Meta-Post

Over the semester as a whole, I struggled most with writing a blog post that was more interactive with the reader and audience members. Writing a blog isn't the same as writing a paper. It is much more informal but also very thoughtful. But if the purpose of our blogs to help with our writing, then I wonder when we will ever write an informal paper anytime outside of high school or even in it. It may help create and coherently plan ideas in a logical order but otherwise, what else is it doing?

However, I think blogging has become much easier this last quarter because to find good ideas I know in what kinds of places I can look that will have interesting articles or ideas that I can expand on. In addition, I believe that I have gotten better at empathy for the reader. I really explained the context of where the blog idea came from and I think that I have made the discussions interesting. 

What I could work on though is asking a few less questions to start the comments or discussion. Not only that, but finding even more interesting topics to blog about. Topics that people waver on like the discussion we had about the man who stole the drug that could possibly cure his wife. For that topic, it really seemed as though one could argue yes and no at the same time, which makes for a very interesting discussion, hearing people's reasoning behind their choices. 

*Please see my "A Question of Morality" blog by clicking HERE

A Question of Morality

      My older brother is in college and he is taking a philosophy class and they were discussing morality. His professor proposed different scenarios and asked students what they would do.
      The scenario was: there are five people tied to a train track and a train is coming. You can let the the five people die or you can pull a switch to turn the train onto another track. However, on that other track there is one person tied to it. You can let the five people die or you can pull the switch and only the one other person would die. What would you do?
      Would you sacrifice one to save five? Or would you sacrifice the five people? In the broad scheme of things, maybe for the "greater good" it would be better to save five lives than one; but in a moral viewpoint it can be quite different.
      You see, the philosophy class talked about, depending on what decision you choose, whether you are passively or actively killing someone. You might be thinking, how could I kill someone? Well, if you chose to save the five, then it could be considered as actively killing that single individual on the other track. Some might think that it's not the same thing as stabbing someone with a knife, but really it is. Just because you aren't right next to the person doesn't mean you aren't, in a sense, murdering them. You made the decision to flip the switch and kill the man.
      On the other hand, should you have chosen to let the train come straight on, it could be labeled as passively killing those five people. By letting letting the train hit those five people and not doing anything to save them, you are passively killing them. You may not think you are doing anything, but by doing exactly that, (which is nothing), you are letting people die that you had the option to save.
      Seeing these explanations, does it change your mind about what you would do? If it does, or not, why?

From Mr. Mark Twain

            So, there has been a lot of controversy about the book Adventures of Huckleberry Finn about whether n***** should be taken out of the book. Many people believe that it should be replaced, but others argue that it is a part of history and shouldn't be changed.
            My brother likened this controversy to when Pope Pious IX declared that any nudity was offensive and was banned from church art. And so any art that displayed nudity was either covered or destroyed. This drastically changed the idea of the art and its meaning.
            It is the same with Huck Finn, by substituting a different word for n*****, the meaning of the text is changed and distorted. However, a black woman I interviewed mentioned Huck Finn and said that when her children were in school and they were reading Adventures of Huckleberry Finn she said that the teachers didn't know how to teach the book and the children/students didn't know how to react to the book because of all of the n-words in the book. And every time the n-word came up all of the children in the class would turn around and look at the children of color. And that can help explain why some people are lobbying for a change in the book's language.
           Conversely,  some believe that the book because it is history it shouldn't be changed in any way. That the book should be read in the context of that time period where using the n-word was commonplace. This is a classic book and distorting it in any way is just like covering nudity in art. Recently, Alan Gribben published a version on Huck Finn that used 'slave' instead of n*****. This changes the meaning of many passages, which would then twist the tale of Huckleberry Finn.
          Hopefully, in the near future there will be a conclusion to this controversy.

Planned Citizenship

              Recently, many immigrants (mostly Chinese women) have been traveling to the United States expressly to give birth on American soil. By doing that, it ensures that their child will be an american citizen and will have all of the opportunities for education and work that their parents maybe never had.
              As written in the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all people born on U.S. soil are american citizens. But this was originally written to help the freed black slaves and their children, not illegal immigrants. This has become an increasing problem as an article on NPR's website shares the story of one chinese woman's story/ideas*. In the article, it also relates that there are some private entrepreneurs, or crooks, that arrange for flights there and back and places to stay while they are pregnant. One business man states the for $15,000 the stay at the hospital, the doctor, the house, and any other amenities the woman wants can easily be taken care of. This is clearly a very organized practice already, so how will it change in future years? Will it change american policy in any way?
             Should this be allowed? If no then why isn't the government taking steps to somehow counteract this? It is clear that the mothers have no intention of actually staying in the United States. They simply board a plane to America, give birth, and soon after are back home with their new-born child.
             I think it should not be allowed because they are horribly taking advantage of a country they aren't even citizens of. By increasing the amount of people trying to find a job, it is unfair for those who have lived in the United States all their life, or most of it, to have to compete with people who only came because they also want a job, and with this economy it is challenging enough to find a decent job.
            Citizenship should not be taken advantage of so easily because that makes it seem as though America is very relaxed about immigration or can be easily manipulated by other countries.

* click HERE to read the rest of NPR's article

Age

            When people (teenagers/young adults) are 18 we can legally vote and volunteer for the army. We were talking about the transition from childhood to adulthood in AIS and many of my classmates said that it was for you to decide if you felt like an adult. But really the government is telling us because really we don't have very many rights to participate in governmental workings until we are eighteen or older. 

             I agree that it is for us to decide because there may be events that force people to grow up sooner than we otherwise would have (perhaps). This could be an emotional event, going off to college or turning 21. I wonder how the government decided on 21 as the age that people were legally considered adults. Is it that by then the government officials think that people are "sufficiently mature" by then? Or is it somehow biologically determined?

             Either way I think it's curious that at eighteen we can help decide our government's officials, and fight, kill, and/or die for America in the Army. Yet they are not trusted or allowed to have a drink? Based on that I think that the drinking age should be lowered back to 18 which was only changed in 1984. That is very recent and I don't think that raising the drinking age has done very much to prevent younger people from drinking.

           In fact, many teens or anyone under 21 might think that because it is illegal to drink, that if they do it makes them cool and  rebellious. But if the drinking age was lowered maybe it wouldn't be as "cool" anymore. Which might then induce be less accidents due to drinking and driving or alcohol poisoning. If they don't have to wait so long to experience this then when they finally can it isn't as big of a deal, I would think. 

         The government should realize that it greatly influences American society which, in turn, influences us (the people). So by setting the age of 21 as becoming a legal adult, that is the age that many also say they are adults based purely on that. Age is based on surroundings and personality, not how many years you have lived (though that may be part of it). But whether you consider yourself an adult or still a child depends on you.