Three Topics from the Kennedy to Discuss in Class

1. Coach Dambrot (p. 115)
2. How people jump to conclusions about "the word" (p. 102)
3. Who has right to use "the word" (p. 103)

Does Kennedy approach the views from all sides?

I believe the best way to eradicate the “N-word” is not to simply sweep it under the rug and ban it from ever being spoken, but rather to educate people about it and why it is so controversial. When kids get older, it is something they will be able to understand more, but it is something that if we lose sensitivity over or lose the original meaning, we could repeat some of the same mistakes that we have now.
Kennedy shows us that some people just shut down when they hear the “N-word” that they don’t see anything good that might come from being associated with that word. Again, the book Nigger Heaven was looked down upon by people who didn’t read it. He thinks that people should actually know what they are talking about rather than just assuming, because after centuries pass and knowledge is passed as well, through generations, it is important to still examine the meaning to keep what the word stands for known, and not to use it. (p. 102)
In Boston Public, the principal didn’t want the teacher to even discuss the Kennedy novel, because he didn’t want the school board, parents, students, and community mad at his poor choice to let the class continue talking about the “N Word”. The white teacher tries to ask the students why it is different for him to use the word than other black students. The other students explained to him that it seemed racist when it came out of a white person’s mouth.
At abolishthenword.com, we see that the opening statement is that all of the black men who were lynched were probably called the “n” word before they were hanged. This site says that any use of the word is degrading and it should be stopped. “The “N” word is not a term of endearment. It cannot be reapropriated. We cannot redefine the “N” word or re-spell it to make it positive” (about us page).
Overall, I think Kennedy came from many angles, or as many as he could, and showed them to us.

Thoughts on introduction and 1st Chapter of N*****

I thought the different ways Kennedy came to conclusions about the word was quite interesting, explaining the diametric points at which this word was used. A racial slam towards blacks coming from whites, and a common greeting for some blacks, this word's meaning should definitely be explored. I especially liked how Kennedy gave stories of well-known black people within society, naming Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, and telling of their struggles this word. However, with today's changing society, and as this word comes more into the vocabulary as a greeting, I think it was wise to put Oliver Wendell Holmes's advice into print: '"a word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged." A word is instead "the skin of a living thought (that) may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used."' This meaning that throughout time, although this word has signified violence and has even been the "glue" of some friendships, becoming a common greeting. Although, as you can see I do not feel comfortable using this word, and however we may try to get the taboo off of the word, I will not be the one to start; this was also addressed in the book. Especially memorable in the book were Eminem's words, who's colleagues are many black rappers, saying, "it just isn't in my vocabulary".

"The Allegory of the Cave"

This part of The Dialogues of Plato was interesting, because, when you think about it, the average person is "in a cave" of disillusionment, to some extent. Those who have had bad experiences and have better ones after are known to have knowledge to share with others (the philosophers) and steer people away from certain things. This book made me question, however vain it may seem, makes me think, "What if everyone else doesn't exist and the world is created like a board game where I am a participant and everyone else is just another part of completing the game?" I thought this theory was interesting, although I find it fascinating that the things we see aren't considered the only type of "sight". We are tricked, and the philosophers see how to open our eyes.

Books 2 and 3 of the Republic

With Plato using the Socratic method, much like Socrates did (hence the naming of the technique after him) it is easy to see why some people think Plato's words were mixed up with Socrates'. These two books showed the foundation of a town (they refer to it as a state), and that theoretically, "virtue is part of statesmanship and true politics is ethics in action" (p. 239). He suggests that a man specialize in his own department, whether it is being a "guardian" over the state, or a shoemaker, blacksmith, or something of the sort. He suggests censorship for younger children that only exposes them to truthful moral things. If they grew up on lies, a "moral deformity" their foundation would be weakened and it would threaten their ability to protect the state (p. 255).

I liked this section, although I don't necessarily agree. When would the state let the children think for themselves? At what point is a brain ready for "lies" or slight fables when it has been denied it since birth? Should not a world that already has lies be a place that one can know of the corruption and combat instead of being ignorant? Also, I think people can hold more than one position, but I can see where if one person held two, they might be persuaded in doing something that benefitted themselves, and it would donate less time to what they are supposed to be doing for the community.

