blog 3!!

Teachers do not get enough credit as they should. The ones that should be running the world are teachers, and the ones who get paid the most should be teachers. Yes, an obvious reason why doctors get paid a lot is because they save the healths and the lives of many people. Just because that is an obvious reason, why can't people dig deeper and look more into other jobs and how they are impacting the world? For every homework assignment and project turned in, means the teacher has to grade that. For every class we enter, means every class and lesson that teacher has to prepare. For every e-mail received, means every answer the teacher has to give. For every brain muscle used to raise our hands as student and ask questions, means the same for the teacher to answer the question. Ultimately, for every hour spent as a student, means the same for the teacher. Sometimes students underestimate and do not give enough credit to the teachers because we either think they gave us an unreasonable grade, gave us too much homework, or did not call on you when you raised your hand. However we have to realize that most teachers do everything they do for a reason. They do not give homework just to do it, they do it because it helps their lesson plan and they obviously put a lot of time and effort into it, so they expect that in return. As a student I mainly think of myself and my teacher when I am in the class room. In other words, I worry about myself and how I do, and my relationship and interactions with the teacher. I definitely listen to what other people in the room have to offer, and I respect and like them, but I would assume every student in the class also thinks about themselves. But in reality there are 20 (or however many students) and one teacher. I think that teachers should get more credit than they do because they are being humane people every day of their lives. It is often enforced that your should pick a profession that you love and enjoy. I would think teachers do find pleasure in what they are doing, but it is also a generous choice to be a teacher. What I mean by that is teachers spend most hours of their day in order to help students, which is just such a nice thing to do. They spend their time making sure we understand things, and without teachers we would not get far in life. We need more experienced and more educated people to pass on wisdom to future generations in order to "keep up" society, and that is what teachers are doing. They are working with us to learn both life lessons and textbook lessons. Teachers are donating their time and energy into helping other people. I think that sports players for example get more attention than they should. I agree sports are fun to watch, and watching sports is engaging and social. But why is it fair for someone who is not helping the world in any way when there is so much help needed to get paid millions of dollars a year? Sports players obviously do work hard but I feel like people are getting paid for talents, and not for the impact they are making on other people. Personally I would rather get paid millions of dollars for playing a sport I love for a living. That is the obvious, selfish, and ideal option, which is why I think teachers are so great because they are not being selfish at all in fact they are being benevolent, smart, and helpful.

blog 2 (12-14-11)

What are one's values as a leader? I think that there is a major controversy between being loved and being feared. Loving a leader is harder, more forced/fake, and comes with lots of effort. Whereas, fear is more personal, honest, and ideal. Love is temporary, but fear is permanent. To love a leader, the leader has to keep providing and giving to people, but is that real love? I think that sort of relationship is not honest and is not morally correct. Ideally, you should be generous because you want to, not because of how people will think of you. However, in most cases, people do things and give things in order to fulfill and satisfy their reputation. It is hard to give and maintain a solid reputation, and it seems that most people would rather drop the giving component, and save their reputation. An effective leader would probably favor their reputation over what is best for their people. On the other hand, a good leader would keep giving even if it was secretive and unknown in your reputation. As a leader your goal should be for people to owe you, not for you to owe them. What does generosity mean? Generosity a lot of the time is financially related, and in regards to the government, generosity and giving means giving citizens money and not expecting much in return. As a leader this is a tough decision because you sometimes have to choose between satisfying yourself or your people. Occasionally you have to "give" without giving, meaning you have to give your time and effort without physically giving money or possessions. On the flip side, sometimes you tell people you are giving and you try to get them on their side, without actually doing anything kind, productive, or beneficial. When you give to your people, as in money, than eventually you slowly start to lose money, which results in taxing people. Taxing people means angry people who get pissed at the leader who taxed them, so being generous bites you in the back. Therefor as a leader you would rather be feared than loved because loved is something you have to keep up and it both hard on the individual and on the people, but being feared is forever, and requires less effort and less stress.

blog 1 (12-13-11)

Legitamecy vs Legalism:

