The Dumbest Generation? Don't Be Dumb.

This article was quite frustrating to read in the beginning. The author goes on about how dumb our generation is, and then completely changes direction and writes about how our "minds are more flexible." So what's wrong? Our generation is the first to have grown up in this "digital age" and we still don't know what the long-term effects are. The article argues with itself about the effects of video games and multi-tasking, but when it comes down to how much we know, I don't think that our generation is to blame. The article itself states, "it reflects not stupidity but a failure of the school system and of society." Then the article goes on to talk about how this generation thinks that different things are more important to know than what previous generations do, which I completely agree with. Times have changed, new things seem more important to Gen Y than the older generations. The author states, "Gen Y's ignorance of facts (or of facts that older people think are important) reflects not dumbness but choice." Just because this generation doesn't know random facts that old people ask does not mean that this generation is dumb. These people probably know 10 times more than the older generation about computers or more modern age things. It all depends on what you think is important. We often talk about why literature is important, why are we in school, and why is Mr Priest teaching?? This article explores our western style of learning and if it is accurate or not. It also relates back to On Studing by Ortega y Gasset. He also talks about the ways that we learn and teach, and how the western way of learning is a false way of learning. I disagree with this because if you are learning what you are interested in, then it works. It just takes a good teacher to get you interested.

Why Americans Are Restless Interpretive Questions

Jenny McDonald
Mr. Priest
Great Books Period 7
22 October 2009

Why Americans Are Restless Interpretive Questions

1. When a society tries to create equal opportunity for every individual, it weakens each of
them because of the competition they face. De Toqueville states, “ When men are more or less equal and are following the same path, it is very difficult for any of them to walk faster and get out beyond the uniform crowd surrounding and hemming them in.” (197) By this, de Toqueville is demonstrating the idea of running up a mountain with all these equal competitors around you. It makes it very difficult to get ahead when everyone is running the same race at equal odds.
2. De Toqueville thinks that Americans are restless because their desires are always changing, or because they only want things better than what they have. De Toqueville speaks of the freest and best educated of men when he states, “…whereas the latter never stop thinking of the good things they have not got.” (164) He goes on to speak of their changing desires, and he writes, “They clutch everything but hold nothing fast, and so lose grip as they hurry after some new delight.” (165) Americans always strive for the best, and once they reach it, they quickly move onto something better, never being satisfied with what they have, which makes them become restless.

What Others Think

Why is it difficult not to care about what others think of you? Do we control the way other people see and think about us?
Most people act in ways to please others. Well, at least I know I do. Around my family I can be weird, loud, and annoying to them, because I know that they really and unconditionally love me. Around my friends that are loud and vivacious, I'm also outgoing and giggly. With friends that are more serious or just not as loud, I act quieter and not as obnoxious. I do this to not offend others or create strange situations, and I care what they think of me. I don't want to come across as weird and annoying to everyone, so I let my family suffer with that part of me. When you act a certain way around people, they judge you and sometimes do or say mean things. To some extent, we can control what people see in us, because we can change who we are. I wouldn't go up to a teacher or a classmate that I didn't know right now and start teasing them and provoking them like I do to my brother. They would think I'm weird and annoying! So I act differently around them, and they probably see me and think of me differently than my brother. We can't really control what people think of us, but we can put on a different skin or a different personality to hide or flaunt other traits. And, if people really didn't think what others cared about them, we would probably have a bunch of naked, drunk people running around. No one wants that.

Is war ever a good thing? Is there any cause for which you would go to war?

War can be a good thing, when people are fighting for just reasons. I would go to war to fight against persecution and to free people if there is not a peaceful option available, and if it makes the lives of the people a lot better. I disagree with fighting for religion in most circumstances. Fighting people because they are not allowing you to practice your religion is one thing, but fighting because you simply don’t agree with their religion is absurd. Overall, war should be avoided because innocent lives being lost when they don’t have to be is, of course, never a good thing!! The other bad thing about war is how it tears up and damages the land, therefore displacing people. I understand that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to go to war, like if a group of people is doing unjustified things to innocent people, war should be initiated. I also think that people should go to war only if they think that the outcome will be better for the people involved (in the long run) and if whoever starts the war seriously thinks they will win. The reasons that the United States went to war in Iraq (or, not war, “operation Iraqi freedom”) were completely justified! However, the war ended up making the Iraqi people suffer and I don’t really know who’s winning anymore. That whole thing got pretty messed up, but I liked the reasons for going to war. I would go to war for the right reasons, if there was a good chance of winning, and if the people wouldn’t get more hurt in the act of war than they were before.