Pakistan Article

I think it is important that we are keeping an eye on Pakistan, but we shouldn't declare ourselves the main enforcer. Pakistan's policies (which have religious roots) are not ideal for trying to stay on the same level with Pakistan. "Husain Yllaqqani, a Pakistani politician and commentator" who has had problems with his government says, "By using jihad as an instrument of policy in Kashmir and Afghanistan, Pakistan may think it has been using the jihadis, but the jihadis have been using Pakistan." (p. 122) This quote explains how the country of Pakistan gets the blame for things that its citizens do. However, it is our goal that their government take charge, but with their nuclear possibilities, it is not wise to jump into things without knowing what to do next.

Summary and Thoughts on the Crito (by Plato)

Socrates is visited by a friend (Crito) who tells him to let them bail him out of jail because the reason for his being in jail was absurd. Socrates responds with the excuse that the laws that he is held against are those that he has been brought up under, and he doesn't have that authority to crumble a foundation which has built him up.

I really liked reading this part. It was an interesting look at how one should be loyal to their government in the sense that they usually have the best interest for you. He makes a comment about them having many good people that will consider things when looking at his case, and he feels that in their hands, true justice will be done, because they are mainly good people. Even though people want him to rebel and be angry with the government, he can't because this is the government that has guided him and he has become used to living by their laws.

Dialogues of Plato--Apology Summary and Reflections

The Apology part in the Dialogues of Plato was Socrates' "confession" saying he really didn't do anything wrong, except try to better humanity with the men he conversed with. He is accused of "intentionally corrupting" his students and being an atheist, while on the contrary, he believes in demigods, saying that one cannot simply "believe in horsemanship but not horses". He also makes the point that he is the wisest around, after searching far and wide for someone else to break the fortune that the oracle at Delphi told him. After defending his teachings, showing his uncertainties of whether being sentenced to death is good or evil, and letting the judges' consciousness pull the guilty heart-strings at sentencing such a gift to the community (Socrates himself), he gives a final statement that says if they rule in favor of his death, may they also teach his sons this corrupt way of ruling, because he has taught them to live with more value given to "virtue", rather than "riches" and yet, he is still seen as doing something wrong, then his children will "receive justice in your hands", hands if he is convicted, deemed filthy with corruption.

For the most part, I liked this section of the book. At first, Socrates seemed really pompous and arrogant. Then, as I read further, the realization set in that this man was on his deathbed not because of his age (which was "up there" too) but the accusation of being "impious" and corrupting the youth from what he was teaching. He had to speak this way to get his point across that he was qualified to be teaching what he was and that his beliefs weren't all that different from the community's. However, I wonder if some of his conclusions regarding his intelligence and virtue really helped his case or made them worse. He kept talking about going to other people throughout the communities (artisans, poets, etc.) of the surrounding area and conversing with them to measure their intelligence. Even those men who were highly "ranked" in their community were deemed unworthy of the title given to Socrates (the wisest). When talking with someone with this attitude, I don't feel compelled to forgive them for what they have done, because their attitude gives me no feeling of remorse for the charge they have been charged of. Since he tells the judges he is no great orator this flaw is smoothed over, but still, as someone that is basically begging for their life, he could've been a little more humble to his fellow community members.

Law and Justice

This article explains that the laws don't always provide justice. Some exercising their rights to protest have been restrained, while it goes against a person's rights to "freedom and prosperity". Also, one cannot simply live by laws alone, "...stability and order are not the only desirable conditions of social life...there is also justice." laws without justice are not what America was built on. For every American to have an equal chance in life, justice must be also present with laws.

The founding of our country had a firm belief that things about our government should be changed and new laws have been made to try and keep those principals in mind. No, however, when it might be a time for change, we are penalized for wanting the change. I also think that the law doesn't fit all cases, and to simply folllow the law for everything will eventually create a "rebellion". Certain laws, especially the draft, if reenacted, should be reconsidered, especially the ability of men to avoid the war by paying their way out.

The Meaning of "Inherit the Wind"

I think the meaning of Inherit the Wind lies in the seperation of "Inherit" and "the Wind". To inherit means to pass something down through generations. In this case, religion was passed down through the close-knit, conservative families of Hillsboro. The wind is unseen and although we know it's there, we still can't see it; we can try to guess why it's there, but yet, we are only left to assume. This is how the earth came to be; we dont' know for sure, but have different theories, like evolution and the big bang theory.

