More Censorship Equals Less Learning

Censorship is to present-day society as "newspeak" is to 1984. Both exist for the purpose of improving society; however, both have proven detrimental to the intellect of society's inhabitants. "Thin Gruel" sums up the conflicts that have occurred regarding censorship (in literature especially), the reasons behind the conflicts, and it shows effectively just how harmful censorship can be when taken too far.
Censorship in literature, as discussed in the article, has been the result of right-wing arguments concerning religion and morality, and left-wing arguments concerning mostly sexism and racism. Those on the "right" side worked feverishly throughout the '70s and '80s to ban readings in school that were secular or that did not teach both sides, that promoted disobedience, and that discussed sexually immoral behavior. To help clarify the "right argument," the article states, "...parents criticized the books' treatment of profanity, sex, religion, race, or violence. On the "left side," individuals worked feverishly and analyzed texts in order to ensure that neither party was portrayed unfairly. For example, a text was "evaluated against a checklist that measured whether it was racist, sexist, elitist, materialist, ageist, conformist, escapist, or individualist."
Both arguments prompted text publishers to over-analyze their works in order that neither party was offended; overanalyzing ensured that a company stayed in business and that it would not be sued. Taking care not to offend a specific party is important, but how far is too far? Why should a piece about someone who lives in a location unfamiliar to the reader be censored? And what sort of person would be offended if he or she saw the word "gum" in a text?
All in all, censorship detracts from the reader's experience and does not give him or her a chance to explore controversy or the unknown. If publishers continue to whittle away at the texts, or to eliminate them completely, what will be left to learn? One must keep this in mind: Just because something is not in the text does not mean it is nonexistent. Yes, eliminate racism, etc. No, do not eliminate substance that prompts learning and enjoyment. As Holt editors observed, "...notes show that discussion of literary quality, pedagogical effectiveness, and interest level steadily diminished."
1984 and 2009 both struggle with censorship issues because they care about the wellbeing of their people. However, censorship halts the learning process so that all that is left for students to read is "thin gruel."

Newspeak: 1984

The concept of "newspeak" in 1984 is one that involves the elimination of "unnecessary" words for the purpose of eradicating the thoughts that usually accompany those words. It all comes down to fear. Because language has been downsized, eventually people will have no memory of the old words. And because of this, if one is feeling a certain way, there is no longer a word to express the feeling. Controlling language in this way leads people to think that their feelings are not justified or real. If words do not exist for an action, one is unable to perform the action. If words do not exist for a thought or concept, one is unable to think about complex matters. Elimination of words ultimately puts all control into the Thought Police's, and the Party's, hands because people are less able to rebel or to challenge authority.
Although I can think of no individual or group who has attempted to eliminate all connotations of words, I can think of some instances in which language has been "minimized." First of all, language has naturally downsized since the nineteenth century. Poetry that could be easily understood then is no longer as easily understood now because certain words are not commonly used in today's society. Second of all, rappers and other "hip" celebrities have succeeded in getting many people to use slang words in place of more elaborate and classy words. This minimizes one's language in that these slang words have so many connotations that one can use them in a multitude of situations. Because of this, many other words are believed to be no longer cool or necessary to convey a message. 1984's concept of "newspeak" may not be much of a reality in our society; however, influencial figures unknowingly encourage this concept at times.

Cloning: Playing God

I do not agree with the concept of cloning at all. As was mentioned in the video by people who are anti-cloning (most often people with strong religious beliefs), to clone is to play God. Some argue that therapeutic cloning, as discussed in the video, can come in handy when one needs an organ transplant. Or there is the continual argument that "skin cells are not living beings, therefore we are not ending lives." But just because we have the technology to do something does not mean we should. "Playing God" may help people to have healthy children, but when people start manipulating features of those healthy children it becomes dangerous. As was mentioned in both the video and the article, people choosing genes for their children (possibly clones of themselves) is dangerous because our society may end up with a lack of diversity. A genocide may even occur due to the stark contrast in groups of genetically engineered "individuals." Yes, cloning may help to a certain degree, but to clone is to meddle with a concept that was never meant to be meddled with. I'm not sure how I feel about stem cells being lives, but I do know that if we clone in any way, it may get out of hand. How would one feel if our society was full of blond-haired, blue-eyed people who all lacked something special that nature would have given them had they not manipulated it? If a parent manipulates genes or clones, they may produce the most handsome boy in the world, but what if he had been able to cure cancer had they not manipulated his genes? As the video discusses, all cloning does is turn people into products. If cloning is not stopped, who knows how far we will go and how much damage we will inflict upon ourselves. And at that point it may be too late; Nature will have "engineered" a plan of its own by then.

