Julian Assange: "The International Manhunt"

Many important people have been brought up this week in AIS, all of them having to do with civil liberties.  One man who has played his role in history is Daniel Ellsberg.  For those of you unfamiliar with Ellsberg, he is the man who released the Pentagon Papers to the public in 1971.  To learn more about Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, click here.  So, it's a Saturday night, and I feel in the mood for one of my favorite shows, The Colbert Report (if you're out there reading this, Stephen, you just got the Kolbe Bump).  Anyways, it just so happens that in the episode I am watching, (from 12-9-10), Stephen interviewed Ellsberg.  To watch this interview, go to this Colbertnation video.

Stephen and Ellsberg spent most of their time talking about Julian Assange.  If you have not yet heard about Julian Assange, he is somewhat of a modern day Daniel Ellsberg.  Assange founded the WikiLeaks website in 2006.  On November 28, 2010, WikiLeaks leaked information about United States diplomatic cables.  The White House called Assange's actions "reckless and dangerous".  For some brief background detail on Assange and WikiLeaks, click here to see Assange's Wikipedia page.  Anyways, back to the interview...

Stephen and Ellsberg spent the majority of the time talking about how Assange should be viewed.  Ellsberg thinks that Assange is a hero, and the public deserves to know this information.  Others, though, are on the complete opposite end of the spectrum.  If you watched the interview, then you saw how some people say Assange should be assassinated.  One man, whose name i frankly do not know or care, said "I think Assange should be assassinated, actually, I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone."  Someone who is more known, Newt Gingrich (Speaker of the House from 1995-99), called Assange a "terrorist".  I personally take a more neutral side on this debate; I neither applaud his actions, nor do I think he should perish for them.  If I had to choose one side, though, I think that I would personally tend to agree with Ellsberg, because the public has the right to know these things.


Julian Assange

A Blog for the Sake of my Grade

Well, not to say that what we talked about in AIS this week was not stimulating, but I could not seem to scrounge up an interesting idea to blog about.  This is a first for me.  All of my blogs thus far may not be masterpieces, and they might not come off as very insightful.  Nonetheless, every week I try to post on a relevant issue that I can relate to.  What I am going to present in my blog this week is a stretch, but is an issue that may be relevant to some of you, and it definitely is to me.

This blog, to be honest, has no correlation to the AIS topics of the previous week.  I am aware that one of the guidelines for the weekly blogs is that they have to relate to classtime discussions.  The problem is that not every discussion will have meaning to every listener or participant.  So what if none of the topics broached in class spark a thought in your mind?  Should you be forced to write a blog?  Personally, I feel that a blog like this, one that clearly is "breaking the rules", is better than having no blog at all.  It is better to at least make an attempt than to not try at all.  Also, like any typical New Trier student, I have ambition.  I have unfortunately been taught that grades are more important than anything else.  So maybe a blog like this may have no meaning, but I have to blog, or else my grade will suffer.  The same for blogging goes hand in hand with participation in the classroom.  If grades didn't matter, I would only participate if I had something meaningful to say.  But since participation plays such a big role in my grade, i feel the need to participate at least once a day.  I know that I have kind of been restating the same thing over and over again, so to sum it all up, do you think that it is better to only speak when you have something meaningful to present, or should your grade come before all else?

Is Quentin Tarantino an "Inglorious Basterd"?

We have been studying some quite perilous times these past weeks in AIS.  All of these times have been associated with wars, some more than others.  Though there may be things about the past that we would like to change, such as wars and civil liberties issues, any sane person knows that what's done is done.  The past can't be changed.  Quentin Tarantino, however, begs to differ.  He directed a 2009 movie titled "Inglorious Basterds".

