Adieu, adieu...and thanks.

My dear AP3's;

It has been an extraordinary pleasure working with you this past year. It's now the middle of July, and I'm eagerly awaiting the results of your AP exam (as, no doubt, you are).

But the middle of July also affords another opportunity for farewell...

I certainly appreciate your desire to see the blog continue (and will forever treasure your poetic stylings!)...but by now you must admit that such an effort is doomed to fail. Your summer activities have consumed you--indeed, you have moved on to other things, and now look ahead to your senior year.

Thus, regretfully, I'm letting you know that I'm about to change the password, so that next year's class will have exclusive access. But if your will to blog remains strong--nothing's stopping you from starting your own!

Thanks again for a great year--I look forward to seeing your around the grounds next year!

LAZ

A Farewell: "Ode to the Blog"

The end of the year is finally here. Today is the day that most of us have been waiting for since the first day of school. After one entire year of sharing our thoughts on this (in)famous blog and now our time of sharing being over, it only seems appropriate to grieve the loss. As follows are two odes (in no particular order) to our dear blog. Please enjoy (but don't laugh too much)! :)

Part #1:

Well, it’s over, the year is done
But while it lasted, we had some fun
And of course we remember the good ol’ blog
After all, that was where it all had begun

Post after post, our thoughts spilled out
On the electronic coffeehouse where we all messed about
Now that it’s gone, what exactly will we do?
Go crazy and start ranting, without a doubt

We had arguments and fights, the great verbal war
Some of us treated them as a schoolwork chore
But I for one enjoyed going back and forth
In retrospect, I probably was a bit too hardcore.

Well, that’s why I wrote up this awful rhyme
I’m no poet, really it should be a crime
To go and post poetry so lacking and awful
But of course Farmer Brown’s poetry is sublime.

Part #2:

For one year, dear Blog, to you we've been tied
By the cord of our grades, for which we have strived
To earn a high mark by participating well
And working quite hard so Mr. Lazarow could tell
That we had earned good grades and therefore should see
"As" on our report cards instead of "Bs"
But, as he would tell us, it's not about the grade
For as we grow old and our memories fade
It's not important what we earned in his class
It's what we learned through discussion that will eternally last

From things such as comics to things such as doubt
We've discussed in some depth with hopes of figuring out,
"Why are we here?" and, "What is our purpose?"
After a year of discussing what we have learned is:
We all disagree but this is okay
Because now in an argument we know what our opponent would say

So, after one year of speaking our minds
We must say "farewell" and leave the blog behind
A wide world awaits for us to explore
And an array of opportunities for us to discuss more

We hope you all have a wonderful summer, and we shall see you next year (if not sooner).

Emily Thompson and Eric Wei

Summer!

Everyone in favor of maintaining the blog during Summer 2009, say I!

I!

I!

I!

It should be fun to keep going! Now that school's done, and we're all traveling or just staying put, we'll be able to reflect on the year and what we learned as a whole, while applying everything to our experiences. :D

(Sam Maliha)

By the way, since it's the end of the year, I guess I should apologize for starting the whole "name in parantheses" fad. My apologies, haha!

Minute 16

We've all heard about the "15 minutes of fame" thing, where the media and the general public can make something or someone famous for a short period of time before something else comes along that's more interesting. Once those 15 minutes have passed and our attention spans have died, we often completely forget what we once scrutinized.

Is this a responsible or fair thing to do? Of course, in today's culture, someone can become famous merely for being famous (such as Paris Hilton), and we've already become accustomed to our extremely short attention spans. But often, once a person's 15 minutes of fame are over, his or her life is irrevocably changed, often for the worse.

Susan Boyle is one example of this. I'm sure we've all heard of her by now, and if you haven't, go look her up on Google. For a brief period of time, she was extremely famous. But after she came in second on a TV competition in which everyone expected her to win, she was hospitalized for exhaustion, probably from the pressures of fame. It's doubtful she can live a normal life again, after having experienced those 15 minutes.

Another example can be found in Andrew Speaker. You might remember, from a little while ago, that Andrew Speaker was a man with drug-resistant tuberculosis that had refused to remain quarantined and had traveled across the ocean in a plane, exposing many to his dangerous disease. He was criticized by the media and mailed death threat letters for his seeming carelessness and disregard. However, after the media storm died, it turned out that his form of tuberculosis was not drug-resistant or special, despite what everyone had said. Nevertheless, his girlfriend divorced him, he still receives death threats, and his life has been changed forever.

The vagaries of fame certainly seem perilous. Thoughts?
-Eric W.

Twitter!

Recently, there has been a huge media coverage of the website Twitter. It really seems to have caught on recently, and the number of people using it has increased exponentially from previous years (a bit like Facebook's earlier years.)

For those of you who haven't heard of Twitter, essentially it is a website where people post short little messages of 140 characters or less of what they are doing at that moment. Messages on Twitter, or "tweets" as they call them, can be as mundane as "This taco is delicious" or very important, as Twitter was used during the California wildfires to keep firefighters updated. Basically, it's like the status message on Facebook, where you let the rest of the world know what you're thinking.

But isn't this a bit alarming? Has our attention span become so tiny that we are captivated by these short, typically frivolous, messages? Although there are many valuable messages posted on Twitter (such as from Obama and other celebrities), the majority of "tweets" there are from regular people like us who enjoy broadcasting their every little thought to the rest of the world. Isn't that a bit narcissist?

Or perhaps this is just the way things are in the 21st century. After all, social networking has already revolutionized old media. Maybe Twitter will do the same.
-Eric W

Civil Disobedience

Today we discussed the issue of civil disobedience. We had an interesting debate over the subject, but I’d like to continue it further. The debate was primarily focused around civil disobedience as a principal, and also the effectiveness of civil disobedience. My argument is that although civil disobedience might not always be effective, it is an important part of a democratic society, and can be effective on some occasions. The reason why I think civil disobedience is so important is that it is one of the only ways we have to petition against our government. What civil disobedience does, that written petitions can not really do to the same extent, is it gets the media involved. When the media becomes involved, and an event becomes publicized it is much more likely to gain support just by the nature of the fact that it makes more people aware of the cause. Even if we look at the Presidential elections of this past year, it is obvious that Obama’s victory was in part due to the fact that he spent more than any other candidate who ran against him. This spending went in to commercials, posters, banners, and a variety of other instruments of propaganda to persuade people to support his cause. Just like Obama relied on superior press to support his cause, so do other causes that wish to institute “change” (haha how ironic). As I said before, one of the only ways of getting publicity is through stunts that get media attention.

I would never support some of the measures that have been taken in some acts of civil disobedience, such as protesting at soldier’s funerals. Nor will I defend many acts of civil disobedience because it is true that they are sometimes done for the wrong reasons or with the wrong intentions. Still, I do believe that civil disobedience can be an effective tool to institute reform, and can not imagine what would happen if forms of protest were done away with. Protests and riots have been effective in the past, and are a means of creating political pressure for those who have no other way of applying it. These are my views. What do you all think?

(Kevin Trainer)

Progress or No Progress?

Having discussed Emerson's Self-Reliance, I picked up on something during class and would like to inquire about it. Towards the end of class, Mr. Lazarow reminded us that the Transcendentals emphasized the notion that nonconformity and individualism were necessary for progress. However, on the second-to-last page of Self-Reliance, Emerson notes that:

"All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves. Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other...For every thing that is given, something is taken."

I am confused about this particular belief because I had initially assumed that the Transcendentals believed in progress - simply a kind of progress which could only be attained through increased spirituality and nonconformity (the latter of which we discussed as an explanation of the movement's ultimate failure). The above quote flatly states, though, that progress is not attainable because society cannot improve. If this is what the Transcendentals generally believed (about which I could be utterly mistaken), then how can we explain the discrepancy between this belief and the belief that progress results, not from conformism, but from nonconformity? How can progress result from anything at all if "society NEVER advances"? Should Emerson have qualified this statement, or was his belief perhaps uncommon among other Transcendentals?

Is this perhaps another contradiction or example of hypocrisy in the Transcendental movement? What are your thoughts?