Customary Class Conflicts: Elimination or Acceptance?

Karl Marx thought that class conflict is inevitable in a capitalist society; capitalists strive to protect capitalism and to oppress the lower classes for maximum profit and workers struggle to abolish capitalism due to the fact that they are manipulated against their own best interests. Before reading the article on Karl Marx, I had never quite looked at capitalists and workers in this way. I definitely agree that conflict is inevitable due to stark differences in needs between both classes. Capitalists are so hungry for profit that they do not tend to notice those whom they are taking advantage of. And workers are busy despising capitalists for treating them like machines. This gap just continues to widen until a happy medium is no longer feasible. Unhappiness, as is apparent in capitalism, is the predecessor for conflict.
The World State's view of class in Brave New World is directly correlated to Karl Marx's point of view. In Brave New World, people are conditioned before birth to belong to a certain class level in society, and they are conditioned to genuinely appreciate their role. By subjecting "people" early on to certain stresses that will need to be tolerated later on in life, they become much more comfortable and successful under these stresses. In addition, people in each class must listen to recordings while they sleep that tell them what to believe and what to feel. This conditioning is all carried out in order to prevent the class conflict that would inevitably occur if people were unhappy with their "ranking."

Health Care: Universally Important

After watching Sicko, Dead Meat, and reading "Michael Moore and the Beige Bomber," I have come to believe that the United States has a corrupt and destructive health care system that must be fixed or replaced in order to preserve the health, and even sanity, of our nation and its people. Although Michael Moore presents an excellent argument in Sicko, providing examples of how universal health care has prevailed in France and other countries in Europe, it may be best to work on reform, as the "Beige Bomber" article argues. Yes, no one is required to pay for health care in France, yet taxes are extremely high for other things. And in China, where free universal health care reigns, doctors and hospitals are sliding into the pit of debt. In addition, places such as Canada have dangerously long waiting lists for medical procedures just because they have a "universal system." There is usually a silver lining to every cloud, but one must not forget the cloud itself. In all aforementioned cases, the cloud is comprised of long waits, debt, and high taxes. This should logically bring one to the conclusion that our health care system needs to be reformed. As Sicko shows, an American, or any person for that matter, should not be denied health insurance based on a preexisting condition, he or she should not have to move in with children because of medical debts, and no one should have to die because of these decisions. The deaths that do occur occur because health insurance companies want to make maximum profit. And essentially killing others for profit is so anti-American that it can make one "sick." The best thing for our country to do is to reform our health care system (completely abolishing it will only cause more problems). The most important lesson, in the bigger scheme of things, that we can learn from those countries with universal health care is not universal health care in itself but rather the not-for-profit care that they provide their citizens. That is the best health care of all.

Slumdog Millionaire

One's surroundings play a large role in determining how one evolves as a person and how one "ends up" in the end. In Slumdog Millionaire, Jamal and Salim are both largely influenced by their surroundings in the slum. Especially after their mother was killed right in front of them, they were forced to use whatever means possible to fend for themselves. They had to steal in order to eat, and they slept in low-down places. School, when compared with survival, was not a top priority. They used primitive instincts in order to live. Although Jamal and Salim both turned out very differently, they were both influenced, or shaped, by their childhood. Salim, overly affected by previously having to use violence and corruption to survive, worked for the very person who oppressed his family when he was younger in order to secure his place in society and to ensure his survival. He adapted his actions to his environment. Jamal, on the other hand, used everything that had affected him and everything he had learned on the streets and in his life in order to win "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire." In the same way that this knowledge from Jamal's past made him destined to win, it also shaped his continuous search, and eventual reunion, with Latika. If both Salim had Jamal had not been "molded" from their past, then they would not have been in the situations, or lives, that they ultimately ended up in.