'Inglorious Basterds" is based off of World War II.  Tarantino adds fictional characters and events.  I don't want to spoil the movie in case any of my readers have not yet seen it, but Tarantino does rewrite history.  If you don't have the patience to watch a movie that is about 3 hours long (although I suggest you do, it is a very good movie), then click here to read a quick synopsis of the film.  I personally was neither offended nor appalled at the rewriting of history.  It is very entertaining, and provides an ending that would have saved millions of lives were it true.  I know others, though, who disagree with Tarantino's choice to end the film the way he did.  I have one Jewish friend (who i am guessing would like to remain anonymous) who absolutely loved the movie.  His parents, on the other hand, were enraged by the alternate ending.  Should something controversial like this be avoided at all costs, or is this being blown out of proportion?

A Perilous Blog

A project looming ahead for us deals with many of America's wars, as well as civil rights disagreements that happened during or as a result of the wars.  This broached in my mind a very recent issue that has been debated ever since it was put into act.  This is the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, more commonly known as Arizona SB (Senate Bill) 1070.  To sum up the Act, it allows Arizona police officers to investigate anyone that they suspect may be an illegal alien.  To learn more than just the basics of this Act, click here.  I'm sure that most, if not all of us in AIS would disagree with this Act.  It discriminates harshly against those with a Hispanic background.  What truly shocks me, more than the outrageous Act itself, is the fact that when this Act was put into play, a nationwide poll showed that 60% of those polled support the Act, while only 31% oppose.  I realize those people living in the South may be more inclined to support the Act, because they are more directly affected by illegal aliens.  Still, though, I can't see how a true American could condone this sort of blunt discrimination.  I agree that there needs to be something done about the amount of illegal aliens entering this country every year, but this Act is, in my opinion, definitely the wrong way to handle such a large issue.

The Pure Puritans

One topic present in The Crucible that we have discussed in class is religion.  More specifically, we have been focusing on the Puritans.  The Puritans are notorious for despising Catholics, so they do religious things in a completely opposite manner.  Evidence of this lies in the Conversion Experience.  This is where Puritans would sit before a congregation, who would decide if the Puritan partaking in the Conversion Experience was one of "God's Elect".  Long story short, God's Elect were people who were predestined to go to heaven.  This is where I have a problem.  If the congregation said you are not worthy of heaven, then you would live your life for no meaning, since you would be going to hell after death.  You would either live a sad life, depressed with the fact that the afterlife will not be pleasant, or you would live a frantic life, trying to save your soul by committing as many good deeds as humanly possible.  On the other hand, if one was chosen as God's Elect, he could live a carefree life.  No worries, no burdens, just live life for fun, since you know you'll end up in heaven.  But what if you took it a step too far?  You could say "Well, I'm already going to heaven, might as well steal, murder, and rape since there won't be any consequences."  Then the congregation would be stuck in a hole.  If they said "Okay, now you aren't going to heaven", then that would prove that their system is flawed, and most Puritans would lose their faith.  If the congregation, however, said that this villain would still go to heaven, everyone who was God's Elect might follow in the villain's footsteps, and create even more chaos.  I'm not trying to beat up on the Puritans here, since no religion is perfect, but i really see some major flaws in this system of choosing God's Elect.

To What Extent is Revenge Justified?

In Poe's short story The Cask of Amontillado,  the narrator Montresor murders his "friend" Fortunato. Throughout the story, Montresor never gives any concrete evidence that supports the horrendous act that was committed.  The only justification provided is "The thousand injuries" that Fortunato has given to Montresor. Even this does not provide enough evidence to justify Fortunato's death.  Even if the injuries were terrible, Montresor lived on after these injuries, where Fortunato perished.  I personally feel that someone who kills deserves to be killed, but since Fortunato never killed (as far as we know), he did not deserve what became of him.  This broached the hot topic of death sentences in my mind.  In 16 of the 51(including D.C.) states, the death penalty is not an option (to see which states, go to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty).  While some view the death penalty as barbaric, I view it as a viable choice.  In the case of homicide, I think the death penalty should be used in most circumstances.  I also think that the death penalty may scare off possible murderers.  Is the death penalty something that is useful, or something that has a negative effect on our country?

