The Internet and It's Place in the World

Throughout our class, there has been a lot of talk about how the world communicates today. After reading a few other people's blog entries, I have learned that people consider that the internet has really served as a means of communication and it is both good and bad.  I consider this to be true in a way.  There exist two sides to this argument, number one: the internet is a really beautiful invention and brings cultures together.  It helps educate the world and is wildly useful for school purposes, and it helps to better bring two people together from different places on the globe that may never have seen each other before.  Number two: The internet has a negative influence on the world, it is used to further bully and demote people of various races, sexual orientations, and or ethnic groups.  Throughout the internet people can use their anonymous identites to attack groups of people or individuals.  Now there is my standpoint, I would primarily agree with number one. The internet is a wonderful addition to further better the world.  The internet can teach us languages to communicate, can educate us on problems outside of our own nation, can bring us closer to people who we would have never talked about, and can be a place where you can share your own ideas just as I am doing now.  When all of this bullying comes into play, it becomes a much less happy place i will admit.  However, people would insult or put people down whether it is online or offline it really does not make a difference.  You cannot stop the people with poor opinions, you can only withstand them and it does not matter whether that be on the internet or anywhere else.

Glass Menagerie Reflection

This is a reflection on the Glass Menagerie.  I wanted to ask a few questions concerning this play that we read in class. In my opinion, although it may have been an accurate representation of what the 1930's were like during the Great Depression, I feel little interest in the story. The story in all had complicated metaphors and double meanings surrounding it, however; the story is unexciting, and rather boring, in reality it is a story about a man and his hysterical mother accompanied by his socially awkward sister.  The story I think accurately depicts the time period while showing what a family of the time may have had to endure and what it may have produced.  However; If there is another item of severe importance that I am supposed to grasp from this story, then I do not.  The messages in the book remain unclear to me as well, in the end Tom ends up leaving his family and roaming the United States while his family stays in their tiny apartment.  This play shows a sad family in an extremely unfortunate situation which draws a lot of empathy and sympathy for each individual character, however is that all I am supposed to feel? What emotions are trying to be evoked from me besides just me feeling sad for a family that breaks down.  The message that is supposed to be there, I am afraid is not visible to me.

The U.S. Needs to ignore the "sniffles"

This past week I learned about Clinton and his views during the 90's and what American was going to do about the crisis in Bosnia. The one part of Clinton's speech that really stuck with me was when he uttered the words "We can't do everything, but we have to do everything that we can". This seems to be an American Ideal that has been carried on.  It is not necessarily a good thing.  Just becasue we can do something does not mean that we should.  Although in the case with Bosnia, of course this statement would have been true because there was obvious chaos and turmoil that was ocurring.  In any other case, maybe it would not always be wise for the U.S. to interfere.  Problems were happening in Bosnia that other countries could not fix.  The U.S. was practically obligated to lend their help if so many others had tried and failed. In the case of Bosnia, assisting with whatever they could do was a good idea.  In the case of another conflict, it may not necessarily be recquired to intervene. If my friend was dying, and I could save his life, I cannot do everything becasue I am not a trained physician, but I will do everything I can to save his life.  If my friend had a cold, I would not be as concerned so instead I would probably not do anything and just let him survive by himself.  This is something the United States could practice.  We could save people when they are dying, but when someone has the "sniffles" just leave them be to sort it out because they will eventually get better.

Did the Attempt To Halt Communism in the U.S. insight unconstitutional Actions?

