By February 19th, you will need to have posted: -2 posts that reflect on your own book: quotes, questions, connections, interesting facts -2 responses to other book club posts
Hi guys!! I hope you are all enjoying your books! I know mine is very interesting. I chose to read Blink by Malcom Gladwell. So far, this book discusses how our mind makes split second choices, and what our mind is trained to choose. In one of the sections Gladwell discusses when President Warren Harding assumed the office of presidency. Gladwell talks about how many historians have claimed he rose through the political ranks based largely on the power of his classically attractive "tall, dark, and handsome" physical appearance. I was thinking about this a great deal, and I wondered if that happened with the 2008 election? Do you think part of the reason Obama was chosen was because he was African American? I know that wasn’t the whole reason he was elected, but do you think it influenced people’s votes? ~Gennavieve
Gennavieve, I think you bring up a very interesting point. I believe that his race could have definitely won him some votes and have been an advantage. Many people feel it would be exciting and revolutionary to have the first African American president, possibly being the deciding factor for some votes. As much as we are told not to judge a book by its cover, we all know that almost everytime we go to the bookstore the cover definitely influences the decision. I am sure that Obama got many votes based on his policies, but there is no doubt in my mind that some of them were for his race not for him. -Emily Hentschke
In response to Gennavieve's post, I agree with Emily. I think alot of the hype in the 2008 election was becuase both Obama and McCain brought something that has never happened before; an African American president or a female vice president. Obama had alot more charisma and popularity and I feel that many of those who were against Bush and part of the middle-class majority were looking for something fresh and new in America, which Obama provided. The fact that he was an African American running for president was something America has never seen, giving them hope that change could be better.
Hi guys. So I chose to read Freakonomics, in the chapter I read today it talked about the different levels of drug dealers and it asked the question "Why do drug dealers live with their moms?". The answer was because certain levels of drug dealers only make $3.50 an hour (lower than the minimum wage). Why do you think that people would risk being an illegal drug dealer and making less than minimum wage, when they could work at McDonalds recieve $8.00 an hour?
Regarding Emily Wood's post, I find it very intersting that some drug dealers live with their moms. I would think that drug dealers would risk getting caught and making less than minimum wage because they like that they don't have to actually "work" anywhere. Truthfully, they aren't commited to actually going to work every day and the only boss that they have are themselves. They can go on vacation whenenver so they can make their own schedule which is pretty convenient. Also, not all drug dealers make less than minimum wage. Some make quite a bit of money and I'm sure that could make some other lower payed drug dealers hopeful that they too could make their "big break" someday. -Brittney Baltzley
How would you feel if you had to drink your own urine? Further what if I told you that drinking your own urine was actually good for you and could cure wounds and many illnesses? While reading my book The Devil’s Highway, the author describes in great detail how the Mexican people who traveled on the desolate desert have to survive by drinking urine. He briefly touches on the affects of urine but I wanted to investigate more. During my research I found many articles explaining how therapeutic and healing urine can be. Today cow and horse urine are found in many face and body creams because it is very moisturizing. History states that the Aztecs used it to cure wounds and other topical sores. Other cultures such as the Hindu and Ancient Chinese have been known to drink their urine. Urine is made of 95% water and contains many minerals and even hormones. People have been known to drink urine for lack of sleep, fevers, oral infections, diabetes, and cancer and enhance fertility. I don’t know about you but it sounds like its not that bad, but actually doing it would take a lot of guts. So what do you think? Does drinking urine sound that bad anymore when you really think about it? Guess you can’t know till you try it! Haha just kidding
In response to Emily Wood’s blog about dug dealers living with their mothers, I don’t find it strange at all. Drug dealers can’t afford anything and are always tired so where do they go…Mommy’s house because mom will always take care of their baby boy even if they are selling illegal drugs. They would rather just bum money and a place to live off mom then be a real functional adult and go out and get a higher paying job because its too hard and too risky.
In response to Jessica’s post about the benefits found in drinking urine, I find it very shocking! I knew that some facial products contained urine, but in terms of increasing fertility and curing cancer, I had no idea! I do have to say, I’m so happy that I don’t live during the time of the Aztecs! I mean, desperate times call for desperate measures, but yucky! Just thinking about it makes me shudder. After reading the post, drinking urine still sounds disgusting, but for some people, the benefits might be worth it. ~Gennavieve
In response to Jessica's post about drinking urine, I find it really gross as well. But in my book "They Poured Fire Upon Us From the Sky", the children that had to cross a desert with extreme weather conditions also had to drink their own urine for survival. It was so sad since the children were so young and had to go through so much just to stay alive. When it comes to life or death, if drinking urine will help you to survive than I agree with it. But no one should have to experience that, especially young children. That is very interesting about how it is in facial products and can help cure cancer, though. I never knew this until now.
I am readin "They Poured Fire on us From the Sky" which recounts 3 different boys' stories of experincing the war in Sudan during their childhood. It is amazing what these boys did to survive and the things they went through are horrifying. While thousands of children, women, and men were constantly being chased by the Northern Arabs, not alot of outside help came in to bring them food, resources, etc until after the war had started and many had already died. I found this similar to the situation in Haiti where the US didn't come in to help the people until after a major earthquake hit and destroyed there country and killed many people. Although I feel that helping those who are struggling is good, is it our job to always be there for every country in need? Is there a limit to how much help we can offer?
In response to Emily Wood's post, even though it is really funny that a large portion of drug dealers still live with there moms, i don't find it ironic. Most drug dealers are hooked to a certain drug themselves and therefore have a difficult time living a normal life. They need someone who is always watching out for them, feeding them, putting a roof over their head, and so on, and that person is mom. Also, even though the wage is low compared to that of the pay from a minimum wage job, dealing gives them a flexible schedule and their paycheck does not include government tax deducted out of it every month. Furthermore, by living with their moms they don't have to pay for rent, electricity bills, water, and all the other grown up bills they would have to pay if they were living on their own. It looks like drug dealers have it made. (don't get any ideas people :)
In response to Kelsey's post, as much as i feel compassion towards the countries that struggle day in and day out with no outside aid, i do not think it is our job to provide for all struggling countries all the time. In our suffering economy today, it is difficult to provide for people in our own country. We must look after our own country and citizens before any other. For instance, the states that were hit by hurricane Katrina are still trying to rebuild there communities and cities. They still need money and resources as much as any other country. I do however, in time of crisis such as right now in Haiti, think that it is important for strong countries to help out. This may sound contradicting, however think of the current issues in the United States. We are in a economic crisis, yet we are not relying on other countries to pull us out. It is a serious issue, but is something that can be solved internally. One the other hand, if we had a sudden famine or serious crisis in which we could not help ourselves, we would depend on foreign help.
I am reading "28 Stories of AIDS in Africa", a very interesting book that gives background on the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and gives real life examples on how it is overwhelming the country of Africa. The book includes 28 different stories from people whose lives have been affected by HIV/AIDS. The author chose to write about only 28, representing 1 story for every million people infected. Through the chapters it explains how the infection spreads, and ways to prevent it from spreading as well. Information about AIDS and lessons of abstinence are taught throughout Africa. Protection is provided in some places; however, still most people refuse to use them. Since previous efforts from advocates have failed in most parts of Africa, what other methods do you think would work to spread the message and information?
I think Kelsey brings up a really good point by bringing in problem’s the world faces today. I think that America needs to help others as much as possible, but focus on keeping themselves secure. There should be an equal balance between help for others and help for self. I believe that it is America's duty to give help to all those who reach out for it, however if our own country is not stable, we should not give as much help. It may cause more harm than good if America tries to solve another country’s problems when we are already deep in our own struggles. This does not mean that if a problem arises in America we should drop all help, I just think we need to be responsible in terms of how much help we give. ~Gennavieve
In response to Emily’s question about what methods can be taken to prevent people from getting aids in Africa: I think this issue is impossibly challenging because in order for the spread of aids to be discontinued the entire country would have to change. Without money to buy modern contraception or education, not only do people not know about these methods but they cannot afford them. Aids are very prevalent in poverty stricken areas and can only be fought by taken small persistent steps to change. This disease cannot be cured overnight; however, there are many ways to provide for these people. Through money donations people can provide education, raise awareness, and provide medical services.
In response to Jessica’s comment about drinking urine, I have actually heard that drinking your own urine can be good for you. I agree that it would take a lot of guts to do it and I would personally never try it unless it was a life and death situation! Just thinking about it makes me sick. But I guess if you have to do it to survive then it’s worth it.
I am currently reading Freakonomics and one of the main themes is about incentives. In the first chapter it discusses how many people will act immorally to achieve an incentive. For example, it talks about how many teachers are cheating for their students on the standardized tests because if a teacher raises their student’s scores, they would get a $20,000 bonus or a possible promotion. Why do you think many people will act immorally to get an incentive? Would you?
I was so surprised when reading my book about the 3 boys stories of their childhood during war and when I found out how young they were. These boys were only 4,5 or 6 yrs old and they were completely on their own, trying to fend for themselves and survive. Occasionally, they would run into family but than get separated from each other in the midst of the war. Today, these boys are older now, around 20 yrs old, and decided to put their horrifying stories into this book. Why do you think they were all able to remember everything so vividly from when they were so young? I know I don't remember hardly anything from when I was that young, but their stories are so detailed and accurate. Why do you think this is?
In response to Kelsey's blog about the boys being so young and being able to remember the details of their stories so vividly, I think they would be able to remember their stories from their childhood so well because it was such a traumatic experience for them. We obviously don't remember everything from when we were younger, but we remember the things that were super great or very traumatic for us. So, it is just natural that the authors would remember everything from their experiences.
Does anyone use Listerine mouthwash? Get this, Listerine was invented in the nineteenth century as a powerful surgical antiseptic but then later sold, in distilled form, as a floor cleaner and a cure for Gonorrhea! The product didn’t hit big until the 1920’s when it was advertised as a solution for “Chronic halitosis” which is just a medical term for bad breath. Until that time, people never thought of bad breath as such a terrible thing but now commercials display couples not being able to be together because of bad breath and couples making out who have good breath. These facts are from my book, “Freakonomis”. It discusses advertising and how it provides conventional wisdom to the consumer. Sometimes the conventional wisdom they speak of is not always correct, companies will say what they need to to sell a product. Do you know of any examples where company’s advertisements can be misleading?
In response to Gennavieve's post, I think that Obama's election into office had a lot to do with him being half-black. I think that since Americans were so close to having the very first non-white male president people just elected him, but I also think it has a lot to do with the fact that George Bush was a Republican and American's wanted to give the Democrats a chance to change the Country's economy. Unfortunatly Obama hasn't done what he promised and his approval rating is lower than 50%, so I think American's made the wrong political choice, but the correct social one.
In response to Natalies post, I defintiely have noticed examples of advertising where the "conventional wisdom" is probably false.
Take for example, all of the diet pills that are on the market. Many people buy the expensive pills and take them because they think they will work considering they are on the shelves of a credible store, and/or because they are advertised on TV with the before and after pictures.
In some cases, in the before/after pictures however, heads don't show because they are completely different bodies. And in other cases even when it is the persons whole body, a lot of the times those pictured in the advertisements have personal trainers and work out a lot.
"In the lifetime of driving the pitted highways of East Africa, Mohammed reckoned he had had sex with 100,00 women."
I am reading the book, "28 Stories of Aids in Africa" That quote was from one of the stories of one of the millions who are infected with Aids in Africa.
Even though Mohammed was most likely off with his count on how many people he had slept with in his 48 years, it gives the reader an idea of how easily and quickly Aids/HIV is spread throughout all of Africa by rape, brothels, and consent.
Throughout the book, the author asks herself and the audience the question of whether or not Africa is passed a stage where they can be helped. What do you think our job as Americans is in Africa's fight against Aids?
In response to Christen's post- Unfortunately, I think that the damage of the Aids crisis in Africa is on the brink of being irreversible. Not only can these people not be healed but with every person that they infect the disease spreads even more. When poverty is unapparent, the government is reliable, education is prominent and accessible, and health care can be provided in Africa that will be the first step to helping this issue. This is a far away ideal and it will take a lot of time to reach; however that is the only way. I don’t think it is America’s responsibility to help this crisis in Africa. I feel that they must make these changes themselves otherwise we cannot help their cause.
In response to Kelsey’s blog I agree with Rachael about how children will remember something when they are older because of the traumatic and life changing events that occurred to them. When you are a child only specific elements jump out at you because you can only process so much at a time and because of their situation I can imagine that they took a lot in and were able to remember it because of its lasting impact on them.
Imagine if you were stranded on a desert and had no water and the only thing to keep you alive was your hope that if you just took one more step you would be saved. If all you could do was just keep walking in search for a better life but you could hardly move because your actual skin was boiling and your insides were eating each other. What would you do? Keep walking or just die? Trust someone to go get water while you wait? Cry? Scream? Pray? Give up? In the story The Devils Highway, this exact circumstance happened to over 20 Mexican men who were on a journey to cross the border into America. They were willing to trust a stranger to “guide” them to a better life because they were so desperate to have something better. They majority of these men died on their quest and some have never been identified or found. Today hundreds of men and families still try to cross the boarder by taking huge life threatening steps in the hopes of starting a new life. So what would you do? Stay and accept your life in a place you hate or risk literally everything and try to defeat death and cross the invisible boarder?