THE METABLOG looms over the horizon...

Let me start off by acknowledging the big changes in the “format” of my blogs over the past 2 months.  At the beginning of the year, my blogs were very formal.  I combed over them for spelling before publishing, which I clearly don’t do anymore, which is evident in the few errors that have been made in my more recent blogs.  Also, I wrote like a college professor.  I wrote smoothly then, and the blogs that I have written more recently kinda sound like somethin’ that’d come outta my mouth.  This may be viewed as a negative.  Certainly there are some negative aspects, but I view the overall change as helpful to my progression as a blogger.

            Let’s start with an example.  Here is the first paragraph, and first sentence of the next one, from the first blog I ever wrote, which was titled “How to Write a Blog”:

            During AIS class this week, one topic that we discussed was the weekly blog posts that we would be writing throughout the school year.  There are many guidelines to writing our blogs in this class.  Many of these guidelines are perfectly understandable and valid.  However, I always thought that the reason people wrote blogs was so they could voice their opinion without being held back by anyone.  To find out more about what is really important in writing a blog, I did what any new, confused blogger would do: search the internet for tips on writing blogs.

            After looking at several links, I determined that the one I would be using was http://www.problogger.net/archives/2007/07/13/how-to-write-excellent-blog-content-what-we-wish-we-knew/. 

            When I wrote this, I remember thinking “Damn I’m good!  This blog thing’s gonna be easy!”  Well, 9-6-2010 Reed, think again.  First off, the first sentence could not have been more boring.  So much for hooking a reader in.  After reading that first sentence, I almost didn’t want to continue.  The rest of the first paragraph does a decent job setting up the argument for this post, but the opening sentence to the second paragraph kills me.  I emphasize the facts that (a) I looked at “several” links, and (b) I “determined” the one I would be choosing, rather than just choosing it.  Reading that now, I realize what a suck up I was.  I wanted to get full credit, so I acted like a tool to achieve it.

            Now let’s take a look at my blog from two weeks ago, titled “Is Miami a Cool Place?”  It begins:

            The answer to my title depends on how you define “cool”.

            Right off the bat I’m pulling the reader in.  The title is a question, so he (the reader) is inclined to move on to find the answer.  Woe is he when he finds out that the answer to his question is yet another question.  But this is not a question that I answer.  I say that the answer is how YOU define cool.  So the reader keeps this second question in the back of his mind as he reads on…

            This week during AIS we discussed connotations and denotations of words.  There are many words that have one predominant meaning, but also have one or more second, less known meaning.  Mr. O’Connor mentioned the work “killer” in his blog.  This got me thinking about some other words I use today that an outsider would look at and wonder what the hell I was talking about.  One word is cool.

            Now I link the intriguing (in my opinion) title to what has sparked this question about Miami.  I feel that this eases the reader into the topic, and is preferable to bluntly stating the facts. 

            The rest of my blog goes on to talk about how obscure some of the phrases we teenagers use for “to socialize”.  It started out as a “play date”, then “hanging out”, and now most commonly “chilling”.  My blog ends:

            Maybe when I get to college I’ll be asking friends if they want to salmon together.  That means nothing to us now, but it might in five or ten years.  It seems that the older I get, the words that I use become more bizarre.  Is that a common trend?

            I feel that this whole “salmon” idea is not necessarily formal, but gives the reader an interesting note to end on.

            All in all, other than the fact that my ideas have become less formal, my blogs are somewhat similar to what I wrote at the start of the year.  I still incorporate big words (like incorporate), and all my blogs (besides this one) are similar in length.  Now, must I end my blog like any “good” blogger should: with a question?

-note to teacher, the one I want to be graded/examined is the "Is Miami a Cool Place" blog

            In Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, one topic is broached over and over again.  That topic is whipping.  Every single one of Douglass’ overseers or masters has been shown to have whipped their slaves.  It was definitely inhumane, but technically legal, because the slaves were only property.  Today, it is illegal to render another human being as your property.  However, parents are the legal guardians of their children until they reach the age of 18.  What “rights” are bestowed upon the parents of a child who misbehaves?  Certainly whipping is not an option, but there are some topics which have resulted in heated debates.

