In each of the animials in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, there lies a person or type of person in Russian Communism. Boxer represents the people who unconditionally supported Stalin, later assasinated because he was a safety risk to the pigs. Clover represents the educated people who were putting the puzzle together. However, the pigs are some of the most predominant symbols in the story.
Major, a boar in the beginning of the book, represents Marx. Karl Marx was a European philosopher who set the basis for Communism. Similarly, Major gave a speech of a wonderful society without humans, where everyone was equal. His speech inspired all the animals in the farm. He states, “Man is the only creature that consumes without producing...yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself." With this quote, he incites that all humans are evil. Later, when the farmer’s family is overthrown, the phrase “Four legs good, Two legs bad” is formed. The lesser animals in the farm have been completely misguided by the speech that all humans are horrible and selfish people. In reality, this is not the case.
Some time after Major dies, a revolt by the farm animals occurs.They are led by Snowball and Napoleon, the successive boars after Major. Although their cause is the same, they have a different view on the future of the farm animals. Snowball desires to fulfill the dream Major had. He creates a set of seven laws fashioned after the ideals of Major. Snowball states, “All animals are equal”. He creates this law based on Major’s speech. Essentially, Snowball is the creature that goes through thick and thin with the other farm animals. All of the animals are amazed by his dedication to them through his words
Napoleon, on the other hand, resembles more of a serpent. Sometime later, the two enter a fight, and Napoleon is projected to lose the election. In response, Napoleon uses his own secret police to get rid of Snowball, the same way Stalin did to Trotsky. Then, he begins to change up Snowball’s laws. Referring to the one above, it newly stated, “All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.” He utilizes the lower intellect of the animals against them. And the animals don’t notice the changes he’s made.
In conclusion, Napoleon and Snowball had completely different views of Major’s ideal, and the way they convinced the other animals were completely different as well.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Rebuttal
Recently, Wikileaks has become a huge topic as, although it benefits American society and follows the American ideal, it can be very harmful to useful propoganda by the government. According to Camal Saleh:
In his post, Saleh believes that Wikileaks is beneficial to society because American’s deserve to know whats happening in their country. I, on the other hand, believe that Wikileaks is a threat to the nation.
The American ideal was made by men who wanted a free nation not a progressive nation. Our first president was merely a military leader before he rose to office. I have no sour feelings to our founding fathers, but it is the truth. As such, the American ideal cannot be deemed as a vital political tool. During the Second World War, heavy propaganda was used to increase the military population and support. Had American government decided to follow the ideal and release the gory truth of war, the Allies may not have won.
The current situation may not be as extreme as a world war. However, Saleh does use the wars in the Middle East as a few of his examples. Getting 600,000 troops out of a country that will fire at them at first sight is not a particularly easy task. When Wikileaks releases the number of troops currently still in Iraq, protest erupts. However, the people to do riot do so at Obama who, according to the New York Times, has left less than 100,000 thousand troops there.
Wikileaks is an example of the American ideal misused by its citizens. The site has given distrust between the people and their governmen. As a result, the government can not raise enough money through funds and donations to get those troops out of the Middle East. It’s a cycle that the government is trying to stop but the people are trying to continue.
“What was unique about the site was that it allowed for anyone an “innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to [its] journalists”. So, the question arises: is Wikileaks overall more harmful or more beneficial to society?”
In his post, Saleh believes that Wikileaks is beneficial to society because American’s deserve to know whats happening in their country. I, on the other hand, believe that Wikileaks is a threat to the nation.
The American ideal was made by men who wanted a free nation not a progressive nation. Our first president was merely a military leader before he rose to office. I have no sour feelings to our founding fathers, but it is the truth. As such, the American ideal cannot be deemed as a vital political tool. During the Second World War, heavy propaganda was used to increase the military population and support. Had American government decided to follow the ideal and release the gory truth of war, the Allies may not have won.
The current situation may not be as extreme as a world war. However, Saleh does use the wars in the Middle East as a few of his examples. Getting 600,000 troops out of a country that will fire at them at first sight is not a particularly easy task. When Wikileaks releases the number of troops currently still in Iraq, protest erupts. However, the people to do riot do so at Obama who, according to the New York Times, has left less than 100,000 thousand troops there.
Wikileaks is an example of the American ideal misused by its citizens. The site has given distrust between the people and their governmen. As a result, the government can not raise enough money through funds and donations to get those troops out of the Middle East. It’s a cycle that the government is trying to stop but the people are trying to continue.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Opening Statement
Many people dislike the view of population control. Some people even fear it. It is seen as a issue of humanity. Many books, such as “Among the Hidden”, are about the distressed lives of a third-born child, the target of most stories regarding population control. Population police run wild, catching and shooting any of them found. However, these books have completely misguided the methods of population control. They do not need to be violent and forbidden. Most people state that population control is a wrong to humanity. However, in reality they have merely become insensitive of the idea to limit their sexual desires for the sake of the planet.
