Kennedy's Book Blog #2

I agree with Andy Rooney when he said "the best way to get rid of a problem is to hold it up to the bright light and look at all sides" but I don't necessarily think Kennedy does this in his book. Kennedy gives many examples and displays the different views that exist about the n-word but I don't believe a book can look at all sides when it is only one person's writing. It's not about whether or not the author is white or black; their opinion will be exposed and can create a bias or misinterpretation of the problem. I also don't believe we will ever get rid of this problem. The word is out there, it doesn't matter who uses it, it's out there and it can't be legislated. The Boston Public episode addressed many of the different sides when dealing with the n-word. Some African Americans believe white people should not be allowed to say the word because they don't know how it feels to be an African American. At the same time they can use the word because it belongs to them. The Abolish the N-Word website said, "Racism is so subtle, we now think that we can embrace the “N” word and take away its power." While Kennedy addressed this in his book he also showed how African Americans such as Langston Hughes, Bill Cosby, and E.R. Shipp believe that no one should be using the word. Shipp said, "There needs to be no confusion.... The N-word has no place in contemporary life or language" (128). Bill Cosby argued that no one should use the word. If African Americans use it white people will get a negative impression. The Abolish the N-Word website also said, "Every time we use the “N” word it is a slap in the face of our elders and a blatant disrespect to our ancestors."

There is a benefit in examining the word. People can take a look at other view points and try to be understanding of what others think. After examining the word and the painful American past people can make a better judgement about using the word. The intent of the word can be changed according to who is saying it and why they are using the word, but there will always be African American history attached to the word meaning someone somewhere will take offense to the word. Words alone have power; they don't always need to be spoken. Seeing the title of Randall Kennedy's book alone can cause reactions. Reading it in public or even in the privacy of your own home can cause a complete stranger or a parent to approach you out of curiosity or anger. In Kennedy's book Professor Richard Delgado refers to "words that wound" (63). He explains how words lead to racism and violence. There are many "words that wound" because words have power.

Kennedy's Book Blog #3

Dictionary and the n-word 105

Langston Hughes, Bill Cosby, and E.R. Shipp 127-129

Huckleberry Finn 109

Randall Kennedy's Book

In the introduction of Kennedy's book he discusses his own personal experiences with the word "nigger". After his first time being called by the name he went to his parents. Both of his parents had different ways of dealing with the issue. His father believed that he had the right to "go to war" if he wanted to. While his mother said, "sticks and stones may break your bones, words need never harm you". Kennedy knew "that word" could be used many ways and have many different meanings but he made clear in the introduction that "I do not believe that my experiences entitle me to any more deference than that which is due on the strength of my writing alone" (xviii).

In the first chapter Kennedy explains the different ways the n-word is used. Some believe that when white people use the word they can be expressing it to show white supremacy. While some believe that African Americans have the right to use the word talking about or to one another because they "know" how it feels and have a better understanding. Non-blacks who side with African Americans on racial controversies are called "nigger lovers". This includes "Whites who refrain from discriminating against blacks, whites who become intimate with blacks, whites who confront anti black practices, whites who work on the electoral campaigns of black candidates, whites who nominate blacks for membership in clubs, whites who protect blacks in the course of their official duties, and whites who merely socials with blacks" (22).

While reading the story on page twenty-seven caught my attention. The prosecution of Robert Montgomery. State authorities established a center for convicted child molesters in a white Indianapolis neighborhood in 1988. In June of 1991 they had changed the establishment into a center for homeless veterans, twenty-five were African American. Montgomery had damaged a car and started a cross on fire in opposition. "An all-white cadre of child molesters was evidently acceptable, but the presence of blacks made a racially integrated group of homeless veterans intolerable!" (27). This caught my attention because I don't understand how people can think this way. Montgomery was clearly upset about African Americans living in an establishment in a white neighborhood. It doesn't make sense; child molesters should cause more of an upset, living in a neighborhood, than African Americans.

