Everyone who’s gone through high school should know about how minorities fought to gain some recognition in this country. According to the Constitution all men were created equal, however no one truly thinks of another person as their equal. Most of us have redefined racism so that it doesn’t seem as harsh. The main reason behind this is no one wants to express how they truly feel because of the threat of alienation by others because he or she acknowledges the fact that they are somewhat racist.
The term racism has been replaced with the term “pro-race”. It doesn’t sound as harsh as racism but it still holds some of its key components. When someone is pro-race, they believe their race is superior. An example of this, though not a direct example, is the phrase “God bless America and no place else”. One can imply that this means God shouldn’t bless another country. Is that what they are trying to promote? Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. However because the phrase is said as such, others may take offense to it.
Racism being abolished is a pipe dream. We can alter how the next generation thinks through our speech and examples. However, the ones teaching the next generation still harbor prejudices in their hearts. So how far can they go without slipping up? The child will most likely remember that one time when that slip up occurred rather than the millions of times when racial integrity was shown. We can’t change human interaction, because it takes more than one person for an interaction to occur.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t work towards a world where racism isn’t the problem. I believe that we should. It seems unrealistic to believe that everyone will not be racist over time. After all, we can’t control everyone’s minds, let alone their hearts.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Prisons- the Bondage of the Body and the Mind: Who’s More Effective?
In the film Return to Paradise, the Malaysian government punished a man who had in his possession over 100 grams of marijuana. The judge in the end of the movie made an interesting claim. He compared the way how Malaysia and America deals with crime. He claimed the streets of Malaysia were cleaner because the Malaysian judicial system is stern on criminals. One can assume that he believes America isn’t tough enough on its criminals. Also that’s why the crime rate in America is so high.
His claims are very well rooted. More than half of the convicted felons in Malaysia are foreigners. It seems that Malaysian citizens are intimidated to obey the law. After all, the movie demonstrated the consequences of drug possession. Is the Malaysian prison system better than the American jail system?
If one were to truly dwell on it, Americans have granted prisoners a large opportunity. Malaysians, on the other hand aren’t granted the same privileges. The death sentence in America is a rare occurrence. About 16 people are sent to death row in America. In 2004, 59 people were sent to death row in Malaysia. Also in Malaysia, prisoners who are on death row don’t about their execution date until the day before it occurs. In addition, flogging is a common method of torture performed on Malaysian prisoners. In America, it is illegal for any form of torture to be inflicted on felons. These facts still don’t show us which is more effective. We can only discover which is more effective through recidivism rates.
Recidivism occurs when a felon returns to jail after his/her original sentence. In Malaysia, the recidivism rate for men is only 15% to 20%- for women it is 35% to 45%. In America, nearly 50% of men and 43% of women execute recidivism within 5 years of their release. Who do you think is more effective? Do you believe Malaysia can have a better recidivism rate if they adopted some U.S. principles? If so, which ones?
For more information you can go to:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2003/curves.html
http://adriantai.blogspot.com/2006/10/malaysian-prison.html
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-36509132.html
If you’d like to read some testimonies go to:
http://www.corpun.com/myj00405.htm
http://www.corpun.com/myjur1.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_/ai_56701383
http://www.arcadepub.com/book/?GCOI=55970100746010
His claims are very well rooted. More than half of the convicted felons in Malaysia are foreigners. It seems that Malaysian citizens are intimidated to obey the law. After all, the movie demonstrated the consequences of drug possession. Is the Malaysian prison system better than the American jail system?
If one were to truly dwell on it, Americans have granted prisoners a large opportunity. Malaysians, on the other hand aren’t granted the same privileges. The death sentence in America is a rare occurrence. About 16 people are sent to death row in America. In 2004, 59 people were sent to death row in Malaysia. Also in Malaysia, prisoners who are on death row don’t about their execution date until the day before it occurs. In addition, flogging is a common method of torture performed on Malaysian prisoners. In America, it is illegal for any form of torture to be inflicted on felons. These facts still don’t show us which is more effective. We can only discover which is more effective through recidivism rates.
Recidivism occurs when a felon returns to jail after his/her original sentence. In Malaysia, the recidivism rate for men is only 15% to 20%- for women it is 35% to 45%. In America, nearly 50% of men and 43% of women execute recidivism within 5 years of their release. Who do you think is more effective? Do you believe Malaysia can have a better recidivism rate if they adopted some U.S. principles? If so, which ones?