Legitamecy is ultimately the reasons for someone to rule. It does not have to be justified reasons, but the people need to accept those reasons. Legitimacy is determined by the level in which you are a good person. In most cases, people will listen to a leader because they agree with their morals and their ideas. But legiatemcy just refers to the ability for a ruler to make his people accept him, and follow him. That’s where the difference between a good leader and efficient leader comes into play as well. A good leader might have morally acceptable and admirable reasons for ruling, but an efficient leader makes sure his people accept what he believes- he gets them on their side. Legalism is stricter than legitamecy and people must abide by the rules in legalism or else there will be consequences and punishments. The leaders promise to keep their followers safe and provide for them, as long as they support and respect the authority. Personally, I feel like legalism is more of a typical way of life than legitimacy. Legitimacy is like the road less traveled, and the route that takes a critical thinker and caring leader. Legalism seems to be more of a rule based system, and legitamecy seems to be more based on reasons and acceptance. Why do people listen to leaders? What expectations are placed on citizens based off of the leaders? There is a difference between the way people act under legalism and under legitimacy. With legitimacy the people might base their evaluations and accepatance of leaders based off reasons for leading. Whereas in legalism, people simply follow rules because that is what they expected to do, and they do not question those rules because they know there will be severe punishments. People vote for leaeders for the reasons they want to rule, in other words people vote for a president because that president wants to lead and they want to make change. Citizens also listen to leaders for more basic reasons, such as because they do not want to go to jail, which would be a consequence to not abiding by laws. There are similarities and differences between legalism and legitimacy, but overall legitimacy is influenced on reasons for leading and legalism is based on what is legal and what are the rules.

blog 3 (12-7-11)

When population increased, it had mostly positive effects on society. Work/jobs became more productive because each job was filled with more employees. The more people at a job meant better work, because as the number of people increased, the ideas and the quality of those ideas improved. More people also meant more opinions, more knowledge, and more people to finish a job in a quicker amount of time. A raise in population also resulted in less isolation between one another. When there was a larger population than it was harder for people to separate themselves from each other, and disregard themselves from society. When there was an abundance of people, than they were almost forced to interact and benefit from one another. The government, the environment, and food supply were three things that were hard to control when the population rose. Food was a hard variable to control because just because there was enough food in the world whether it was from farming/agriculture, or industries/productions, the food does not get distributed fairly or evenly.  The environment is something that will always be present for as long as we can see, and it is up to the humans living in the environment to treat it how they want, and use it to their advantage. Better ways of efficiently and fairly using land were introduced when the population increased because when the population was significantly higher than before, issues regarding the environment almost demanded to be solved. In other words, without organizing the environmental situations, it would be hard for people to function and sustain life. Along with growth population, the privacy and the advancements in agriculture were two apparent topics that arose with a larger population count. As for government, “feudalism” was introduced. Feudalism at its’ core was a government with no organized state. After one government collapsed, such as Charlemagne’s empire, whose responsibility was it to step up? In the feudal system, a “count” was a individual man who worked to build up his strength and confidence against other counts. Counts attempted to become superior within the lesser lords in the area. Ultimately, the lord and vassal system manifested itself and a lord protected his vassal and assured him land. If a vassal died young, the lord took over and slowly inherited what the vassal had. Feudalism spread throughout Europe, and once the French Revolution began, after that Germany elected a king. Different forms of government throughout history learned from each other and impacted one another. Especially in feudalism, no one was sovereign and the lords and vassals benefited from one another by motivating each other and splitting work. 

blog 2 (12-6-11)