Kennedy sums up the point of the chapter when he states that the n-word "it could be opened like an umbrella to cover a dozen different moods, or stretched like a rubber band to wrap up our family with other colored families....Nigger was a piece-of-clay word that you could shape...to express your feelings" (30). The word molds, like clay, according to whoever is using it and the context in which they use it.

The Republic

The Republic is Plato's most important piece of work. The Republic is separated into books that detail topics such as; function of literature and music, equality of women, eugenics and communal housing. In Book's II and III the function of literature and music is discussed. Socrates is the narrator of this dialogue. The goal of The Republic is to answer the question what is justice?

In Book II, Socrates lists necessities of the state; food, dwelling and clothing. He then lists workman for the state which includes a builder, weaver, shoemaker however; in order to have a luxurious state occupations are extended, adding a carpenter, a smith, merchants, retailers, and soldiers. As luxuries accumulate, jobs and people accumulate, creating a need for more jobs which leads to overpopulation for the land; people begin to fight over land and war arises. Socrates continues by explaining the need for a "guardian" of the state. As book II ends Socrates is discussing education of music and gymnastic; he continues in book III.

Socrates explains that guardians of the state need to be gentle and moderate and exist in harmony. This happens with music, the soul and gymnastic, the body. When the soul and body are in harmony a temperate and courageous guardian exists. Socrates wishes to create a lie for future generations; not to harm but to help. He wants the future to understand and "believe" that their purpose was manufactured and each is composed of a metal such as gold, silver, bronze and iron. Each metal signifying a different role but all existing together. He believes this lie will help the future generations care more for their city and one another.

I enjoyed reading Apology and Crito more than The Republic. I think Socrates is much harder to follow and his reasoning's are more philosophical in the Republic. Although it was hard to follow, I was able to interpret most of the dialogue and make sense of Books II and III.

Is Pakistan an Asset in the War on Terror?

After reading through the packet the "No" section by Sydney Freedberg seems to stand out. Being completely honest, it was hard to understand and make sense of arguments that seemed to jump all over the place. I also do not believe I have enough knowledge of the "War on Terror" to have an opinion, however; I tend to follow Freedberg's thinking.

Freedberg's argument is the Pakistani government and the tribes of the north will not be able to work together to find Osama bin Laden or cease military actions of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Freedberg said, "The danger, of course, is that dead bystanders can turn a military success into a political disaster. If Al Qaeda's dilemma is, lie low at the risk of irrelevance or take action at the risk of exposure, the American dilemma is, push so soflty that nothing happens or push so hard that force drives neutral Muslims into the enemy camp" (120-121). This means that Pakistan is a balance; when there is military action there is political disaster and when there is political action the military creates disaster. The dilemma then is, America can "push so softly" and there is no change created or America can "push so hard" and the neutral Muslims under the government leave for the enemy. Clearly Pakistan is "a country that has become both ally and battleground in the war on terror" (126). It is both a place against terror and a place where terror is fought.

In the "Yes" argument Teresita C. Schaffer says, "even a frequent visitor like me was overwhelmed by the sense that the Pakistani government has made a far-reaching policy change, one that may turn out to be strategic" (113). She seems to mention the government's efforts towards securing and strengthening peace but as a traveler she will not be exposed to the lawless tribes?? Overall, she makes a few good points about building up the institutions that the government rests upon in Pakistan but she seems to ignore the northern half of the country which makes her argument weak.