For more information you can go to:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2003/curves.html
http://adriantai.blogspot.com/2006/10/malaysian-prison.html
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-36509132.html
If you’d like to read some testimonies go to:
http://www.corpun.com/myj00405.htm
http://www.corpun.com/myjur1.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_/ai_56701383
http://www.arcadepub.com/book/?GCOI=55970100746010
Friday, October 24, 2008
Cowboys V. Indians
Recently, our class had a reading assignment called Cowboys V. Mounties. In this article, the author, Sarah Vowell, compared American and Canadian cultures in regards to patriotism. The example she emphasized on was the contrast between the cowboys (the symbol of American culture) and the Mounties (the symbol of the Canadian culture).
In Vowell’s article, she states the men of the U.S. army aren’t “nameless, faceless nobodies… they could join the army and still do their own thing.” On the other hand, Mounties are conformists. They “stick together and work as a team.” Vowell interviewed a Mountie, asking him what he thought about not being “cool” in America. Her definition of cool in this context was probably someone who bends or breaks the law because of their personal reasons (usually for the purpose of the “greater good”), someone who’s highly individualized. This assumption of her definition is made clearer in her next statement, “The Mounties have no dark side.” The Mountie responded, “There’s good and bad in everybody…”
I agree with Vowell, but I don’t agree with her definition of cool. Mounties and cowboys are completely different. It’s all due to the upbringing of both nations. America was founded by
people with radical views. They wanted change and they wanted it fast. So they went for an all-out rebellion against government. Canada, inspecting this, probably decided to turn away from this approach because of all the blood shed. So they decided to slowly gain their independence. This could dictate why there’s more order and structure in their in Canada’s policing unit. There’s nothing to justify saying they’re not “cool”. In matter of fact, they should be “cool” because they obey authority, they don’t down trod on others, and they show respect towards all peoples regardless of color. Why don’t we call people like this cool?
In Vowell’s article, she states the men of the U.S. army aren’t “nameless, faceless nobodies… they could join the army and still do their own thing.” On the other hand, Mounties are conformists. They “stick together and work as a team.” Vowell interviewed a Mountie, asking him what he thought about not being “cool” in America. Her definition of cool in this context was probably someone who bends or breaks the law because of their personal reasons (usually for the purpose of the “greater good”), someone who’s highly individualized. This assumption of her definition is made clearer in her next statement, “The Mounties have no dark side.” The Mountie responded, “There’s good and bad in everybody…”
I agree with Vowell, but I don’t agree with her definition of cool. Mounties and cowboys are completely different. It’s all due to the upbringing of both nations. America was founded by
people with radical views. They wanted change and they wanted it fast. So they went for an all-out rebellion against government. Canada, inspecting this, probably decided to turn away from this approach because of all the blood shed. So they decided to slowly gain their independence. This could dictate why there’s more order and structure in their in Canada’s policing unit. There’s nothing to justify saying they’re not “cool”. In matter of fact, they should be “cool” because they obey authority, they don’t down trod on others, and they show respect towards all peoples regardless of color. Why don’t we call people like this cool?Cowboys V. Indians
Recently, our class had a reading assignment called Cowboys V. Mounties. In this article, the author, Sarah Vowell, compared American and Canadian cultures in regards to patriotism. The example she emphasized on was the contrast between the cowboys (the symbol of American culture) and the Mounties (the symbol of the Canadian culture).
In Vowell’s article, she states the men of the U.S. army aren’t “nameless, faceless nobodies… they could join the army and still do their own thing.” On the other hand, Mounties are conformists. They “stick together and work as a team.” Vowell interviewed a Mountie, asking him what he thought about not being “cool” in America. Her definition of cool in this context was probably someone who bends or breaks the law because of their personal reasons (usually for the purpose of the “greater good”), someone who’s highly individualized. This assumption of her definition is made clearer in her next statement, “The Mounties have no dark side.” The Mountie responded, “There’s good and bad in everybody…”
I agree with Vowell, but I don’t agree with her definition of cool. Mounties and cowboys are completely different. It’s all due to the upbringing of both nations. America was founded by people with radical views. They wanted change and they wanted it fast. So they went for an all-out rebellion against government. Canada, inspecting this, probably decided to turn away from this approach because of all the blood shed. So they decided to slowly gain their independence. This could dictate why there’s more order and structure in their in Canada’s policing unit. There’s nothing to justify saying they’re not “cool”. In matter of fact, they should be “cool” because they obey authority, they don’t down trod on others, and they show respect towards all peoples regardless of color. Why don’t we call people like this cool?