Pericles was asked to give a speech at a commemoration of a death of a soldier in the Athenian battle, and his speech was an example of how he was an effective leader. What he did first in his speech was both relate to the audience, and get them on their side. An effective way to do that in a speech is explain how you understand them and empathize for them, and truly why they should follow you. Pericles mentioned how speaking at event like that was a lose-lose situation, because you either underwhelm the audience, or overwhelm them; it is always impossible to find a balance. He further explained how just because someone is an eloquent speaker, does not mean they have the right intentions or the right ideas. On the reverse, just because someone is not a fantastic public speaker, does not mean they care any less for a person, or are intending to insult anyone. Pericles then continued to speak about why being proud about our ancestors is beneficial in all aspects of leading, and also how they are all united. In order to motivate his followers, he convinced them to be proud about their history and past, in order to pursue and go forward on things. An important element to being a leader is to give a reason why your people should continue and battle onward. Another vital component to being a leader is to enforce how everyone is together, and the leader is not much higher than an ordinary person. Pericles implemented in his people that they should want to fight because their ancestors had a proud past, and they should continue that tradition in order to motivate themselves and their comrades. Pericles was an effective leader because he gave humane and smart  reasons behind all his intentions, and for everything he asked his people to do. To continue, Pericles then convinced his audience that they are just great. He enforced that they should protect themselves because they are just so fantastic and fragile. I think this is both and good and a bad tactic. He went into explaining how his form of governing is one that everyone else uses as an example and admires, and others base their government off of his. This is important because it proves he is confident in himself and his leadership, and he does not follow other people, yet other people follow him because he is just that brilliant. He thinks/knows that he is fair, and excellent, and he strongly believes he is not the one to start the wars, he is the one to defend and let people come to him. I know his intentions were not to get cocky, although if you are an over confident leader, than your followers will go into a situation thinking they will succeed, and if they fail they might blame it on you. They might put the blame on you because you told them how great they were, and then when put into a real situation, they were not as great as you told them. However, I think that Pericles was an effective and intelligent leader, and his positive governing tactics overwhelm the things he needed to improve on, and that is not easily true for lots of leaders. Overall, Pericles was an exceptional persuader, had rational intentions, and he motivated his people.

blog 1 (12-5-11)

The whole metaphor regarding the Allegory of the Cave relates to leadership. I think that the people in the first row (tied up, who were like puppets) who when asked to describe a human, would say a shadow are being deprived from so many things. They are not getting exposed to "reality"; how to interact with other people, how to work with the environment, and how to overall function in society. The people above those chained to the wall are slightly more knowledge because they know the shadows are not real, and they are one step above the average citizen. The classification of individuals who have "more authority" can essentially be anyone, because almost anyone can be a leader. And this is where the role and the definition of leadership comes in. An effective leader would figure out a way to escape the false reality taking place in the cave. They would be able to think that extra thought, and go that extra step, where an average citizen would not begin to think. An effective leader would realize that that reality was not the most efficient, not the most beneficial, and not the most logical, therefore they would move toward enlightenment. Additionally, leadership comes in when the leader has the ability and the skills to convince and show people why they should move out of the cave, and better themselves into the leader's knowledge and perspectives. It takes not only an effective leader, but a good leader to accomplish something like that. Adolf Hitler was an effective leader, one could say, because he got thousands and thousands of people to follow him and move towards his view on life. He accomplished his goals to one extent, and was backed up by followers and listeners, so in that sense he was effective. He was not a morally acceptable or "good" leader because his reasons for his actions and opinions could not be justified or fully proven. A good leader needs to not only be sympathetic, but empathetic as well. Sympathetic means understanding, accepting, and feeling bad for another person. Empathetic means putting yourself into someone else's shoes and imagining how you would feel and what you would do in their situation- taking that extra step and making more of an effort. If one day someone, most likely a figure of authority, told you everything you had been doing and believing your whole life was completely uncivil and flat out wrong, what would you do? It would have to take a consistent, effective, and selling person to completely shift your life. An effective leader might barge in and tell you everything you are doing is wrong, and you need to change instantly, and they could succeed in altering your choices. However, a good leader would move at a steady pace, explain to you why their way is better than yours using a solid balance of facts, knowledge, plus their views/ideas. Not only does that good leader explain why his new way of doing things would be better for you, but why it would positively benefit the society, and how it would make society run smoother. Along with leaders, ordinary citizens play a big role in this whole situation. The amount of power reserved for the citizens, affected the superiority and authority given to the leaders. Some people would say citizens and your place in society is hereditary because if you are born into a wealthy family and your parents are well known and respected, then you are better off, and have more of a potential to be successful. On the other, it is partly the leaders responsibility to cut of these distinctions and instead unify their people. Citizens also affect the leaders because the citizens are the ones who get to choose what makes up a good leader, and without the followers, than there would be no leaders. Just like Socrates displayed, a good leader needs to be both charesmatic and studious.

blog 3 (12-1-11)