            One of those topics is spanking.  Although not as severe as whipping, spanking still induces physical pain on the target.  I know my parents are entirely against spanking, they are more into the newer “invention” of grounding (for better or for worse).  Very few parents today condone spanking as an appropriate punishment, but there are still some who do.  A lawsuit involving a man named Christopher Robinson took place this July in Kentucky.  Robinson was accused of beating his son with a belt.  He admitted to spanking his son with a belt, but claimed that there were no resulting injuries.  The son never complained of any injuries, and there were none found when he was examined.  Robinson was naturally found innocent, as there was no proof to his son being injured.  For more on this story, go to http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=13237722.  I personally think that spanking is wrong, but it is a parent’s choice.  As long as no lines are crossed, I think spanking should not be illegal.  Naturally, there are some people who think otherwise.  Should spanking be illegal?

Is Miami a Cool Place?

The answer to my title depends on how you define "cool". This week during AIS we discussed connotations and denotations of words. There are many words that have one predominant meaning, but also have one or more second, less known meaning. Mr. O’Connor mentioned the work “killer” in his blog. This got me thinking about some other words I use today that an outsider would look at and wonder what the hell I was talking about. One word is cool. I remember watching a documentary last year in geography about some African teenage boys visiting the USA for their first time. When they told their cab driver at the Miami airport that it was their first time in America, the cab driver said “cool”. Since the African teenagers had never heard the word “cool” used like this before, they replied “No, not really.” This is one example of words with multiple meanings
Another idea that has multiple words to describe it is when two or more friends meet to do activities together. When I was a child, I called this a “play date”. “Play date” is probably the most accurate description, because we are playing video games, a sport, or something else, and it is on a specific date. When boys and girls started dating, we no longer called it a “play date”. It was now called “hanging (out)”. I can see how this would make no sense to an outsider. If I asked someone new to America if they “wanted to hang with me”, they might think I wanted to commit suicide with them, which is very far from what I wanted to do. Also, there is the word “chill”. I could ask the same person if they wanted to “chill”, and they might ask me what’s so fun about sitting in a refrigerator and getting cold. Maybe when I get to college I’ll be asking friends if they want to salmon together. That means nothing to us now, but it might in five or ten years. It seems that the older I get, the words that I use become more bizarre. Is that a common trend?

South Park is Not Only Stupid Humor

South Park is Not only Stupid Humor

Today during AIS, we continued our discussion on the topic of race. Jackie brought up one of her favorite TV shows, and how the concept of race was presented in the show. This got me thinking about some of the TV shows that I watch. Although all of the shows that I watch touch on the topic of race, two particular shows stand out in my mind. These shows are Weeds, on Showtime, and South Park on Comedy Central. Weeds has some great examples, but since Henry also wants to blog on Weeds, I decided that this week’s blog would be about a certain South Park episode that stands out in my mind.
Let me start by explaining the basic plot of this episode. One of the main characters’ (a fourth grade boy named Stan) dad (Randy) is on the show Wheel of Fortune. The category is “people who annoy you”. After guessing all but one of the letters correct, Randy is left with the following: N _ G G E R S. Unfortunately, Randy says Niggers, when the correct answer was naggers. As one might guess, this sets up the whole episode to be one big racial mess. There is only one black person in Stan’s grade at the school he goes to. This young boy’s name is Token, which is very ironic. The rest of the episode is about Stan trying to apologize to Token for how ignorant his dad was. Token is angered by what Randy said, but not as much as he is with Stan for the way Stan goes about trying to apologize to Token. Stan always says things like “Look, I’m sorry. I get it, it must really hurt you to have things like that said”. Token is mad at Stan for saying that “he gets it”. Token, who is very intelligent and insightful, replies “Look, Stan, I know that you are feeling guilty, but you will never get it. You will never know what it is like to be part of a minority that was treated so brutally in the past, and is still treated with disrespect.” The show finally ends with Stan and Token becoming friends again, when Stan says “You’re right, I am sorry, and will never understand how much something like that might hurt.”
I agree with Token. Never will any whites know how pained and isolated some African Americans still feel today. And it seems like just when things between African Americans and whites are starting to get friendly, something happens that separates the two groups again. Things were looking good when Obama was elected president, but then they became strained when people would always bring up the color of his skin. This is like the Wheel of Fortune incident in South Park. Are whites and blacks in America bound to never accept each other fully, or will we someday, no matter how far in the future, patch the rough spots in our history and unite as one?