In response to Emily's first post on "Why drug dealers live with their moms?", I find it ironic that they have to live with their moms. Drug dealers are seen as tough and from the "ghetto" but in reality they probably don't have two dimes to rub together. I feel the reason they stay with their low paying "jobs" is because they have an addiction. Why get off their couch and go to work when they can sleep all day and do drugs all night? To them this is the life. By living with their mothers they most likely have little to no responsibilities and go through their day doing whatever they please.
In my book, Eating Animals, the author poses the question "If we can eat cows and chickens, why can't we eat dogs?" and even provides a recipe for stewing a dog which calls for "a medium sized dog". This reminded me of "A Modest Proposal". In "A Modest Proposal" this technique worked, but do you think that in "Eating Animals", this method worked in supporting the authors question of "what justification might I have for sparing dogs but eating other animals?" (pg. 24) and the overall question of the book: "what entitles us to eat certain animals and yet spare others?"
In regards to Lacy's post, I don't think the author's method was as effective in "Eating Animals" as it was in " A Modest Proposal," because in "A Modest Proposal," his solution is absolutely absurd, whereas with eating dogs and other animals, there are at least a few adequate reasons for doing so. For instance, dog meat may not taste as good as cow meat, or have as good of a nutritional value. And in countries like China and Indonesia, eating dogs is not all that uncommon. Someone from Asia might read "Eating Animals" and say that he eats any animal that is slaughtered and cooked and has no idea where this author is coming from. But for Americans, the author does pose an interesting question. So, I think the author of "Eating Animals" has good intentions on using animals, such as dogs, to expose the unknown reasons of why we eat certain animals, but I don't think it has quite the effect that other writings might have.
In my non-fiction novel 28 stories of AIDS in Africa, Stephanie Nolen uses personal stories of people suffering from this horrific disease. From prostitutes, to orphans, to soldiers, to average women with unfaithful husbands. This disease is spreading at astonishing rates. Within several stories the African Governments are denying the problem and stating that its as common as poverty. In South Africa they have gone as far as saying that AIDS medication is "Poison". This is to protect thier own economic progression and not take help from other countries. Therefore people are dying because of stubborn, selfish government interests. Do you think this is a violation of peoples rights? Can/should anything be done to get aide to these people?
In response to Kelsey's question about how much help is really necessary for countries in need and how much is adequate. I believe that as blessed Americans it is our duty to share our knowledge with countries that are not as well off. I'm not saying to change their culture and way of life. But to offer better education and basic needs. We are one of the richest countries in the world and it is our obligation to support weaker countries. I believe that if you cover basic needs as well as, better education that is the most efficient way to help. Anything more could potentially overstep your boundaries of giving too much. And not letting them help themselves.
I'm reading Blink by Malcom Gladwell. At one point in the book he had mentioned the fact that most aptitude tests--such as SAT, ACT, and STAR--request you bubble your ethnicity on the answer sheet. Tests had been conducted where African Americans had not done as well on tests that asked for that information versus not. Do you think ethnicity questions serve a logical purpose on answer sheets?
In response to Jessica's post, I believe that unless the government is directly preventing citizens with AIDS from receiving treatment, they are not violating any rights. America is making definite contributions in aiding AIDS treatment via programs such as World Vision.
In regards to Lacy's post and Dustin's comment, you can be nearly certain that there is a tribe somewhere on this planet that finds it perfectly moral to eat babies (cannibal tribes). If the tribe chief happened to read "A Modest Proposal", he would find it to be an ethical proposal. As Dustin said, certain regions in Asia see dog and cat meat as a delicacy (as well as infants, I've actually heard, read, and seen), therefore I believe perception of satire is primarily induced by cultural up-bringing.
I am reading the novel The Devil's Highway: A true Story. It is about 26 illegal immmigrants that are led through the Devil's Highway desert in Arizona to get into the United States. By the end when they are rescued only 14 survived from the death march. The author makes his point that both our border policies and Mexico's as well is what really caused these people to perish, and we should abolish our border patrol all together. His opinion on the whole matter is we should allow anyone to walk across the border. I personally do not agree with this, our borders not only protect the US from waves of illegal immigrants entering , but also from criminals trying to get into Mexico and runaway from the law or vice versa or from other threats. I do agree that our border policies are ubsurd, but should be revamped not removed completely.
At the end of the book I am reading, The Devil's Highway, the author gives a whole bunch of ligistics of all the money that illegal immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy. He also brings up how there will five million more jobs in the U.S. in 2008. Some of his statistics seem sort of misleading because how can you possibly account for all the illegal immigrants who we are not supposed to know anyways because thay are not even supposed to be here anyways. So I ask, do you guys think it is good or bad for our economy to remove our border security and aloow anyone to come into our country? Why or why not?
In the book I'm reading, They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky, a novel where three young men write accounts of their journey across Sudan when they were forced out of their villages to in attempts to search for a safe place and any remaining family. While reading it, some of the hardships the boys endured are so horrific, it is hard to believe a nine year old boy could withstand and be so brave. Near the end of the book one of the boys, Alepho, says, "This made me think that there was no safe place in the world and there would always be fighting. Everybody was depressed and angry." This quote just really popped out at me, these boys had been through so much, living in doubt for ten years, and it makes me wonder, is there really a safe place in the world? I'm trying to think of a moment in time when there wasn't fighting, and its impossible, and I find that really sad.
Hey guys! Okay so again i am reading the book "28 Stories of AIDS in Africa". I just finished reading a chapter about an affluent female doctor, who is HIV positive, living and working in one of the largest and hardest hit cities in Africa with HIV, Malawi. I came upon this quote that i found to be very interesting.
"At Tisungane (the hospital), all health staff are given priority and moved to the top of the waiting list for treatment drugs, and that is unofficial policy in most public-sector clinics across the country as well."
Because so many people are becoming infected with HIV, doctors, nurses, and well-educated people included, there is a waiting list for drugs. I personally think that it is a very smart move on there part, for you can't afford to lose doctors who are trying to help the citizens get better. Without doctors and nurses, no treatment would be available at all.
Do you guys too think that it is smart to give health workers first priority? Do you think that it is unfair to put someone on the list above someone else who has been waiting for months, just because they have a higher education and medical training?
In the book, "28 Stories of Aids in Africa" this quote is from one of the woman, Prisca Mhlolo.
"When we came, something funny happened. That loving and caring husband changed into a monster. She had climbed straight into bed, and now Bruce stood over her. He said, 'Prisca, look here. Your Aids, we left it at the hospital. In this house I am in charge of you."
Basically, Prica's husband gets incredibly mad when she finds out she is diagnosed with Aids even though he was the one who gave it to her. He wants to keep it a secret and himself as well as other family memebers hurt her physically numerous times when the subject of Aids was brought up.
Do you think it makes sense for someone who has Aids to be fearful of it? This may seem like a silly question but through this book I have learned that the only way to keep living with the disease is to not be afraid of it. How do you think one would overcome this fear?
In response to Greg's comment, I think it is a very bad idea to allow illegal immigrants into our country.
I understand people want to some to America, and they should be able to do that, but they need to do it the legal way. The reason for this is that as Americans, we are spending our tax dollars on them.
The are included when the government talks about those without healthcare, and they can get money from the government from our taxes.
If no one in America was in poverty, and no one in America needed help, I may have a different opinion. However, as a nation I think it's our responsibility to take care of the people who are here legally first.
In response to Christen's question on whether I think someone should be fearful who has AIDs and I say no. To keep living on a normal life one cannot allow a thing like AIDs to define the person you are going to be. You must not allow it to run your life or keep you from living your life to the fullest. To overcome this fear one needs to come to the realization that they have two paths to take: either you you take the road where you give up all hope or take the other road and get back up on the horse and fight through.
Hey guys, I'm reading the book the Devil's Highway and it's about mexican immigrants and their attempt to cross the border illegally. One of the main parts in the book is where the author talks about these men called "coyotes" who mislead the Mexicans and tell them that it will only take them a few hours to safely reach U.S. soil, when in reality it could take weeks to cross it. These "coyotes" tell the people this because they make a ton of money and the people end up dying so they don't even have to lead them all the way to the border and into America illegally. What do you think that the Mexican Government could do to prevent so many deaths and encourage them to either cross the border legally, or to remain in Mexico?
In response to Emily's post on whether higher educated people should get medical treatment first, I think it is fair. Now I know that probably alot of people would disagree, but I think it comes down to who has a more essential purpose. In the medical field, it would definately be the doctors and nurses, so I think they should be first on the list. Besides, the ratio of regular citizens to doctors and nurses is very uneven, so I don't think it would have a major impact if doctors and nurses recieved first-hand care over the large population. And as Emily said, the doctors are the ones who help take care of the people, so it makes sense to keep them in top condition with first-hand care.
So I'm reading the book, The Devil's Highway, and a big portion of the book takes the reader through all the hardships that the 26 illegal immigrants went through to get to America. The author, who is Mexican-American, uses a large amount of pathos to support his argument that there should be no border restrictions. He tries to get the reader to have great sympathy upon the these people, but other than that, he does not have a whole lot of reasoning, besides his stats on the economy and such that Greg mentioned above. Do you guys think the author would have done better to focus more on reasoning to argue his point, or should he have kept it the way it is with alot of emotion?
Regarding Emily's post, I think that all people no matter if they are health care workers or not should be taken into consideration when deciding who to administer drugs to. How is right to give a doctor medicine when someone else that isn't a doctor is just as in need of the medicine as he is. It's not right to judge people based on their resume especially when dealing with a disease such as AIDS. AIDS is something that you get through sexual contact, sharing contaminated syringes, perinatal transmission, or misconceptions. Basically, it's not something that you just have, except in the case of perinatal transmission of course. Choices are involved and if you are suffereing from AIDS, you obiously weren't very careful in making sure that you were being safe. Therefore, all people should be on the same waiting list, no matter if there are health workers on there or not. All decisions have consequences and people should think about that before making risky decisions.
“Silvan Tomkins once began a lecture by bellowing, “The face is like the penis!” What he meant was that the face has, to a large extent, a mind of its own. This doesn’t mean we have no control over our faces. We can use our voluntary muscular system to try to suppress those involuntary responses. But, often, some little part of that suppressed emotion-such as the sense that I’m really unhappy even if I deny it-leaks out.”
I read this, and I laughed out loud. Then, I realized what Gladwell is saying is very true. Have you guys ever had an instance where your feelings were expressed on your face even though you tried to cover them up? Take the classic example of Ol’ Grandma’s cooking. Some Grandmas are the best cooks ever! However, some Grannies have lost their touch. Let's follow the second Grandma. The one who is getting older and it seems she has lost a few taste buds because her cooking taste‘s like dog food. Of course when you go to her house she always fixes you something nice to eat. How sweet! Of course you can’t refuse Grammy! You try to swallow the nasty foreign bite you just spooned in your mouth, and then she asks you the question, “How is it dear?” This is when your face betrays you. In that moment of truth, you mouth may be uttering, “So delicious Grammy!” but your face is saying, “GET THIS OUT NASTINESS OF MY MOUTH RIGHT NOW I’M GOING TO GAG!” Lets hope some of us are lucky and Grandma’s vision is fading and she can’t tell you made a face. Doesn’t it frustrate you when your face betrays you? ~Gennavieve
Hey everyone, so I'm reading 28 stories of AIDS in Africa as well and I agree with Greg on the idea that you can't be afraid of someone who has AIDS or even if you yourself have it.It's a really hard thing to never think about because you will never really have a normal life but in order to be the best person you can be you have to put your fears behind you.
I think reading about AIDS is honestly heartbreaking because there was nothing these people could do about it to save themselves. In a way though it's uplifting because I'm sure many people (African Americans pointedly)read these stories and understand the hardships that were being faced back then, they can relate and find it very inspiring and fascinating to learn more about AIDS in general. It's sure to touch the lives of some especially with such important issues at hand and to help them get through it all.