(Janet Lee)

The Morality of Scientific Discovery

Hey guys its been awhile, but our discussion towards the end of class today peaked my curiousity. So as a continuation of that discussion I'd like to pose the question of whether or not you all believe we should use the anatomical drawings of Pernkof (I believe it was him if I'm not mistaken?). I find myself very much on the fence when it comes to this issue. Although I do agree with Molly and Taylor about making a positive out of a terrible event, I can't help but feel that by allowing the book to be used we would in a sense be condoning nazi war crimes. I would also pose the question of how much these drawings would help doctors and other members of the medical field if it were legal. I feel that if this book were extremely helpful and could save lives that it might be worth using, but if not it might not be. The only reason I feel this way is that by saving lives we can in a sense justify using the book. Still, there's also the larger issue of how Americans would be viewed by the world if we were to use a book published by a nazi german scientists/murderer. I'd like to know what all of your thoughts are on this issue? Should we use the book, or should we let it be, and continue to use Grey's Anatomy which as far as I know has not mislead physicians in any way? Your thoughts?

(Kevin Trainer)

How do we define a weakness?

Recently, the Obama administration has decided to cut the Pentagon's missile defense programs by $1.2 billion. Fort Greely, Alaska is in the process of expanding its missile field, and this cut to the defense budget will compel the project to suspend progress before its completion. In response to this situation, Palin has made a bold statement. She has said that, "Reducing Alaska's defense readiness in these perilous times is a show of weakness, it is not a sign of strength." Palin fears Alaska's vulnerability to a missile fired from North Korea. But is this the only reason that she classifies the current situation as a weakness? Or maybe, she was accusing the Obama administration of being weak. [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/]

But then again, what is weakness? How do we define it? Merriam-Webster online says that it is the quality or state of lacking strength or having deficiency, both mentally and physically. Isn't it odd, though, that what may manifest itself as a weakness may turn into a strength? What if Obama's decision turns out to be a healthy one? It's status (weakness/strength) therefore depends on the given circumstances or environment. Wouldn't this make us hesitant to classify something without giving it time to develop and follow its course?

(Sam Maliha)

The Bible is now a Magazine

On the Colbert Report last night, there was a guest appearance of Dag Soderberg from Sweden who created a new book called The Bible Illuminated: The Book, New Testament. Now this isn't really a 'book' but rather a magazine. Now, there are definitely aspects of this book that you wouldn't expect to be there. For example, the cover definitely does not seem to refer to religion or sacredness at all. As Stephen Colbert said, "It has a super, kinda disturbing, sexy picture on the cover... like a glossy magazine, like a Cosmo, a Glamour, or something like that." I happen to agree with him. After all, doesn't the bible advocate the opposite type of ideas? In response, Soderberg said that the bible is one of the most referenced books in the world and that this transfromation is moving the bible from being on the bookshelves to being on the coffee table. As he puts it, the bible will bring about 'discussions.'

The actual content of the book is also different from what is expected. Along with the scriptures, there are pictures of famous people, from Muhammad Ali to Angelina Joli, that were chosen to be in this bible due to the results of a survey of Swedish teenagers about the icons of the modern world. When Angelina Joli was brought up, Colbert commented on her appearance because she can be viewed as being seductive. However, Soderberg stated that it only matters that she did things that helped the world. This really seems like it's commercializing religion. Later into the show, Colbert even makes a joke about product placement and getting a picture of Jesus with an iphone. Although it is being treated as a joke now, couldn't this cause a huge controversy?

Thoughts? (Here's a link to the entire episode. The discussion occurs about 11 minutes in. http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=229643)

Mary Quien

The Role of the Critic

Before I see a movie, I always check the reviews of it beforehand to see what the professional "critics" thought of it. If the reviews are positive, I tend to view the movie favorably when I watch it, thinking that if a critic was impressed by the movie, then so should I. Similarly, whenever the reviews are negative, I tend to look down upon that movie. Occasionally, I don't even see a film due to his low ratings.

But then I started thinking. Why do we often presume that the critic's view of the movie is the "correct" one? Why do we even have critics? If everyone has a different intensional mindset, then we shouldn't rely upon the judgment of others in deciding whether to see a movie or not. For example, I never saw the movie 300 because its reviews weren't very positive, so I went to see another movie instead. But of course many of my friends loved it.

It extends to many other fields as well. What about food and wine critics? How can someone else taste something the same way that I would?
I realize that we sometimes rely upon critics to provide at least a baseline judgment about something, but don't we take it a bit far sometimes? The wine critic, Robert Parker, is so powerful that if a wine receives below an 75 from him, it's often doomed.

What should the role of a critic be?

-Eric W.

Wall- E: human?

As we were watching Wall-E in chemistry, everyone happened to almost sympathize with what Wall-E was going through. For example, when Wall-E was sad, we felt pity. When a situation didn't work out for him, we all went, 'awwww' and 'that sucks'. The way we regard him, is nearly the same way we would regard another human being, even though Wall-E is a robot.

This led to me to recall something I learned in art history class (pretty much the only thing I ever did learn in that class). One day, we were going over pieces from ancient civilizations. We discussed this one stone, in particular, that was kept in one household not to be used as a tool, but rather because it resembled the human face. It had holes and scratches in it that resembled two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. It was kept because the people felt an attachment to it.

There was also this one study where a man stood in front of a group with a doll. Now, even though everyone knew that the doll was an inanimate object. It wasn't human. Yet, when the man cut off its head, everyone expressed either some sort of shock or horror. The study suggests that the group had grown attached to the doll because it shared the features of the human face.

Is this the same as in Wall-E? He doesn't even communicate like a proper human, and yet, we sympathize with his feelings. Is it really because he happens to have a face that resembles that of a human being?

Thoughts?

Technology in Politics

So I was flipping through the channels and came across the Colbert Report. But, unfortunately, it was ending so I was only able to catch a few minutes. Anyway, the guest for that night was a representative from the republican party. They were discussing how technology was involved in elections. Colbert asked the representative if someone would be more likely to vote for a candidate running for office if they used things like facebook, myspace, and twitter. The representative without hesitation said that it wouldn't help nor make an influence on the voters.

However, I can't help but have a different opinion. I think that a candidate's use of technology can have a very deep impression on voters. I remember that so many people looked down on McCain because he wasn't able to use even basic technology like email. I would think that a candidate might be able to even connect more to the younger voters by using recent technology.

Thoughts?

Mary Quien

Language Developments

When preparing for the AP exam we read a passage about the development of language over periods of time. I was wondering if this same rule also applies to names. Here are the top five names from various years over the last century:(http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/top5names.html)

1909:
Mary, Helen, Margaret, Ruth, Dorothy
John, William, James, George, Robert

1939:
Mary, Barbara, Patricia, Judith, Betty
James, William, John, Robert, Richard

1969:
Lisa, Michelle, Kimberly, Jennifer, Melissa
Michael, David, James, John, Robert

2008:
Emma, Isabella, Emily, Madison, Ava
Jacob, Michael, Ethan, Joshua, Daniel

If you look at this website the boys names are much more consistent than the girls, but I think that is from the use of names from the Bible for boys. So if language is always developing and changing, does this same rhetorical shift affect names? If not, what does?

(Kelley Volosin)

Dissections - Morality?

Last week, AP Biology students dissected a sheep's eye. This week, we began the dissection of the fetal pig. Mrs. Ericson has informed us that fetal pigs, or unborn pigs, are a by-product of the meat packing industry. In other words, they did not sacrifice their lives solely for our dissections. Instead, their unfortunate deaths will contribute to our studies of life.

I'm almost positive that every student has to participate in at least some part of the dissection. A few students last year and this year had tremendous difficulty beginning the process, yet followed through eventually. If a student finds the dissection morally incorrect or unsound, should he/she still be obliged to participate? Because we took the AP exam, the lab practical for the fetal pig dissection has taken the place of our final exam. In order to do well on the lab, the students would have had to participate during the dissection. Would the teacher be obliged to make an alternative form of the final exam? Or, all this aside, should the student be forced to dissect the fetal pig?

The reason I bring this up is because of the many lessons we've been learning in health, many of which correlate to the idea of "staying true to one's values/morals." Could the dissection be compromising someone's morals?

(Sam Maliha)

How to Read a Book

A few months ago, as I walked through the UPenn college bookstore (during Model Congress!), I noticed a book called "How to Read a Book." Of course, this caught my attention. Flipping through it, it seemed as though the authors had categorized the various methods of reading and ordered them in their effectiveness. The goal of the book was to help others read at a higher level.

For example, the first level was called "elementary reading," the type where we simply pick up a book, read of all the words, and put it back down without pondering too deeply about the content. This type of reading is often done for pleasure, but is considered more ineffective. The last, and most advanced, method of reading was called "synoptical", in which a person could read several different books in the same subject area, analyze them, and use them to build an overall view of the subject being read. This would be considered "active reading."