In Vowell’s article, she states the men of the U.S. army aren’t “nameless, faceless nobodies… they could join the army and still do their own thing.” On the other hand, Mounties are conformists. They “stick together and work as a team.” Vowell interviewed a Mountie, asking him what he thought about not being “cool” in America. Her definition of cool in this context was probably someone who bends or breaks the law because of their personal reasons (usually for the purpose of the “greater good”), someone who’s highly individualized. This assumption of her definition is made clearer in her next statement, “The Mounties have no dark side.” The Mountie responded, “There’s good and bad in everybody…”
I agree with Vowell, but I don’t agree with her definition of cool. Mounties and cowboys are completely different. It’s all due to the upbringing of both nations. America was founded by people with radical views. They wanted change and they wanted it fast. So they went for an all-out rebellion against government. Canada, inspecting this, probably decided to turn away from this approach because of all the blood shed. So they decided to slowly gain their independence. This could dictate why there’s more order and structure in their in Canada’s policing unit. There’s nothing to justify saying they’re not “cool”. In matter of fact, they should be “cool” because they obey authority, they don’t down trod on others, and they show respect towards all peoples regardless of color. Why don’t we call people like this cool?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
What about Alex?
My blogosphere class has recently ventured off into the book Into the Wild. In the story, the main character, Chris McCandless, becomes a tramp. At the commencement of his journey, Chris McCandless changes his name to Alex Supertramp, probably in an effort to establish a new identity for himself. Alex’s goal was to go live in Alaska, however he was found dead about 20 days later in Alaska.
At the first glance of the story, Alex seems irrational and ignorant. He had a rich family. He was an incredible student. And he left it all; even his sister, the person most dear to him. Along his journey, he starved for days at a time and lost all methods of transportation. He had to resort to hitchhiking. When he begins his journey to Alaska, he was dreadfully ill-prepared. He only had a bag of rice, a machete, a gun that wasn’t powerful enough to take out ferocious creatures, and some other things. He didn’t even have the proper to survive in Alaska’s harsh weather. He had his reasons though.
As the story progresses, Alex makes more sense. Alex wanted to prove himself. For whom or what is unknown. That’s why he wanted to go into the “wild” with little to no resources. He cut off his family, because he didn’t want them to influence what he was planning by discouragement. At the end of the story, Alex’s journal said that he wished to go home. He was going to return to society. He finally got the “wild” out of his system. His methods were extreme, but he’s like every human being.
Everyone wants to reach that defining moment in their life in which they discover who they truly are. From his youth, Alex was expected to live up to great expectations, especially from his father. That’s why he chose to do what he did. He wanted to be free of all expectations and find himself.
At the first glance of the story, Alex seems irrational and ignorant. He had a rich family. He was an incredible student. And he left it all; even his sister, the person most dear to him. Along his journey, he starved for days at a time and lost all methods of transportation. He had to resort to hitchhiking. When he begins his journey to Alaska, he was dreadfully ill-prepared. He only had a bag of rice, a machete, a gun that wasn’t powerful enough to take out ferocious creatures, and some other things. He didn’t even have the proper to survive in Alaska’s harsh weather. He had his reasons though.
As the story progresses, Alex makes more sense. Alex wanted to prove himself. For whom or what is unknown. That’s why he wanted to go into the “wild” with little to no resources. He cut off his family, because he didn’t want them to influence what he was planning by discouragement. At the end of the story, Alex’s journal said that he wished to go home. He was going to return to society. He finally got the “wild” out of his system. His methods were extreme, but he’s like every human being.
Everyone wants to reach that defining moment in their life in which they discover who they truly are. From his youth, Alex was expected to live up to great expectations, especially from his father. That’s why he chose to do what he did. He wanted to be free of all expectations and find himself.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Help! I Need a GOOD Job...What!? So Do You!?
Every college student that doesn't go to college on a full ride scholarship, usually takes out a loan. Each of them plan on paying for these loans, that amounts to mountains of debt, through their glamorous careers. This was highly unlikely, and most of the students that have tried this are still up to their ears in debt, even though its been 10-20 years since they took out the loan. This is even more unlikely now. The job market took a massive blow and its still on its knees gasping for air.
On August 23, 2005, Hurricane Katrina demolished New Orleans. Countless businesses were detsroyed, peoples homes were lost, and insurance companies couldn't handle the tremendous burden on their shoulders. We can see that this effected the population on every socioeconomic level. This caused a chain reaction in America's economy.