The overwhelming human population in the earth is of two things: extended lives and babies every six seconds. Although neither are remarkably taboo, they have effects. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, human life was capable of living past their 30’s. This is a blessing in many ways. However, it has become an overaddressed issue, to the point where people are looking into stem cell research to find ways to live forever. Death is a natural part of life, and if this planet is to survive, having a never lowering population of humans will be an extreme overuse of resources. Although stem cells are a renownable medical procedure, I feel that using it to prolong a person’s life forever could cause major problems Imagine if Hitler lived forever.
In the same way, with the Baby Boom in the 30’s and the sex revolution in the 60’s, the rate of babies being born has increased dramatically over the past century. The saddest part of the huge sexual activity in modern times is that most people don’t even want a baby. They just want sex.
My solution is simple. We don’t need population police or strict population laws to fix this problem in America. Simply put, we just make the lives of those who go beyond the limit, whether it be being a third-born child or a man over 200. more difficult. For example, if someone has a child beyond the limit for offsprings, they recieve a minor fee that they pay once a year. This could be in addition to their taxes, or some other method. Furthermore, that child will recieve minor disbenefits such as being on the top of the draft list in wars when they turn 18. Simply, create laws that give minor rare requirements of these children. If the laws could not be abided, they can be fought in court like with all cases.
Population Control does not have to be violent or strict. It can be achieved through small steps.
The overwhelming human population in the earth is of two things: extended lives and babies every six seconds. Although neither are remarkably taboo, they have effects. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, human life was capable of living past their 30’s. This is a blessing in many ways. However, it has become an overaddressed issue, to the point where people are looking into stem cell research to find ways to live forever. Death is a natural part of life, and if this planet is to survive, having a never lowering population of humans will be an extreme overuse of resources. Although stem cells are a renownable medical procedure, I feel that using it to prolong a person’s life forever could cause major problems Imagine if Hitler lived forever.
In the same way, with the Baby Boom in the 30’s and the sex revolution in the 60’s, the rate of babies being born has increased dramatically over the past century. The saddest part of the huge sexual activity in modern times is that most people don’t even want a baby. They just want sex.
My solution is simple. We don’t need population police or strict population laws to fix this problem in America. Simply put, we just make the lives of those who go beyond the limit, whether it be being a third-born child or a man over 200. more difficult. For example, if someone has a child beyond the limit for offsprings, they recieve a minor fee that they pay once a year. This could be in addition to their taxes, or some other method. Furthermore, that child will recieve minor disbenefits such as being on the top of the draft list in wars when they turn 18. Simply, create laws that give minor rare requirements of these children. If the laws could not be abided, they can be fought in court like with all cases.
Population Control does not have to be violent or strict. It can be achieved through small steps.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Does Power Corrupt?
In my opinion, when a group rebels against their institution, they do not see the responsibility that comes with the freedom. Furthermore, the leaders of the newfound institution have never dealt with these responsibilities. They thought of a free nation - equality for all. But they fail to think how. How can such a moral be sustained? They realize sooner or later that the solution lies in selfishness. They do not deal with these responsibilities. They ignore the immediate crisis and instead focus on their own goals or the goals of their party. This is known as corruption.
None of the leaders believed they were corrupted. For example, a new leader has been elected. The country is in great debt. The unemployment rate is through the roof. Crime has increased over the past decade (essentially, a situation not too different from right now). How would this person get their nation out of debt? Well, the nations money comes only through one way: taxes. The obvious solution to get out of debt then would be to raise taxes. But wait! The poor people don’t have any money. The upper class can afford lawyers instead. Then the middle class claims that the government is giving an unequal jurisdiction and riot in the streets. Attempting to raise taxes has only allowed the nation to hate this person even more.
How would this person react? Would they try to further benefit their nation? Their last attempt resulted in riots in the street, unemployment increase, and being sued for even more money. In most historical cases, they decide that the people are an unneeded commodity to their goals. Essentially, they kick the people out of their roles in the government. Without the people’s selfish needs in this leader’s way, they can further their personally believed goals for the country’s benefit. However, without the people, they no longer have any input on the best direction for the nation, so they go with their own. Usually, this is desires of expansion and greater wealth. They act on their own decisions, not that of the people.
None of the leaders believed they were corrupted. For example, a new leader has been elected. The country is in great debt. The unemployment rate is through the roof. Crime has increased over the past decade (essentially, a situation not too different from right now). How would this person get their nation out of debt? Well, the nations money comes only through one way: taxes. The obvious solution to get out of debt then would be to raise taxes. But wait! The poor people don’t have any money. The upper class can afford lawyers instead. Then the middle class claims that the government is giving an unequal jurisdiction and riot in the streets. Attempting to raise taxes has only allowed the nation to hate this person even more.
How would this person react? Would they try to further benefit their nation? Their last attempt resulted in riots in the street, unemployment increase, and being sued for even more money. In most historical cases, they decide that the people are an unneeded commodity to their goals. Essentially, they kick the people out of their roles in the government. Without the people’s selfish needs in this leader’s way, they can further their personally believed goals for the country’s benefit. However, without the people, they no longer have any input on the best direction for the nation, so they go with their own. Usually, this is desires of expansion and greater wealth. They act on their own decisions, not that of the people.
