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