Gennavieve, that is hilarious and so true! I am horrible at concelling my emotions and sometimes I give really dirty looks without meaing to. I am also shocked about how bold your author is, but I guess it is a good literary technique if it gets your attention. However I wonder where the line is between attention grabbing and too far? Does it depend of the author, context, audience? Maybe a combo of all three. Just a thought. -Emily Hentschke
Warning this is going to be graphic but it is the sad truth of factory farms. In the book Eating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer examines all aspects of the meat industry. This is how he reports that chickens are raised and slaughtered in factory farms. All chickens are breed to grow as big as possible as fast as possible and with as little food as possible. Because of this breeding many of them are born with painful birth defects and are succeptible to disease. They are shoved in tiny cages stacked on top of eachother whith no room to walk around. The result of this treatment causes many chickens to experience blindness, infections, paralysis, internal bleeding, slipped tendons, respiratory problems and many more. About 95% are infected with E. coli. Luckily these birds dont have to suffer too long, the are typically slaughtered at 42 days old. They are then roughly handled with many bones broken to shove them into transport crates.Once they arrive at the plant they are shackled upside down onto a conveyer that will drag them into an electric bath. This will paralyze them but not render them unconscious. Next their throats are slit. 4 million the birds each year are improperly slaughtered and end up in the scalding tank alive. After the scalding tank all birds are dead and their heads and feet are pulled off. Does this change your prespective of the chicken in your freezer? Do you think it is inhumane to make the animals suffer a painful life and death even if they are made for food. Any thoughts? -Emily Hentschke
Here is some more food for thought that I learned from my book Eating Animals. Slaughtered animals absorb water filled with fecis and countless diseases. Also millions of pounds of animal fecis leak into rivers that you have probably swam in. The USDA knows about all of this as well as the horrible acts of brutality that are committed on the animals. The USDA is in charge of insuraning the industry thrives as well as the plants follow health and moral code. Unfortunately the USDA has unofficially decided that the economic benefits of factory farming are more important than the health of our nation. Is this wrong of the USDA? If given a choice should we pick cheap meat over our health? -Emily Hentschke
I was thinking about what Emily said about cheap meat vs. health. I guess I'm a little torn over the issue because I may not know the extent of the pollution. When you were raised were your parents crazy about germs or did you play in the mud all day? I'm the kind of person who grew up thinking "God made dirt, dirt don't hurt" because I think being exposed to things helps you build up greater immunity. While I'm not fond of thinking about swimming in fecis, who hasn't gone to a public pool that dozens of kids have peed in? In this case I think that "ignorance is bliss" and we're constantly in contact with germs, etc so this pollution might not be drastic. On the other hand, it could be far worse than I imagined. But if cheap meat fuels our economy and some minor pollution aids our immunity the USDA might not need to be very restrictive.
In Freakonomics, unusual questions are answered by discovering underlying relationships of incentives. According to the book, "an incentive is simply a means of urging people to do more of a good thing and less of a bad thing. But most incentives don't come about organically. Someone-an economist or a politician or a parent-has to invent them." My question is: how much of what we do is based upon the manipulation of others? When you're younger you're given money for good grades or punishment for bad ones. Like alot of the people in our class, I'm really motivated to get good grades but I'm no longer punished or paid for doing so. Does this mean that the incentives are now organic or are we still operating because of other's input? Do you do sports purely for enjoyment or have other incentives made by others influenced your decisions? How independent really is an individual if they're living in a society, full of influential people?
In response to Karla's question on incentives, I think people generally begin new challenging tasks with incentives as their motive. However once people recieve the incentive they were seeking they may not just drop the task altogether. For instance, if a person plays basketball in high school to try and get girls and whatever other incentive that might come along, they may also be playing for the organic incentive once high school is over and they are still playing pick up games in the gym. Also, a person is as independent as they choose to be regardless of others living in society so long as it is a free society and such freedoms are granted.
One of the central themes in the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer is that "if nothing matters than there is nothing to save."The quote comes from the authors grandmother who was a European Jewish woman who survived the Holocaust. She said the quote to a man who offered her pork when she was starving as a response to why she refused to stay kosher even though it could have killed her. Does this quote resonate in any part of your life? Although none have us have probably ever faced starvation, or anything nearly as extreme as the grandmother faced, how does the quote make you feel?
Currently in Freakonnomics I am reading about how the name your parents give you can change your chances of getting a good job. For example if your child was named Jamal he is less likely to get a high-paying job, however if you named your child a typical "white" name, such as Jake, he is more likely to get a high wage job.
I was wondering if you guys thought that corporate America is still racist enough to turn down someone with a typical "ethnic" name, and choose someone with a "whiter" name? And if so, why do you think that certain people still are racist?
In response to Emily H.'s post about cheap meat, first of all that whole thing about asorbign feces is disgusting, but I think that treating animals humanely is important, I am not a vegetarian so I do think that cows should still be used for meat, among other things, however I do not think that animals being slaughtered for meat should be killed in a violent and inhumane manner. I think their death should be the same as humans who are given the death penatly, painless and quick. If cows are being killed in an extremely violent way I do not believe that the meat should be sold without the buyer knowing how this animal was slaughtered.
In response to Emily's post on racism in corprate America through names. I would agree that a name could represent a persons ethnicity in a negative light. I dont think these big coorporations legitimately try to be racist when reading names but you tend to attach a judgement upon them. Also, certain names have the tendency to evoke lots of different emotions not just racism. That is, when i think of the name hitler i think of fear and terror. However, the name Barney evokes colors and Love. The point is a name holds authority not just racism.
In responce to Emily H's post about selling harmful meat to America, I feel that there is definately something wrong with the USDA. It seems now a days the idea of good old alturism is gone, and the choice of the USDA to serve people potentially harmful meat because of the ecomonic cost is revolting. Is money really more important then someones life? But I guess that is how our socitety thinks. I also think it is horrific that the USDA allows animals to be treated so terribly. I'm not saying animals need to have a luxurious life on the farm, but they at least need to be treated humanely. I may feel this way because I am a vegetarian, but I think animals should at least have a fair life before the are slaughtered and eaten.
In one of the stories in my book "28 Stories of AIDS in Africa" a man finds himself HIV positive with no idea how it could be. Him and his wife knew about AIDS and its destruction on families and made a mutual vow to have a monogomous relationship. When he learned of his HIV positive status he was deeply confused. Do you think a monogomous relationship is a good way to keep AIDS at bay or should all Africans simply stop having sex forever?
Another stab at conventional wisdom by Freakonomis: What are more dangerous, swimming pools or guns? Most people would say guns because they are associated with fear and death, while swimming pools are associated with hot summer days in August and barbeques. However, in a year there is one drowning for every 11,000 residential pools in the US. (So in a country with 6 million pools, this means about 550 kids under age 10 die each year). Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million plus guns. (In a country with about 200 million guns that’s less than 200 kids under ten that die per year). So the likelihood that a child would die from a pool (1 in 11,000) verses death by gun (1 in one million) is more likely.
Another fun fact: Switzerland has more firearms per capita than any other country, yet it is one of the safest places in the world. Does that change anyone’s perception or opinion about guns?
In response to Natalies post those are interesting statistics about guns and pools. I find it suprising, but it makes sense if you really think about it. Still while guns are made to kill things and pools are made to have a good time death is not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of a pool. That is why most people would never make that comparison and why it does not change my perception of guns all that much.
The factory farms discussed in the book Eating Animals are contributing to the creation and spread of diseases such as the bird flu and swine flu. The filthy conditions are prime time for the formation and spread of disease, these diseases are concerning to people as well as animals. The reason being is that pigs are capable of catching flus from birds and people making it easy for the flu to mutate into something humans can catch. The WHO or world health organization, which is generally a conservative group is predicting a worldwide pandemic. This is what they are telling the world in their "things you need to know about pandemic influenza."
"The world may be on the brink of another pandemic. All countries will be affected. Widespread illness will occur. Medical supplies will be inadequate. Large numbers of deaths will occur. Economic and social disruption will be great."
The pandemic they are talking about is predicted to take place if the bird flu mutates into an airborne form. A conservative estimate of 2 million to 7.4 million deaths are predicted if it becomes airborne. Is cheap meat really worth the economic, medical, and moral price we are paying in the long run? Shouldn't more be done to ensure these predictions are not reality?
In response to Natalie's post, those statistics are shocking to me.It is crazy that when you think of guns you associate them with death and yet there are more deaths from pools. How can something that we think of as fun and refreshing have a higher death toll then something as dangerous as a gun? In response to the other question about switzerland it never changed my opinions on guns because I never believed guns killed, but rather people kill.
In response to Dustin's post on how his author uses pathos, I think it was good that he used that instead of a lot of logic. By allowing the reader to be connected emotionally I feel like that helps support his case better than just statistics. It enables the reader to feel bad and side with the immigrants because they now know their story and why they had to cross the border and not just see them as illegal immigrants that should not be here.
In Eating Animals, Foer discusses how people treat animals. Either you are anthropocentrism and assume that animals are here to serve humans and have no emotion towards them, anthropodenial and believe that animals have absolutely no emotion, or you are anthropormorphism and believe that animals are just like humans and have feelings and are capable of having emotion. Which one do you guys think you are? And is it with just your pets or do you feel that way towards all animals?
There are many ways to control the population from wars to plagues to natural disasters. The world is currently over-populated. There are poeple EVERYWHERE. We are also currently in a war and Haiti has just had a tremendous earthquake killing many many people. In response to Gabe's comment, maybe a plague is coming and for a good reason.
In response to Jessica's post, yes i do think that monogomous relationships are a good start at stopping the spread of AIDS. However the situation in Africa is so dire that the disease has spread through much of the population already, simply being in a relationship does not mean that you do not already have HIV. Africa needs to thoroughly inform it's people on the subject of birth control and make it readily available to the population.
I think it's interesting, in response to Jessica's post, how one person can think they are in a monogomous relationship when they've slept around so often. Sure, it's true that once that person gets married they can be in a monogomous relationship but it doesn't stop the spread of AIDs. People need to be very careful especially when they have no ways of "cleansing" themselves of this harmful disease. We are always going to have billions of people in the world and I'm sure if some of us think about it, forbidding Africans from having sex ever doesn't sound TOO terrible because of all the other people in the world. But I don't think that's morally correct to force a nation to stop doing something simply because it would be easier for us, Americans, to deal with. Our medicinal clinics are growing, like everything else in this day and age, I'm sure Africans will get the help they need if it's necessary.
In 28 stories of AIDs in Africa by Stephanie Nolen, I really feel like the author uses a lot of pathos to support her stories on AIDs. It's true, she is basically just retelling somebody else's stroy but the sensory details and descriptive language she uses really makes you feel for those who have this disease. She says there are currently between 26 and 30 million people infected with AIDs in Africa as of now which is basically saying all of Canada's population has it. This is a very shocking fact and is supported greatly by her pathos; maybe unintentionally but it had a huge impact on me.
Ok so guys in my book Eating Animals by Johnathan Safron Foer, he desceibes humans as having to fit into one of three definitions, Anthropocentrism (Humans are the pinnacle of evolution), Anthropodenial (refusual to concede significant experience in likeness between humans and the other animals) and then Anthropomorphism (the urge to project human experieces experiences onto the other animal), and i want to know what you guys thought about that. He says in order to ask "what is an animal? one must first understand what is a human" which means that he is giving you these three groupings trying to see what people classify themselves as.
To comment on Ashley’s post, I completely agree with her point that in a story on a topic such as Aids, pathos is probably the most effective way to present an argument. Aids is an emotional topic were the average person would not be moved solely by statistics. The use of pathos to invoke lasting images and arouse emotions is much more powerful than simply using the shock factor of statistics.
In response to Natalie's post on Freakenomics and guns vs swimming pools...that is outrageous! And intersting. I'm not going to say that I'm surprised--after working as a lifeguard it is pretty apparent that swimming is a dangerous passtime for some, but you make a good point that guns do seem like they would be a far more dangerous weapon to children under the age of 10. Sounds like an arguement that the NRA would like to touch on...could definately support their position.
In response to Lacy's post about Eating Animals, I'm wondering if we could maybe lie somewhere in the middle? (personally at least) While I agree that animals do have sense and such, I don't think that the affection that a goldfish shows you (none) vs the compassion of a dog (love :]) is the same. I wouldn't eat an animal that I personally have a close relationship with, but I have no hard feelins about eating a fish. So I would say that I would lean more towards classifying them as beings without emotion. Weird thought.
So the book that I am reading, Blink, has one million trippy statistics about the human brain and initial reactions and judgements and statements about the concious mind. One of the things that stood out the most to me, however, was a link to a test that Harvard college was doing and what the results of this test imply. This test judges your reaction time to positive and negative connotations between black and white people and then states your racial preference based soley on your subconcious reactions. A majority of people who have taken the test (including African Americans) scored a preference for whites simply because of the stereotypes that have been associated with different races. An African American student took this test every day and had the same resulting answers--save one day when he took it and ended up favoring African Americans. Why was this? Because he had been watching and Olympic dash in which a black man won. I encourage you to go test yourself...I did.
“When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.” - African Proverb
The proverb on the first page sets up the theme of the book perfectly. This quote is a metaphor to the power and overwhelming effects of when the governments of countries go to war. The aftershocks of a declaration of war touches everyone, even the children as in the case of the Sudanese children from the novel They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky. When the governments of countries go to war without the peoples consent or through public manipulation, it is always the people that suffer. What are your thoughts on the proverb? Do you guys believe the proverb still holds true today?
That a group of scientists did an experiment where there were 2 decks of cards (a red deck and a blue deck) and monitored someone playing a game. The rules were...draw from either deck until you win based on a point system...and announce when you have figured out what the strategy to winnning is. As it turned out, the red deck allowed for a greater accumulation of points more rapidly and deducted points equally as fast, whereas the blue deck was a steady, consistant way to win the game. After hooking up the subject to machines that monitored his heart rate and sweat. After drawing only 10 cards the subjects body began to react. When he picked up a red card he would produce more sweat and have an increase in heart rate. It took him over EIGHTY cards to conciosuly figure out how to beat the game. What do these results mean? Simply that your concious mind can often times be a much swifter and far more accurate judge of your surroundings. Food for thought.