Machiavellian Advice for the President

Due to the many differences and circumstances between our present-day society and the time in which Machiavelli lived, I believe that many of Machiavelli's lessons should be avoided rather than followed in order to serve our country's best interests. First of all, I would advise President Obama to not be the first to instigate a war between countries. With so many extremist political countries overseas (ex. Iran), we may find ourselves in some form of a nuclear weapons war. In addition, there is already plenty of anti-Americanism abroad due to Bush's presidential decisions involving occupation of Iraq and so forth. Why would we want to give anyone a reason to dislike America more or to think that we find ourselves superior to them? In today's society, war may not be inevitable. Second of all, I would tell Obama to not be like a "lion and a fox (at least not completely)." At times it is necessary to be aggressive and proactive, but it is not necessary to use such brute force that one is basically hated (again the invasion of Iraq comes to mind). I do understand that a soft nature can be taken advantage of, however. As far as deception is concerned, one should stay far away unless it concerns something that does not directly affect the people. There are things that are basically none of the peoples' business; however, if the President is to lie about numerous things, it will not promote any kind of trust between the people and himself. And it is important for the President, of all people, to be trusted and well-liked. Third of all, the President should try to avoid making any decisions that oppress any group of people. Machiavelli often says that a prince should choose the lesser of two evils, which makes sense if one is in such a predicament; however, he also says that a prince should pay no mind to hurting, offending, or oppressing small or poor groups of people. If the President were to do this, then our country would be flooded with chaos and rebellion. We have certain laws to protect minorities that did not exist in Machiavelli's time. So not only would Obama be involved in a serious legal issue, but he would also be looked upon as being cruel and as misrepresenting our country's true ideals. Machiavelli's advice would definitely not be the best for Obama to follow given our present situation, both foreign and domestic.

Heart of Darkness: Nature versus Nurture

The title Heart of Darkness has a direct connection to our lessons at the beginning of the year concerning the nature of man. The title alludes to the fact that people succumb to stresses in their environment (in this case they succumb in a negative way). The environment "molds" the person. Throughout the book, Kurtz is referred to as mysterious, dark, wise, and so on. He is portrayed as somewhat dangerous because of how far he has ventured into the primitive wilderness. Because of Kurtz' surroundings, the unpredictable and pitiless wild, Kurtz becomes savage and primitive in order to survive. For example, Kurtz had decapitated some natives, and he had placed their heads like posts on the fence outside his home. In addition, he frequently went to extremes in order to obtain ivory (killing, etc.). The nature of his experiences in the wild, and the effect they had on molding his character, can best be summed up by his final words: "The horror! The horror!"

Semester One: The Most Valuable Lesson

My favorite part of semester one was the reading and discussion of the "n-word" book. Not only did it teach me the all-important context of the word in history, but it also taught me just how much the "n-word" still impacts people today. In the episode of Boston Public that we watched in class, there was evident confusion and conflict over the usage of the word, and I see this same confusion and conflict in our society. Students become able to discern the meanings of the word based on its context after reading this book, and that is a vital skill. If one is ignorant about the meaning of the word, the feelings of others are hurt. One can become tangled and in quite a mess because of this misuse. On the other end of the spectrum, if one is informed and knowledgeable about various uses of the "n-word," then one will be able to have intelligent conversations and to use the word correctly. By reading this book, I became a better and more informed citizen. I know that a majority of students who read this book in the future will become a "stronger citizen" as well.

United Nations: Helpful or Harmful?

