and I, A Post 9/11 World
I feel that I will never truly understand all of the effects September 11th 2001 had on my generation. I can't talk about my loss of freedom or liberty or the "tight security" the government seems to run on our lives. I will never know how my life was changed by that day because I don't remember life before it. My parents remember walking up to the terminal gate to meet loved ones. They remember taking any size liquid on the plane. My parents remember when it was a rare occurrence to see an individual person pulled out of line at security or at the terminals. I don't remember any of this. Even though I can't compare my life before 9/11 and my life after 9/11, my generation will be some of the last children to remember the tragedy of 9/11. We don't remember life before its effects but we know our parents lives were changed forever. One thing that my generation seems to have, because of 9/11, that our parents do not, is a low tolerance for those different from ourselves. We think its natural to automatically assume someone from Middle Eastern descent could have terrorist relations. The fear and suspicion we have towards those we think may be a national threat has been natural to us our entire lives. For my parents, this feeling of suspicion and vulnerability is brought on by fear of a repeat 9/11 massacre, their feelings post 9/11 unlike ours are not natural. To my generation, and the generations after us, we will have a hereditary fear of terrorism. When my mother was a child her generation worried about nuclear war. My generation fears terrorism. Maybe my generation is de-sensitized to the feelings of others in a way that we can't control. Many of us assume that it should be no inconvenience for a person, suspected of committing a crime that hasn't happened yet, to be pulled out of line for the sake of everyone's safety. My generation looks at profiling as a matter of security and safety and protecting what's ours. Rarely have I seen the people around me stop and consider the feelings of those we so blatantly mistrust. To many of us, national security is of the upmost importance, because we have been raised with the belief that there will always be a hidden enemy. That is the impact that 9/11 has left on us. The belief that we can never trust our government will do their job fully, or that our nation will be safe from those who want to hurt it. My generation will always fear the hidden enemy within our country. My generation will never truly understand the effects of September 11th 2001 even though we were alive during its terror. It is the effect that it had on older generations that has changed our lives forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)