In response to Clair’s comment, I believe it would be important for more people to be tested and undergo this test so that we as a society can raise awareness to how real these stereotypes are in our minds. SInce all the reactions take place subconsciously, it is very possible that simply through education these stereotypes can be reduced and help us progress as a more just and fair society for all.
Consider this quote from the novel They Pored Fire On Us From the Sky, “They’re coming from a place without cars, running water, or enough food to survive, to a land of freeways, faucets that spout water without being touched and so much food it’s probably our biggest health threat.” This quote gives the audience a perspective on the comparison of their lives to those of the African’s. The power in this lies behind the juxtaposing of these ideas. The stark contrast creates a vivd image in the readers mind. Without this quote many readers would have a difficult time understanding exactly how opposite the social, political, economic situations are between Africa and a developed nation.
I'm reading the Devil's Highway and here's an interesting quote that I discovered while reading: “The American Southwest is losing $190 million in unpaid bills and tens of millions of these could be contributed to medical attention for illegals, including those dropped off by the border patrol.” I thought this was very interesting because Americans can't turn away people that are in need of "life saving", even if they are illegal immigrants. Do you think that America should allow illegal immigrants, needing lifesaving or not, into the medical facilities in America or do you think they should be cared for in their own country where they are legal?
In response to Brittney's comment, I think that we have a moral responsibility to attend to those who need life-saving if it's within our ability. Granted, this complicates financial issues but it's insensitive to measure worth in dollars rather than quality of life. There's also a potential that they could not receive adequate aid in their own country, if any at all. Or if they could it may be costly or likewise. It's hard to accept that people, who're we're trying to help, cannot return the favor and are putting more economic strain on ourselves but I still believe that America has a strong moral duty. Relative to other countries, we're decent financially and we are role models for equality. It would be a poor reflection on our country to deny those who need our help AND ask for it.
So fun fact: in 2015, names like Clementine, Flannery, Maeve, and Waverly are "bound to become tomorrow's mainstream names" for girls and Aldo, Beckett, Johan, McGregor and Sander for boys. In the book I'm reading (Freakonomics) the author suggests that there is a pattern for naming: a name starts off at the high end of social status and works it's way down. He means that names associated with rich children or well-off families tend to become the most popular names a few decades (or so) later and the once most popular names digress to "low-end" income names. So Madison, once a high-end income name, became really popular and will soon be considered more or less cheap soon. The seemingly ridiculous names mentioned before are the previously "rich" names, soon to be popular names. So my question: Would you name your daughter Flannery? What criteria would you consider in naming your child? Obviously there is social expectations and connotations with names so is that a primary factor?
The accounts from the novel "They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky," show ,the reader the strength and perseverance thousands of young sudanese boys, the "lost boys", had through true accounts of trekking across Sudan. These boys were caught up in the horrors of a civil war, one of the worst in Sudanese history. The young boys didn't know what was happening to them or why, they only knew they had to help each other survive. Finally about a decade after they fled, the USA allowed a number of the "lost boys" to be relocated to America. I think it was great the US helped the lost boys, but how come it took them ten years to start relocating the lost boys? Was the situation not devastating enough on American standard to start rescuing the boys? This reminds be of Haiti, things there were awful before the earthquake, yet we only started helping Haiti once the earthquake struck and things hit rock bottom. With this being said, do you think America truly is doing enough to help other nation, or are we ignorant until things hit rock bottom?
My book is "They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky." the novel tells the story of three lost boys and their journey across Sudan in search of safety. one thing that is very evident in the novel is all of the boys desire for education. Why do you think these lost boys value education so much more than we do here in America?
In my book Freakonomics, it discusses the differences between "black" names and "white" names. Some examples of the "black" names for boys are Darnell, Malik, Jamal, and Trevon. Boy "white" names are Lucas, Cole, Jake, and Connor. Why do you think different names are put into these categories? Do you think it is because of the different culture? Why are we being brought up thinking that names are white or black?
In response to Emily’s post about Freakonomics and drug dealers, I’m sure that these drug dealers live with their mother’s so they can live under the radar of government. They wouldn’t have to pay taxes or pay their own bills and ultimately be “invisible” from government supervision. Because if they worked at McDonalds, or any other minimum wage paying job, they are not exempt from any of these taxes, and now the government can keep tabs on what they’re doing. And let’s face it, most of these drug dealers have already had criminal records not involving drugs and probably have been in Juvenal Hall if not prison, and living a life of risk. This might be even more of hinder in getting a normal minimum wage job because of their records. When their lives start out as a risky business this is probably all they’ve been exposed to and don’t know how to survive on money that was earned or being a normal citizen.
In response to Christen’s post about helping out the AIDS epidemic in Africa, I would have to agree with the author that Africa is past the point of being helped. At this point there are so many cases of AIDS that the only extreme way to guarantee to stop it spreading any further was to exile any kind reproducing acts in the African culture. And this would be extremely controversial and likely racial if this was the U.S. advocating this, considering our history with Africans as slaves. Not only would there be no absolute control over this proposal, it would consider the African culture to be wiped out completely. The only real and humane way to help these AIDS victims is to have a cure for the disease, and we are just not at that point in history to make these kinds of amends. The only way we can really help these AIDS victims is to donate money to research for the cure, but unfortunately it won’t have any immediate affects on the people waiting for this cure, it would be a long, grueling, and agitating process of helping these victims.
Hey everyone! I read the book Eating Animals. This book is about the authors research about the handling of animals before the are butchered and how they are killed to become the meat that we eat. I found his purpose for researching the topic at hand interesting. He says that all his life he had always kind of tousled back and forth between being a vegetarian and eating meat. Yet, ever since Foer and his wife got pregnant, he began to wonder what was the proper way to rear his child, as a vegetarian or as a carnivore. Do you think that because he is doing all the research for the betterment of his son that this improves credibility?
In my book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking the author describes the feeling we call our “gut feeling”, when you just know something is wrong or you make a decision based on what your gut is telling you without any conceivable reason why. He calls this method “thin slicing”: it’s our ability to gauge what is really important from a very narrow period of experience. One of my personal favorite TV shows incorporates a version of this “thin slicing”. “Lie to Me” is inspired by actual scientific discoveries of a real-life psychologist who can read clues embedded in the human face, body, and voice to expose the truth and lies in criminal investigations. In a split second, our very first reaction to a question, event, or statement is depicted on our face that very split second it’s asked. We try to hide these emotions no matter what the reason, but the scientist on the show Dr. Cal Lightman can see these expressions in that split second it’s shown on your face, no matter how you try to mask it. If you lie to him, he’ll see it in your face and your posture or hear it in your voice. If you shrug your shoulder, rotate your hand or even just slightly raise your lower lip, he can tell if you’re lying. Lightman is using his observations of that split second the criminal “thin-slices” and show his emotions in that split second. While I was reading this book I found it fascinating that I could incorpate this science in a “real-life” experience/ something I was familiar with.
In my book Blink, there was a section of the book that observed a scientist that claimed he knew when a player would double-fault before the racket even met with the ball. The science behind this was all about “thin slicing” as I mentioned in a previous post. And this got me thinking, I wonder if this man’s premonition about the immediate future and its outcomes was in correlation to what psychics call “visions”. Could these psychics not be gifted people at all, but merely have the intense skill of thin slicing a person the second they walk through the door? What do you guys think?
Responding to Rachel's question about the incentives of money, i think that for many people money can be a poison that possesses people to do things they normally wouldn't do. i think even placing placing myself in that position its hard for me to say what i would do. i mean its important to me to maintain integrity, but i could see how someone would manipulate scores to enable then to get a bonus. $20,000 is a lot of money, and that's a lot of money for a teacher as well. On average in California a teacher makes a $60,000. That's a third of what they make annually. So sure, i don't support the act of altering the scores, but within reason i can understand where they come from.
In my book, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell had talked about how two rival whiskey companies conducted taste tests with the labels on the bottles, off the bottles, and switched on the bottles, and they found that one whiskey's taste was more appealing than the others, but when customers saw the label and bottle shape of one, they teanded to prefer it over the better flavor of the other. Since having read that, I have agreed that I tend to do the same thing. I pick and choose food and drink based on the label, not just the flavor. Have you noticed yourself doing the same thing? Why do you think that is?
when reading "they poured fire on us from above" it really struck me how the lost boys continued to persevere through near death starvation and thirst. Even while others were dying around them they managed to push themselves on farther. What do you think it is that gives them this motivation? and what would motivates you to do the same?
in response to lindas question, I can definitely relate to the same experience especially when choosing between drinks and foods. I think that most name brand things have already proven themselves and so you feel that you can trust them. When you get something that is name brand you feel comfortable. You have most likely had it before and you know exactly what to expect. this is different from trying something new because although something new could be great, it also could be an extreme disappointment. So really when you buy something name brand you aren't risking, you're playing it safe as opposed to trying something new, you could be in for surprise either way!
In response to laurens comment I think that his research makes him WAY less credible to make that decision for his child. He researches how the food is handled and not the health affects the food could have on his child. Regardless of how we treat our livestock, the health issues which have to do with eating meat and carnivorous products is an entirely different issue. From all of his research he will undoubtable have a bias against meat products, simply because he believes the processes they go through are disgusting and inhumane, and therefore will be more likely to deny meat products from his son. however he could be making this decision at the expense of his childs health if he is unaware of the actual health affects of carnivorous vs non-carnivorous behaviors.
I just read Lynda's post and I thought that was really interesting. I find myself doing that as well with products. Whenever I walk into a superstore I am overwhelmed with all the pretty colors and sights, especially fruit, it makes me want to buy them all. I think we do this because we find something attractive, and in out mind if it looks pretty and nice, it is obviously going to taste the same too.
Jesse, in his novel he does discuss the heath benefits and of each of the ways of eating and the contradicting information that scientists release. so he doesn't strictly choose whether to raise his child based on whether it is humane or not but he does discuss the health benefits too. -Lauren Dillier
Linda, I totally agree that I do the same things with any kind of product. Like if I'm out eating lunch and there is a choice of having root beer from the glass bottle or from just an A&W plastic bottle, I would probably choose the glass one just because it seems more fun. Then again, this is the goal of the production companies and just goes to show that a good label can sell any item. Anyhow, I find myself doing the same thing. -Lauren Dillier
So I was talking to my mom about the book i read Eating Animals and we talked about the treatment of animals and raising them to be butchered to be eaten. She has often said that if we had to raise our own animals to later be eaten that she would be a vegetarian. and i was taking to her also about the current treatment of some of the animals at factory farms. and we both agree with a lot of the treatment that still goes on today is wrong. for example one of the methods that is still practiced today for pigs that aren't quite big enough to be sent to the slaughter house, is that the workers pick op the pigs by their hind feet and throw them over their head and smash the pigs into the concrete ground till there dead. If you think this is acceptable, than that's just disgusting. and ever since Wednesday the 17th, I've actually stopped eating meat for the pure purpose that i never want to eat something that allows people to treat another animal that way. As the consumer we have the ability to control what these cooperation's do. If we refuse to buy from places that treat animals this way, we can force them to change their ways or else go out of business. Its not that I'm looking to become a vegetarian, but i just feel that there is a better way to treat these animals even if their gonna die anyway.I just want to hear what you guys think about this and your view on how we should treat animals even if they end up going to the slaughter house anyway. -Lauren Dillier
In response to what Jesse posted, i think that, when the heart and soul are pushed peoples bodies can do unimaginable things. When people come into these dire situation they do things that they could normally not do. I have seen situations and lived in situation like these that things like that preserve. The human body is not just controlled by joints and muscles, but it is controlled by the heart, and the emotions that your brain is putting out. When people need the strength their bodies come forth when needed
In response to Lynda's post about the labeling, i agree with that completely. It all to me has a lot to do with psychological reasoning, and they way that you are use to things. We talked a lot about labels in my Gov/Econ class last term, because when we talked about health care and a public option because no matter what people will never give up the fact of labels, its sometimes a sign of class. Like with clothing, sometimes you can find clothes that are at Abercrombie that would be at like Wal-Mart, will people buy it from there, not unless they usually buy clothes from there. Its a matter of class sometimes other times its a matter of dependability. Sometimes when people pay for things its because they think that if you pay more it will last longer.
Okay guys, in my book for the first part of it Foer describes him as being an On again off again vegetarian, and i want to know how you guys feel about that. Can you commit to something you feel so strongly about and then just give it up, while still thinking you are still going to pick it back up when it is convenient for you. What do you guys think about that, can you truly be committed to something if your only doing it when its convenient for you???
Hi guys!! I hope you are all enjoying your books! I know mine is very interesting. I chose to read Blink by Malcom Gladwell. So far, this book discusses how our mind makes split second choices, and what our mind is trained to choose. In one of the sections Gladwell discusses when President Warren Harding assumed the office of presidency. Gladwell talks about how many historians have claimed he rose through the political ranks based largely on the power of his classically attractive "tall, dark, and handsome" physical appearance. I was thinking about this a great deal, and I wondered if that happened with the 2008 election? Do you think part of the reason Obama was chosen was because he was African American? I know that wasn’t the whole reason he was elected, but do you think it influenced people’s votes?