People withdrew stocks in fear of losing money. How does this affect us? It's simple. Everything is connected. With less stocks, big businesses crumbled like shotgun shacks in a magnitude eight earthquake. With less assets available to big businesses, the smaller businesses they sponsored lost money. Since the smaller businesses lost money, they weren't able to support the wages of their employees. As a result, people lose their jobs.
Places such as South Dakota haven't suffered much. Their state unemployment rate is only 2.8%. However, there's another extreme. Michigan has an unemployment rate of 8.5%. Florida is tied for 17th place with an unemployment of 5.5%. If you'd like to see the unemployment rates of all the states as of June 2008, go to http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/index.html
What can be done to restore order to the economy? It's, frankly, pretty simple. The job market must be restored. The person with the most say in how the job will be restored if it is going to happen is the next president. My advice to you is to vote with great consideration and not go with trends. If you'd like to see John McCain's view on unemployment and his solution, go to http://www.issue2008.com/mccain-on-jobs-unemployment/. If you'd like to see Barack Obama's view on unemployment and his solution, go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/paHQblog.
We are now in a time that we must be wiser about our decisions. I urge you, now more than ever, don't do anything without two solid back-up plans.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Sarah Palin: Pivotal Player or Waste of Space
Everyone was shocked when John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his Vice President candidate. However, everyone knew of his motives. It's apparent he wanted to win the women's vote that Hilary Clinton once clenched in the palm of her hand.
According a Washington Post/ABC News poll, McCain gained 20 points among white women ever since he joined forces with Palin. It seems that his plan worked. However, CNN conducted a poll, and McCain only gained 3 points after Palin joined his party. It's up to you to decide which one is credible and which one isn't.
According to the CNN poll, white women support McCain more than they do Palin (69% to 65% approval). Would it make much sense to collaborate with someone that doesn't have much support as you do in the area they were intended to dominate?
White women also seem to support McCain's opponents, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Senator McCain should have reevaluated his actions before performing them. Will this be an uphill battle for McCain or does he have an ace up his sleeve?
For more information, go to http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/09/is-palin-influencing-white-women/#more-17859
According a Washington Post/ABC News poll, McCain gained 20 points among white women ever since he joined forces with Palin. It seems that his plan worked. However, CNN conducted a poll, and McCain only gained 3 points after Palin joined his party. It's up to you to decide which one is credible and which one isn't.
According to the CNN poll, white women support McCain more than they do Palin (69% to 65% approval). Would it make much sense to collaborate with someone that doesn't have much support as you do in the area they were intended to dominate?
White women also seem to support McCain's opponents, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Senator McCain should have reevaluated his actions before performing them. Will this be an uphill battle for McCain or does he have an ace up his sleeve?
For more information, go to http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/09/is-palin-influencing-white-women/#more-17859
Cell Phones: The Next Generation Drug
Cell phones are the way we connect to the world or is it? Most of society uses cell phones to connect to network with people they know, having personal conversations in public places. It is rare to find a community that is close, because cell phones don't promote establishing new relationships with people we aren't familiar with. A perfect example would be T-Mobile and their "my faves" plan, which reduces the use of one's minutes by applying no charge to talking to people in the "my faves" list.
Do we control cell phones or are cell phones in contol of us? Can we go a whole day without our cell phones? Most would struggle with a challenge such as this. However, there are some that do make efforts to not have their lives controlled by cell phones. These people turn off their phones, leave them at home, or find other methods to separate themselves from this cultural epidemic.
On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who wish they could use their cell phones wherever they go. Many petition for cell phone use on planes, trains, and other mass transit systems that hinder cell phone signals.
Why don't you try leaving your cell phone away for a certain period of time? You might be shocked.
If you'd like to read a blog on this topic, go to http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-media-zone/200809/cell-phones-and-other-icts-the-devices-that-are-eating-the-world
Do we control cell phones or are cell phones in contol of us? Can we go a whole day without our cell phones? Most would struggle with a challenge such as this. However, there are some that do make efforts to not have their lives controlled by cell phones. These people turn off their phones, leave them at home, or find other methods to separate themselves from this cultural epidemic.
On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who wish they could use their cell phones wherever they go. Many petition for cell phone use on planes, trains, and other mass transit systems that hinder cell phone signals.
Why don't you try leaving your cell phone away for a certain period of time? You might be shocked.