I think that the East German government felt the need to spy on authors, artists, and playwrights because they had a feeling that those people had information which had to do with the government. Whether the information was against the government or just about the government, the government wanted to know. Artists liked to express themselves, therefor the government thought they were expressing negative views and ideas on the government, which would then spread to other people. Artists, playwrights, and authors influence people, and the government did not want people views and opinions to be shifted because of that. The government wanted to be assured and convinced that the power belonged to them and not the artists or authors. A government should want to be the top leaders and should want their citizens to listen to them, however they should not worry so much about people's opinions because they should already be confident. Dreyman was convinced that he was safe and private in his house, however he was being bugged and spied on by the government. They did this in order to imprison and capture citizens. Once they spied on certain citizens and developed "relationships" with them, they could pull secret information out of them.  They knew how to target people and they knew how to force things out of people, yet the government sometimes executed their missions immorally.

I think that the government does need a "shield and sword. In some ways that helps keep the government in order and in power. However when you go so far as to bugging someones house, spying on their every move, threatening people, and firing people than it is not okay, and that becomes not even protecting or shielding anymore but rather invading. A sword and a shield for the government keeps the government balanced because it is both an attacking force and a safety force. They can protect their people, and go after their people as well. A government does need a protective and attacking force in order to be "effective" because they need to learn how to control both sides of the spectrum in all situations. A sword and shield needs to be unanimous and encouraged throughout the entire government as a unit, not one specific group or an individual person. The government as a whole should be known as the sword and shield because they work together in order to progress and succeed and no work or load should be placed on one person. I think that the sword in this situation should be used against non-citizens of Germany in this case, and not against comrades in the government but rather against other countries and enemies. Lastly, if a dilemma got to the point where lots of people were trying to overthrow the government than they can start monitoring citizens in order to help everyone. They should not spy on their citizens for unjust and unnecessary reasons. The government should be role models to their citizens, meaning they should not be secretive, untruthful, or plot against their own nation. Ultimately you need solid evidence and reasons to invade someones house and privacy. In this movie the Stasi went to the extreme, but was it all in order to benefit their country?

blog 2 (11-30-11)

Response to Stasi movie:

I think that the government and workers for the government will go so far on a case, that it is inhumane and unjust. In this particular movie inspectors and secret agents went so deep into a situation that one young woman ended up committing suicide, and a lonely man lost his job for many years. The situation, the tension, and the relationship between George and Maria (the main characters) was extremely complicated. Maria was threatened, and assumed that her life was going to be taken based off of one situation. There was a typewriter and some documents which were important, significant, and secret, and belonged to George and was hiding in his house. Maria along with only a few others knew where those items were hiding, and it was clear that the place was not to be revealed to anyone. Maria was pounced on by workers for the government and was forced to tell them a piece of information that she knew, but was certainly not comfortable revealing. This is a complex and perplexed situation because Maria was put on the spot and did not know if she should tell the truth or not. Of course telling the truth is the right thing to do almost all the time, but maybe not in this dilemma... If she gave them a false spot where the treasure they were looking for was not in, then they could potentially harm her and her spouse. If she told them the truth than they would probably not hurt her but would maybe hurt Georg, and the typewriter would be located and everything would go downhill from there. The feeling Maria must have had was intense, and she was probably feeling regret, anxiety, and confusion, all at one time. Little did she know, the searchers invaded their house and looked in the spot where the items had been, but Georg moved it, however Maria did not know that. As they took apart the piece of the floor in which the typewriter had been and as they were about to succeed their mission, as the spies thought, Maria had ran downstairs in her bathrobe and killed herself before everyone got the chance to clear up the whole situation. So this whole case resulted in miscommunication and unnecessary secrets being hidden from one another. Georg must have been beyond upset and hurt because his wife felt so bad about what she did that she killed herself. This action shows that she felt so guilty about what she did, and really cared about Georg. What if Veisler had not moved the prized possessions? Than Maria would have probably still died, and the typewriter and documents would have been found. In the way the situation unfolded, Maria died as well but the items were not found, however that was probably unimportant considering Georg's wife died. One little action, one little item, even one word or one facial expression can be significant in a scene like this. A few years later, Georg got to see what Maria said to the Stasi and he found out they he was being bugged, meaning every move he made was being recorded, they could hear him, (not see him.) If I were him I would probably have not wanted to see or hear what Maria said to the Stasi because it would have made me over-think the situation, and feel even more sad/mad about everything and how it went down. It is hard to look back on things, and refrain from regretting decisions you made, or things you said. Especially for something like this because there was so much miscommunication and misunderstanding between Maria and Georg, but in the end they loved each other and wanted what was best. Because of how severe the consequences of their actions were, the level or regret increased. Especially for a government official or leader, their decisions, ideas, and actions are very carefully observed and analyzed and there is more room for regret, but also for figuring out ways to do better next time.