Based on the information in the assigned reading and the documentary "Broken Promises," I think that the United Nations could still be viable as a world policing agency if reformed; however, the current state that it's in is only going to cause more harm than relief. I am not arguing that the founders had anything but good intentions; nevertheless, a few debilitating flaws popped up (as can be expected in any endeavor). First of all, as noted in the packet, one hundred two countries with a combined population less than that of the United States, make up a 55 percent majority in the general assembly. In addition, 90 percent have a combined gross domestic product that is less than that of the U.S. This represents to me an unfair majority, a general assembly composed of "balance" that is not always the best, or the safest, representation for the world. After all, a majority of the UN's Human Rights Commission is made up of some of the worst HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS (documentary). Sudan's presence, Cuba's presence, China's presence, etc. on this commission is the worst form of hypocrisy: the kind that leads to death for innocent people. Because of this disorganization, innocent people were left to die in Rwanda in 1994, and innocent people are still being left to die in Darfur. When it all comes down to it, the United Nations will fail, and should most certainly be abandoned, if it does not become more balanced, more organized, and more flexible to intervene when deemed necessary and apparent.

The Socratic Method: "Bowling for Columbine"

After watching "Bowling for Columbine," I noticed strong connections between the documentary and Socrates' Socratic method. In "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore adopts the Socratic method in analyzing the gun problem in America, especially in interviewing different people who could be held responsible (Charleton Heston, workers at Kmart Corp., etc.). Whereas most people keep the interviews they conduct on a respectful and nonconfrontational level, Moore asked questions-that others would never dream of asking-simply because he wanted to hold others accountable for their actions, and he wanted to know the truth. After asking one confrontational question, and then hearing the answer, Michael Moore asked follow-up questions that challenged them further. Sometimes he even asked the questions in a completely different way so as to trap them into feeling guilty for the wrongful "crimes" they had committed and for all of the ways they contributed to the gun problem in America. At times, questions were not needed at all; Moore's actions did all the talking. For example, Moore brought two victims from the Columbine shooting to Kmart headquarters and confronted the "big guys" directly, making sure that they knew that Kmart bullets did the damage. The next day, to prove an even bigger point, he and the boys went to Kmart and bought all of the bullets. Then they returned to Kmart headquarters and demanded answers. To sum it all up: Michael Moore not only asked questions, but he asked them in different ways than the norm allowed for, and he built off of these questions in order to challenge the people he was interviewing to see the situation in unaccustomed ways-to see that they were the ones who were truly at fault. He "proved" one point after another by doing things this way. On page 221 of "The Dialogues of Plato," for example, Socrates persuades Glaucon and the others to sway to his line of thinking by "proving" various statements to them and getting them to agree/comply. Socrates plays the "so then, (blank) must be true because (blank) you agreed is also true" kind of card. This can also be related to Michael Moore's way of interrogating others and finding out information.
Michael Moore and Socrates both utilize the Socratic method so that they are able to get to the truth and so that they are able to make others see the truth in themselves.

Socrates' Strong Argument

After reading "Crito" from Dialogues of Plato, I agree more with Socrates' argument. If Socrates were to follow Crito's advice to escape, he would have been a hypocrite! Everything that Socrates argued during his trial was supportive of his willingness to die for what he believes in; therefore, if he were to go against what he believes in in order to live, he would be ridiculed for that and deemed not supportive of his initial arguments/views. In acting as a martyr, he remains consistent with his normal behavior and conduct. I agree that Socrates should submit to Athens because Athens has nurtured him and taught him throughout the years. He chose to live in Athens and nowhere else, so he should deal with any punishment dealt out to him by his "mother and father." After all, Socrates realizes, it is the law.
Although Crito argues that Socrates will be leaving his children behind and that Socrates will be satisfying the many by submitting to their punishment, Socrates has a beautiful argument to repudiate this. He remains consistent with his "do not render evil for evil" argument, and he argues that the wise prevail no matter how many unwise citizens there are. Basically he is saying that doing right by himself, a wise person, is by far the best course of action he could take. As far as the children are concerned, Socrates believes that his children would not have as much if he remained alive because they would be forced to leave Athens and would be subject to other punishments because of their father. He knows that his children will be raised and taught sufficiently with the help of the friends he is leaving behind.
There is a strong connection between "Crito" and the "Law and Justice" packet in that both deal with the law and one's choice to submit to it given various circumstances. In the "Law and Justice" packet, some throughout history have believed that it is best to go against the law in order to right a moral/unjust wrong. Following this, this "group" refuses to accept the punishment for the broken law because they know that what they did was not wrong. On the other end of the spectrum, there have been those who have, like the previous group, done no wrong in "breaking the law," yet they feel it is their duty to accept the punishment, whether to prove the point that they are falsely and wrongfully imprisoned or to remain consistent with their views. Socrates can relate to the latter group in every way. It is unfortunate, however, that he did not even know he was doing wrong! The question that sums up the relationship between the two readings is this: should one submit to the imprisonment bestowed upon himself/herself when he or she sees no wrong in the "wrongful act?"