Wait, I thought that since Obama is now our president, racism no longer exists.

Obviously, I’m being sarcastic in my blog’s title.  This week during AIS, the topic of slavery/racism was discussed.  Though one may think that these are things of the past, they are completely wrong.  Resentment for slavery is still real within many African Americans today, and many whites still feel superior to people with a different colour of skin.  The only difference from when slavery was alive is that now, the whites who feel superior don’t announce it to the public; they hold it inside and secretly dislike minorities.

            I personally do not think of myself as a racist, but whether I am or not is subjective to the eyes of the beholder.  I don’t view minorities as less than me, but I would be lying if I said I have never laughed at a racist joke.  For instance, my older sister thinks that I am a racist because I watch South Park, which can be racist at times.  I don’t watch South Park because I’m racist, though.  I watch it because it’s a funny show in general. 

 

            An example that proved to me that racism is still very real happened just yesterday.  I was at a regatta for rowing in Ohio.  Me and a couple of other guys were watching boats go by from the shore, when one of my friends (who will remain unnamed) said “hey, look at that coxswain right there”.  For those of you unfamiliar with the sport, the coxswain is the person who steers the boat and makes commands.  I personally saw nothing wrong with the coxswain.  He was steering straight, and I could hear him making good calls.  Then I noticed that he was African American, and all of his rowers were white.  While I think that this is not necessarily racist, just my friend noticing the colour of the coxswain’s skin standing out, some of you may think that my friend is an inhumane person for saying this.

A Blog About Indians...Whoops, I Mean Native Americans

            During AIS this week, we talked a lot about the continuous struggle between Native Americans and white settlers that took place during the 1800s.  One topic that came up was white man’s guilt.  Now that the “war” with the Native Americans has past, many whites feel guilty about what their ancestors did to the Native Americans.  They feel that they need to make amends for past mistakes.  One example is that some colleges give out full ride scholarships to people who are closely related to Native Americans.  This is mainly due to guilt.  I know about these college scholarships because they might apply to me.  My dad’s grandmother was a Native American, making me 1/8 Native American, which is (unfortunately) not enough to get me a full ride scholarship to college.  While I never met my great grandma, my dad recalls many of the stories that she would tell him, from his childhood to adulthood.

            My great grandma was no ordinary Native American.  She lived in a reservation until she was 23, when she fell in love with a white man who was passing by the reservation on business.  She spent the rest of her life living in big cities in Michigan.  She might not have the real life experience that other Native Americans had, but she does still feel resentment towards the attention that she would get due to guilt.  She told my dad how she would hate it when she moved to a new house, and all of her new neighbors would say things like “if there is anything we can do to help out, please let us know” and “we’re sorry about what happened to your people”.  One event that really hurt her, my dad told me, was when she was at an elementary school, giving a speech to teach children about the life of Native Americans.  A first grader, at the start of the event, got up and yelled: “WOW! A real live Native American”.  My great grandma says that this is not what hurt her, but the fact that the school called the parents, who then insisted on giving many gifts to my great grandma. “It was only an innocent little kid”, she told my dad. “He didn’t know better. But what the parents did just made me feel even more alienated.”