Dialogues of Plato - Crito

The dialogue, Crito, takes place between the trial and death of Socrates. Crito, a friend of Socrates, pays a visit to his cell with a plan for an easy escape. Crito expresses his belief that Socrates is wronging his family, friends, and himself. That is not Crito's only belief; he also states that Socrates will be abandoning a future voice for the children by agreeing to his death sentence. Crito says, "No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to persevere to the end in their nurture and education" (44). This means that no man should be allowed to nurture and educate children if they are unwilling to continue. Socrates denies Crito's plan with his philosophical tongue. He will continue to be guided by reason, recognizing authority and his duty to obey the laws of Athens. Socrates speaks through the laws of Athens detailing the fact that he had not made an attempt to leave, which he was allowed to do, in order to experience another city. Therefore it remains his duty to abide by the laws of Athens. Socrates believes the laws will say, "all patriotic citizens will cast an evil eye upon you as a subverter of the laws, and you will confirm in the minds of the judges the justice of their own condemnation of you. For he who is the corrupter of the laws is more likely to be a corrupter of the young and foolish portion of mankind" (55). This means as Socrates travels to any other city, after his escape, the patriotic citizens will know he had challenged the laws. They will use that knowledge to verify their disapproval and believe that he will corrupt the young as he had the laws. The dialogue ends with the final conclusion from the laws; Socrates will be seen as more of an enemy, to the laws and the world, if he remains alive rather than dead. Socrates explains to Crito, this is the voice I hear and it keeps me from hearing anyone else. Crito is left speechless.

Dialogues of Plato - Apology

The Apology is about Socrates trial in 399 B.C. against citizens of Athens. He was tried for corrupting the young Athenians and worshiping his own god instead of the god recognized by the state. The Apology is told from Plato's account of Socrates defense in the trial. Socrates "represented a threat to the new regime" by speaking for the voice of the wise and nonconformity rather than the voice of conformity. This threat was masked with the accused charges (2). Socrates was found guilty. He did not "refute" the charges, but tried to show the court the hostility Meletus, the poet, and others felt towards him and his philosophical mission of searching into himself and in others.

The Apology begins with Socrates explanation of his inquisition. Socrates believed himself to be somewhat like a translator for God; someone who could relay wisdom and words of God to people in order to improve their lives and personalities. While on his inquisition he was faced with many politicians, poets, and rhetoricians who were knowledgeable but not necessarily wise. Socrates offerings and words of wisdom alienated these men and evoked feelings of hatred against him. He was brought to court because of this hatred but the people of Athens masked the reason by accusing Socrates of inventing his own God and trying to get people to believe his ways, which they believe, corrupted the youth of Athens.

While reading the Apology I felt sorry for Socrates. I felt that he couldn't help that his mission in life was to inform others of their wrong-doings. He didn't choose his role as a gadfly; it was chosen for him and he didn't turn away. Socrates said, "...a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought to only consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong--acting the part of a good man or bad" (20). Socrates wasn't afraid of his punishment or facing death; he had mentioned many times that he didn't know whether death was evil or good. He believed that a person must pay more attention to their actions in the present then to worry about life after death. I agree with Socrates and his way of thinking. There are going to always be people criticizing, demanding, and requesting things from you; if you know yourself and believe that you are living to your greatest potential and living good, those people who criticize, demand and request are those who need to take a look into their own lives and find themselves.

Law and Justice

In this packet the author, Zinn, reveals his feelings about law and justice. His started by giving the story about David O'Brien. David O'Brien and three friends started their draft registration cards on fire in front of a crowd, to express their feelings about the Vietnam War. O'Brien knew this was against the law but considered it a part of free speech under the Constitution. The law was disobeyed and the government sent him to prison. O'Brien had been a part of an act showing civil disobedience; which brought Zinn to his next argument: Obedience and Disobedience.

Zinn began this argument with Tommy Trantino, a poet and artist, had written while on death row. Tommy wrote a story about asking to use the restroom in first grade. His teacher said no, but Tommy could not accept her answer, he had to go to the bathroom. When Tommy went to leave without permission he had gone in his pants. Tommy had said, "...if one obeys and follows orders and adheres to all the rules and regulations of the lore of the lamb one is going to shit in one's pants and one's mother is going to have to clean up afterwards ya see?" (108). The point being made, obeying every rule and regulation is still going to cause chaos and controversy. Zinn continues his point by using a line quoted from Gertrude Scholtz-Klink, "We always obeyed the law. Isn't that what you do in America? Even if you don't agree with a law personally, you still obey it. Otherwise life would be chaos" (108). Gertrude Scholtz-Klink was the chief of the Women's Bureau under Hitler. If you don't personally agree with something such as, the Nazis mass murdering of the Jews, does a person go along with it anyway because it's the law? Or do they try to join forces and fight the law?