ReplyDelete~Gennavieve
Gennavieve, I think you bring up a very interesting point. I believe that his race could have definitely won him some votes and have been an advantage. Many people feel it would be exciting and revolutionary to have the first African American president, possibly being the deciding factor for some votes. As much as we are told not to judge a book by its cover, we all know that almost everytime we go to the bookstore the cover definitely influences the decision. I am sure that Obama got many votes based on his policies, but there is no doubt in my mind that some of them were for his race not for him.
ReplyDelete-Emily Hentschke
In response to Gennavieve's post, I agree with Emily. I think alot of the hype in the 2008 election was becuase both Obama and McCain brought something that has never happened before; an African American president or a female vice president. Obama had alot more charisma and popularity and I feel that many of those who were against Bush and part of the middle-class majority were looking for something fresh and new in America, which Obama provided. The fact that he was an African American running for president was something America has never seen, giving them hope that change could be better.
ReplyDeleteHi guys. So I chose to read Freakonomics, in the chapter I read today it talked about the different levels of drug dealers and it asked the question "Why do drug dealers live with their moms?". The answer was because certain levels of drug dealers only make $3.50 an hour (lower than the minimum wage). Why do you think that people would risk being an illegal drug dealer and making less than minimum wage, when they could work at McDonalds recieve $8.00 an hour?
ReplyDeleteRegarding Emily Wood's post, I find it very intersting that some drug dealers live with their moms. I would think that drug dealers would risk getting caught and making less than minimum wage because they like that they don't have to actually "work" anywhere. Truthfully, they aren't commited to actually going to work every day and the only boss that they have are themselves. They can go on vacation whenenver so they can make their own schedule which is pretty convenient. Also, not all drug dealers make less than minimum wage. Some make quite a bit of money and I'm sure that could make some other lower payed drug dealers hopeful that they too could make their "big break" someday.
ReplyDelete-Brittney Baltzley
How would you feel if you had to drink your own urine? Further what if I told you that drinking your own urine was actually good for you and could cure wounds and many illnesses? While reading my book The Devil’s Highway, the author describes in great detail how the Mexican people who traveled on the desolate desert have to survive by drinking urine. He briefly touches on the affects of urine but I wanted to investigate more. During my research I found many articles explaining how therapeutic and healing urine can be. Today cow and horse urine are found in many face and body creams because it is very moisturizing. History states that the Aztecs used it to cure wounds and other topical sores. Other cultures such as the Hindu and Ancient Chinese have been known to drink their urine. Urine is made of 95% water and contains many minerals and even hormones. People have been known to drink urine for lack of sleep, fevers, oral infections, diabetes, and cancer and enhance fertility. I don’t know about you but it sounds like its not that bad, but actually doing it would take a lot of guts. So what do you think? Does drinking urine sound that bad anymore when you really think about it? Guess you can’t know till you try it! Haha just kidding
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily Wood’s blog about dug dealers living with their mothers, I don’t find it strange at all. Drug dealers can’t afford anything and are always tired so where do they go…Mommy’s house because mom will always take care of their baby boy even if they are selling illegal drugs. They would rather just bum money and a place to live off mom then be a real functional adult and go out and get a higher paying job because its too hard and too risky.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jessica’s post about the benefits found in drinking urine, I find it very shocking! I knew that some facial products contained urine, but in terms of increasing fertility and curing cancer, I had no idea! I do have to say, I’m so happy that I don’t live during the time of the Aztecs! I mean, desperate times call for desperate measures, but yucky! Just thinking about it makes me shudder. After reading the post, drinking urine still sounds disgusting, but for some people, the benefits might be worth it.
ReplyDelete~Gennavieve
In response to Jessica's post about drinking urine, I find it really gross as well. But in my book "They Poured Fire Upon Us From the Sky", the children that had to cross a desert with extreme weather conditions also had to drink their own urine for survival. It was so sad since the children were so young and had to go through so much just to stay alive. When it comes to life or death, if drinking urine will help you to survive than I agree with it. But no one should have to experience that, especially young children. That is very interesting about how it is in facial products and can help cure cancer, though. I never knew this until now.
ReplyDeleteI am readin "They Poured Fire on us From the Sky" which recounts 3 different boys' stories of experincing the war in Sudan during their childhood. It is amazing what these boys did to survive and the things they went through are horrifying. While thousands of children, women, and men were constantly being chased by the Northern Arabs, not alot of outside help came in to bring them food, resources, etc until after the war had started and many had already died. I found this similar to the situation in Haiti where the US didn't come in to help the people until after a major earthquake hit and destroyed there country and killed many people. Although I feel that helping those who are struggling is good, is it our job to always be there for every country in need? Is there a limit to how much help we can offer?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily Wood's post, even though it is really funny that a large portion of drug dealers still live with there moms, i don't find it ironic. Most drug dealers are hooked to a certain drug themselves and therefore have a difficult time living a normal life. They need someone who is always watching out for them, feeding them, putting a roof over their head, and so on, and that person is mom. Also, even though the wage is low compared to that of the pay from a minimum wage job, dealing gives them a flexible schedule and their paycheck does not include government tax deducted out of it every month. Furthermore, by living with their moms they don't have to pay for rent, electricity bills, water, and all the other grown up bills they would have to pay if they were living on their own. It looks like drug dealers have it made. (don't get any ideas people :)
ReplyDelete-Emily Mattevi
In response to Kelsey's post, as much as i feel compassion towards the countries that struggle day in and day out with no outside aid, i do not think it is our job to provide for all struggling countries all the time. In our suffering economy today, it is difficult to provide for people in our own country. We must look after our own country and citizens before any other. For instance, the states that were hit by hurricane Katrina are still trying to rebuild there communities and cities. They still need money and resources as much as any other country. I do however, in time of crisis such as right now in Haiti, think that it is important for strong countries to help out. This may sound contradicting, however think of the current issues in the United States. We are in a economic crisis, yet we are not relying on other countries to pull us out. It is a serious issue, but is something that can be solved internally. One the other hand, if we had a sudden famine or serious crisis in which we could not help ourselves, we would depend on foreign help.
ReplyDelete-Emily Mattevi
I am reading "28 Stories of AIDS in Africa", a very interesting book that gives background on the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and gives real life examples on how it is overwhelming the country of Africa. The book includes 28 different stories from people whose lives have been affected by HIV/AIDS. The author chose to write about only 28, representing 1 story for every million people infected. Through the chapters it explains how the infection spreads, and ways to prevent it from spreading as well. Information about AIDS and lessons of abstinence are taught throughout Africa. Protection is provided in some places; however, still most people refuse to use them. Since previous efforts from advocates have failed in most parts of Africa, what other methods do you think would work to spread the message and information?
ReplyDelete-Emily Mattevi
I think Kelsey brings up a really good point by bringing in problem’s the world faces today. I think that America needs to help others as much as possible, but focus on keeping themselves secure. There should be an equal balance between help for others and help for self. I believe that it is America's duty to give help to all those who reach out for it, however if our own country is not stable, we should not give as much help. It may cause more harm than good if America tries to solve another country’s problems when we are already deep in our own struggles. This does not mean that if a problem arises in America we should drop all help, I just think we need to be responsible in terms of how much help we give.
ReplyDelete~Gennavieve
In response to Emily’s question about what methods can be taken to prevent people from getting aids in Africa: I think this issue is impossibly challenging because in order for the spread of aids to be discontinued the entire country would have to change. Without money to buy modern contraception or education, not only do people not know about these methods but they cannot afford them. Aids are very prevalent in poverty stricken areas and can only be fought by taken small persistent steps to change. This disease cannot be cured overnight; however, there are many ways to provide for these people. Through money donations people can provide education, raise awareness, and provide medical services.
ReplyDeletehttps://my.care.org/site/Donation2?df_id=2200&2200.donation=form1&df_id=2200&s_src=170940890000&s_subsrc=redggsrchaidstxt&utm_source=googlegrants&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=help%20aids%20in 20africa&utm_content=fightAIDS&utm_campaign=redaidsinafrica2200
In response to Jessica’s comment about drinking urine, I have actually heard that drinking your own urine can be good for you. I agree that it would take a lot of guts to do it and I would personally never try it unless it was a life and death situation! Just thinking about it makes me sick. But I guess if you have to do it to survive then it’s worth it.
ReplyDeleteI am currently reading Freakonomics and one of the main themes is about incentives. In the first chapter it discusses how many people will act immorally to achieve an incentive. For example, it talks about how many teachers are cheating for their students on the standardized tests because if a teacher raises their student’s scores, they would get a $20,000 bonus or a possible promotion. Why do you think many people will act immorally to get an incentive? Would you?
ReplyDeleteI was so surprised when reading my book about the 3 boys stories of their childhood during war and when I found out how young they were. These boys were only 4,5 or 6 yrs old and they were completely on their own, trying to fend for themselves and survive. Occasionally, they would run into family but than get separated from each other in the midst of the war. Today, these boys are older now, around 20 yrs old, and decided to put their horrifying stories into this book. Why do you think they were all able to remember everything so vividly from when they were so young? I know I don't remember hardly anything from when I was that young, but their stories are so detailed and accurate. Why do you think this is?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kelsey's blog about the boys being so young and being able to remember the details of their stories so vividly, I think they would be able to remember their stories from their childhood so well because it was such a traumatic experience for them. We obviously don't remember everything from when we were younger, but we remember the things that were super great or very traumatic for us. So, it is just natural that the authors would remember everything from their experiences.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone use Listerine mouthwash? Get this, Listerine was invented in the nineteenth century as a powerful surgical antiseptic but then later sold, in distilled form, as a floor cleaner and a cure for Gonorrhea! The product didn’t hit big until the 1920’s when it was advertised as a solution for “Chronic halitosis” which is just a medical term for bad breath. Until that time, people never thought of bad breath as such a terrible thing but now commercials display couples not being able to be together because of bad breath and couples making out who have good breath. These facts are from my book, “Freakonomis”. It discusses advertising and how it provides conventional wisdom to the consumer. Sometimes the conventional wisdom they speak of is not always correct, companies will say what they need to to sell a product. Do you know of any examples where company’s advertisements can be misleading?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gennavieve's post, I think that Obama's election into office had a lot to do with him being half-black. I think that since Americans were so close to having the very first non-white male president people just elected him, but I also think it has a lot to do with the fact that George Bush was a Republican and American's wanted to give the Democrats a chance to change the Country's economy. Unfortunatly Obama hasn't done what he promised and his approval rating is lower than 50%, so I think American's made the wrong political choice, but the correct social one.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Natalies post, I defintiely have noticed examples of advertising where the "conventional wisdom" is probably false.
ReplyDeleteTake for example, all of the diet pills that are on the market. Many people buy the expensive pills and take them because they think they will work considering they are on the shelves of a credible store, and/or because they are advertised on TV with the before and after pictures.
In some cases, in the before/after pictures however, heads don't show because they are completely different bodies. And in other cases even when it is the persons whole body, a lot of the times those pictured in the advertisements have personal trainers and work out a lot.
"In the lifetime of driving the pitted highways of East Africa, Mohammed reckoned he had had sex with 100,00 women."
ReplyDeleteI am reading the book, "28 Stories of Aids in Africa" That quote was from one of the stories of one of the millions who are infected with Aids in Africa.
Even though Mohammed was most likely off with his count on how many people he had slept with in his 48 years, it gives the reader an idea of how easily and quickly Aids/HIV is spread throughout all of Africa by rape, brothels, and consent.
Throughout the book, the author asks herself and the audience the question of whether or not Africa is passed a stage where they can be helped. What do you think our job as Americans is in Africa's fight against Aids?
In response to Christen's post- Unfortunately, I think that the damage of the Aids crisis in Africa is on the brink of being irreversible. Not only can these people not be healed but with every person that they infect the disease spreads even more. When poverty is unapparent, the government is reliable, education is prominent and accessible, and health care can be provided in Africa that will be the first step to helping this issue. This is a far away ideal and it will take a lot of time to reach; however that is the only way. I don’t think it is America’s responsibility to help this crisis in Africa. I feel that they must make these changes themselves otherwise we cannot help their cause.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kelsey’s blog I agree with Rachael about how children will remember something when they are older because of the traumatic and life changing events that occurred to them. When you are a child only specific elements jump out at you because you can only process so much at a time and because of their situation I can imagine that they took a lot in and were able to remember it because of its lasting impact on them.
ReplyDeleteImagine if you were stranded on a desert and had no water and the only thing to keep you alive was your hope that if you just took one more step you would be saved. If all you could do was just keep walking in search for a better life but you could hardly move because your actual skin was boiling and your insides were eating each other. What would you do? Keep walking or just die? Trust someone to go get water while you wait? Cry? Scream? Pray? Give up? In the story The Devils Highway, this exact circumstance happened to over 20 Mexican men who were on a journey to cross the border into America. They were willing to trust a stranger to “guide” them to a better life because they were so desperate to have something better. They majority of these men died on their quest and some have never been identified or found. Today hundreds of men and families still try to cross the boarder by taking huge life threatening steps in the hopes of starting a new life. So what would you do? Stay and accept your life in a place you hate or risk literally everything and try to defeat death and cross the invisible boarder?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily's first post on "Why drug dealers live with their moms?", I find it ironic that they have to live with their moms. Drug dealers are seen as tough and from the "ghetto" but in reality they probably don't have two dimes to rub together. I feel the reason they stay with their low paying "jobs" is because they have an addiction. Why get off their couch and go to work when they can sleep all day and do drugs all night? To them this is the life. By living with their mothers they most likely have little to no responsibilities and go through their day doing whatever they please.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my book, Eating Animals, the author poses the question "If we can eat cows and chickens, why can't we eat dogs?" and even provides a recipe for stewing a dog which calls for "a medium sized dog". This reminded me of "A Modest Proposal". In "A Modest Proposal" this technique worked, but do you think that in "Eating Animals", this method worked in supporting the authors question of "what justification might I have for sparing dogs but eating other animals?" (pg. 24) and the overall question of the book: "what entitles us to eat certain animals and yet spare others?"