Memorable Topic from Q1

One topic that I truly found interesting was the topic of 'Victimless Crimes.' I had never considered gambling, scalping tickets, pornography, or sex acts, among other things, to be real crimes worth imprisoning others for until I watched the recorded television special that was played in class. I enjoyed listening to the two arguments: one being that people should be able to do what they choose to do as long as they are not directly affecting anyone else-a lot of these acts are committed in the privacy of one's own home!-and the other being that these acts are immoral, whether they are hurting anyone else or not. Under the first amendment shouldn't one be able to "mess up" his or her own life? And who is the government to decide what is moral or immoral for any one person? This are questions that were brought to my attention, and they truly made me think. I understand how a few victimless crimes, such as prostitution and drug use, are borderline, but many others that are extremely harmless are still characterized in this 'immoral' way. By learning about these "victimless crimes," I became better aware of where I stand on the issue-I do not believe many of these acts, especially sex acts, should be regulated when everyone thinks and feels differently regarding his or her own morals. I also became aware of the fact that this struggle for rights given to us under the first amendment even existed-that there are people out there who fight the battle every day because they cannot live their life happily with the infringement on their privacy and their choices. I gained a better realization of the hardships many people endure because of these "morally-regulated" laws. I value learning this because I can teach those who are not aware so that they can become aware and do something about it if they so choose. Becoming aware and spreading the word could easily become a catalyst for change! I also now have the ability to relate it to other happenings throughout the country and to compare it to various other instances outside of our country as well. I have become a more informed citizen, and I will be better able to relate back to this topic in the future.

Inherit the Wind

In the note preceding the play, the playwrights imply that the themes of the play are timeless and universal. They understand that there is always something that gets America, or even a small portion of America, riled up. People will never agree on everything because we all have unique opinions that we are entitled to have! Under the first amendment, we are given our basic freedoms of individualism and the freedoms to express those. As in the book, there will always be a battle raging between two parties who cannot seem to reach common ground. This is not wrong, but the playwrights are trying to emphasize the inevitability of this in our society. In the book, the battle was fought over "Darwinism" and evolution. An example in today's society would be the issue of abortion. It is a constant battle that exists due to two extremely different views.
As I stated before, the abortion issue is a great example of how the themes of the book tie in today, especially since both topics are very much based on religion. In Inherit the Wind, the argument is that God created all beings. The other side of the argument states that humans and all beings evolved over time. When applied to abortion, the religious side emphasizes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. The other side believes that a woman has the right to decide what she is going to do with her body.
People are never going to agree on everything, which is why the Scopes trials had to happen and why Roe vs Wade occurred. There are plenty of other examples of opposition in today's society.
It's a fact of life!

Promoting Democracy Abroad

After reading "Should Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority?" I agree with the "yes" argument. First of all, the "yes" argument is a very strong argument that states that those countries that democratize experience a sharp increase in economic growth. For example, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Mexico, Senegal, Mozambique, and other countries, all of which switched over to democratic ways, grew more rapidly than Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia, all countries with autocratic governments. In addition, Siegle makes the argument that while autocratic countries with incomes below $2,000 averaged 79 infant deaths per 1,000 live births during the '90s, democratizers in the same income category and time frame typically experienced only 62 infant deaths. Also to be noted, democratizing states that strive to establish institutions of shared power tend to develop more rapidly. Those countries such as Botswana, South Africa, Senegal, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, etc. that have established stronger methods protecting against the arbitrary use of power have realized more economic growth than other democratizers whose restraints on political monopolization have been weak. Democratic countries, he argues, also present a good example of the benefits of democracy to those countries who do not currently govern that way. I believe that these examples provide strong support and evidence that democracy anywhere is responsible for increased prosperity and advancement. This can be made evident simply be comparing and contrasting countries with a strong democratic system to those that have a poor democratic system or none at all. Who can argue with infant mortality rates and economic stability?