Zinn goes on to talk about how peace, stability, and order are desirable but there is also justice. Treating people fairly and giving everyone the same rights and freedoms. Having obedience may not always allow for justice which was what our founding fathers build this country upon. Jefferson and colleagues wording in the Declaration of Independence, " 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' -- these are the ends. And 'whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government' " (109). Zinn states that we need to seek new ways of holding justice without causing violence to human rights. Zinn also talks about the "Rule of law" and how it "does not do away with the unequal distribution of wealth and power, but reinforces that inequality with the authority of law" (111). Presidents, CIA officials, other important people or wealthy people get away with crimes while lower class citizens and minorities are not allowed any "second chance." This shows inequality and how justice is not held. "In society, the rich and strong get what they want by the law of contract, the rules of the market, and the power of authorities to change the rules or violate them at will" (114).

To sum up Zinns arguments; he believes in order and obedience but also in the rights people have when speaking out against laws. In the last paragraph of the packet Zinn explains that protesting is not departing from democracy but simply going against tradition. He agrees that it is sometimes troublesome but its healthy in society (123).

I agree with many of the arguments and points Zinn made throughout the "Law and Justice" packet; including the ones I have identified above. It's healthy to protest and speak out against tradition. I firmly believe that as times change peopled need to accept change and even seek change. Protest and let your voice be heard and back yourself up because, "If it is right to disobey unjust laws, it is right to disobey unjust punishment for breaking those laws" (122).

Inherit the Wind

The phrase "Inherit the Wind" is a part of the Book of Proverbs. After researching the Book of Proverbs I found out that, "This Book is so called, because it consists of wise and weighty sentences: regulating the morals of men: and directing them to wisdom and virtue. And these sentences are also called PARABLES, because great truths are often couched in them under certain figures and similitudes" ( http://www.tldm.org/bible/Old%20Testament/proverbs.htm). The Proverb which contains, "Inherit the Wind" comes from Proverb 11:29 which reads: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."

Reference to the Book of Proverbs appears in Act Two Scene One. Reverend Brown holds a prayer meeting in which he displays a firm disbelief in the actions of Bertram Cates. When giving this sermon Brown says, "O Lord of the Tempest and the Thunder! O Lord of Righteousness and Wrath! We pray that Thou wilt make a sign unto us! Strike down this sinner, as Thou didst Thine enemies of old, in the days of the Pharaohs! Let him feel the terror of Thy sword! For all eternity, let his sould writhe in anguish and damnation--" (Inherit the Wind, 66). His daughter who is friends with Cates chimes in pleading her father not to pray to destroy Cates. Brown answers back by calling down the same curse on Rachel for asking for the grace of Cates. Brady stands up now and says, "Reverend Brown, I know it is the great zeal of your faith which makes you utter this prayer! But it is possible to be overzealous, to destroy that which you hope to save--so that nothing is left but emptiness. Remember the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs-- "He that troubleth his own house...shall inherit the wind." The Bible also tells us that God forgives His Children. And we, the Children of God should forgive each other" (Inherit the Wind, 66-67).

He is trying to warn Brown that his harsh words against Cates and creating problems within his own family could come back in the end leaving him with consequences and ultimately nothing at all. This is true in Act Three when Reverend Brown's daughter Rachel leaves him for Cates. Brady dies while giving a victory speech. Creating problems in this book left characters with nothing; they were left fools to Cates wisdom and heart.