But is it right to judge reading methods in their effectiveness? Is there really any right or wrong way to read a book? Some people read books solely for enjoyment, without paying any attention to analysis or symbolism. Does that mean that their reading method is inferior, or simply that they have chosen a different way? The authors do concede that "elementary reading" can have its uses: if you're so caught up on analyzing every little detail in a Shakespeare play, you risk missing the overall point of it. But "active synoptical reading" still is considered the most effective way of reading by the authors.

Should reading be a spontaneous effort, or should it be approached with care? The problem with focusing on the method of reading itself is that it takes attention away from simply reading books in general, whatever your method. Or does it?
Thoughts?
-Eric W.

Colleges

So last night, I went to this presentation where a lot of colleges presented their campus, curriculum, etc. All their presentations were pretty similar and shared the same type of information. However, their tactics in catching the audiences attention did vary. I remember how the representative from Harvard tried to crack a couple of jokes and made sure to point out their 'Harry Potter dining hall.' There was also the representative from Stanford that had showed this one slide of all of its elective classes, purposely making room for all of them on such a small slide to show its expansiveness. As I was watching all of these colleges make these presentations, I was wondering how those representatives picked this of presentation based on the audience (and this applies to all those college letters as well). After all, it is a challenge. How do you get a bunch of teenagers and their parents to become interested in your college? Should you bother using history and statistics or should you focus on your different selection of courses? Should you focus on the campus or the study abroad programs?

Which aspects do you think these college representatives should include? After all, we are part of the audience that they are trying to appeal to. We have at least some idea about what we really want to hear about (or do we? >_>)

Mary Quien

Never Satisfied, Are We?

The blog has been inactive for far too long. AP tests are over; pressure has subsided slightly, but not completely.

In health class, lately, we've been in the process of discussing "touchy topics," if you will. The last unit we covered was one on contraceptives. The one before was based on sexually transmitted diseases. All are things that people deal with on a daily basis, but that remain hush-hush, especially in a society like ours. While concluding class last week, we read a scenario, and based on the actions of each character, had to decide who behaved most honorably in the given situation. In this specific text, a young teenage girl was at risk of being pregnant. Her mother did not know of the situation, yet voiced that she would never want her daughter to do anything that would harm her lifestyle or cause her any trouble. Therefore, I ranked the mother as being the most honorable of all the characters. The majority of the class, however, chose the young girl, Lily, as being the most honorable because she took initiative and made an effort to understand what would happen with her body.

The majority argued that Lily's mother had been too stiff and too unreasonable. The key, however, is to remember that Lily's mother had not known of Lily's true situation. Lily had denied the rumor, and her mother believed her, making us see that there was some sort of trust between the two. How could the mother possibly be at fault? She was neither presented with the situation, nor the chance to tackle it.

Why is it that when we find ourselves in trouble, we blame our parents for their "lack of support," yet when everything is fine and dandy, we scold them for fulfilling their maternal/paternal duties. Isn't it the same with any sort of intervention: divine, political, etc..?

I just thought this would be an interesting topic to rekindle the blog with.

(Sam Maliha)

Swine Flu = Hysteria?

As we all know from the recent spread of reports, the possibility of a swine flu pandemic is causing many people around the world to feel an extraordinary amount of anxiety. This couldn't make more sense, seeing as the World Health Organization reports that there are 659 confirmed cases of the virus in 16 different nations, including Canada, Spain, Germany, and South Korea. The US has already reported 161 cases, seven of which are in New Jersey. (See more stats at http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/02/swine.flu/index.html.) Who wouldn't feel at least a bit worried?

Yet a second CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/02/swine.flu.schools/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) indicates that a high school in Texas was so worried that swine flu might spread throughout the school that, despite the fact that none of its students had reported anything yet, it postponed its senior prom, much to the dismay of some students. Yes, Texas has already reported 28 cases of the virus, but as the student cited in the article asks, was this action truly necessary? No one is complaining that precautionary measures are being taken; it's just that there is a fine line between precaution and paranoia. How do we define where this line lies? Clearly each person is at his or her own discretion, but what happens when some people seem to be taking things a bit too far?

What prompted me to write about this issue was actually a comment which my mom made this morning. She noted that the whole world seems to be overly concerned about swine flu, and then she said, "At this rate, this is going to turn into a witch hunt!" I was immediately reminded of the Salem Witch Hunt of the Puritan period and thus began to wonder if my mom's comment, simply made in passing, actually has a deeper significance. Is the current situation on its way to becoming a hysterical "witch hunt" after those who cough as they say that they returned from a trip to Mexico, or are our extreme anxiety and paranoid precautions entirely justified?

(Janet Lee)

Original, Yes... But Effective?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEcjtqYztdg

A commercial was recently brought to my attention. It is a commercial for the Kia Soul and it consists mainly of hamsters. It's one of those things that makes animal-lovers say, "Awww!!! They're so cute!" I thought it was not only a cute and funny commercial, but very clever. I have never seen a car advertisement with that angle and it really caught my attention and made me wonder how effective it would be in attracting customers.

Beside all of the cute hamsters, the first question that entered my mind as the commercial progressed was, "what is this commercial advertising?" Not until the final three seconds of the advertisement does the viewer know what the purpose of the commercial was: it was advertising the Kia Soul.

The second question that came to my mind as I thought more about the commercial was its effectiveness. It is a clever and creative approach (and new/fresh is always fascinating, right?). But who is the projected audience? Is it just animal lovers? If so, that would be a very limited audience, and would most likely prove ineffective in the long run.

The final thought that I had that's worth commenting on is that before this commercial I viewed Kias as cheap and low quality cars. I don't know where I got that impression (it could be a false impression), but it is the impression that stuck in my mind. After seeing this commercial, though, I have a new perspective. Kias are now associated with cuteness in my mind. Was the purpose of this commercial to replace bad impressions that many people may have of Kia? It's a competitive world out there, especially in the car industry at this point in time. It seems that Kia is stepping out and trying to make an impact on its potential customers.

So, what is the intended impact that Kia wants to make with this commercial, and how effective will it be?

Emily T.

Romance...in schools?!

We pursue a Lockean education at Moorestown High School, as we've been told by Dr. Bjornstand many a time. That means that we generally follow a neoclassic system in the classroom in which we leave religious matters out of the classroom. Our schedules are well-rounded agendas that consist of systematically run classes that could have been hand-picked from both the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. So, when we began to discuss Romanticism during class, I became curious as to what would happen if our cirriculum changed and suddenly entailed romantic studies.

We'd study tons of poetry and artwork...materials created and composed for the sake of art, itself. We'd base our understanding on emotion. But since, according to Hayakawa, the emotion driven by our intensional and extensional worlds is completely subjective, there wouldn't be any grading system for this kind of school, would there? Without grades, could a school carry out its proper functions? It wouldn't be able to match up to schools that host a Lockean education, but what if all schools became romantically based in their education? Would they be able to function? What would happen without grades?

On another note, how do you feel about a "pass/fail" system as opposed to the letter-grade system (pluses and minuses included) that we operate by?

(Samantha Maliha)

Feedback Loop

Today we discussed how the media tends to distort and exaggerate events and help create the "mood" of a nation. As we know, the media often manufactures drama as much as it reports it. As people read about negative events in the newspapers, their own mood is adversely affected, which then also is reported in the newspapers, which is then read again by other people, and so on... A feedback loop is created by the media and the public, in which the media continually reads, amplifies, and reflects back the feelings of the public.

Occasionally the media helps report a truly tragic event. The one that comes to my mind is the shootings at Columbine, especially since its 10th anniversary occurred recently. This was one of the first events in which the media provided ongoing coverage during the event itself, and later dug deep into the lives of the two killers, attempting to find an explanation. Although some felt that the media was providing a service by trying to find reason within this chaos, others felt that the media was only glorifying and exaggerating the event, exploiting it for readers. After all, the killers had wanted undying infamy for committing their actions, and the media gave it to them.

When tragic events such as Columbine occur, should the media give such intense coverage to the event and gratify the fame-hungry killers who perpetrated it? What do you think?
-Eric W

Super Size Me

In health class, we are watching the movie Super Size Me. Many of you are probably familiar with it. It's about this man that decides to go on a 'Mcdiet,' where he eats nothing but McDonald's three times a day for a month. He does this in order to see just how detrimental eating all that fast food is to the body. At many points in the movie, he talks about the lawsuit brought up against McDonald's.

Basically, these two girls grew extremely obese and said that it was due to McDonald's food. McDonald's defended itself by saying how they are not forcing anyone to eat their food and that it is common knowledge that fast food is bad for your health. While I agree with them, I was interested to see some of the arguments brought up against this grand fast food chain.