Beloning

Being born in England made me a British citizen for most of my life. Despite living in central Indiana for 12 out of my 14 years of life, I only became an American citizen last summer. My family and I try to go back to England every other year to visit family and close friends. When I was younger, I remember going back and feeling like I belonged. The children that I played with and the adults that I visited had known me since the week I was born. Everything in America was so foreign. My mom had to use a map just to get from our house to Marsh. I don't have many real memories of all this, but I know one thing. Going to America, was torture to me. The look on my face in my Visa picture was one of pure hate. I had been crying the whole day about not wanting to go to America, about wanting to stay. Now, I know how different things would be if I was still in England. Being young and innocent gave me ties and ways to relate to the kids in England. Last year when my parents and I visited for my aunt and uncle's wedding, I was shocked. I did not belong at all. My American accent and clothes were not the only things that set me apart. Our friends houses probably cost the same amount as our house in Indiana, but they are basically 2 bedroom apartments compared to an average-sized house in a neighborhood with a yard and a dog. I was 13, and was offered an alcoholic drink at a bar. I was completely appalled, I knew I didn't fit in at all here. My parents changed around their friends and siblings, so nothing was familiar anymore. I was a lonely hoosier, in the middle of a bunch of loud British people, as if I had nothing to do with them at all. I like to think of myself as different from people in Indiana, like being born in a different place makes me an outsider, but it really doesn't. I fit in here, I belong here, maybe not in Indiana (too close to the Bible belt for me) but somewhere were there are horses and neighborhoods. My dream used to be to have a horse farm in Florida, but the high-end tailored pants and high heels at horse shows isn't really my style either. Maybe somewhere like Virginia is my place? Who knows....

Euthanasia

The act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. That is the dictionary definition for euthanasia. It's common to hear about animals being put to sleep because they are old and suffering; it happens quite often. Should the same rules be applied for humans? I think that if a person has a terminal disease (such as cancer), then they should have the choice to just die now without suffering and living in pain, but only if they don't have any chance of surviving the illness. Suffering isn't fair, because some say that in an after life, we will go to a better place. I don't have complete faith in an after life, so in my view, life is all you have. I would not want to spend my precious years on earth in suffering. What is the point of living if you die in pain? If someone has a mental illness, then things are different. If the person is happy, then thats plenty of reason to let them live on. If they are enjoying life, even though they may not have a full understanding of it and of what is going on, they should be allowed to live if they are truely happy. Now, what if a person does not have a mental illness, but is completely unhappy and they think that their life sucks and will never get better. If the person is living in a depressed state for the rest of their life, should they have to live on? Or should they be allowed to die or be killed? I don't think that a life should be thrown away. If someone is curable, or has some hope, feeling, or love then they have plenty of reason to live on, but what if they are suffering inside? I guess each situation is different, but mercy killing sounds fair only if the person agrees to it, they are truely suffering, and would somehow die anyway. I think that the best way to deal with it is to choose the path that will make the person truely happy, whether that be death or not.

Women as Equals

In today's society, I think that women are considered much more as equals than ever before. I still think that there are some sexist views against women. 60 years ago, women could still not vote and were considered to be lower class citizens than men, but now women have the same rights as men. Today, many women are CEO's of major corporations and have high powered jobs throughout the US. However, in some parts of the world. women are still not allowed to go out in public or even show their face. Also, women are more commonly raped than men, which shows that there is still some sort of view of women as objects. Women are known to stay at home with the children and look after the family, but even though that is a job in itself, I think that is where a lot of sexism comes from. The theory that women are meant to stay at home with the kids as the dad goes out and makes the money. If people nowadays are brought up correctly, I think that discrimination against women could be eliminated. Despite there being major differences in the treatment of women, I believe that sexism still occurs and women are not treated completely as equals.

Would you have lied to your whole family if you were in Juliet’s position? Why or why not? Personally, I can't keep secrets about myself from my family at all! I would've definitely told my mother about marrying and being in love with Romeo. I think that it would've been wise of Juliet to have talked to them as well because then the wedding with Paris would have been delayed and it most likely would've turned out a whole lot better than everybody dying!!! I think that if there had been a lot more open communication between everybody, the story would be a nice happy ending.
How would you feel if you were one of the parents in one of these families after all this happened? If I were one of the parents in the story, I would feel so guilty. The stupid fued stole the lives of Mercutio, Tybalt, Romeo, Juliet, and Paris. I would stop the fued that caused all of the grief.
Was it right for Romeo and Juliet to run off and get married? Or was it foolish? Or both? Explain your response. I think that it was really stupid for Romeo and Juliet to get married right away. I know that they fell in love and everything, but just because you are in love doesn't mean you need to get married.

Romeo & Juliet Act 1

In Act 1 Romeo really annoys me. He treats love almost like it means nothing to him, which makes it hard to understand how he really feels. Does Romeo really love Juliet? Did he ever love Rosaline, or is he just doing all of this for attention? Romeo really has none of my trust from the beginning, and he just gets really annoying with his love tales and sorrows that sound really fake. Just get over yourself Romeo!
I don't like reading the language because I wish that I could understand it better. It's frustrating to read because I can't understand most it. I really like being able to know the meaning of every word and sentence, but that's sort of impossible. However, I feel like I have a better understanding of the overall story this time around. It must have taken a really long time for Shakespear to come up with all of the sonnets and poems in which the play is written. Shakespear's use of wordplay makes the story much more interesting. A lot of the puns don't make any sense at all to me, but the humor is very evident in some. I can't wait to read more and get more into the story.