In reading the "no" argument, I picked up on some weak points in the text. The "no" argument, first of all, does not even really disagree with the "yes" argument-it simply disagreed in the way the spread of democracy abroad was being carried out. What kind of an argument is that? :) This in itself makes for a poor stance (the fact that the author is not supporting the completely opposite point of view). She argues that the spread of democracy abroad is costing us too much money and that our president is not carrying his duties out in the correct way, but she does not really give much of an example. She does speak of how some say that they doubt President Bush really wanted to establish democracy in Iraq in the first place, but she does not back up her argument by giving examples of who, when, why, etc. This is all simply heresay without substantial evidence. Her circumlocution is not beneficial or complementary to her argument whatsoever-it just makes her seem as if she didn't do her "research!"

Justification of Putting Suspected Terrorists Through Torture

After reading "Is it Justified to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Duress," I sided with the "no" stance. I strongly believe that because the U.S. government allowed for the beating of, many times innocent, people who were suspected terrorists, we were given a bad reputation. Many other countries who had looked up to us previously, now look down upon us as no better than the actual terrorists themselves. This could harm our country in the sense that those who took our side before on very large matters, have left us on our own after this "rendition" sort of uprising. In addition, the beating and torture of people for information teaches our children the wrong things, and it sets up very low standards for our citizens. We can no longer say that we are a morally-correct country, and there is definitely not as much to be proud of if we are defined for our unethical and inhumane treatment of our own race! I do not agree with the "no" argument at all because the author stresses that torturing others for information is essential to protecting our citizens from harm. He also states that we are sending a positive example in standing up for the freedoms and protection of our country. Yes, I agree that our citizens should be kept out of harm's way, but as the "no" argument mentions, how many people actually have information to give us? And how many times have these pressure tactics worked? I will say that I don't believe they are effective at all! We just look idiotic. In conclusion, the "no" argument is a much stronger argument, and I argue with that argument one-hundred percent.

Rendition

The movie Rendition truly brings to light the issue of illegally obtaining "intelligence," and it can very easily be connected to the theme of "nature versus nurture." After 9/11, our country became a product of society's fear-constantly labeling anyone who looked foreign as a terrorist. For example, in the movie the mayor(?) criticized Alan's wish to rescue Anwar from the unfair treatment that he was suffering, and he said that he did not wish to be called a "Bin Laden lover." This rendition program, that was electrocuting, beating up, and stripping Anwar naked, seems to make those who are anti-terrorist feel okay, but the fact is this: many of those innocent people had no information yet were tortured anyways. This nurture argument that is forming is clearly illustrated in the way that one man would torture a prisoner just because another man "found him" to be guilty. There was no evidence!
In addition, Khalid's actions were all based upon his environment. Because his brother had died as a result of this rendition program and its leaders, and because Omar, Khalid's friend, had been captured and beaten as well, Khalid set off the bomb that killed so many. This was all to prove a point. He would never have done that if it hadn't been for the past unfair treatment and torture of those he loved.
Another great example of the "nurture" argument appears when Alan gives up Anwar's wife's "case." Due to the pressure from his job and society to keep quiet about the details of the rendition program, he stops helping out a friend!
There are obviously many more examples throughout the movie that reinforce the "nurture" argument as well.
At the end of Rendition, everything comes together to make a very big impact on the viewer and to prove the point of the whole movie. Post 9/11 society corrupted the minds of those who wished for power, and they went about their "security measures" in such a way that many innocent people were humiliated and/or killed. Those affected by the killings and such lashed out in other ways to try to combat rendition. These attempts to stop or impede rendition usually only caused more serious problems. The cycles formed because of rendition ultimately destroyed many different communities and societies. And this all started because of society's impact on "a" human being.