Many people mentioned the psychological effect that McDonald's has, especially on children. A lot of their advertising is based on appealing to kids and getting them to come in. They mentioned how there was a cartoon for McDonald's, how at many McDonald's restaurants there are play grounds, and that Ronald McDonald himself was just another way to appeal to these kids. To show the influence of this character, an experiment was conducted where a group of first grade girls and boys were shown cards with different faces and asked to recognize the figures. I was surprised to see that while few were able to recognize George Washington and none were able to recognize the Wendy's mascot nor Jesus Christ, all of them were able to recognize Ronald McDonald.

Looking at this large influence on children, do you think that McDonald's, or other fast food chains, can be blamed for the growing obesity of these children?

Mary Quien

J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur

The advertising theme came up quite a few times in class today, but maybe that wasn't such a bad place to end up. J. Hector has obviously written this document to appeal to neutrals in Europe. By using the "Just Plain Folks" propaganda, he highlights the successes of American in contrast with Europe's failures. The following excerpts illustrate my point:

Here are no aristocratical families, no courts, no kinds, no bishops, no ecclesiastical dominion, no invisible power giving to a few a very visible one...Some few towns excepted, we are all tillers of the earth, from Nova Scotia to West Florida.

Here, Hector promotes the equality (or "egality") of all men. He even makes the comparison when speaking of employers who regard their employees as equals, rather than submissive workers. On the same note, we can draw a contradiction similar to the one we stumbled upon in class. Hector says, "For instance, it is natural to conceive that those who live near the sea, must be very different form those who live in the woods; the intermediate space will afford a separate and distinct class." He continues to differentiate between the people in areas near the sea and those of the middle settlements who "are purified by their cultivation of the earth" with the rash, aggressive people of the great woods. If America is a nation of nationalism and unity, why were citizens categorized by their inhabited regions and provinces?

On a different note, two excerpts really seemed to contradict one another.
What attachment can a poor European emigrant have for a country where he had nothing? The knowledge of the language, the love of a few kindred as poor as himself, were the only cords that tied him.
From this passage, I think I can make the generalization that Hector's ideas regarding language differ from Hayakawa's. Hayakawa felt that language was the glue that held a society together, the basis for a group of people. It seems that Hector finds language to be something that may be quickly forgotten; it is not binding.

Later, Hector continues:
The inhabitants of Canada, Massachusetts, the middle provinces, the southern ones will be as different as their climates; their only points of unity will be those of religion and language.
Now it seems that Hector and Hayakawa's ideas about language are more similar. I can't be too sure, though.

(Samantha Maliha)

Bidding Farewell to Spring Break

Well, Spring Break has come to an end. Unfortunate, isn't it? Looking back, I had promised myself to accomplish so many things throughout the week. Now, I am absolutely regretting having wasted valuable time. It's not as if I hadn't seen this coming, though. I knew I'd be feeling this way the Sunday night before school, but as I've heard many times before, "Old habits die hard!" Some teachers refuse to assign work over break, insisting that it provides us with time to relax and socialize with our families. Yet on the other hand, other teachers insist that it provides students with a week to catch up on their studies and possibly get ahead. Which, to us, is more beneficial? Do our minds deserve a few days of relaxation, or should we be expected to work our way up to the finish line? Think about our upcoming AP exams alone...yikes!

It has been proven that people who live in a constant environment of fatigue and stress suffer from a more rapid deterioration of brain functions than would an average person. Some experts recommend listening to classical music (especially Mozart), engaging in breathing excercises and meditation, keeping good posture, exercising, and taking vitamin and mineral supplements. More and more, patients who frequent the doctor's office are complaining of psychological problems, most often the result of acute or chronic stress. According to WebMD Health News, however, life expectancy hit a new record of 78.1 years (four months longer than it was in 2005) for babies born in 2006 as of June 11, 2008. Even cases of heart disease, stroke, and cancer decreased in 2006. These statistics puzzle me, though. I feel that life has become more stressful for more recent generations. I've heard tales from my parents' childhoods, and they all seem like stories of innocent, carefree fun. What can we accredit this to other than advances in medicine?

(Samantha Maliha)
P.S. Hope you all had an awesome Spring Break!

Papa

The last couple of days, I was doing community service in Camden. During that time, I got to hear from the thoughts and basically life stories of a lot of people. One day, there was a trip to Philly, where I got to hear the story of a thrift shop owner. I don't remember his real name, but I do remember that everyone there called him 'Papa' because he's such an important male figure in the lives of many children. Now, before we even went to his shop, we were told that Papa had ADD and would be going off all these different tangents while speaking. However, even though he was doing this, I was able to understand him perfectly. In fact, I found his story really entertaining, and I was surprised. In debate and other speaking classes that I've attended, I was taught to always be organized and to stay on topic when speaking. The way Papa spoke was almost the exact opposite. He would jump from the present to the past to the future. He would start talking about his personal experience and go completely off topic. For example, he was talking about his experience with explosives one minute and then suddenly shifted to talking about all these different kinds of bullets. His style of story telling is so different, and yet it works effectively. Do you think that it is possibly more effective?

Something else that I noticed was that he told us that he had ADD and was crazy (many times, actually). Also, he was constantly making these random references and jokes so that we would laugh and pay attention to him more. It actually took me a while to catch on to some of those jokes because of how randomly he put them in. This reminded me of the comic book presentation. As you remember the guys that were presenting it were also telling all these jokes in order to catch our attention. In fact, both speakers were trying maybe a bit too hard (all the jokes were really corny and kind of lame). However, unlike in the comic book presentation, I was actually finding Papa's jokes funnier. Of course this is just my opinion, but is there some element I didn't see?

Mary Quien

Judging a Book by Its Cover

I was thinking back to the presentation in class today, and I remembered all the different covers and art work that they showed us. It got me thinking of that phrase: don't judge a book by its cover. I don't think anyone really does this. When you are looking for a book to read, you tend to look at the one that has a cover that is the most interesting to you. And it's obvious that these book/comic companies have picked up on this. They try to make covers that catch people's attention.

Do you think that the cover art is so important that it takes away from the actual quality of the book? Also, couldn't these companies make a cover that catches people's attention effectively but have nothing to do at all with the content of the comic? I mean, it's not impossible for them to do that, but do you think that they would? After all, in the end, don't they really care about how many copies of their work get sold?

Mary Quien

Deja Vu

Deja vu, coming from the French expression meaning "already seen," is used to describe the moment when an eery sensation of familiarity comes over you. It's a light-bulb moment when you feel that you're experiencing something that you've already gone through. How is this stimulated? Is it the actual physical environment? Is it dependent upon the language used by the people you are with? I personally think it's a little bit of both.

Just today, as we were getting ready to leave the AP Biology room, Mrs. Ericson made sure to wish us a "safe and happy holiday." Suddenly, I was overcome with the same sense of deja vu. The phrase "happy holidays" holds a certain connotation in my mind. It does not relate to Spring weather or to the month of April at all. Rather, the phrase, when spoken, gives me a sense of the holiday season celebrated in December through January. It reminds me of Christmas ornaments and dreidels and hot chocolate and snow! (We musn't forget the snow.) So for a split second, I had to come back to reality and realize that the winter season is gone. I guess connotations are pretty powerful and rather strongly attached to language. What other phrases can you think of that, to you, strongly represent one thing but may also represent another?

(Samantha Maliha)

Stream of Conscious

In Euro, we were talking about how Freud and other philosophers of the late 19th Century believed that humans had a "Stream of Conscious", which basically means that we never truly focus on just one thing, but rather have many ideas in our head at one time. For example, while your reading this, you are probably also thinking about other things, like perhaps a possible comment you could make. We went on to talk about how this is sometimes used in advertising. In order to get your wandering attention, there are many advertisements that have almost nothing to do with the product but throw random things at you that you may later associate with their product. Is this an effective way of advertising? I know personally, many times when I see this type of advertising, I myself feel that it is ineffective because they're not really promoting their product. However, this type of advertising is not meant to be rational, but on the other hand, it is supposed to get at the irrationality of the human mind.

Thoughts?
(Arvind Kalidindi)

West Side Story: En Español

As many of you might know, recently there has been a Broadway revival of "West Side Story." Interestingly enough, in this version, much of the dialog and the songs are conducted in Spanish. Although this appears to be a gimmick at first, it prompted me to think about the motives behind this decision.

Certainly, it serves as a reminder that here in America, despite what many would like to believe, we are multicultural and multilingual. Although many people still support the "One Nation" and "One Language" ideology (including the "Thomas Paine" imitation we watched a while back), just hearing the songs performed in Spanish reminds us that we cannot ignore the numerous facets of American culture. Hearing the songs spoken in Spanish gratifies those who have taken the time to understand it, and reminds others that they cannot focus on one version of America at the expense of others.