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Lacy's post, I don't think the author's method was as effective in "Eating Animals" as it was in " A Modest Proposal," because in "A Modest Proposal," his solution is absolutely absurd, whereas with eating dogs and other animals, there are at least a few adequate reasons for doing so. For instance, dog meat may not taste as good as cow meat, or have as good of a nutritional value. And in countries like China and Indonesia, eating dogs is not all that uncommon. Someone from Asia might read "Eating Animals" and say that he eats any animal that is slaughtered and cooked and has no idea where this author is coming from. But for Americans, the author does pose an interesting question. So, I think the author of "Eating Animals" has good intentions on using animals, such as dogs, to expose the unknown reasons of why we eat certain animals, but I don't think it has quite the effect that other writings might have.
ReplyDeleteIn my non-fiction novel 28 stories of AIDS in Africa, Stephanie Nolen uses personal stories of people suffering from this horrific disease. From prostitutes, to orphans, to soldiers, to average women with unfaithful husbands. This disease is spreading at astonishing rates. Within several stories the African Governments are denying the problem and stating that its as common as poverty. In South Africa they have gone as far as saying that AIDS medication is "Poison". This is to protect thier own economic progression and not take help from other countries. Therefore people are dying because of stubborn, selfish government interests. Do you think this is a violation of peoples rights? Can/should anything be done to get aide to these people?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kelsey's question about how much help is really necessary for countries in need and how much is adequate. I believe that as blessed Americans it is our duty to share our knowledge with countries that are not as well off. I'm not saying to change their culture and way of life. But to offer better education and basic needs. We are one of the richest countries in the world and it is our obligation to support weaker countries. I believe that if you cover basic needs as well as, better education that is the most efficient way to help. Anything more could potentially overstep your boundaries of giving too much. And not letting them help themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm reading Blink by Malcom Gladwell. At one point in the book he had mentioned the fact that most aptitude tests--such as SAT, ACT, and STAR--request you bubble your ethnicity on the answer sheet. Tests had been conducted where African Americans had not done as well on tests that asked for that information versus not. Do you think ethnicity questions serve a logical purpose on answer sheets?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jessica's post, I believe that unless the government is directly preventing citizens with AIDS from receiving treatment, they are not violating any rights. America is making definite contributions in aiding AIDS treatment via programs such as World Vision.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Lacy's post and Dustin's comment, you can be nearly certain that there is a tribe somewhere on this planet that finds it perfectly moral to eat babies (cannibal tribes). If the tribe chief happened to read "A Modest Proposal", he would find it to be an ethical proposal. As Dustin said, certain regions in Asia see dog and cat meat as a delicacy (as well as infants, I've actually heard, read, and seen), therefore I believe perception of satire is primarily induced by cultural up-bringing.
ReplyDeleteI am reading the novel The Devil's Highway: A true Story. It is about 26 illegal immmigrants that are led through the Devil's Highway desert in Arizona to get into the United States. By the end when they are rescued only 14 survived from the death march. The author makes his point that both our border policies and Mexico's as well is what really caused these people to perish, and we should abolish our border patrol all together. His opinion on the whole matter is we should allow anyone to walk across the border. I personally do not agree with this, our borders not only protect the US from waves of illegal immigrants entering , but also from criminals trying to get into Mexico and runaway from the law or vice versa or from other threats. I do agree that our border policies are ubsurd, but should be revamped not removed completely.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the book I am reading, The Devil's Highway, the author gives a whole bunch of ligistics of all the money that illegal immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy. He also brings up how there will five million more jobs in the U.S. in 2008. Some of his statistics seem sort of misleading because how can you possibly account for all the illegal immigrants who we are not supposed to know anyways because thay are not even supposed to be here anyways. So I ask, do you guys think it is good or bad for our economy to remove our border security and aloow anyone to come into our country? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIn the book I'm reading, They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky, a novel where three young men write accounts of their journey across Sudan when they were forced out of their villages to in attempts to search for a safe place and any remaining family. While reading it, some of the hardships the boys endured are so horrific, it is hard to believe a nine year old boy could withstand and be so brave. Near the end of the book one of the boys, Alepho, says, "This made me think that there was no safe place in the world and there would always be fighting. Everybody was depressed and angry." This quote just really popped out at me, these boys had been through so much, living in doubt for ten years, and it makes me wonder, is there really a safe place in the world? I'm trying to think of a moment in time when there wasn't fighting, and its impossible, and I find that really sad.
ReplyDeleteHey guys! Okay so again i am reading the book "28 Stories of AIDS in Africa". I just finished reading a chapter about an affluent female doctor, who is HIV positive, living and working in one of the largest and hardest hit cities in Africa with HIV, Malawi. I came upon this quote that i found to be very interesting.
ReplyDelete"At Tisungane (the hospital), all health staff are given priority and moved to the top of the waiting list for treatment drugs, and that is unofficial policy in most public-sector clinics across the country as well."
Because so many people are becoming infected with HIV, doctors, nurses, and well-educated people included, there is a waiting list for drugs. I personally think that it is a very smart move on there part, for you can't afford to lose doctors who are trying to help the citizens get better. Without doctors and nurses, no treatment would be available at all.
Do you guys too think that it is smart to give health workers first priority? Do you think that it is unfair to put someone on the list above someone else who has been waiting for months, just because they have a higher education and medical training?
-Emily Mattevi
In the book, "28 Stories of Aids in Africa" this quote is from one of the woman, Prisca Mhlolo.
ReplyDelete"When we came, something funny happened. That loving and caring husband changed into a monster. She had climbed straight into bed, and now Bruce stood over her. He said, 'Prisca, look here. Your Aids, we left it at the hospital. In this house I am in charge of you."
Basically, Prica's husband gets incredibly mad when she finds out she is diagnosed with Aids even though he was the one who gave it to her. He wants to keep it a secret and himself as well as other family memebers hurt her physically numerous times when the subject of Aids was brought up.
Do you think it makes sense for someone who has Aids to be fearful of it? This may seem like a silly question but through this book I have learned that the only way to keep living with the disease is to not be afraid of it. How do you think one would overcome this fear?
In response to Greg's comment, I think it is a very bad idea to allow illegal immigrants into our country.
ReplyDeleteI understand people want to some to America, and they should be able to do that, but they need to do it the legal way. The reason for this is that as Americans, we are spending our tax dollars on them.
The are included when the government talks about those without healthcare, and they can get money from the government from our taxes.
If no one in America was in poverty, and no one in America needed help, I may have a different opinion. However, as a nation I think it's our responsibility to take care of the people who are here legally first.
In response to Christen's question on whether I think someone should be fearful who has AIDs and I say no. To keep living on a normal life one cannot allow a thing like AIDs to define the person you are going to be. You must not allow it to run your life or keep you from living your life to the fullest. To overcome this fear one needs to come to the realization that they have two paths to take: either you you take the road where you give up all hope or take the other road and get back up on the horse and fight through.
ReplyDeleteHey guys, I'm reading the book the Devil's Highway and it's about mexican immigrants and their attempt to cross the border illegally. One of the main parts in the book is where the author talks about these men called "coyotes" who mislead the Mexicans and tell them that it will only take them a few hours to safely reach U.S. soil, when in reality it could take weeks to cross it. These "coyotes" tell the people this because they make a ton of money and the people end up dying so they don't even have to lead them all the way to the border and into America illegally. What do you think that the Mexican Government could do to prevent so many deaths and encourage them to either cross the border legally, or to remain in Mexico?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily's post on whether higher educated people should get medical treatment first, I think it is fair. Now I know that probably alot of people would disagree, but I think it comes down to who has a more essential purpose. In the medical field, it would definately be the doctors and nurses, so I think they should be first on the list. Besides, the ratio of regular citizens to doctors and nurses is very uneven, so I don't think it would have a major impact if doctors and nurses recieved first-hand care over the large population. And as Emily said, the doctors are the ones who help take care of the people, so it makes sense to keep them in top condition with first-hand care.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm reading the book, The Devil's Highway, and a big portion of the book takes the reader through all the hardships that the 26 illegal immigrants went through to get to America. The author, who is Mexican-American, uses a large amount of pathos to support his argument that there should be no border restrictions. He tries to get the reader to have great sympathy upon the these people, but other than that, he does not have a whole lot of reasoning, besides his stats on the economy and such that Greg mentioned above. Do you guys think the author would have done better to focus more on reasoning to argue his point, or should he have kept it the way it is with alot of emotion?
ReplyDeleteRegarding Emily's post, I think that all people no matter if they are health care workers or not should be taken into consideration when deciding who to administer drugs to. How is right to give a doctor medicine when someone else that isn't a doctor is just as in need of the medicine as he is. It's not right to judge people based on their resume especially when dealing with a disease such as AIDS. AIDS is something that you get through sexual contact, sharing contaminated syringes, perinatal transmission, or misconceptions. Basically, it's not something that you just have, except in the case of perinatal transmission of course. Choices are involved and if you are suffereing from AIDS, you obiously weren't very careful in making sure that you were being safe. Therefore, all people should be on the same waiting list, no matter if there are health workers on there or not. All decisions have consequences and people should think about that before making risky decisions.
ReplyDeleteJust a reminder I‘m reading Blink by Malcom Gladwell.
ReplyDeleteI found a very interesting, thought provoking, and a bit risqué quote.
“Silvan Tomkins once began a lecture by bellowing, “The face is like the penis!” What he meant was that the face has, to a large extent, a mind of its own. This doesn’t mean we have no control over our faces. We can use our voluntary muscular system to try to suppress those involuntary responses. But, often, some little part of that suppressed emotion-such as the sense that I’m really unhappy even if I deny it-leaks out.”
I read this, and I laughed out loud. Then, I realized what Gladwell is saying is very true. Have you guys ever had an instance where your feelings were expressed on your face even though you tried to cover them up?
Take the classic example of Ol’ Grandma’s cooking. Some Grandmas are the best cooks ever! However, some Grannies have lost their touch. Let's follow the second Grandma. The one who is getting older and it seems she has lost a few taste buds because her cooking taste‘s like dog food. Of course when you go to her house she always fixes you something nice to eat. How sweet! Of course you can’t refuse Grammy! You try to swallow the nasty foreign bite you just spooned in your mouth, and then she asks you the question, “How is it dear?” This is when your face betrays you. In that moment of truth, you mouth may be uttering, “So delicious Grammy!” but your face is saying, “GET THIS OUT NASTINESS OF MY MOUTH RIGHT NOW I’M GOING TO GAG!” Lets hope some of us are lucky and Grandma’s vision is fading and she can’t tell you made a face.
Doesn’t it frustrate you when your face betrays you?
~Gennavieve
Hey everyone, so I'm reading 28 stories of AIDS in Africa as well and I agree with Greg on the idea that you can't be afraid of someone who has AIDS or even if you yourself have it.It's a really hard thing to never think about because you will never really have a normal life but in order to be the best person you can be you have to put your fears behind you.
ReplyDeleteI think reading about AIDS is honestly heartbreaking because there was nothing these people could do about it to save themselves. In a way though it's uplifting because I'm sure many people (African Americans pointedly)read these stories and understand the hardships that were being faced back then, they can relate and find it very inspiring and fascinating to learn more about AIDS in general. It's sure to touch the lives of some especially with such important issues at hand and to help them get through it all.
ReplyDeleteGennavieve, that is hilarious and so true! I am horrible at concelling my emotions and sometimes I give really dirty looks without meaing to. I am also shocked about how bold your author is, but I guess it is a good literary technique if it gets your attention. However I wonder where the line is between attention grabbing and too far? Does it depend of the author, context, audience? Maybe a combo of all three. Just a thought.
ReplyDelete-Emily Hentschke
Warning this is going to be graphic but it is the sad truth of factory farms. In the book Eating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer examines all aspects of the meat industry. This is how he reports that chickens are raised and slaughtered in factory farms. All chickens are breed to grow as big as possible as fast as possible and with as little food as possible. Because of this breeding many of them are born with painful birth defects and are succeptible to disease. They are shoved in tiny cages stacked on top of eachother whith no room to walk around. The result of this treatment causes many chickens to experience blindness, infections, paralysis, internal bleeding, slipped tendons, respiratory problems and many more. About 95% are infected with E. coli. Luckily these birds dont have to suffer too long, the are typically slaughtered at 42 days old. They are then roughly handled with many bones broken to shove them into transport crates.Once they arrive at the plant they are shackled upside down onto a conveyer that will drag them into an electric bath. This will paralyze them but not render them unconscious. Next their throats are slit. 4 million the birds each year are improperly slaughtered and end up in the scalding tank alive. After the scalding tank all birds are dead and their heads and feet are pulled off. Does this change your prespective of the chicken in your freezer? Do you think it is inhumane to make the animals suffer a painful life and death even if they are made for food. Any thoughts?