Left and Right Ends of Political Spectrum

On the first test, Political Quiz Show, I scored (-4.75, -2.72). Economically I am left and socially I am Libertarian. I most closely related with Gandhi who believed in the supreme power of the individual. Gandhi believed heavily in peaceful civil disobedience and a struggle towards civil rights (Wikipedia). I believe that people have the right to marry whom ever they choose, have an abortion, and make another other choice as long as it doesn't disrupt the civil rights of others. As the time changes and the years pass by, more and more new ideas and technology are expressed throughout society. Our government and country need to keep up with the of the rest of the world by allowing new ideas, new laws, and new customes under the Constitution. Providing more funding for stem cell research and alternative resources for oil help us expand into the present time.

On the Political Quiz Show my score was a nine. Most closely related with Hillary Clinton and very Liberal. Hillary Clinton, being very Liberal, is pro-choice. She is on the left side of the political spectrum. On the last quiz I scored a 39 with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. I scored the highest with Dennis Kucinich, a score of 47. The issues we disagreed on were Iraq and social security, which I don't have much of an opinion on anyways considering I don't know enough about each issue. Next in line was Chris Dodd, a score of 42. We disagree on Iraq, social security and immigration. Out of my top five on this quiz they were all Democrats. In my top ten there were only two Republican Candidates. I agreed with candidates on issues involving choice, freedom, and civil rights. Issues such as; universal health care plan, provide funding for stem cell research, legalizing abortion, opposition to a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as something only between a man and a woman and opposition to the death penalty.

Overall I can say that I do agree more with the left side of the political spectrum. However, I am not a complete Liberal; there are some things I agree more with the conservative right side. I agree with the left side; the government should provide equal opportunities when it comes to services because it will help the average and poor. I agree with the right side and the idea that people make choices; some choose to become doctors and lawyers while others don't graduate high school and work a minimum wage job. It doesn't seem fair to tax the wealthy more in all cases such as the one I just mentioned and it should be a choice whether or not the wealthy give away money to help these people. I agree with the left side; the government should protect political rights but they should not intervene to the point where they infringe on civil rights. I disagree with the status quo on the right side of the political spectrum. There are no preferred values and the government has no place in exposing and using these values as a standard for the country. The government should act as a catalyst for change; time changes why don't we move with it.

Agreeing with both sides of the spectrum showed in another quiz where I scored as a Centrist. The results had said that Centrists try to keep an open mind and hold a middle ground on most issues. Sometimes they favor government intervention and other times they favor individual freedoms. They also tend to go with a "practical" solution rather than taking the side on a political extreme.

Victimless Crimes

In the movie we viewed Friday we were exposed to different victimless crimes. These crimes don't always effect other people or involve other people but laws are simply put into place to make people behave better, act more civilized to form a healthier society. Some people argue that we hold the free right to do whatever we want to our own bodies. There are also those who feel the need to protect innocent people from living in fear because their streets are unsafe.

When discussing the issue with marijuana and other drugs the movie had made the point that making drugs illegal causes more violence. The drugs are scarce causing people to pay high prices which leads to violence when money isn't handled correctly. If drugs were legal there wouldn't need to be drug dealers and the alley attacks. However, legalizing substances that lead to health problems does not protect our citizens which is something the Government is supposed to enforce.

Another issue was prostitution. Should it be legal for a women to sell her body. This is another debate topic. Prostitution isn't considered moral; it goes against God and religion but should religion have a place in Government and stand as a reason of forbidding something. Isn't it a choice what a woman wants to do with her body. A lady on the film was talking about how it was just her job then she added "I don't think people would scrub toilets for a living" continued by saying because you think people wouldn't do something doesn't mean it should be considered a crime. However there are safety issues that go along with prostitution such as spreading diseases like HIV.

One last topic was the right to die with dignity. Giving people the privilege to demand a doctor to let you die or give you medications when your ready to die. Some people don't want a slow painful death, or to grow to an age where they don't remember their own family; they wish to die with dignity. Should they be allowed medications to speed the dying process. What if a person is not in the right state of mind or capable of making a decision like that. This seems like assisted suicide and the person is abandoning family but do people have the right to do whatever they want when it's their body?