Do you believe that it was a good decision to change parts of the play's lines into Spanish? Does it actually serve any real purpose, or is it just an artistic gimmick designed to freshen up the play?

-Eric Wei

Is Fantasy Your Reality?

Some would say that our world is pretty fascinating. Look how much science and education has progressed in just the last fifty years, let alone this century. Technology is a wonder. Medicine is miraculous. But why do I feel that, sometimes, we need something more? Is materialism no longer appealing? I'd rather sit by the fireplace and and reminisce with my parents and little brother rather than turn on the Wii and start driving virtual monster trucks across virtual race tracks. I'd rather smile at a stranger from across the street than explore intricate applications on the iPhone. Or what about that feeling when you just finish a series of books and want to erase your memory so you can go back and read it again and have twice as much satisfaction as you did the first time? I always find myself wanting to be a character in the book, wishing that I could somehow interact with vibrant personalities begging to jump off the page. I wouldn't say this happens because the characters are ideally portrayed or because they happen to know the exact course of their lives. Rather, maybe we're just not satisfied with what we have. We're often scolded for not "appreciating" what we're given. It seems that I've had this discussion with so many people lately; maybe we're all running on a similar frequency. So what is this telling us?

Are we really shoved so much into the corner that we've come to admire fictional characters? What is it that we truly need, and why is it so hard to find? It's a shame that fantasy and reality can't mix. So if you could be any character from any fictional work, who would it be?

My main point here is that despite what we're offered (even on a grand scale, at times), we perpetually seek something "more." What is this more, and how can I find it?

(Sam Maliha)

Students and Teachers

So I was watching the movie Accepted. It's about this one kid who wasn't able to get accepted into a college. Instead of telling this to his parents, he and some of his friends make up a college on their own. They fix up an old building, make a website for the 'college,' etc. In the end, they manage to pass off as an actual college and accept all of these different students. Of course, they eventually get caught and the kid who founded the college had to go to court. However, he did not just give up. He tried to argue that what he and his friends built had all the requirements necessary to be considered a college. One of these requirements was having a faculty, and when the judge asked the kid to present the members of the faculty, all of the students at the college stood up. The judge was definitely not convinced and insisted that students could not be their own teachers.

This got me thinking about our school. Now, I definitely recognize the importance of teachers in our classes, but what about in our clubs? It is a rule that clubs at our school need to have at least one adviser, but is it really necessary? Isn't it possible for students to be able to function on their own? I acknowledge that it is helpful to have an adviser when the students don't know how to complete a certain project, but isn't that all part of the learning process? One of the major goals of high school is to help prepare us for situations in our future lives. In this case, wouldn't it be better to not have advisers so that students have the experience of figuring out how to solve problems on their own? They would also benefit from the extra leadership experience and the experience of relying on their co-workers.

This reminded me of what we discussed about work ethics of our generation. Is it possible to fix this problem if schools start emphasizing programs and activities where students learn first hand how to face difficulties on their own? Should we start making students become their own teachers?

Mary Quien

Colonial Williamsburg

I was doing some SAT prep, and I came across this passage about two different views of Colonial Williamsburg. For those of you who aren't familiar with Colonial Williamsburg, it is essentially a historical district that contains buildings are from about 1700. There are also many actors there that pretend to be normal people from that time period, who provided information about the time period to tourists.

One of the views in the passage looked very favorably on this concept. He said that it is an important part of our culture and provides a new and creative way of teaching others about that time period. Also, because the actors are not forced to read from scripts, they are able to convey history in a way that there audience will understand and remember.

The other person viewed Colonial Williamsburg as a sort of scam. He argued that because these actors are not forced to read from a script, they are not reliable in terms of the information that they provide. He also pointed out that in the process of making this site, many buildings that were actually from that time period were destroyed. He also brought up the point that Colonial Williamsburg provides a limited view because it seemed to freeze around that single point in time.

Which view do you agree with?

Mary Quien

America and France: Butting Heads

Today in French class, we began to discuss how pressured we've all been feeling lately. Mrs. Shourds, always looking to keep us calm, joined our conversation by drawing a dissimilarity between our culture and the general French/Europen culture. She told us that as Americans, we live to work, but that the French work to live. I think that this statement defies any of the hypocricy we identified during our discussions of the "American Dreams and Nightmares Unit." If we work so hard, then we should expect to be rewarded, right? Capitalist thinking really supports the American dream, doesn't it?

Because we "live to work," is that what fuels our economy? Think about what would happen if we advocated the "living to work" sort of idea. Would people do the bare minimum and move on? I think part of the reason we are so motivated now is because we know that it in some way, it guarantees a bright future. We're always looking to the future. What happened to the present?

A few days ago in AP Euro, a few of us were discussing how much our lives would be simpler if MHS didn't offer any AP courses. Does this mean that we feel obligated to take them? Is there no longer a joy for learning? Is our eye on the prize? Phillis Wheatley, although discriminated against, wrote because she loved poetry. Yes, she sought acceptance, but nothing more than equality, a now "inalienable" right. I'd say that people like her have unsullied intentions when it comes to doing what they love. I'm not so sure that applies to our generation, though.

(Sam Maliha)

Seatbelts, Skydivers, and the Bailouts

Well, I'm sure all of us know that seatbelts make us safer. The invention of them by Volvo, about 50 years ago, surely has saved lives, right? Certainly millions of Americans have been protected from whiplash and other injuries due to them.

And yet, interestingly enough, we have to remember this: some accidents may have been caused exactly because the drivers were wearing seatbelts.

One of the ideas floating around in academic circles is of risk tolerance, the idea that humans possess an innate tolerance for risk, and that as we feel safer, we tend also to take more risks. A sense of (perhaps false) security can be surprisingly dangerous. Some studies have shown that drivers wearing seatbelts tend to drive faster than those who do not, and that the seatbelt has led to increased deaths of bicyclists and pedestrians that had been hit by reckless drivers. Since seatbelts decrease the amount of risk present, as humans, we tend to drive more carelessly to make up for it. Hasn't the idea run ever through your head? "Well, yes, I'm driving way above the speed limit, but hey! I'm wearing my seatbelt! That makes it okay."

Similarly, despite advances made in ripcords and parachutes, skydiving accidents have not decreased. Aware that their parachutes were less likely to snag and were better at slowing them down, cocky skydivers started pulling their cords a little too late.

It's understandable. Aren't you more likely to act carefully and cautiously when you know something is dangerous? On the other hand, if you know that something is supposed to be safer, you act more recklessly. This idea applies to flood victims and Wall Streeters as well. Aware that stronger levees have been built and that the government will provide disaster relief, more and more people have built their homes on the vulnerable flood plains. Hence, after one hurricane hits, people start building in the same place again. Bankers, feeling overconfident due to their hedges and insurance, and the fact that the federal government wouldn't let them fail, may have taken unwarranted risks. Who knows?

-Eric Wei

Phillis Wheatley's Columbia

Is it simply human nature to appreciate what may seem intangible? To yearn for the unreachable? To want what we simply can't have? Phillis Wheatley fought long and hard for acceptance in America, or "Columbia", as she called it. Even two years after her death, in 1786, when Poems on Various Subjects was published in America, it was not welcomed warmly. In London, however, the book was circulated quickly.

As our packet tells us, "As an exhibition of African intelligence, exploitable by members of he enlightenment movement, by evangelical Christians, and by other abolitionists, she was perhaps recognized even more in England and Europe than in America."

The truth of the matter is that Phillis Wheatley met many abolitionists in England (Barron George Lyttleton, the Earl of Dartmouth) who accepted and embraced her talent, despite the color of her skin. In America, however, publishers rejected her work right and left. Yet still, Wheatley was intent about penning the glories of "Columbia" in her ingenious couplets organized in the iambic pentameter and heroic fashions. Did she want what she couldn't have?

Auspicious Heaven shall fill with fav'ring Gales,
Where e'er Columbia spreads her swelling Sails:
To every Realm shall Peace her Charms display,
And Heavenly Freedom spread her golden Ray.

She even makes mention of freedom in relation to America in this excerpt from her pamphlet entitled "Liberty and Peace."

(Samantha Maliha)

People and Language as One?

Frankly, no one enjoys displays of teenage angst, but for some reason this week, the idea of "truth" versus "pretense" has surfaced on more than one occasion. So...like any AP English student would, I started to think about truth and the things that we accept as truth. Why do we trust certain people and distrust others? Is it really all dependent upon our past extensional experiences with that person, or is there something more? We tend to trust family members over friends, so is blood really thicker than water?