ReplyDelete-Emily Hentschke
Here is some more food for thought that I learned from my book Eating Animals. Slaughtered animals absorb water filled with fecis and countless diseases. Also millions of pounds of animal fecis leak into rivers that you have probably swam in. The USDA knows about all of this as well as the horrible acts of brutality that are committed on the animals. The USDA is in charge of insuraning the industry thrives as well as the plants follow health and moral code. Unfortunately the USDA has unofficially decided that the economic benefits of factory farming are more important than the health of our nation. Is this wrong of the USDA? If given a choice should we pick cheap meat over our health?
ReplyDelete-Emily Hentschke
I was thinking about what Emily said about cheap meat vs. health. I guess I'm a little torn over the issue because I may not know the extent of the pollution. When you were raised were your parents crazy about germs or did you play in the mud all day? I'm the kind of person who grew up thinking "God made dirt, dirt don't hurt" because I think being exposed to things helps you build up greater immunity. While I'm not fond of thinking about swimming in fecis, who hasn't gone to a public pool that dozens of kids have peed in? In this case I think that "ignorance is bliss" and we're constantly in contact with germs, etc so this pollution might not be drastic. On the other hand, it could be far worse than I imagined. But if cheap meat fuels our economy and some minor pollution aids our immunity the USDA might not need to be very restrictive.
ReplyDeleteIn Freakonomics, unusual questions are answered by discovering underlying relationships of incentives. According to the book, "an incentive is simply a means of urging people to do more of a good thing and less of a bad thing. But most incentives don't come about organically. Someone-an economist or a politician or a parent-has to invent them." My question is: how much of what we do is based upon the manipulation of others? When you're younger you're given money for good grades or punishment for bad ones. Like alot of the people in our class, I'm really motivated to get good grades but I'm no longer punished or paid for doing so. Does this mean that the incentives are now organic or are we still operating because of other's input? Do you do sports purely for enjoyment or have other incentives made by others influenced your decisions? How independent really is an individual if they're living in a society, full of influential people?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Karla's question on incentives, I think people generally begin new challenging tasks with incentives as their motive. However once people recieve the incentive they were seeking they may not just drop the task altogether. For instance, if a person plays basketball in high school to try and get girls and whatever other incentive that might come along, they may also be playing for the organic incentive once high school is over and they are still playing pick up games in the gym. Also, a person is as independent as they choose to be regardless of others living in society so long as it is a free society and such freedoms are granted.
ReplyDeleteOne of the central themes in the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer is that "if nothing matters than there is nothing to save."The quote comes from the authors grandmother who was a European Jewish woman who survived the Holocaust. She said the quote to a man who offered her pork when she was starving as a response to why she refused to stay kosher even though it could have killed her. Does this quote resonate in any part of your life? Although none have us have probably ever faced starvation, or anything nearly as extreme as the grandmother faced, how does the quote make you feel?
ReplyDeleteCurrently in Freakonnomics I am reading about how the name your parents give you can change your chances of getting a good job. For example if your child was named Jamal he is less likely to get a high-paying job, however if you named your child a typical "white" name, such as Jake, he is more likely to get a high wage job.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if you guys thought that corporate America is still racist enough to turn down someone with a typical "ethnic" name, and choose someone with a "whiter" name? And if so, why do you think that certain people still are racist?
In response to Emily H.'s post about cheap meat, first of all that whole thing about asorbign feces is disgusting, but I think that treating animals humanely is important, I am not a vegetarian so I do think that cows should still be used for meat, among other things, however I do not think that animals being slaughtered for meat should be killed in a violent and inhumane manner. I think their death should be the same as humans who are given the death penatly, painless and quick. If cows are being killed in an extremely violent way I do not believe that the meat should be sold without the buyer knowing how this animal was slaughtered.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily's post on racism in corprate America through names. I would agree that a name could represent a persons ethnicity in a negative light. I dont think these big coorporations legitimately try to be racist when reading names but you tend to attach a judgement upon them. Also, certain names have the tendency to evoke lots of different emotions not just racism. That is, when i think of the name hitler i think of fear and terror. However, the name Barney evokes colors and Love. The point is a name holds authority not just racism.
ReplyDeleteIn responce to Emily H's post about selling harmful meat to America, I feel that there is definately something wrong with the USDA. It seems now a days the idea of good old alturism is gone, and the choice of the USDA to serve people potentially harmful meat because of the ecomonic cost is revolting. Is money really more important then someones life? But I guess that is how our socitety thinks. I also think it is horrific that the USDA allows animals to be treated so terribly. I'm not saying animals need to have a luxurious life on the farm, but they at least need to be treated humanely. I may feel this way because I am a vegetarian, but I think animals should at least have a fair life before the are slaughtered and eaten.
ReplyDeleteIn one of the stories in my book "28 Stories of AIDS in Africa" a man finds himself HIV positive with no idea how it could be. Him and his wife knew about AIDS and its destruction on families and made a mutual vow to have a monogomous relationship. When he learned of his HIV positive status he was deeply confused. Do you think a monogomous relationship is a good way to keep AIDS at bay or should all Africans simply stop having sex forever?
ReplyDeleteAnother stab at conventional wisdom by Freakonomis: What are more dangerous, swimming pools or guns? Most people would say guns because they are associated with fear and death, while swimming pools are associated with hot summer days in August and barbeques. However, in a year there is one drowning for every 11,000 residential pools in the US. (So in a country with 6 million pools, this means about 550 kids under age 10 die each year). Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million plus guns. (In a country with about 200 million guns that’s less than 200 kids under ten that die per year). So the likelihood that a child would die from a pool (1 in 11,000) verses death by gun (1 in one million) is more likely.
ReplyDeleteAnother fun fact: Switzerland has more firearms per capita than any other country, yet it is one of the safest places in the world. Does that change anyone’s perception or opinion about guns?
In response to Natalies post those are interesting statistics about guns and pools. I find it suprising, but it makes sense if you really think about it. Still while guns are made to kill things and pools are made to have a good time death is not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of a pool. That is why most people would never make that comparison and why it does not change my perception of guns all that much.
ReplyDeleteThe factory farms discussed in the book Eating Animals are contributing to the creation and spread of diseases such as the bird flu and swine flu. The filthy conditions are prime time for the formation and spread of disease, these diseases are concerning to people as well as animals. The reason being is that pigs are capable of catching flus from birds and people making it easy for the flu to mutate into something humans can catch. The WHO or world health organization, which is generally a conservative group is predicting a worldwide pandemic. This is what they are telling the world in their "things you need to know about pandemic influenza."
ReplyDelete"The world may be on the brink of another pandemic. All countries will be affected. Widespread illness will occur. Medical supplies will be inadequate. Large numbers of deaths will occur. Economic and social disruption will be great."
The pandemic they are talking about is predicted to take place if the bird flu mutates into an airborne form. A conservative estimate of 2 million to 7.4 million deaths are predicted if it becomes airborne. Is cheap meat really worth the economic, medical, and moral price we are paying in the long run? Shouldn't more be done to ensure these predictions are not reality?
In response to Natalie's post, those statistics are shocking to me.It is crazy that when you think of guns you associate them with death and yet there are more deaths from pools. How can something that we think of as fun and refreshing have a higher death toll then something as dangerous as a gun? In response to the other question about switzerland it never changed my opinions on guns because I never believed guns killed, but rather people kill.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Dustin's post on how his author uses pathos, I think it was good that he used that instead of a lot of logic. By allowing the reader to be connected emotionally I feel like that helps support his case better than just statistics. It enables the reader to feel bad and side with the immigrants because they now know their story and why they had to cross the border and not just see them as illegal immigrants that should not be here.
ReplyDeleteIn Eating Animals, Foer discusses how people treat animals. Either you are anthropocentrism and assume that animals are here to serve humans and have no emotion towards them, anthropodenial and believe that animals have absolutely no emotion, or you are anthropormorphism and believe that animals are just like humans and have feelings and are capable of having emotion. Which one do you guys think you are? And is it with just your pets or do you feel that way towards all animals?
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways to control the population from wars to plagues to natural disasters. The world is currently over-populated. There are poeple EVERYWHERE. We are also currently in a war and Haiti has just had a tremendous earthquake killing many many people. In response to Gabe's comment, maybe a plague is coming and for a good reason.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jessica's post, yes i do think that monogomous relationships are a good start at stopping the spread of AIDS. However the situation in Africa is so dire that the disease has spread through much of the population already, simply being in a relationship does not mean that you do not already have HIV. Africa needs to thoroughly inform it's people on the subject of birth control and make it readily available to the population.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting, in response to Jessica's post, how one person can think they are in a monogomous relationship when they've slept around so often. Sure, it's true that once that person gets married they can be in a monogomous relationship but it doesn't stop the spread of AIDs. People need to be very careful especially when they have no ways of "cleansing" themselves of this harmful disease. We are always going to have billions of people in the world and I'm sure if some of us think about it, forbidding Africans from having sex ever doesn't sound TOO terrible because of all the other people in the world. But I don't think that's morally correct to force a nation to stop doing something simply because it would be easier for us, Americans, to deal with. Our medicinal clinics are growing, like everything else in this day and age, I'm sure Africans will get the help they need if it's necessary.
ReplyDeleteIn 28 stories of AIDs in Africa by Stephanie Nolen, I really feel like the author uses a lot of pathos to support her stories on AIDs. It's true, she is basically just retelling somebody else's stroy but the sensory details and descriptive language she uses really makes you feel for those who have this disease. She says there are currently between 26 and 30 million people infected with AIDs in Africa as of now which is basically saying all of Canada's population has it. This is a very shocking fact and is supported greatly by her pathos; maybe unintentionally but it had a huge impact on me.
ReplyDeleteOk so guys in my book Eating Animals by Johnathan Safron Foer, he desceibes humans as having to fit into one of three definitions, Anthropocentrism (Humans are the pinnacle of evolution), Anthropodenial (refusual to concede significant experience in likeness between humans and the other animals) and then Anthropomorphism (the urge to project human experieces experiences onto the other animal), and i want to know what you guys thought about that. He says in order to ask "what is an animal? one must first understand what is a human" which means that he is giving you these three groupings trying to see what people classify themselves as.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on Ashley’s post, I completely agree with her point that in a story on a topic such as Aids, pathos is probably the most effective way to present an argument. Aids is an emotional topic were the average person would not be moved solely by statistics. The use of pathos to invoke lasting images and arouse emotions is much more powerful than simply using the shock factor of statistics.
ReplyDeleteAnne-Elise Duss
In response to Natalie's post on Freakenomics and guns vs swimming pools...that is outrageous! And intersting. I'm not going to say that I'm surprised--after working as a lifeguard it is pretty apparent that swimming is a dangerous passtime for some, but you make a good point that guns do seem like they would be a far more dangerous weapon to children under the age of 10. Sounds like an arguement that the NRA would like to touch on...could definately support their position.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lacy's post about Eating Animals, I'm wondering if we could maybe lie somewhere in the middle? (personally at least) While I agree that animals do have sense and such, I don't think that the affection that a goldfish shows you (none) vs the compassion of a dog (love :]) is the same. I wouldn't eat an animal that I personally have a close relationship with, but I have no hard feelins about eating a fish. So I would say that I would lean more towards classifying them as beings without emotion. Weird thought.
ReplyDeleteSo the book that I am reading, Blink, has one million trippy statistics about the human brain and initial reactions and judgements and statements about the concious mind. One of the things that stood out the most to me, however, was a link to a test that Harvard college was doing and what the results of this test imply. This test judges your reaction time to positive and negative connotations between black and white people and then states your racial preference based soley on your subconcious reactions. A majority of people who have taken the test (including African Americans) scored a preference for whites simply because of the stereotypes that have been associated with different races. An African American student took this test every day and had the same resulting answers--save one day when he took it and ended up favoring African Americans. Why was this? Because he had been watching and Olympic dash in which a black man won. I encourage you to go test yourself...I did.
ReplyDeletewww.implicit.harvard.edu
“When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.” - African Proverb
ReplyDeleteThe proverb on the first page sets up the theme of the book perfectly. This quote is a metaphor to the power and overwhelming effects of when the governments of countries go to war. The aftershocks of a declaration of war touches everyone, even the children as in the case of the Sudanese children from the novel They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky. When the governments of countries go to war without the peoples consent or through public manipulation, it is always the people that suffer. What are your thoughts on the proverb? Do you guys believe the proverb still holds true today?
Anne-Elise Duss
Did you know?...
ReplyDeleteThat a group of scientists did an experiment where there were 2 decks of cards (a red deck and a blue deck) and monitored someone playing a game. The rules were...draw from either deck until you win based on a point system...and announce when you have figured out what the strategy to winnning is. As it turned out, the red deck allowed for a greater accumulation of points more rapidly and deducted points equally as fast, whereas the blue deck was a steady, consistant way to win the game. After hooking up the subject to machines that monitored his heart rate and sweat. After drawing only 10 cards the subjects body began to react. When he picked up a red card he would produce more sweat and have an increase in heart rate. It took him over EIGHTY cards to conciosuly figure out how to beat the game. What do these results mean? Simply that your concious mind can often times be a much swifter and far more accurate judge of your surroundings. Food for thought.