            While most whites today thrust their guilt upon the Native Americans without permission, the Native Americans just want to forget about everything.  Will Americans ever pay attention to what the Native Americans want, and leave them alone?

Should we all be Cinderellas?

            During AIS this week, we discussed life curves.  There was not much debate about ones that are appealing and ones that are repulsive.  There is the ever-so-magical Cinderella life curve, and also ones like Franz Kafka, where it infinitely descends.  I don’t think I know anyone sane who would prefer a life like Kafka’s to Cinderella’s.  There is one issue I have with the Cinderella graph, though.  I know that the lows in life make the highs feel even higher, but why not try to live a life that constantly ascends?  If the Cinderella graph has those major lows, then how can it describe the quintessential life?

            Michael Jordan, a very famous former professional basketball player, has a life graph that has very few, if any, lows.  He was born into a middle class family in Brooklyn.  Then his family moved to a better neighborhood in North Carolina.  After being an All-American in high school and being given a basketball scholarship to UNC, he went on to be one of, if not the best, players of all time.  Some might view his retirement as a low, but that is when he purchased the NBA franchise Charlotte Bobcats.  I know as a little boy, my heroes were my dad, Superman, and Michael Jordan.  I feel that without any lows, MJ ended up with a pretty darn good life. 

            Another famous athlete is Pete Rose, has a life graph more like Cinderella.  He is not as famous as MJ, so to learn more about him, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose.  In a nutshell, Pete Rose was born into a lower-middle class family.  His life gradually got better and better, as he went to high school, college, and to play Major League Baseball for the Cincinnati Reds.  In his 24 years in the MLB, Rose played in 17 all star games, won 3 World Series, 2 Gold Glove awards, and was the 1963 rookie of the year.  These are just the top few on an extensive list of accomplishments.  But, he hit his low when he was caught gambling on his own team.  To get out of his rut, he ended up with the most career hits of all time in the MLB.  His record is still untouched.  Some might say that is an inspiring story.  However, I feel that without his career being tainted due to gambling, he would have had a much better life.  I personally feel a life graph like Jordan’s is more desirable than a Cinderella graph like Pete’s, but that is just my opinion.  Does one need to experience the lows to be able to appreciate the good parts of life?

    

How to Write a Blog

During AIS class this week, one topic that we discussed was the weekly blog posts that we would be writing throughout the school year.  There are many guidelines to writing our blogs in this class.  Many of these guidelines are perfectly understandable and valid.  However, I always thought that the reason people wrote blogs was so they could voice their opinion without being held back by anyone.  To find out more about what is really important in writing a blog, I did what any new, confused blogger would do: search the internet for tips on writing blogs.

            After looking at several links, I determined that the one I would be using was http://www.problogger.net/archives/2007/07/13/how-to-write-excellent-blog-content-what-we-wish-we-knew/.  This website has many useful tips on writing a successful blog, emphasis on “successful”.  My issue with this website is that it tells bloggers how to write blogs that will become popular, and keep pulling readers back in.  In my opinion, the popularity of one’s blog is just a small factor to be considered when writing a post.  The blogger should write about something that has meaning to them, something that they care about.  If the blogger doesn’t really care about a certain popular issue, then they shouldn’t blog about it just for the sake of attracting more followers.  One issue that the website discusses is the power of a good title.  They say that it should be something that would show up in a Google search.  Yet this is just another tool to attract more attention to the blog.  Another device that many websites suggest is having many links, so people can more easily access your blog.  Nearly all of the blogs I read had links to twitter, which I view as unoriginal, yet it may attract attention.  All in all, I think that all of these links are tacky and excessive.  I feel that even the most kind-hearted of readers will get bored and annoyed when every blog they read has an image like the one below.

            I certainly feel that talking about something you are passionate about is more important than talking about something that internet users view as important.  Maybe I have that opinion because I am a new blogger, but still, is it better to write a blog that you care about, or to write a blog that readers will care about?

first post test

My first issue with the world...red lights...