On second thought, the definiton of truth is a verified or indisputable fact (www.dictionary.com). I know that we touched up on this in the beginning of the year with Haykawa, but let's take it a step farther. Maybe, most of the time, it isn't the statement that should be argued against. Maybe, just maybe, it's the person. Like the previous post tells us, if lying ceased to exist, this would no longer be a problem, but because it does, it remains a thorn in our side. By arguing against a statement rather than against the person, aren't we saying that someone is or embodies the language they use and vice versa? Doesn't the speaker and his/her speech become one? But then this defies the separation of the symbol vs. the symbolized.

I think I originally started this post in hopes of reaching another conclusion, but I seem to have touched on something completely different. I hope it makes sense. It's hard to explain through writing, and probably would be in person, too! Thoughts?

(Sam Maliha)

Disney's First Black Princess

I found this link on facebook and thought it was interesting (facebook is proving to be more useful everyday).
http://www.blackvoices.com/blogs/2009/03/19/disneys-first-black-princess-has-a-white-prince/

Essentially, it's an article about the appearance of Disney's first black princess. Now, this subject has brought up a lot of controversy, not because it's a black princess, but because she doesn't have a black prince. Instead, he's Brazilian.

Maybe I'm not open-minded enough, but I cannot see why this is so controversial. Is there that strong of a stereotype of couples of the same race? If so, then why wasn't there as much controversy with Pocahontas? Is it because it was based on something that happened in history?

Also, why did Disney choose that ethnicity anyway (no offense to people from Brazil)? Would it have made that much of a difference if they made the prince black? The plot of the movie is based off of the story of the frog prince so I don't see any plot conflicts with that.

Thoughts?

Mary Quien

Radical Honesty

The other day, as I was surfing the Internet, I came upon an interesting little movement called Radical Honesty. The main idea of this movement is that you cannot ever lie to anyone and must always tell the truth, even if it hurts. You must express your feelings openly and directly, such as in "I resent you for ____."

At first, I thought this idea was somewhat ludicrous. All of us tell little white lies occasionally, often for the politeness or expediency. We all hide our feelings occasionally to avoid hurting or offending people. And yet, this idea of "Radical Honesty" still remains somewhat appealing to me.

In today's culture, lying occurs all the time. It happens in everyday life, in business (Madoff), in sports (steroids), and in politics. It would be almost a relief for everyone to start telling the truth. The founder of Radical Honesty believes that lying obstructs communication, and that honesty would aid it. Would the world be better off if no one lied?

Of course, I recognize that this is highly impractical. As we know, language is just a set of arbitrary symbols that can be manipulated either way. We can never truly know whether someone is lying or not. But if we could completely eliminate lying, would it be worth it?

-Eric W

A Trip Down Memory Lane

I read this interesting article about how cartoons, a seemingly minor part of our semantic environment, are actually largely present in our lives and shape our generation.

Here's the link:
http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/2009/01/14038/growing-up-in-the-renaissance-how-90s-cartoons-shaped-our-generation/

So what do you think? Why do cartoons in particular have such a large impact on our lives even through college? The author of this article his opinions and reasoning towards the end. Do you agree or disagree?

Personally, I find that the author makes a strong point about why we still remember all these old cartoons and even wear t-shirts that represent such shows. He says its because we are at a crossroad between adulthood and childhood. We can still appreciate the shows emotionally while recognizing their complexity. This actually reminded me of the time we were watching Mulan in art history while the seniors were on their trip. While watching the movie, we were reminded of the first time we watched it and even specific thoughts about different scenes. At the same time, we got into a discussion about the historical and cultural aspects of the movie. We discussed earlier how graphic novels can prove to be good teaching tools. Who says that these types of shows/movies can't do the same?

Mary Quien

Money

Not only the title of a catchy Pink Floyd song, money is also an economic facillitator, a powerful weapon, and some might say, the root of all evil. I'd like to narrow down these definitions and discuss a question that is certainly relevant to all of us as budding citizens...

Is it more important, in terms of individual happiness, to make a lot of money and then be able to do what you want, or to forget about the almighty dollar and just do what you love as a profession?

This is a problem I find myself struggling with as I attempt to plot out my life. On the one hand, because money is necessary to buy goods and services, having a great deal of it would sure make life easier. Having fiscal security is increasingly important in these troubling times. Plus, with a solid fortune to back you up, you would be able to fund expensive interests and travel the world without worrying about your bank account. Life would be easy to enjoy without the strain of monetary burdens.

Then again, once you spent your younger years working your tail off to climb to the top of the company ladder, wouldn't you be too old and too tired to enjoy your wealth? Would you gaze longingly at the time you wasted in a job you hated, wishing that you could've been somewhere else? Would you be happier in a shabby apartment doing what you are passionate about, or in a luxurious mansion doing what you can't stand?

For the sake of argument I've chosen the extremes of the spectrum, but you can easily apply this line of reasoning to any number of circumstances. Is money necessary for happiness?

Taylor Burke

"It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time

It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time

It's hard to remember to live before you die

It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time

It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time"

-Modest Mouse

Power in Numbers?

When I was watching the second revolution, I was very interested in the ending. The second 'Thomas Paine' stuck a teabag into an envelope and proceeded to tell his audience that they should do the same and send the envelope to their 'not representing representative.' We have been talking in class about how different people would react to the different letters and writings, especially the government. How would our government respond? I think that if they received one or two of these envelopes, they would ignore them. Some of these people didn't even watch the video and probably wouldn't understand what the envelope meant.

This lead me to think of other scenarios. I've heard many stories about someone not being satisfied with something happening in their town and send a letter to a government official. I find that most of these letters are ignored. However, when accompanied with a document like a petition, the official seems to consider it more seriously. This document is really just another symbol. And yet, it causes a different response. Keeping this in mind, do you think that the government would consider these envelopes more seriously if they came in large numbers? Just how much power is there in numbers?

Mary Quien

The Bailout

So after watching the Second American Revolution video, I got to thinking about our current bailout situation. In the video Thomas Paine quotes Aristotle saying, “Tolerance is the last virtue of a dieing society.” Do you think that tolerance could also be the last virtue of a dieing economy?
I have always thought the bail out to be a necessary evil. Although I do not believe saving large companies for making poor decisions is a good idea, I have often recognized that job loss incurred by failing to salvage such companies would be tremendous. However, we have always been a capitalist nation. We have proven over the years that a capitalist system is effective. As we learned in AP Euro, it was capitalist tendencies that gave rise to an increased standard of living for a great majority of people in Europe. A capitalist system has for a long time served us well as a nation, and our economic success in the past is largely attributable to the system. We also have seen the problems of socialism historically, looking back to the ultimate collapse of the USSR. And so I pose this question. Do you believe that by keeping poorly run companies alive we are in effect doing a disservice to the future economy?
In Darwin’s great essay, “The Origin of Species,” he strongly emphasized the theory of natural selection; that is to say “survival of the fittest.” Just look at GM, we gave them 14 billion dollars only a few short months ago, and they have already blown it. How long will it be before we stop throwing money into that furnace? It has always been the philosophy of our capitalist system that when one company fails, a stronger one will ultimately have increased success and will take its place. If this is true, why are we letting the inept to stay afloat? Why do we not let those businesses that have failed fail? Would not the decreased competition allow for new businesses to expand and take their place; businesses that wouldn’t lose money, businesses that wouldn’t waste tax payer dollars?
Do you believe we are making a mistake by keeping companies that poorly manage their money alive? After all, if I open a small business, no ones going to bail me out. Why should big business be any different? What do you guys think? Would you not agree that by being tolerant of poor business practice, we are keeping afloat those which do not deserve to survive? And if you do agree, would you also agree that by keeping such failures afloat, we are ultimately going to hurt our economic situation at home and abroad? After all, what good is a company that loses money? And if they failed once, what’s to stop it from happening again?

(Kevin Trainer)

Learning Chinese

So my mom was talking to me about one of her friends who is teaching at Moorestown Friends School. As she was talking about it, she mentioned how their language system works a lot differently from ours. The students all learn these different languages the first year they enter the school (i.e. Spanish, Latin, Chinese, etc.) and then get to choose which language they want to stick to for the remainder of their years there. It turns out that taking Chinese there was so popular that the school had to limit the choice of Chinese to only their best students. My mom brought this up because her friend offered to teach me Chinese. She thought it was a good idea to learn it, especially in terms of business and handling clients. Even though I declined the offer (sorry to upset some of you strong advocators of the Chinese culture *cough Eric cough*), it reminded me of some of the ideologies we learned in Euro, specifically Marxism.

