My first attempt to work up a debate:
How soon should we pull our troops out of Iraq and why?
Please, please comment.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Poetry has died
Poetry has died.
The doctors shrugged and said, “we tried.”
It died, alone, in a white-washed room
And was taken quietly to a cobwebbed tomb.
It died when people stopped rhyming
And lost all sense of meter and timing.
It died alongside dirty limericks and haiku.
All the clichés had been too much for them, too.
It died with Romeo and Juliet IX,
The destruction of classics, line by line,
When suicide poems became par for the course,
When the world was sucked dry of all its remorse.
The surgeons could do nothing—they watched in despair
As dear old poetry breathed his last breath of air.
They took him away on a cold metal cart.
There goes, my friends, a once-beautiful art.
The doctors shrugged and said, “we tried.”
It died, alone, in a white-washed room
And was taken quietly to a cobwebbed tomb.
It died when people stopped rhyming
And lost all sense of meter and timing.
It died alongside dirty limericks and haiku.
All the clichés had been too much for them, too.
It died with Romeo and Juliet IX,
The destruction of classics, line by line,
When suicide poems became par for the course,
When the world was sucked dry of all its remorse.
The surgeons could do nothing—they watched in despair
As dear old poetry breathed his last breath of air.
They took him away on a cold metal cart.
There goes, my friends, a once-beautiful art.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Agree/Disagree Part II
Agree or Disagree: Political leaders usually act in the best interest of their country.
I disagree. Following the Democratic primaries, I've realized that the candidates are more interested in votes than anything else. It makes sense, but it would nice if they could utter just one word not directed at one demographic or another. Take the buildup to Pennsylvania. I hadn't heard a single mention about NAFTA until the candidates realized just how much the everyday Pennsylvanian hated it.
And Congress, well. The bullshit they've pulled in recent years is astounding. The scandals, the pork barrel clauses, Jack Abramoff. I just can't imagine them putting this country over their own personal interests. Even when they do start investigating stuff, pushing for important bills, it seems to coincide with elections.
Your thoughts?
I disagree. Following the Democratic primaries, I've realized that the candidates are more interested in votes than anything else. It makes sense, but it would nice if they could utter just one word not directed at one demographic or another. Take the buildup to Pennsylvania. I hadn't heard a single mention about NAFTA until the candidates realized just how much the everyday Pennsylvanian hated it.
And Congress, well. The bullshit they've pulled in recent years is astounding. The scandals, the pork barrel clauses, Jack Abramoff. I just can't imagine them putting this country over their own personal interests. Even when they do start investigating stuff, pushing for important bills, it seems to coincide with elections.
Your thoughts?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Agree/Disagree
Had a little debate in English class today. A questionnaire was passed out with a great deal of deep questions. We had a long conversation about the first and weren't able to get past two. But these are my opinions on the statements with which we had to agree/disagree with.
Agree or disagree: It is never right to kill another person.
Several heartfelt, well thought-out arguments were made in favor of "agree", but I mantain that there are certain exceptions to the rule. Yes, no one should have the right to be judge, jury and executioner, but the term 'never' is a definite and there are certain situations that warrant killing. Situation A: A man just opened fire on a crowd of civilians. Does a policeman have the right to take out the shooter to save innocent lives? Absolutely. That should be a no brainer.
Situation B: Hitler. If somebody could have killed him before he enacted the Final Solution, would they have been in the right? I know that I would have killed him if I had the chance. There are certain things that can never be forgiven, and the deaths of 11 (or was it 12?) million innocents is one of those things. If he hadn't commited suicide, I gladly would have put a hole through his head.
This actually got a lot of people involved, so please, comment. We're debating more tomorrow, so I'll write about the other 9 statements when that's done.
Agree or disagree: It is never right to kill another person.
Several heartfelt, well thought-out arguments were made in favor of "agree", but I mantain that there are certain exceptions to the rule. Yes, no one should have the right to be judge, jury and executioner, but the term 'never' is a definite and there are certain situations that warrant killing. Situation A: A man just opened fire on a crowd of civilians. Does a policeman have the right to take out the shooter to save innocent lives? Absolutely. That should be a no brainer.
Situation B: Hitler. If somebody could have killed him before he enacted the Final Solution, would they have been in the right? I know that I would have killed him if I had the chance. There are certain things that can never be forgiven, and the deaths of 11 (or was it 12?) million innocents is one of those things. If he hadn't commited suicide, I gladly would have put a hole through his head.
This actually got a lot of people involved, so please, comment. We're debating more tomorrow, so I'll write about the other 9 statements when that's done.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Cochlear implants?
Cochlear implants (I don't know if I spelled that right) is kind of a hot topic right now, with that tv-movie "Sweet Nothings in My Ear" airing tonight. I just want to put in my two cents.
It's my beleif that refusing your child the implants is practically a crime. I don't think that a deaf person has quite the same oppurtunities as those who can hear. It's as simple as people just not being able to speak or understand sign language. But our culture, just as it's a visual culture, is also based a great deal around hearing, a statement proven simply by the gigantic wave one singer, no matter how bad, can create. I don't mean to insult the deaf, but I do beleive deafness is a disability.
I'm not a parent, and I doubt I will be any time soon. But from what I've heard, as a parent you want to give your child every oppurtunity they can get. You want to put them in the right school, with the right teacher, with the right children. You want them to be sucessful, partly out of love and partly because they're going to be paying the nursing home bills when you hit 85. Aren't cochlear implants a way to further their oppurtunities, further their lives? Again, this is probably is insulting to the deaf, but there is so much sound out there, it would be a crime to refuse your child the ability to hear it. Sometimes, it seems to be a matter of pride, and I think a parent should be able to overcome that pride for the sake of their children.
