Tuesday, March 31, 2009

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)

Sunday, March 29, 2009

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

Friday, March 27, 2009

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

Thursday, March 26, 2009

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)

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

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

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

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

Monday, March 23, 2009

"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)

Saturday, March 21, 2009

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

Thursday, March 19, 2009

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

Monday, March 16, 2009

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

Sunday, March 15, 2009

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

Sunday, March 8, 2009

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)

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

A Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures

Bonsoir,
I recognize that this is all rather cliche, but it came to me during class today. We've heard time and time again that "a picture is worth a thousand words"...but doesn't it also work the other way around? If you set a word in front of us, couldn't it be worth a thousand pictures? We'd all perceive the word differently and tie it in with our different intensional and extensional interpretations and experiences. Take for example the word "serene". Some might imagine a beach, some might imagine a winter wonderland, some might even imagine a picture of an airplane soaring through the sky. Would someone need to have studied Hayakawa and/or semantics in general in order to think this way? I think we should coin the new term for ourselves. I hope it doesn't already exist!

A bientot,
(Sam Maliha)
Comrade Maliha

Sunday, March 1, 2009

DNA Protection Act

So I was debating in an ethics committee over the past weekend, and there was this one bill that caught my attention: DNA Protection Act. When presenting this bill, the author explained that with growing technology, it was now possible for employers to attain these 'maps' of potential employees DNA. From these maps, an employer could find the percentage of how susceptible a person was to a certain disease (such as cancer, Parkinson's, etc). Consequentially, employers can use these maps to exclude certain individuals.

In a way, this reminded me of witch hunts? These people don't even have the disease and are still be discriminated against. What do you think? Also, do you think that employers should be allowed to use such information in excluding certain individuals from a certain job?

Comrade Quien

Jonathan Edwards

The introduction to Jonathan Edwards included an explanation of the man's dual reputation. Some saw him as a Puritan extremist, fearful of the Old Testament wrathful God, and others as a noteworthy philosopher. He even lamented what he felt to be the loss of true religious conversion during the Great Awakening. He studied John Locke and Rene Descartes, thus mastering his own explanation of determinism, the idea that every event is caused by preceding events according to Newton's laws of nature (cause and effect). The study of these philosophes greatly impacted his views on salvation. I am wondering, though, how this impact was translated into his sermon, which was meant to appeal to emotion rather than to reason.

In "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," Edwards repeated the same points often. He mentioned, on more than one occasion, "divine justice". This confused me, though. Edwards was supposedly a "Puritan Calvinist," a believer in predestination. Why, then, did he believe that divine justice would favor someone if they did not stray from the divine path? Also, he makes mention that, "...you shall not suffer beyond what strict justive requires." Why should justice even matter at this point if your fate is determined even before your death? Edwards goes even further to ask his audience to "hearken to the loud calls of God's word and providence."

At least this is the impression I got; I could be mistaken... Explanations are appreciated.

(Sam Maliha)