In one of his theories, Karl Marx states that society is like a superstructure and that it's base is the economy. All of the social and cultural aspects of our society depend on our economic situation. When I originally heard this in class, I kinda laughed at it. It seemed a bit ridiculous. However, considering this situation, I can't help but relate. The US happens to trade greatly with China, and as a side effect, the Chinese culture has seemed to merge into ours. What do you think? Just how accurate it Marx's theory in terms of the economy determining the structure of the different elements of a society.

Mary Quien

Penmanship

I'm sure that all of us remember those old days in elementary school when we all had to learn cursive, and even before our time, handwriting was considered an art (and was a required class). Of course, today, I'd say that we no longer care as much about penmanship as we used to. The only time in recent years that I have had to use cursive was signing that little disclaimer box on the SAT (not as easy as it sounds).

In addition, in today's increasingly digital age, is the "art" of penmanship worth anything anymore? Today, much of what we write is typed on the computer, not written out longhand. And yet, there is a growing sense among some that handwriting is more than just about pretty curlicues and that it should be "saved."

I can see some of their points. Writing out letters by hand still holds some sentimental value, and sometimes the computer just seems too impersonal. When I am drafting a composition or essay, I outline and hand-write my notes on paper, although I eventually type the final copy. Just today, I spoke to a classmate who writes her daily journal by hand, not by computer. And of course, some people believe that we can understand a person's character and personality through their handwriting (such as in sites as this one: www.doiop.com/handwriting.)

But really, isn't the importance of "good handwriting" decreasing more and more? Naturally, I type this as someone with some not-so-stellar handwriting, but it already seems that today's generation cares less about it than before. While handwriting once took up an hour a day in elementary school, now we learn keyboarding. No longer do we have to write notes to friends; we can Facebook! Although we still admire neat handwriting (such as that of Tiffany and Grace), and although it can still have a first impression upon people, isn't the digital age already reducing its importance? Or does writing something by hand hold an emotional and sentimental value that computers will never be able to replace?
-Eric W

"The Second American Revolution"

Having watched the imposter-Thomas Paine's "Second American Revolution" video, I would like to express some of my thoughts on the imposter's oratory.

In general, I was surprised that I found myself quite engrossed in what the imposter was saying. I immediately found myself ignoring a large part of the content of his speech, and rather, simply listening to the passion in his voice and the manner of its delivery. What was interesting was that the first thing he mentioned was the idea of establishing English as the national language, which we spent a few days discussing a while back. Although I am not sure if I necessarily agree or disagree with his views, I can say that I was impressed with his ability to rattle on about a most unusual, unexpected, or even ridiculous topic. After all, who among us honestly believes that it is time for us to engage in a Second American Revolution? Does he (the imposter) even truly believe this, or is he simply seeking attention on YouTube and on the news? Do you think the man honestly believes that he will have an effect on the American people?

Interestingly enough, his repeated use of the question, "Is it common sense...?" actually caught my attention and made me eager to hear what he had to say. Yet at the same time, I acknowledge that he is but a random man who I know nothing about and who, therefore, may not even be worthy of intellectual praise. However, I still watched the entire video and felt as if I had been given a decent speech after it ended, but I am not quite sure why.

What are your opinions of the video?

(Janet Lee)

Speech-Making

During Friday's class, I didn't quite get the chance to ask a question that came to me as the bell rang. We differentiated between Johnathan Edward and Patrick Henry's audiences as well as their style of delivery. What if their styles had been reversed? What if Edwards had delivered his speech at the Puritan revival meeting in a fiery, bellowing, passionate voice. What if Henry had delivered his last line, coldly and cooly, as if death was something he looked forward to encountering? Would the success of these two speeches still hold true today? Would they have utterly failed? I know these are all hypothetical "what if" situations..but I kind of get the feeling that they still would have worked. That's just my opinion, though.

Also, just a quick question: During our Puritan unit, we covered the Mayflower Compact (1620). In this document, they never renounce their political allegiance to the crown.
We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the faith, etc. In this line, they established themselves as loyal subjects. Yet in the essay before The Declaration of Independence, we learn that Hobbes gained his ideas from experiencing a harsh political climate in the 1600s as civil war errupted between Anglicans and Puritans "who denied the King's right to absolute control." So...which is it? I just need slight clarification, it would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Sam Maliha

Saving the Newspapers

As many of you are probably aware, newspapers and magazines have been particularly struggling recently. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a respected newspaper founded over a hundred years ago, just shut down the other day. The Christian Science Monitor was the first nationally circulated newspaper to shut down its paper operations and move completely to the Web.

It seems as though the print medium is dying, as more and more readers move to the Internet. Not only has reporting become much more interactive and open (with such sites as Digg that involve the input of the reader), newspapers often cannot match the breadth and depth provided by the Internet. Although newspapers, content-wise, may be superior, many consider them too static, too slow, and unable to adapt to today's fast-changing times. After all, when the US Airways Flight 1549 crashed in the Hudson River, the first pictures from the event were from the site Twitter, not from any print publication.

That's not to mention that many people consider the revenue models of newspapers outdated. In the age of the Internet, when people are used to receiving content for free, many balk at paying expensive subscription fees to a newspaper.

And yet, despite their decline, I still feel that newspapers often provide higher quality reporting and more detailed coverage than the Internet does. Although blogs and pundits have proliferated around the Web, without good reporting, they all would just be bloviating with empty words. And of course, I still love the solid feel of a good newspaper or magazine, something the Internet just can't match. Many others seems to agree with me on this, and so a new campaign has started: Save the Newspapers!

But as much as I enjoy the print medium, should it be saved? Are newspapers just relics of a time long past, a time before the advent of the Internet? Or do they offer something that the Web can never match, something that should be preserved?

So, what do you think?
-Eric Wei

Rhetorical geniuses

Hello
Today I happened to approach the text of the famous 'I Have a Dream' speech by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I have heard the recording of his speech before;however, it was my first time actually reading the script. When I finished reading, I realized that listening to it and reading it were two very different experiences. I was impressed by Dr. King's usage of various types of different rhetorical devices. He makes use of some of the common rhetorical device such as ironies and metaphors but other times he uses more rare form of figurative speech (and I am sure those of you take Latin will know what I'm talking about).

After trying to find out different rhetorical devices in Dr. King's speech, I started to wonder about other famous speeches and their usage of rhetorical device. Does anyone have an example?

Also, what enables these oratorical geniuses to make proper use of rhetorical device? What is its impact on the audience?

Jennifer Park

From a Different Angle...

As I was beginning the neoclassism readings, one question in particular presented itself to me: what if a state in the US or a US territory decided that it did not like the way our national government worked and decided to revolt? How would we react, and how would our government react?

Chances are good that there would be different reasoning for wanting to terminate relations with the US, but I think the question is still valid. The Declaration of Independence is often regarded as a great and inspiring work that stands up to injustice. Well, chances are good that this is not how the Britons saw it. I would imagine that British leadership was outraged by the Declaration of Independence.

My question here is not whether we were justified in revolting, but, rather, how would our government react if some US territory decided to revolt? We felt completely justified in revolting against the British, and we praise the act. But what if we were in the shoes of British leadership? Especially having the revolution in our past, it would be very difficult to say that revolting against unjust government practices is wrong, even if we don't think we're being unjust.

I realize that a situation like this occurred during the Civil War. The southern states thought that they were getting an unfair deal and they did not want to give up their way of life for something that they didn't agree with. Were they justified in trying to break away from the United States? Did the national government have any right to say they couldn't leave, considering its recent history and the revolution against British injustice? If it were to happen again, would/should the US respond in the same way?

I hope I'm getting my question across clearly. There are two sides to every story, and because we learn about US history I think we sometimes overlook the other side of the story. So, how did the Britons feel, and how would we feel if that were us?

Emily T.

Watchmen

During today's seminar in the media center, the discussion allowed me to make connections between the plot and human nature and the graphic novel's worthiness of being studied. Can Watchmen earn its way into the cannon? I vote yes. A lot of the books that we do study are chosen because of the teachings and values presented in the text. Last year, we focused on discrimination against African Americans ("A Raisin in the Sun", Cry, the Beloved Country, etc..). Through these books, we learned about the struggles of life. What's to stop us, then, from saying that lessons are present in graphic novels/comics? I believe that several characters often find themselves asking, "What's happened to us?" They regarded themselves as monsters rather than protectors of justice. As Rorscach told the doctor at the jail, Walter died with the little girl who had been murdered; only a masked man remained.