blog 1 (11-28-11)

LEADERSHIP

"Who would be the best choice to lead the country over the next four years," is a question that citizens are faced with in order to elect a president- a leader. However, the way in which each individual approaches and comprehends this question depends on their definition of a leader. Some leaders choose to focus on current issues, for example how Barack Obama often addresses the current, pressing issue of our economics and the recession. On the other hand, other leaders choose to focus on how to shape and prepare their nation for the future. Additionally, a leader needs its' followers in all aspects of being a leader. A leader needs people to literally and figuratively follow them in order to be a leader and have authority, and a leader needs followers to believe in them in order for them to believe in themselves. The actions and choices of a leader truly reflect the time period they are living in. When technology is a devouring and overwhelming part of everyday lives, a leader would probably address that issue considering it is popular and a leader needs to be on top of things. Also, I believe a leader needs be fair meaning always considering everyone's voice whether they be black or white, poor or rich, male or female, young or old, tall or short, etc. An ideal leader would have balance between thought and action. Meaning, they would produce and discover ideas and thoughts for their people, and would have a good balance between speaking and then actually acting and making a difference. A few more characteristics of an ideal leader would be one who is a good communicator and persuader, sticks to their values, and takes complex ideas and situations and makes them simple. A leader needs to be willing; willing to listen, willing to act, willing to change, willing to take criticism, willing to accept defeat, and willing to be a confident leader. A leader needs to have a balance of their personal ideas and views, along with facts and knowledge. In other words, everyone has a bias and everyone has opinions, however the way in which you mix those personal beliefs with facts is a vital quality and skill. My personal take on being a leader is complicated and something I will continue to develop throughout being a human on this planet and being a student. For me, both watching other leaders and the choices I make about leadership are what affects my definition of a leader. If I feel like taking action and putting my voice above others in order to get something done, or release an idea, than I am choosing to be a leader. When I want to be, I can be a leader in my family, in the classroom, on my sports teams, in my friend group, etc. The opportunity to be a leader is often a position many individuals over-think, however to be a leader is something almost anyone can be. By definition a leader is a "guiding or directing head," or "one with followers." (Dictionary.reference.com) Personal definitions of a leader affect the way you view leaders and what you look for in a leader. There are leaders, and there are good leaders, but both are hard to fulfill. 

blog 3 (11-17-11)

There is a lot to compare between the heat wave in Chicago and the Trench foot disease that was going around during war in an area between Germany and France. In the heat wave in the mid 1900's, hundreds of people died. However, not everyone that died during the heat wave died because of the pouncing heat. People most definitely died because of other reasons and illnesses. You cannot blow something like this out of proportion because that only makes matters worse and we all know that people die daily because of natural causes. Mayor Daley stated, "then everybody in the summer that dies will die of heat." He is projected this idea through the media for two reasons. One because he does not want to be blamed as the mayor for any of these deaths, nor does he want people to freak out and also because what he is saying about the deaths is true. Many of the opinions and theories created post heat wave were due to the mayor and politics. These views that they expressed would not be possible without the media because they were screened on public television and through the media. Mayor Daley said a lot of things that than stuck with citizens and now when they think back and refer to the heat wave, they think of the political views expressed through the media as well. The trench foot disease was similar and different to the heat wave in many ways. They were different because they happened in different countries, yet they were similar because both the heat wave and trench foot hit all types of people; young, old, male, female, strong, weak, sick, healthy, etc. These two epidemics differed because the media played a clear role in the heat wave in Chicago, and on the other hand during the trench foot outbreak, there was no media, and things regarding battle and everyday life were much more "old fashioned." They were similar because both groups of people had to remember that just because trench foot was going around, or the heat wave was present, doesn't mean that everyone was affected by it, or that everyone that died during that time period died because of that. Lastly, when a group of people comes together, disease is more likely to result in a higher death toll. In the trenches, there were so many people and so many dirty things such as feces, dead animals, dead bodies, and rain water that all compiled to create this deadly disease. When a group of people comes together, a disease is bound to spread quickly and affect countless people. The heat wave was less of a group dilemma because it was not necessarily contagious, however people did need the support and assistance of others. There is a lot to compare and contrast between the heat wave in Chicago, and trench foot in Europe. 