All of these victimless crimes seem debatable. The questions remains; should freedom and free rights come before causing harm to ones own body or hurting the image of the society in which we live?

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

The battle involving Evolution and Intelligent Design is long from crowning a victory. There are arguments and different ideas about how things should be taught causing a difficult time when choosing a side. I am not very religious myself; my family doesn't attend church on a regular basis and I've yet to have been baptized. However, I do believe in God.

Although I believe in God I do not believe Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes. Science classes inform students on the facts. A different class might be able to teach Intelligent Design without teaching religion in the classroom but as Joseph Conn, Spokesman for Americans United for separation of Church and State said, "The bottom line is that schools can't teach religion as science, no matter how it's disguised" (78).

Even one of America's founding documents, "The Constitution prohibits the states from endorsing or promoting a religious view" (76). Intelligent Design is a religious view therefore schools under the state laws should not be allowed to promote Intelligent Design in the classroom. In the Epperson v. Arkansas case a point was made that if the teaching of evolution was removed from education policy it would be unconstitutional (77). In order to try and satisfy both sides as well as remain true to the Constitution, teachers should have the constitutional right to be allowed to educate or inform their classroom of Intelligent Design as long as it is not a Science class. Science classes should be allowed to educate students on evolution by supplying both evidence for and against it and the proven facts. Gerry Wheeler a nuclear physicist said, "It's an emotional topic. If we have any ounce of spirituality in us, these are high-stakes questions and we have to honor everybody on the spectrum of the debate" (76). This is very true; many people have strong religious beliefs or believe heavily in the facts. It's important to respect every ones beliefs and understand the importance of each side.

Promote Democracy Abroad?

I agree with Joseph Siegle's ideas in "Developing Democracy: Democratizers' Surprisingly Bright Development Record." However, Tamara Cofman Wittes had good points about U.S. involvement with the regimes in Iraq and the war. In his essay Josephy Siegle pointed out that more than two-thirds of the countries in the world rule democratically in some form. He also stated how democratic countries are more likely to have political and economic ties which increases peace and stability. He left no doubt that a democracy is the best thing for a country with his explanation of "life expectancy, illiteracy, and access to clean drinking water" (42). A good point made was "that while established democracies are less prone to engage in risky behavior, states undergoing the process of democratization are more prone than others to do so" (41). This can relate to the situation in Iraq with the whole war causing a lot of controversy allowing more room for engagement in risky behavior. If we are over in Iraq we need to hold our ground and make enforcements. Re-direct the money from rewarding Arab governments for limited reform to establishing accountability institutions. Joseph Siegle stated in his essay: "the transition to democracy is difficult and likely to fail in the Middle East unless the United States dedicates itself to creating the institutions necessary to make it work over the long haul" (41). This is where Tamara Wittes and Joseph seem to agree. Some of the institutions were pointed out in Joseph's essay when he said, "...internal efforts should focus on enhancing the capacity of deomcratizing countries' institutions of accountability: strengthening the caliber of the civil service, the judiciary, the oversight of the executive branch, and the autonomy of the private sector from political in fluences" (49).

We have been involved in the war in Iraq too long to quit now. We have to fufill our goal in order to feel accomplished. If we left now I believe we would be leaving Iraq in a much worse state than when the war started. Tamara said, "America cannot promote democracy in the Arab world unless its strategy is credible. That requires staying the course in Iraq" (56).

Torture Justifiable

"If we legalize torture, even under constrained conditions, we will have given up a large part of the idea that is America" (332). I agree with Andrew Sullivan in "The Abolition of Torture." Andrew Sullivan argues that torture is inhuman and degrading. Allowing torture takes the idea of freedom, which is what America is known for, and crushes it between clenched fists. The stress positions and embarrassment of being stripped naked can lead to a great amount of emotional stress or psychological damage. Sullivan words it as breaking a human. "Something broken can be put back together, but it will never regain the status of being unbroken..." (325). He is making the point that the damage has been done; it can't be taken back and it won't be forgotten.