3:10 to Yuma

The movie 3:10 to Yuma definitely has some kind of connection to the "nature versus nurture" theme. In my opinion, Ben Wade's character is strongly representative of the "nurture argument." He was probably not initially a killer, a cheater, or a coldhearted person, but because of the people and events that surrounded him, he succumbed in order to fit in and in order to survive. His bad behavior may also be a result of his mom abandoning him when he was younger. When Ben Wade, at the beginning of the movie, states, "I hate Pinkertons," he seems to be going along with what his environment is reinforcing. One example of Wade's behavior is showcased when he kills Byron. It is obvious that Wade lives defensively, and at one point in the movie he even speaks of how good deeds are contagious. And for that reason, he stays away from the good deeds. Although Wade and his comrades show their extremely societal-based behaviors throughout the entirety of the movie, the environment, once again, molds Wade's character at the end-this time in a positive way. After he was "escorted" (haha) to the train station and after William watched his father get shot by Charlie Prince, Wade was deeply affected. Because of this environmental change, Wade shot his former friend, Charlie Prince, and rather than escaping, rightfully locked himself behind bars on the 3:10 train to Yuma.

"Dead Teen Walking"

"Dead Teen Walking" is very similar to White Fang in that they both discuss society's influence on events, people, and reality in general (the "molding" concept). In "Dead Teen Walking," the unfair imposition of the death penalty on minorities and on others who are undeserving of it is discussed. It tells the story of one boy in particular who had a bad childhood and who made poor decisions. This very much reminds me of White Fang in that both the boy in the article and White Fang had very rough childhoods. Despite this fact, those who made up a part of their environment did not care or take that into account when questioning their bad behavior. It seems that these kinds of things (past experiences, etc.) are never taken into account. In White Fang, it appears as if his past was not taken into account until he came upon Scott, a man who truly looked at how the past had molded White Fang's character.
I do not believe that teens should be put on death row at all! As I discussed above, those teens' pasts are not taken into account when making these decisions. Maybe if each case was dealt with individually, then the legal process involved with youth punishment would be more fair. I also did not like the part of the article that states that valuable evidence that could be used to prove a minority innocent is often passed up or ignored. This is very discriminatory! Everyone should have the right to a fair trial. In addition, I do not agree with the fact that these youth trials are put off until the youth are of age (this makes age appear to be an uncontroversial issue). Who knows how many innocent people have died by means of capital punishment? I believe that youth should be given a chance to prove themselves. Why should they not be allowed to prove themselves? This would be much better than learning one's lesson by dying!
Reading White Fang impacted my viewpoint only in that I noticed the same "nurture" stance in which I had agreed with (and still agree with). Both pieces definitely had a lot in common!

Abu Ghraib/What Makes Us Moral: Makeup for Missed Seminar

The atrocities that happened at Abu Ghraib prison and the content of What Makes Us Moral both directly tie into the nature versus nurture theme that is prevalent throughout White Fang. They both support the "nurture" philosophy-that one's environment molds one's character accordingly.
At Abu Ghraib prison, the soldiers who were put in charge of interrogating "terrorists" or keeping order became so accustomed to the inhumane torture that, although they originally strongly opposed it, they began to get carried away. They allowed the people who were "in charge" to mold their character into an uncaring, savage beast-all for the purpose of interrogating those people, ninety-percent of who were innocent. The U.S. government, for example, also got swept up in controversy due to its external environment. After 9/11, the government became so angry that it was willing to go against the Geneva Conventions at all costs just to get people to confess something that they usually knew nothing about. Prisoners were humiliated, ridiculed, sexually harassed, and beaten, all due largely in part to the negative impact that other people and society had on the guards' characters. Anger turned into savagery and embarrassment on the United States' part.
What Makes Us Moral also offers great insight into the "nurture" argument. For example, the "shunning" concept basically says that one will succumb to the expectations of some kind of group to avoid abandonment. This clearly illustrates the "molding" concept. In addition, it is discussed how one tends not to sympathize with those whom they know nothing about (e.g. specific races, religions, or cultures) and therefore, one will be less likely to help those kinds of people out or to connect with them because their environment has never supported acceptance or even acknowleged those specific groups.
As in White Fang, both What Makes Us Moral and the story of Abu Ghraib prison tie directly into the nurture theme, in which one is continually molded and remolded to the satisfaction of society and its evil wrath.