blog 2 (11-15-11)

Response to "Dying Alone":

The heat wave in Chicago in 1995 was both a social disaster and a natural one. It was primarily a social disaster and time of awareness because many people died out of contact meaning they died alone from this heat wave in places such as behind doors, and in alleys, that no one would expect. This is a social issue because they died without putting closure on relationships and families. Since the elderly were the most vulnerable to death in this situation, that shifted the population socially. They were most vulnerable because they were often unable to move quicker, and they tend to be less modern than everyone else. When you are old and ill, it is harder to shift your life style than it is for an active young adult. Also, since this heat wave broke out and everyone was acting hectic and unorganized, they needed to trust people around them. City dwellers sometimes needed to trust their neighbors because when it was so hot they needed to leave doors open or something like that. Trust is a big aspect of social life, and this heat wave was an example of how an environmental issue affects social lives as well. Another major aspect of this heat wave in 1995 was the response by the government and the question if the government did enough and covered their responsibilities. Of course people argued that the government did not do enough because when a whole city is in trouble like that, they need someone to blame, so they blame their leaders who already have so many expectations placed on them. The government failed to implement a plan for what happens when a heat emergency like this occurs, and they waited till last minute to do it because they were not fully expecting it. After many bodies were already washed away, the authorities still stalled calling for more help and paramedics because they could not sense the magnitude of this epidemic. By 1999 Chicago experienced another sever heat wave, however the media played a bigger role in this event than it did in the issue in 1995. With the advanced communications, interactions, and overall technological advancements, police were sent door to door to check on people, public transportation was provided, and everything was more organized, therefor the death toll was reduced. Because of these heat waves, which were both a natural and a social disaster, the government learned things as well as the citizens and what they should expect from their leaders. From this, citizens learned that natural disasters that are uncontrollable should not be blamed on the government, and now they know how to prepare themselves for scenes like this in the future.

blog 1 (11-14-11)

Response to the Environment and World War:

The Industrial Revolution had a net positive affect on the world, and really helped sustain human life and many advancements sprouted through the Industrial Revolution. However, right after this revolution a War known as World War I broke out. Such a positive period in history and such a negative period in history happen so close together, and the world is always shifting. Not only do the amount of casualties and increase or decrease in population affect the world, but the reasons for those changes. World War I clearly demonstrated a bad relationship between society and the environment, along with all the deaths and injuries. During this war soldiers were required to live in trenches in order to escape their opponents and be secretive. However, along with living in these trenches came lice, disease, deaths, feces, spoiled food, and especially rain water. All of the water built up after several months carried these objects and even humans along with them, and resources of any sort became scarce. The impact of disease and the impact of the environment are two majors things that forever changed/will continue to change the world. There are many things in history that we cannot control, so how do we shape history? We ultimately cannot control how quickly disease spreads and how many people die. We cannot control the environment and the catastrophes that are randomly thrown at us. We cannot control other peoples major decisions and ideas? We do not know who will be born and how they will affect the world. We do not know how the environment is going to react to our treatment of it. We do not know what other disease might suddenly break out, or how many people will die. But we do know that things will always change and we have to prepare for what we can. Just like in a science experiment there is a controlled variable which we can individually and manually control, and there are those other variables which unfold themselves as the experiment continues and as we discover new things. The one thing we can control is ourselves. We can control how much effort we put into something and our motivations to start new ideas. We can control our hygiene and how we choose to interact with people and the environment we live in. We can control ourselves and how we want to make a difference in the world, while we cant control many other things around us...

blog 3 (11-13-11)

Thesis:

Given that there was already poverty in Haiti, when the earthquake hit it caused even more poverty due to the unstable government, unemployment, and growing population.