In response to Clair’s comment, I believe it would be important for more people to be tested and undergo this test so that we as a society can raise awareness to how real these stereotypes are in our minds. SInce all the reactions take place subconsciously, it is very possible that simply through education these stereotypes can be reduced and help us progress as a more just and fair society for all.
ReplyDeleteAnne-Elise Duss
Consider this quote from the novel They Pored Fire On Us From the Sky, “They’re coming from a place without cars, running water, or enough food to survive, to a land of freeways, faucets that spout water without being touched and so much food it’s probably our biggest health threat.” This quote gives the audience a perspective on the comparison of their lives to those of the African’s. The power in this lies behind the juxtaposing of these ideas. The stark contrast creates a vivd image in the readers mind. Without this quote many readers would have a difficult time understanding exactly how opposite the social, political, economic situations are between Africa and a developed nation.
ReplyDeleteAnne-Elise Duss
I'm reading the Devil's Highway and here's an interesting quote that I discovered while reading: “The American Southwest is losing $190 million in unpaid bills and tens of millions of these could be contributed to medical attention for illegals, including those dropped off by the border patrol.”
ReplyDeleteI thought this was very interesting because Americans can't turn away people that are in need of "life saving", even if they are illegal immigrants. Do you think that America should allow illegal immigrants, needing lifesaving or not, into the medical facilities in America or do you think they should be cared for in their own country where they are legal?
In response to Brittney's comment, I think that we have a moral responsibility to attend to those who need life-saving if it's within our ability. Granted, this complicates financial issues but it's insensitive to measure worth in dollars rather than quality of life. There's also a potential that they could not receive adequate aid in their own country, if any at all. Or if they could it may be costly or likewise. It's hard to accept that people, who're we're trying to help, cannot return the favor and are putting more economic strain on ourselves but I still believe that America has a strong moral duty. Relative to other countries, we're decent financially and we are role models for equality. It would be a poor reflection on our country to deny those who need our help AND ask for it.
ReplyDeleteSo fun fact: in 2015, names like Clementine, Flannery, Maeve, and Waverly are "bound to become tomorrow's mainstream names" for girls and Aldo, Beckett, Johan, McGregor and Sander for boys. In the book I'm reading (Freakonomics) the author suggests that there is a pattern for naming: a name starts off at the high end of social status and works it's way down. He means that names associated with rich children or well-off families tend to become the most popular names a few decades (or so) later and the once most popular names digress to "low-end" income names. So Madison, once a high-end income name, became really popular and will soon be considered more or less cheap soon. The seemingly ridiculous names mentioned before are the previously "rich" names, soon to be popular names. So my question: Would you name your daughter Flannery? What criteria would you consider in naming your child? Obviously there is social expectations and connotations with names so is that a primary factor?
ReplyDeleteThe accounts from the novel "They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky," show ,the reader the strength and perseverance thousands of young sudanese boys, the "lost boys", had through true accounts of trekking across Sudan. These boys were caught up in the horrors of a civil war, one of the worst in Sudanese history. The young boys didn't know what was happening to them or why, they only knew they had to help each other survive. Finally about a decade after they fled, the USA allowed a number of the "lost boys" to be relocated to America. I think it was great the US helped the lost boys, but how come it took them ten years to start relocating the lost boys? Was the situation not devastating enough on American standard to start rescuing the boys? This reminds be of Haiti, things there were awful before the earthquake, yet we only started helping Haiti once the earthquake struck and things hit rock bottom. With this being said, do you think America truly is doing enough to help other nation, or are we ignorant until things hit rock bottom?
ReplyDeleteMy book is "They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky." the novel tells the story of three lost boys and their journey across Sudan in search of safety. one thing that is very evident in the novel is all of the boys desire for education. Why do you think these lost boys value education so much more than we do here in America?
ReplyDeleteIn my book Freakonomics, it discusses the differences between "black" names and "white" names. Some examples of the "black" names for boys are Darnell, Malik, Jamal, and Trevon. Boy "white" names are Lucas, Cole, Jake, and Connor. Why do you think different names are put into these categories? Do you think it is because of the different culture? Why are we being brought up thinking that names are white or black?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily’s post about Freakonomics and drug dealers, I’m sure that these drug dealers live with their mother’s so they can live under the radar of government. They wouldn’t have to pay taxes or pay their own bills and ultimately be “invisible” from government supervision. Because if they worked at McDonalds, or any other minimum wage paying job, they are not exempt from any of these taxes, and now the government can keep tabs on what they’re doing. And let’s face it, most of these drug dealers have already had criminal records not involving drugs and probably have been in Juvenal Hall if not prison, and living a life of risk. This might be even more of hinder in getting a normal minimum wage job because of their records. When their lives start out as a risky business this is probably all they’ve been exposed to and don’t know how to survive on money that was earned or being a normal citizen.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Christen’s post about helping out the AIDS epidemic in Africa, I would have to agree with the author that Africa is past the point of being helped. At this point there are so many cases of AIDS that the only extreme way to guarantee to stop it spreading any further was to exile any kind reproducing acts in the African culture. And this would be extremely controversial and likely racial if this was the U.S. advocating this, considering our history with Africans as slaves. Not only would there be no absolute control over this proposal, it would consider the African culture to be wiped out completely. The only real and humane way to help these AIDS victims is to have a cure for the disease, and we are just not at that point in history to make these kinds of amends. The only way we can really help these AIDS victims is to donate money to research for the cure, but unfortunately it won’t have any immediate affects on the people waiting for this cure, it would be a long, grueling, and agitating process of helping these victims.
ReplyDeleteHey everyone! I read the book Eating Animals. This book is about the authors research about the handling of animals before the are butchered and how they are killed to become the meat that we eat. I found his purpose for researching the topic at hand interesting. He says that all his life he had always kind of tousled back and forth between being a vegetarian and eating meat. Yet, ever since Foer and his wife got pregnant, he began to wonder what was the proper way to rear his child, as a vegetarian or as a carnivore. Do you think that because he is doing all the research for the betterment of his son that this improves credibility?
ReplyDelete-Lauren Dillier
In my book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking the author describes the feeling we call our “gut feeling”, when you just know something is wrong or you make a decision based on what your gut is telling you without any conceivable reason why. He calls this method “thin slicing”: it’s our ability to gauge what is really important from a very narrow period of experience. One of my personal favorite TV shows incorporates a version of this “thin slicing”. “Lie to Me” is inspired by actual scientific discoveries of a real-life psychologist who can read clues embedded in the human face, body, and voice to expose the truth and lies in criminal investigations. In a split second, our very first reaction to a question, event, or statement is depicted on our face that very split second it’s asked. We try to hide these emotions no matter what the reason, but the scientist on the show Dr. Cal Lightman can see these expressions in that split second it’s shown on your face, no matter how you try to mask it. If you lie to him, he’ll see it in your face and your posture or hear it in your voice. If you shrug your shoulder, rotate your hand or even just slightly raise your lower lip, he can tell if you’re lying. Lightman is using his observations of that split second the criminal “thin-slices” and show his emotions in that split second.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was reading this book I found it fascinating that I could incorpate this science in a “real-life” experience/ something I was familiar with.
In my book Blink, there was a section of the book that observed a scientist that claimed he knew when a player would double-fault before the racket even met with the ball. The science behind this was all about “thin slicing” as I mentioned in a previous post. And this got me thinking, I wonder if this man’s premonition about the immediate future and its outcomes was in correlation to what psychics call “visions”. Could these psychics not be gifted people at all, but merely have the intense skill of thin slicing a person the second they walk through the door? What do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteResponding to Rachel's question about the incentives of money, i think that for many people money can be a poison that possesses people to do things they normally wouldn't do. i think even placing placing myself in that position its hard for me to say what i would do. i mean its important to me to maintain integrity, but i could see how someone would manipulate scores to enable then to get a bonus. $20,000 is a lot of money, and that's a lot of money for a teacher as well. On average in California a teacher makes a $60,000. That's a third of what they make annually. So sure, i don't support the act of altering the scores, but within reason i can understand where they come from.
ReplyDeleteIn my book, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell had talked about how two rival whiskey companies conducted taste tests with the labels on the bottles, off the bottles, and switched on the bottles, and they found that one whiskey's taste was more appealing than the others, but when customers saw the label and bottle shape of one, they teanded to prefer it over the better flavor of the other.
ReplyDeleteSince having read that, I have agreed that I tend to do the same thing. I pick and choose food and drink based on the label, not just the flavor.
Have you noticed yourself doing the same thing? Why do you think that is?
when reading "they poured fire on us from above" it really struck me how the lost boys continued to persevere through near death starvation and thirst. Even while others were dying around them they managed to push themselves on farther. What do you think it is that gives them this motivation? and what would motivates you to do the same?
ReplyDeletein response to lindas question, I can definitely relate to the same experience especially when choosing between drinks and foods. I think that most name brand things have already proven themselves and so you feel that you can trust them. When you get something that is name brand you feel comfortable. You have most likely had it before and you know exactly what to expect. this is different from trying something new because although something new could be great, it also could be an extreme disappointment. So really when you buy something name brand you aren't risking, you're playing it safe as opposed to trying something new, you could be in for surprise either way!
ReplyDeleteIn response to laurens comment I think that his research makes him WAY less credible to make that decision for his child. He researches how the food is handled and not the health affects the food could have on his child. Regardless of how we treat our livestock, the health issues which have to do with eating meat and carnivorous products is an entirely different issue. From all of his research he will undoubtable have a bias against meat products, simply because he believes the processes they go through are disgusting and inhumane, and therefore will be more likely to deny meat products from his son. however he could be making this decision at the expense of his childs health if he is unaware of the actual health affects of carnivorous vs non-carnivorous behaviors.
ReplyDeleteI just read Lynda's post and I thought that was really interesting. I find myself doing that as well with products. Whenever I walk into a superstore I am overwhelmed with all the pretty colors and sights, especially fruit, it makes me want to buy them all. I think we do this because we find something attractive, and in out mind if it looks pretty and nice, it is obviously going to taste the same too.
ReplyDeleteJesse, in his novel he does discuss the heath benefits and of each of the ways of eating and the contradicting information that scientists release. so he doesn't strictly choose whether to raise his child based on whether it is humane or not but he does discuss the health benefits too.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Dillier
Linda, I totally agree that I do the same things with any kind of product. Like if I'm out eating lunch and there is a choice of having root beer from the glass bottle or from just an A&W plastic bottle, I would probably choose the glass one just because it seems more fun. Then again, this is the goal of the production companies and just goes to show that a good label can sell any item. Anyhow, I find myself doing the same thing.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Dillier
So I was talking to my mom about the book i read Eating Animals and we talked about the treatment of animals and raising them to be butchered to be eaten. She has often said that if we had to raise our own animals to later be eaten that she would be a vegetarian. and i was taking to her also about the current treatment of some of the animals at factory farms. and we both agree with a lot of the treatment that still goes on today is wrong. for example one of the methods that is still practiced today for pigs that aren't quite big enough to be sent to the slaughter house, is that the workers pick op the pigs by their hind feet and throw them over their head and smash the pigs into the concrete ground till there dead. If you think this is acceptable, than that's just disgusting. and ever since Wednesday the 17th, I've actually stopped eating meat for the pure purpose that i never want to eat something that allows people to treat another animal that way. As the consumer we have the ability to control what these cooperation's do. If we refuse to buy from places that treat animals this way, we can force them to change their ways or else go out of business. Its not that I'm looking to become a vegetarian, but i just feel that there is a better way to treat these animals even if their gonna die anyway.I just want to hear what you guys think about this and your view on how we should treat animals even if they end up going to the slaughter house anyway.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Dillier
In response to what Jesse posted, i think that, when the heart and soul are pushed peoples bodies can do unimaginable things. When people come into these dire situation they do things that they could normally not do. I have seen situations and lived in situation like these that things like that preserve. The human body is not just controlled by joints and muscles, but it is controlled by the heart, and the emotions that your brain is putting out. When people need the strength their bodies come forth when needed
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lynda's post about the labeling, i agree with that completely. It all to me has a lot to do with psychological reasoning, and they way that you are use to things. We talked a lot about labels in my Gov/Econ class last term, because when we talked about health care and a public option because no matter what people will never give up the fact of labels, its sometimes a sign of class. Like with clothing, sometimes you can find clothes that are at Abercrombie that would be at like Wal-Mart, will people buy it from there, not unless they usually buy clothes from there. Its a matter of class sometimes other times its a matter of dependability. Sometimes when people pay for things its because they think that if you pay more it will last longer.
ReplyDeleteOkay guys, in my book for the first part of it Foer describes him as being an On again off again vegetarian, and i want to know how you guys feel about that. Can you commit to something you feel so strongly about and then just give it up, while still thinking you are still going to pick it back up when it is convenient for you. What do you guys think about that, can you truly be committed to something if your only doing it when its convenient for you???
ReplyDelete