This past week I have learned a great deal about the cold war.  Specifically, about how Senator McCarthy played a role in it.  The documents that I have read tell me of how hollywood began to blacklist people who would have had any connection with Communism.  A movie that I watched in class about McCarthy showed how the American people were terribly afraid of being called Communist and that innocent people were losing their jobs and livelyhood over accusations from Senator McCarthy.  I am glad that the Senator was put to a stop, but a little dissapointed in the abilities of the American people who allowed themselves to be bullied so easily.  The things that were happening to people were completely against the constitution.  Communism is a way of government, according to the United States constituion a citizen has every right to believe what they want and even if that be in a failing form of government.  The American people should have stood up much sooner for their personal liberties and rights with the full knowledge that what Senator McCarthy was doing and what industries like Hollywood were doing was completely unconstitutional.  I believe that today this would not happen.  Everyday I turn on the news there seems to be a contraversy about something the president did, something an elected official did, or something that a police officer did that violates the rights of a particular citizen or citizens.  If something like what happened in the 1950's was about to repeat itself, I have much faith that the American people would have enough strength to stand up for themselves and what they know is right according to their constitution under which they live by.  If the constitution that your country lives by is not followed by your country, why are you still living in it?

Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, and Leonardo da Vinci

We recently learned about Andrew Carnegie.  Carnegie wrote an article about what he called the "Gospel of Wealth".  He believed that anyone who wealth like he did had the moral obligation to give it back to the community in hopes that it will further advance the society.  I personally think that this idea is incredible.  I can also think of a circumstance that it still exists today.  Bill gates bought the Codex Leicester.  This was a 72 page document that Leonardo da Vinci had written.  It basically just recorded all of his various thoughts throughout time accompanied by diagrams and self drawn pictures.  Nevertheless, this codex is a huge part of history and a connection to one of the most brilliant minds of history.  This extremely valuable document was auctioned off where it was sold for just south of 31 million dollars to Bill Gates.  Bill Gates has since made available to the public.  He has published it online after having it translated from Italian.  This to me resembles the Gospel of Wealth that Andrew Carnegie tried to upkeep.  Carnegie also had the brilliant idea of not leaving his kids any money because he thought that they should be able to earn their own money.  Mr. Gates also has the same idea in mind with his immense fortune.  Bill gates also made the Leicester Codex available for view around the world.  He lets it be displayed at various museums around the world changing museums from time to time.  I wish I could see other collectors of vast wealth give back to the community of the world as Bill Gates and Andrew Carnegie did.

Who Really Won the War?

Recently, we finished the documentary we had been watching for a few weeks in class. The ending of the documentary greatly surprised me.  The Civil War ended and with that I expected the documentary to come to a close but this documentary was about slavery and not the Civil War and apparently discrimination against black people greatly endured past the Civil War.  It got so bad, that the north just decided they no longer even cared about the south and they could do anything they wanted to do to free black Americans.  Organizations emerged that people wanted to shut down.  I now have an explanation to how there was so much discrimination in the sixties, for example, even though it took time much after the Civil War.  I always wondered if slavery was ended during the Civil War how do we find so much discrimination so long after the war.  What also interests me, is how the north were just as guilty in the sixties as the south but during the after period of the war they were the ones trying to stop the discrimination.  Did the north actually win the war?  The south ended up brainwashing the whole country into thinking that black people were inferior to us and henceforth created discrimination far worse than anything seen in our country's history.  Congratulations to general Robert E. Lee the true victor of the Civil War.

Source C and D

The test we took seemed relatively easy to me.  The lack of any matching, or multiple choice section greatly changed my opinion on the difficulty of the test.  The fact that the whole test was writing perturbed me but also sort of relieved me of the stress received from multiple choice questions.  I remember replying to one of the questions saying that the two men writing in source C and D were deliberately bashing the white people who upheld the rights of the Deceleration of Independence.  They both had different approaches to the matter.  David Walker called told the men that they were not simply following what they wrote and that they needed to therefore justify their claims of liberty.  The other author declared that the document was more suggestive of the apparent matter that white people obviously viewed slaves as property and not people.   I think David Walker was still under the impression that if he wrote this letter and people read it; they would immediately assume that there was in fact something done very wrong in the United States of America.  Source D was more correct in pointing out that any American would pick up this document, read it, and then laugh because they see a slave claiming to be an actual human being and not just a piece of property that is sold and bartered.