Topic Sentence:

There was a record of unstable government in Haiti even before the earthquake hit which made the catastrophe even more hectic and difficult, which ultimately led to poverty.

A. Disorganization regarding health and hospitals

B. Disorganization regarding safety and crimes

C. International affairs (which sometimes help more than their own government)

Topic Sentence: Because of the unemployment and lack of education, Haitians were driven into poverty and hunger.

A. Tough decisions to be made

B. Schooling system

C. Everyday life (how poverty, hunger, and the Gov. are all connected- one big issue)

Topic Sentence: The growing population in Haiti made everything harder because the amount of people dominated the amount of land, jobs, and resources available in Haiti.

A. It's a problem that is harder to control (along with all of the other issues)

B. Environment (humans and the environment sustain each other)

C. People do have hope

Thesis statement (restated): Before the earthquake in Haiti occurred, there was a dysfunctional government, a lack of jobs, and an overpopulation, and these dilemmas only continued to expand once the earthquake struck.

blog 2 (11-7-11)

Response to Environment/Industrial Revolution reading:


World War I officially began in August of 1914. I was wondering how a war officially is declared because it is obviously not a joyful event, so how are they established and then formally ended? I think that through media and through progression in our society this answer will continue to unfold itself. Because of the communications that we have today, we can state things in a much easier and more efficient fashion. Another point that I gathered from reading this was the idea of followers listening to their leaders. Actually not necessarily were these soldiers mentioned in the text followers, however they listened to authority just because they are ultimately considered "superior." Students listen to their teachers in class and they do everything they are told just because the teacher has a title placed on them which is known as being the authority, and no one dares to break those rules, otherwise you are looked at weirdly and differently. What if soldiers didn't listen to their commanders? What if students didn't listen to their principles? What if children didn't listen to their parents? What if society ignored the government? What if employees didn't listen to their bosses? Would life really be that different? I think that if no one attempts to step up, be a leader, and/or break the rules sometimes than not much will ever get accomplished or be changed. To have your own voice, or simply a voice at all is essential in many situations, and to just listen to someone and be blindly obedient will not get us very far in life. Just like our doctors tell us to eat in moderation, we need to listen in moderation; in other words there is a balance between following the rules while also speaking your mind and staying true to yourself and your own beliefs. To continue, after reading this I further understand the link and the connection between environmental based catastrophes and the idea of globalization. The mobility of humans and how interconnected everyone was, plus the close bondage between the environment and its people, plus the technologic advancements really shows how each layer of everyday life is interwoven. Not only do the  causes and the origin of the influenza matter, or even the aftermath, but the way it impacted and changed life is what really mattered in the long run. One could argue that the reasons for something happening is more important that what actually happened. Just like in math someone could say it doesn't matter what your answer is in the end, it matters how you got there and what process and route you took. However the devastation and the realization that this epidemic brought to the world was far more important than logistically why it happened.


The mobility allowed for a virus such as influenza was mainly possible because of the advancements that took place in society.

blog 1 (11-6-11)

"PAPER" (responses to the Black Death reading"

Purpose:
Author- Giovanni
Giovanni is evidently educated yet in this article he does not reference himself as a royal, how much money he has, or his personal place in society. I think Giovanni wrote this article because it was something that he experienced and witnessed with his own eyes. The purpose of writing this was to record an epoch disease and how it made an impact in the world. This article was written in order to state the causes and why this disease broke out, the events that took place, and the aftermath and how it affected future societies. The author is at stake because of his bias opinion, however any author and any piece of history has a bias, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The author does have a thesis, which I think is, "In the mid-fourteenth century, an outbreak of bunion plague spread rapidly across Europe from east to west. The Black Death was a social catastrophe that tore communities apart. The tearing of communities was referenced a lot in this article and how groups of people were isolated and destroyed.