Political Spectrum

I believe the government should regulate businesses to an extent to watch out for the consumer, implement the freedom of individual rights, graduated taxes, and also the government should provide services for the people. I ranked a "13", ranking between Hilary and Bill Clinton. I seemed to be pretty consistent with being on the left side (towards the libertarian), depending on what types of questions they asked and how I could answer them. However, I wasn't to an extreme (on the left side), but well enough in it to know I lean towards it.

Victimless Crimes: Who Exactly Do They Harm?

In Peter McWilliam's book, Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do, he writes, “As an adult, you should be allowed to do with your person and property whatever you choose, as long as you don’t physically harm the person or property of another.” This view is different than that of the government; when the threat to the morality (or general feelings based on issues of morality) of society is at stake, the government puts its foot down, harming no person besides the civil liberties of the one involved, for the most part. Euthanasia, sex education in schools and ticket scalping can all fit into this category, leaving the "perpetrator" scratching their head as to whom they are "violating".

Euthanasia (doctor assisted suicide) has been a conflict because even though the person is terminally ill and going to pass away anyways, the fact that they would go before they were "intended to go" by "the will of God" seems to guide the refusal of this law. Whose decision is it to whether you live or die? Are we all property of the government?

Sex education should be taught in schools. The morals of the students are not in jeopardy, but just the general knowledge to protect themselves. Just because people are told to abstain from sex doesn't mean they will; it only means they will look for a different source to get their information. Isn't it better to get a proper education on this type of a thing? Lives are at stake. The main focus should be the transmission of S.T.D.s, contraception, the hindrances of having children at a young age, and finally, abstinance. Abstinance should still be stressed at the forefront of this education, but to not properly arm people with this knowledge is foolish;this is what we really need to worry about, not the lack of morals.

America has capitalist views; this laissez -faire ("let-do") government is giving us mixed signals. People make money for themselves, and as long as it's not hurting anyone, it's usually fair game. Ticket scalping is an exception. Why is this? Is this transaction hurting anyone? No. One could argue that the buyer is getting cheated out of their money and maybe being put into a lousy seat, but couldn't we also accuse the school lunch program of doing that? Two dollars (outrageous price) for a slice of generic pizza (lousy seat=only option)? This is wrong in itself, but if we are taught this is ok sometimes, why not all the time? If there's someone who wants to buy a product, it should be "buyers beware" and settled between the two private parties. The government needs to find a better place to focus their time and money.

Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Schools?

The theory of evolution has long been debated; some believe in Intelligent Design and others believe in evolution. Some find themselves walking on the line, carefully stepping in the middle of the two theories. As a government, however, that has ruled out a theocracy, we must eliminate theories that strictly deal with religion, separating religion and state. "The Big Bang Theory", scientifically, can be mentioned because we truly don't know the exact way the universe formed, but millions of years of evidence (from evolution) should be the main focus. “You have to give kids the basics and the best that is available from the scientific community...It’s not a matter of fairness. It’s preparing people for college and the world economy—that’s really what the game is” (Matzke , p.76-77). People should be taught what is commonly accepted by scientists to be prepared for the world. Religion is the pillar on which intelligent design stands. Going in depth with intelligent design could potentially go against the wishes of those students who do not have a religion or who belong to religions that do not accept the theory. People are entitled to know the different theories, but when the main evidence of a theory comes from a religion/holy book, the entirity of the teaching should be questioned against the beliefs of the country; even though the majority of the country may believe in this theory, is it really fair to impose on others? On the other hand, without mentioning intelligent design, some people would be left questioning their religion against what they are learning in school, which should be "factual", and yet, they grew up with their religion being "factual" as well. "So be prepared to emphasize that students retain complete freedom of conscience—they do not have to give up their faith" (Matzke, p. 80) The common ground would be to mainly teach with evidence and have a day with how different religions feel they "came to be", including many religions; after all, America is becoming more diverse, and if we accept intelligent design in school, we'll have plenty more views how life came to be when other religions offer their theories.

Should the U.S. Promote Democracy Abroad?