It's my beleif that refusing your child the implants is practically a crime. I don't think that a deaf person has quite the same oppurtunities as those who can hear. It's as simple as people just not being able to speak or understand sign language. But our culture, just as it's a visual culture, is also based a great deal around hearing, a statement proven simply by the gigantic wave one singer, no matter how bad, can create. I don't mean to insult the deaf, but I do beleive deafness is a disability.
I'm not a parent, and I doubt I will be any time soon. But from what I've heard, as a parent you want to give your child every oppurtunity they can get. You want to put them in the right school, with the right teacher, with the right children. You want them to be sucessful, partly out of love and partly because they're going to be paying the nursing home bills when you hit 85. Aren't cochlear implants a way to further their oppurtunities, further their lives? Again, this is probably is insulting to the deaf, but there is so much sound out there, it would be a crime to refuse your child the ability to hear it. Sometimes, it seems to be a matter of pride, and I think a parent should be able to overcome that pride for the sake of their children.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Volunteering
We have to do four essays for English class, two written during the midterm exam, and two during the finals. For some odd reason, we write essays 1 and 3 during the midterm and 2 and 4 during the final. Which makes no sense, because suddenly all the accompanying multiple choice questions and such are numbered oddly two. But that's not the point.
To prepare for essay 2, we're doing a practice version in class. What it includes is an article from the Oreganian and a graph, both dealing with volunteering. We have to write an essay as if we were writing for the school paper, trying to convince students to volunteer. What bugs me is that the article does not focus on helping other people. It doesn't talk about saving lives, feeding the hungry, educating the uneducated, and doing good in the world. Instead, it talks fervently about the national trend of more people volunteering. Which in itself isn't bad. The news that the number of 12-17 year old volunteers has grown to 59 percent is fantastic. What I find bad is that the news is used to persuade others to volunteer. It's an attempt to make people volunteer with the philosophy "everyone else is doing it". And no, I'm not paranoid. The article goes as far to say that "6 out of 10 teens said that volunteering was 'in'". That's right, 'in'. Like spring fashion or the newest electronics. It takes the do-gooding out of volunteering and replaces it with a popularity contest.
And the graph. Oh, the graph. It is entitled "benefits gained from teen volunteering." And no, it's not about feeding the homeless. Said benefits inlude "developing new career goals" and "doing better in school". The regents folks are focusing more on the personal gains from volunteering. I always thought it was supposed to be a selfless act. Which is why I'm insulted.
To prepare for essay 2, we're doing a practice version in class. What it includes is an article from the Oreganian and a graph, both dealing with volunteering. We have to write an essay as if we were writing for the school paper, trying to convince students to volunteer. What bugs me is that the article does not focus on helping other people. It doesn't talk about saving lives, feeding the hungry, educating the uneducated, and doing good in the world. Instead, it talks fervently about the national trend of more people volunteering. Which in itself isn't bad. The news that the number of 12-17 year old volunteers has grown to 59 percent is fantastic. What I find bad is that the news is used to persuade others to volunteer. It's an attempt to make people volunteer with the philosophy "everyone else is doing it". And no, I'm not paranoid. The article goes as far to say that "6 out of 10 teens said that volunteering was 'in'". That's right, 'in'. Like spring fashion or the newest electronics. It takes the do-gooding out of volunteering and replaces it with a popularity contest.
And the graph. Oh, the graph. It is entitled "benefits gained from teen volunteering." And no, it's not about feeding the homeless. Said benefits inlude "developing new career goals" and "doing better in school". The regents folks are focusing more on the personal gains from volunteering. I always thought it was supposed to be a selfless act. Which is why I'm insulted.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Electoral Politics.
A) Do you really think the system is fair? All I have to say is: ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Yes, in the past, the college has always voted how the people they represent voted. However, they actually have no obligation to vote with the majority. The Electoral College could vote any way they like, any time. And just because they haven't yet doesn't mean they won't.
B) Should people younger than 18 vote? Absolutely not. The bottom line is that when you turn 18, when you become an adult, many people leave home and become independent. Right now, simply because I don't manage my own healthcare and taxes and have never taken out a loan, I don't have a full grasp of the issues that 18 year-olds and olders would. I don't know what plan I'm on, how much it covers, and how much it costs. Healthcare is a vastly important issue, but I just don't know anything about it.
C) If Obama is president, is there no longer racism in our country? If Hillary is president, will sexism be gone as well? No. That would only be true if they were unanimously voted into office. Just because Bush is president doesn't mean we're all Republican. If Obama becomes president, you know what? The KKK won't just change their minds and start holding hands with people of all colors, singing "we shall overcome".
B) Should people younger than 18 vote? Absolutely not. The bottom line is that when you turn 18, when you become an adult, many people leave home and become independent. Right now, simply because I don't manage my own healthcare and taxes and have never taken out a loan, I don't have a full grasp of the issues that 18 year-olds and olders would. I don't know what plan I'm on, how much it covers, and how much it costs. Healthcare is a vastly important issue, but I just don't know anything about it.
C) If Obama is president, is there no longer racism in our country? If Hillary is president, will sexism be gone as well? No. That would only be true if they were unanimously voted into office. Just because Bush is president doesn't mean we're all Republican. If Obama becomes president, you know what? The KKK won't just change their minds and start holding hands with people of all colors, singing "we shall overcome".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)