When torture takes place in a prison there are innocent detaines being punished. They don't know what they did wrong; it's confusing and frustrating and could also lead to psychological damage. Sullivan also brings up the other techniques that could be used or interrogation purposes such as; isolation, psychological disorientation and intense questioning (331). This is a key point; why do humans resort to torture when there are other options available? All humans have to be viewed as humans whether they are friends or enemies and no human should experience torture in order to get information when there is no strong link connected to that person.

"The use of torture and coercive interrogation by U.S. forces in this war may have contributed to a profound worsening of our actionable intelligence" (330). Allowing this kind of torture only makes hatred grow in the hearts of Muslims, Arabs and others. As the hatred grows America looses its' trust and the ability to receive information. I'm sure there were detaines whose fear grew from the torture and actually made them withold information.

With other techniques available I don't believe torture is the right route. It destroys America and what we stand for, destroys people, our ties with other countries, and allows for the growth of hatred.

Dead Teen Walking

I don't agree with placing teens on death row; especially in a case like this where there is so much information that was not brought to the attention of the defense. In the article Miriam Shehane, President of Victims of Crime and Leniency said, "If someone does adult crime, they are acting as adults, and they have to take responsibility." I agree with her logic however; later in the article the idea that child abuse is linked with juvenile offenders is brought to attention. Adults who have lived outside of an abusive home have had time to grow out of that environment and create the lifestyle they choose. If the lifestyle they choose involves murder and the evidence is CLEAR I would agree with the death penalty. For children or teens still living in that abusive atmosphere that environment is going to affect their behavior.

In White Fang he had to adjust to a variety of environments. White Fang was born innocent with wolf instinct and adjusted to the wild. He learned to hunt and kill in order to live. In the wild environment, "To those that survived it was not tragedy, but realization and achievement" (33). Hunting and killing was not a tragedy in the wild; it was an achievement to be alive.

As White Fang continued more adjustments were made. Eventually the time spent away from abuse allowed White Fang to mold again. He experienced love and learned to love. So if teens are taken away from the abuse who is to say they can't experience love and learn to love?

The cases discussed in the article both deal with child abuse the effects of abuse on the teenage mind. Child abuse is no excuse for becoming a murderer but injuries to the head and psychiatric problems going without treatment can only affect the teenage mind. And if we kill a murderer what does that make us? It only seems to create an endless cycle of killing.

I'm not oblivious to violence and murder. It does make me sick to think about the people who commit murder but I also believe that a persons' environment and upbringing effects their actions and I do believe that people can change if given the chance.

Why We Need a Draft

I agree with Mark Finelli on most of his points in the article "Why We Need a Draft: A Marine's Lament." He made a good point about how economics did not come in to play with the protective vehicles used in Iraq. It's sad that private companies can drive around in death proof vehicles while people who give their time and lives for their country, on a volunteer basis, die everyday because they are placed in situations or protective vehicles that don't give suitable protection.

He went on to explain that a volunteer military will never gain the kinds of tools private companies have until the wealthy hold more interest because their sons are on the battlefields. This makes sense because if the wealthy feel the pain others feel when loved ones are away at war maybe they would do something about the inefficiency of the military.

Mark stated in his article, "While America's bravest are in the military, America's brightest are not." When I first read this statement it seemed very bold but after reading on it makes sense. Many college students get out of war efforts through schooling excuses while the wealthy "buy their way out of serving." I don't see myself entering the military and I would want an excuse as well but his statement makes sense. A draft seems like the best solution to the problems with the military according to Mark Finelli; I just can't seem to agree. I can't see forcing someone into a role not suited for them and not wanted.

My question: If a draft was put into place would it include females?

9/11

On September 11, 2001 I was in my sixth grade class with Mrs. Banker and classmates. Our counselor rolled in a TV cart and turned on the news. I don't remember too many specific things but we were all very confused and didn't know what to think. I remember going home that night and watching the towers fall over and over on different news channels. My parents tried to explain what had happened but at that time no one really knew exactly what was going on.