The basic principals of Democracy are great; people get to vote, the citizens are in control of the country and rules will be followed to make sure the country is being treated fairly. However, if the United States is going to promote Democracy, then we must make sure we don't have more countries than we can handle. Many other types of government eye certain countries and would like to put in their type of government. This will cause many fights between those who are Democratic and those who are in the "neutral" countries trying to set up a governmental structure. While they are vulnerable, who will "watch them"? Are they signing their death wish?

To What Extent (if at all) Can We Torture for Information?

Extreme torture should not be used, because the information isn't always true, many people are actually innocent, and it is against the United States' principals. It is said that "90% of the prisoners at Abu Grahib were not guilty of anything" (Sullivan, 2005). When prisoners are asked questions that they don't know; the military can assume that they know, but will not believe that the detainees don't know. Then, the detainee is subjected to torture, which may be physical or mental, and left to think over having the "right" answer to give to the interviewers. In order to escape torture for themselves and their family, they will lie to get the questioners "off of their backs". What happens when they get a false lead that they think is true? What will they do to the informant when they find they were lying? What if they took valuable time interviewing someone and getting these fabricated stories when they should have been looking for those who committed the crimes? The United States stands for freedom and equality. We signed the Geneva Convention saying we wouldn't engage in "torture", but yet plenty of revisions have been made to change our involvement to be more "proactive" with suspected terrorists. If the United States stands for equality and freedom, let's try giving it to more than ourselves.

Dead Teen Walking

In "Dead Teen Walking" and White Fang, it's apparent that the environment of both Cousins and White Fang were altered for the worst. White Fang was traded amongst "Gods", getting a feeling of worthlessness, much like when Cousins went to his "father" (isn't for sure). Also, after other outside influences, (wild dogs, Beauty Smith, and Robert Epps) they, who seem like perfectly sane beings, turned into monsters. (Of course, the obscurity of the evidence against Cousins should be taken into consideration.) Cousins was very involved in his school (academics and co-curriculars) and White Fang was curious and innocent. "For the time, fear had been routed by growth, while growth had assumed the guise of curiosity. (London, 77) Likewise, Cousins was "headed places"; "He got A's and B's, played varsity football and served as an usher in church...He wanted to be an accountant so he could manage the money he was going to make as an athlete," claimed his half-brother. Later on, Beauty Smith became the owner of White Fang, and Cousins started hanging out with Robert Epps, going with on many robberies. People have to be influenced in some way to act the way they do.

If the crime was extremely heinous, death row should be taken into account. I can't say that I am vehemently against the death penalty for teens, but it seems like there's always influence that made them this way. We are forced to think, now, about the government's power to make sure people don't have these situations, and also the amount of power the parents have. If we are to dismiss the actions of the individual because of their actions that are because of their past, does that give the government to check parenting skills? Would we protect the would-be victims by monitoring parents? White Fang helped me to see that although you might be put into a bad situation, you aren't forced to do anything that goes against what's right.

Should the Draft be Reinstated?

I can't help but feel torn between saying yes to help those who are fighting, and saying no to give the men a choice. I am a girl, (and as of right now they don't include girls in the draft) can't say how I would truly feel if I was eligible to be picked. I know plenty of guys and would be heartbroken if they had to go off to war, knowing their potential. I'm not saying that being a soldier isn't a great potential, but it's not for everyone. I don't think the draft should be reinstated though, because it should be someone's choice to make that kind of a life changing committment. Either way, however, I think more funding should be given (whether it be from the senators or from Uncle Sam's pocket) for efficient equipment overseas equipping men and women with the best. I understand this is not necessarily economically friendly, but who ever said war is?

What do I remember about September 11th, 2001?

The morning was just as any other--quiet conversations carried on while we were working on homework given by Mrs. Martin. A T.V. was rolled into the room, and I didn't really know what was going. Minutes before, Mrs. Martin told us that some buildings had been hit by an airplane, and being somewhat ignorant and not knowing what the twin towers were, the facts didn't click. Then, later on, we learned of the other coincidence of another plane going down, with speculations it was en route to another major building. Then, the suspicions formed and it was deemed a terrorist attack. The image that swept across the air was for sure--extreme damage can be done...things we never would have thought to be used for weapons (airplanes)were aimed like massive torpedoes, hurling for the American government. People were scared, unsure of what might be next. Would we have a war defending ourselves on our home turf? Mothers were worried...will my son have to go to war? I thought we were past this...