Friday, January 14, 2011
My Overall Easiest Subject
Probably not as passionately, but math is also one of my favorite subjects. It may have been the fact that the answers are so direct, or that my past teachers could teach it very well, but I have always had a strong sense of mathematics, ever since sixth grade. At that time, I was doing extremely poorly in math, barely holding up a D. But then, after one parent teacher conference, I realized that had to change. I spent all my free time trying to make up my work and studying for test, and before I knew it, I ended the year with a solid B. It was that very day that I told myself, “If I applied myself like this for 2 months, and bumped my grade up 2 grades, then what could I could I accomplish if I had just done this from the beginning”. After that day, I never struggled with math, whether it’s Algebra, or Geometry, because if I was stuck, I just had to try harder, and I would get through it.
The reason why Math doesn’t threaten me is because of my logic. As a child, I always tried to view life in a fair and just manner, because fair is the only logical way of life. In my head, everything always had to be symmetrical or follow a pattern. And around the time that I figured this out, I was enrolled into the GATE program, but for some reason, I was never taught with the GATE system. And with that said, I can state that my strengths in math are my logical reasoning, since math is essentially, a numbers game.
So as long as I don’t over think my answers, I should have no problems learning the materials. In current times, I can grasp information very quickly, as long as I understand why. Teachers in the past who have taught in this way are some of my favorite teachers. They helped me learn my materials quickly and didn’t need to micro manage me. In other words, the best way to teach me the information is to teach me why. This stimulates my brain to remember the information, and if I forget, I have yet another method to remind me what it was.
The reason why Math doesn’t threaten me is because of my logic. As a child, I always tried to view life in a fair and just manner, because fair is the only logical way of life. In my head, everything always had to be symmetrical or follow a pattern. And around the time that I figured this out, I was enrolled into the GATE program, but for some reason, I was never taught with the GATE system. And with that said, I can state that my strengths in math are my logical reasoning, since math is essentially, a numbers game.
So as long as I don’t over think my answers, I should have no problems learning the materials. In current times, I can grasp information very quickly, as long as I understand why. Teachers in the past who have taught in this way are some of my favorite teachers. They helped me learn my materials quickly and didn’t need to micro manage me. In other words, the best way to teach me the information is to teach me why. This stimulates my brain to remember the information, and if I forget, I have yet another method to remind me what it was.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Elite Colleges Debate Post
Throughout all of the seven pieces referring to the effect attending an elite university has over community college, I notice a relatively higher number of writers believing in the power of higher education, yet their evidence pales in comparison with those who support community college. For example, Anthony P. Carnevale's Access to Money and Power expresses that one can get more money if they invest more in elite education. He states that "those who score 1200 out of a possible 1600 on the SAT -- 96 percent of those who go to the selective colleges graduate, while those who go to the least selective four-year colleges graduate at a rate of 78 percent." While this statement shows an eighteen percent increase, he performs a logical fallacy. The SAT is taken before the students even enter college. He is comparing the top scoring individuals who enter the best colleges to the lower scorers who go to their last resort. In addition, he also does not cite the source for the statistic, which further questions`his credibility.
In comparison, Martha O’Connel’s What you do VS. Where you go, the statistics are quite different. In her piece, she states that, “A long-term study of 6,335 college graduates published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that graduating from a college where entering students have higher SAT scores -- one marker of elite colleges -- didn't pay off in higher post-graduation income.” In addition to providing evidence that counterattacks Carnevale’s, she has also provided a source, with credibility by a nationally recognized organization.
However, out of all the pieces, I see David W. Brenman’s piece to be the most distinguished. Unlike the other one-sided views, Breneman supports individuality, in which the college that best suites you, appropriately, is up to you. As he states, “students must think long and hard about they type of education setting that will best fit the student. An Industrial Design major doesn’t want to go to Oxford. and a Medical Doctor wouldn’t want to go to Academy of Art. And such a close to home statement can be easily accepted without a source, because it comes from the heart. And honestly, a statement that goes without question provides the best arguement.
In comparison, Martha O’Connel’s What you do VS. Where you go, the statistics are quite different. In her piece, she states that, “A long-term study of 6,335 college graduates published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that graduating from a college where entering students have higher SAT scores -- one marker of elite colleges -- didn't pay off in higher post-graduation income.” In addition to providing evidence that counterattacks Carnevale’s, she has also provided a source, with credibility by a nationally recognized organization.
However, out of all the pieces, I see David W. Brenman’s piece to be the most distinguished. Unlike the other one-sided views, Breneman supports individuality, in which the college that best suites you, appropriately, is up to you. As he states, “students must think long and hard about they type of education setting that will best fit the student. An Industrial Design major doesn’t want to go to Oxford. and a Medical Doctor wouldn’t want to go to Academy of Art. And such a close to home statement can be easily accepted without a source, because it comes from the heart. And honestly, a statement that goes without question provides the best arguement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)