The heroes soon found themselves punishing criminals in the same way that they had harmed their victims. Is this fair? Could this bloodthirsty rage be the cause of the repeated question: "What's happened to us?" Were they starting to believe the Comedian?

This is slightly off topic, but here goes. We began discussing this during the seminar, but it's too interesting to forget. DID the inclusion of art/pictures limit our imaginative process while reading the book? I often found myself flipping back and forth in order to re-examine previous pictures because I felt that I was no longer given the liberty to imagine the character as I would have perceived him/her to be. Just a thought..

(Sam Maliha)

Rorschach's Journal

Seeing as most of you have probably read Watchmen or watched the movie by now, I wanted to bring up a topic that's been bugging me a bit. Recall Rorschach's journal at the end of the story. The editor of a newspaper was trying to find something to fill in some space in the newspaper and leaves it to his assistant to find something. You can see that the boy is reaching for Rorschach's journal, which was left there (or mailed there depending if you're thinking of the movie or the book) before Rorschach goes with Dan to confront Veidt.

Now, after all the main characters find out about Veidt's plan and realize how this has affected the world, most chose to stay quiet about the truth because the revelation of the truth would destroy any chance of peace, dooming the earth to worse destruction. Do you think this is true? Do you think that Rorschach's journal could possibly cause the world to go into chaos?

Or would his journal have no effect at all? After all, many people regarded him as being crazy. Would people then just ignore his journal?

Mary Quien

Brain Scans

Hey, look! It's a new post!

A while back, I recall reading that a woman was convicted for murder on the basis of her brain scans, which were analyzed as being aggressive and homicidal. It started me wondering: Can we really judge people based upon their brain scans, or upon the physical makeup of their brain? If thoughts and feelings are the intensional components of our consciousness, then the actual brain is the extensional part. But to what extent can we decipher intensional thoughts from the extensional brain?

Is it fair to use brain scans at all? We all know that brain scans certainly reveal at least part of our thoughts: they're used to test advertising campaigns and the effects of certain drugs all the time. But how accurate are they? I remember reading another article in which brain scans were used to help the defendant: the attorney argued that the brain scans showed that his client was vulnerable to irresistible impulses for murder. But can brain scans show the difference between an irresistible impluse and an impulse that was not resisted?

I'm sure many of you remember the movie Minority Report, in which the police can actually stop crimes before they even happen. Could brain scans lead to this path? If someone's brain chemistry indicates him to be extremely aggressive, unbalanced, and homicidal, but he has not committed any act yet, how do we treat him? Is that person innocent until proven guilty, or an accident just waiting to happen?

-Eric Wei

Requirements to Run for President

So once again, I was thinking during this weekend about witch hunts, discrimination, etc. I was reminded of this article/bill ( I don't quite remember that part) that proposed removing the requirements necessary to run for President of the United States. At first, there was a lot of opposition to this proposal. Many people were saying that such a prestigious job should not be left open to everyone, especially while the requirements for the Senate and House positions still hold. There was also concerns about high school students being able to run and international conflicts, as this proposal would allow immigrants to run as well.

As time progressed, support for this proposal started to come forth. Many people said that it would be unlikely for a high school student to run because it requires a great amount of money and that such candidates would never make it past the preliminaries due to their inexperience. Also, the American people are capable of voting for the most competent candidate (and then the election of Bush was brought up as a rebuttal).

So what do you think? Are these requirements unjust and discriminatory? Should they be abolished? (Keep in mind that the requirements for running for President is that the person has to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old and has lived in the United States for at least 14 years.)

Mary Quien

Definitions: What is Life?

I was reading this very interesting article about the recent sucess in creating synthetic life. Those of you taking AP Bio will undoubtedly understand this better than the rest of us, but from what I understood, the researchers had figured out how to create a self-replicating ribosome, capable of synthesizing its own proteins:

"Harvard University scientists are a step closer to creating synthetic forms of life, part of a drive to design man-made organisms that may one day be used to help produce new fuels and create biotechnology drugs.

Researchers led by George Church, whose findings helped spur the U.S. human genome project in the 1980s, have copied the part of a living cell that makes proteins, the building blocks of life. The finding overcomes a major roadblock in making synthetic self-replicating organisms, Church said today in a lecture at Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The technology can be used to program cells to make virtually any protein, even some that don’t exist in nature, the scientists said. That may allow production of helpful new drugs, chemicals and organisms, including living bacteria. It also opens the door to ethical concerns about creation of processes that may be uncontrollable by life’s natural defenses.

“It’s the key component to making synthetic life,” Church said yesterday in a telephone call with reporters. “We haven’t made synthetic life and it’s not our primary goal, but this is a huge milestone in that direction.”

The work may be immediately helpful to companies such as Synthetic Genomics Inc., headed by J. Craig Venter, trying to make new organisms that perform specific tasks, such as converting buried coal into methane gas that’s easier to extract from the ground.

Microbes for Coal

Venter’s plan is to create man-made microbes that can help break down the coal in the earth, much as bacteria speed decomposing plant material.

In a conference for alumni today at Harvard, Church described how his team assembled a reconstituted ribosome, the first artificial version of the structure capable of remaking itself.

Naturally occurring ribosomes are used now when biotechnology companies genetically engineer cells to make the proteins for vaccines and drugs, such asGenentech Inc.’s Herceptin. Normal ribosomes make some drugs slowly, and others can’t be made at all, said Anthony Forster, a Vanderbilt University pharmacologist who has collaborated with Church on synthetic biology projects.

A man-made, or reconstituted, ribosome may be programmable to make all kinds of molecules, Forster said.

Efficient Protein Making

“There would be advantages to having ribosomes that would only make specific proteins” said James Collins, a Boston University biomedical engineer, in a telephone interview. “Then you could program ribosomes so that they shut down much of the rest of the cell, only making the proteins you want to produce. You could shift the cell’s machinery to making certain products or fuels, for example, and really increase efficiency.”

Specially programmed ribosomes might also have the ability to make mirror images of the active molecules in existing drugs, Church said. These mirror-image versions, sometimes called chirals, would be impervious to enzymes that the body usually uses to break down chemicals.

“They would have a longer stability in natural environments,” Church said.

Ribosomes have been synthesized before, some as long as 40 years ago. Because they were made only under specialized conditions of temperature and salt concentration, scientists couldn’t get them to recreate themselves, a key requirement in making artificial life.

Security Concerns

Artificial life and drugs that can’t be broken down by the body’s natural enzymes raise a number of serious concerns, said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics.

As the tools of synthetic biology become easier to use, bioterrorists and criminals may attempt to exploit them, he said. Well-meaning scientists might also release potentially deadly organisms and chemicals into the environment.

“A number of proposals have been made about controlling access to this technology,” Magnus said in a telephone interview. “The synthetic biology community takes these issues seriously and are talking about what it will take to make sure we have effective oversight.”

The first artificial organisms are likely to be grown in highly controlled conditions, and would probably be unable to exist outside the laboratory, said Vanderbilt’s Forster.

Lab Escape Improbable

“It might sound scary initially, but it would almost be on life support,” he said. “It would probably be highly dependent on someone feeding it 30 or more small molecules. It wouldn’t be likely to escape into the environment and run amok.”

Church has advised 22 companies on genetic sequencing since 1984. Technology he developed was licensed to Applied Biosystems Inc., purchased last year by Life Technologies Corp. The technology is used to make Life’s sequencing products.

The Harvard geneticist last year received backing from Google Inc. for a project to decipher the genomes of 100,000 people using sequencers, machines that quickly read the genetic code, the instructions for making all its proteins that is stored in DNA molecules. A complementary molecule, called RNA, sends the genetic messages to structures called ribosomes that act like factories producing proteins.

New Help

To reach his latest goal, Church last year hired Michael Jewett, a chemical and biological engineer who had been at Stanford University near Palo Alto, California. Jewett was one of the few people who had the knowledge of protein synthesis to move the effort forward. The project was done within a year.

“We really thought this was going to be hard, I can’t overemphasize that,” Church said. “I’m probably not articulating how exciting this is.”

Jewett quickly found ways to make and assemble the 54 proteins and three RNA molecules that go into making a ribosome. Church said he now has a “tubeful” of reconstituted ribosomes, containing millions of the artificial structures. While the findings haven’t been published, Church said they’ve been replicated many times.

Church “is a pioneer in biotechnology who, with this latest study, has established himself as a pioneer in synthetic biology,” said Boston University’s Collins."

This made me think of the cliche "What is life?" and the endless debates over different definitions of what life is. These researchers have obviously created their own definition of life, and I wanted to hear thoughts on exactly what it is and how you think they would define it.

(Streve Szumski)