If you'd like to read a blog on this topic, go to http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-media-zone/200809/cell-phones-and-other-icts-the-devices-that-are-eating-the-world
Technology May Eventually Discard of Privacy
Technology advances at a pace that no one man can comprehend. In matter of fact, there's a computer chip out there called an RFID chip. RFID stands for radio frequency identification.
With this technology, a sensor can detect an ID of anything, whether it be on food, supplies or even someone's personal information. China and Europe have already implemented this technology into their cultures. America has begun it's distribution of this technology in several states, i.e., Vermont, Michigan, Washington, and Arizona.
It may seem this information is harmless, at first. This technology can make inventory for businesses to go smoother. Also, it can raise awareness of who's in a certain place at a certain time. However, one's personal information can easily get into the hands of the wrong person without the correct security measures taken.
If you'd like to read the blog I received this information from, it's http://engineeringethicsblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/rfid-and-privacy-spy-in-your-pants.html
Monday, September 8, 2008
Who really owns the house?
In the story, the House of Sand and Fog, there is a battle on several levels-racial, sexist, economic, cultural, and various others- for a home. The question is- who does the home actually belong to: Kathy Nicolo or Amir Behrani?
Kathy Nicolo, one of our candidates, is a woman who cleans other’s homes for a living. She has a rocky relationship with her family. She was an alcoholic and a substance abuser. She was left by her ex-husband recently and has been living a life of seclusion since.
Amir Behrani, our other candidate, is formerly a wealthy colonel under the dominion of the Shahanshah. He was exiled from Iran when the Shahanshah is killed. He has splurged most of his wages in attempt to find his daughter a suitable husband, and now he needs a more suitable source of income to provide for his family, the way he’d like to.
Kathy originally owned the home. However, her husband leaving her as he did left her mind immersed in thoughts of her past. She even stopped checking the mail, which shows a great amount of irresponsibility on her behalf. It seems the government has sent her months worth of mail regarding her taxes. Since Kathy didn’t respond to the mail, the government took the house. At this point, Mr. Behrani capitalizes. He didn’t know about Kathy’s history of the house. All he was looking for was a good investment.
Soon afterwards, Kathy discovers the government was wrong about her “tax evasion”. Mr. Behrani learning of this, claimed that he would sell the house to the government for an amount similar to rate given from real estate.
Kathy did practice a lot of brash decisions during this whole process. She went to the home, caused a raucous, and severely hurt herself (pages 72-73). She was then tended to by the people she despised.
Kathy dragged in a law enforcement officer. Because of Kathy’s influence, he practiced actions that jeopardized his life. As a result of his actions, he lost his job, went to jail, and caused the emotional death of his family. Meanwhile, she caused the physical death of Mr. Behrani’s family through her actions.
Do you think Kathy is justified because of what happened? Do you believe Mr. Behrani received the just deserts for his actions? Why or why not?
Kathy Nicolo, one of our candidates, is a woman who cleans other’s homes for a living. She has a rocky relationship with her family. She was an alcoholic and a substance abuser. She was left by her ex-husband recently and has been living a life of seclusion since.
Amir Behrani, our other candidate, is formerly a wealthy colonel under the dominion of the Shahanshah. He was exiled from Iran when the Shahanshah is killed. He has splurged most of his wages in attempt to find his daughter a suitable husband, and now he needs a more suitable source of income to provide for his family, the way he’d like to.
Kathy originally owned the home. However, her husband leaving her as he did left her mind immersed in thoughts of her past. She even stopped checking the mail, which shows a great amount of irresponsibility on her behalf. It seems the government has sent her months worth of mail regarding her taxes. Since Kathy didn’t respond to the mail, the government took the house. At this point, Mr. Behrani capitalizes. He didn’t know about Kathy’s history of the house. All he was looking for was a good investment.
Soon afterwards, Kathy discovers the government was wrong about her “tax evasion”. Mr. Behrani learning of this, claimed that he would sell the house to the government for an amount similar to rate given from real estate.
Kathy did practice a lot of brash decisions during this whole process. She went to the home, caused a raucous, and severely hurt herself (pages 72-73). She was then tended to by the people she despised.
Kathy dragged in a law enforcement officer. Because of Kathy’s influence, he practiced actions that jeopardized his life. As a result of his actions, he lost his job, went to jail, and caused the emotional death of his family. Meanwhile, she caused the physical death of Mr. Behrani’s family through her actions.
Do you think Kathy is justified because of what happened? Do you believe Mr. Behrani received the just deserts for his actions? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