Argument:
This text is trying to factually and fairly express what happened in Europe many years ago. In this article it talks about what the bubonic plague is and how the disease works, how it affected people and their placed in society, and how those people reacted and responded to such an epidemic. The text makes its case by showing and not telling that when chaos breaks out people are significantly more frantic and less able to make important decisions. Also, the negative responses from this disease only made things worse. I get a good sense that Giovanni executed his goal in trying to explain that because of all the details and knowledge that Giovanni expressed. The intended audience for this piece of writing is most likely anyone who did not experience the Bubonic Plague first hand. People who did know what happened and who were living in those moments either physically felt the pain and affects, or know what happened and have their own set of opinions. It was intended for that sort of audience because people who did not experience it should can learn what to do and what not to do in a situation like that, which is something anyone can take away from reading this article. The author made one point that was not clearly stated which was how some people lived "neutrally" while all of this was happening, meaning they were not super worried and didn't hide in their houses, but they didn't smile through life and remain joyful at every second either. I think this idea is unclear and very vague. If this thought were to be in detail the author would tell us how those "neutral" people interacted with others, if they lived separately from those with different approaches on life, and how and why they were not as affected as others. This author is reliable and credible because he described how he legitamently saw a dead man in the street, and watched two pigs go over to that dead man and take the rags and clothes off of that man, and only a few minutes later those pigs dropped dead on the floor. This specific scene shows how fast the plague spread and how severe it was. Obviously there are opinions in this article, but the amount of facts dominates the amount of opinion which is why I know this is reliable and truthful.

Presuppositions:
The ideas and values in this source differ from those values in our age. The way they treated those got sick back then is very different than the majority of people would treat and interact with sick people today. During the outbreak of the plague people avoided the sick, did not visit them, plus there was minimal decent medicine. On the other hand, today we have quality medicine and way more technology and we do not avoid people when they are sick we help them and visit them as much as possible. Additionally, during the Black Death in Europe people isolated themselves and decided to free their worries in their lives and simply "drink and laugh" constantly. This differs from society today because it is not that easy, meaning at this point in time there are too many distractions and things to worry about that that would not realistically happen. I assumed and interpreted that everyone in Europe and near there was completely and utterly aware of what was happening. A lot of times when something like this happens we don't realized how important and how horrifying it was until we stop and look back on it. This false assumption probably changed the way I read things in this article. There are things in America, even in Chicago, that happen which I do not always know about, so I can't assume that everyone knew what was happening and how serious it truly was.

Epistemology:
One interpretation and opinion that Giovanni expressed was how most of the lower class and big portion of the middle class were "pathetic" because they chose to stay in their homes hoping to stay safe. First of all, placing the title on the lower class and middle class is not fair because "the lower class" is not one person or one type of people and within the "lower class" live many different people with many different opinions and choices. Also, to place an adjective like pathetic on someone clearly shows it is an opinion. One fact that was presented in this article is that the disease spread through touching, talking, and simply interacting with people. I know that this is true because of the results of the disease- how many people ended up getting it, and how many people died. I don't think people would exaggerate a fact like this and it makes sense with all of the other context and facts throughout the article.

Relate:
(no other article to relate to)

blog 3 (11-3-11)

Extended/ expanded notes/ ideas from questions in class...

There are laws of modern society that are comparable to the Laws of Manu. There are also things that we do in our modern society that conflict with the spirit of the Laws of Manu. Some similar things are that many people are vegetarians and in the Laws of Manu it is illegal to eat meat. Today it is illegal to litter and throw garbage on the ground, and in the Laws of Manu they enforce how it is forbidden to harm the environment. Another way that we conserve the environment and organisms just like they did in the Laws of Manu is by only hunting and fishing strictly during certain seasons. However we use tons of gas, we unnecessarily kill animals, and we kill plants regularly which is causing pollution and extinction which is not something that is positively enforced in the Laws of Manu. The Laws of Manu prevented the spread of plagues to a great extent. Lots of disease is food-born and spread through meat and a polluted environment. Disease spreads through meat easily because of the way it is killed, and then the way it is handled, processed, and manufactured after that. When there are strict laws and an abundance of organic food, more health is present. The Laws of Manu projected hygienic living and prevented the spread of plagues. There are distinct connections between disease and the need for balance between humans and their environment. Us humans are the ones screwing and hurting the environment and in return we are the ones who get the diseases. The environment goes bad and then we are harmed, so when humans do something, there is a consequence placed on us in return. It is like one big cycle where we do something negative and get a negative outcome as well; a double negative does not make a positive, especially when humans the environment work so closely together. The way in which people responded to the Black Plague only made things worse. The doctors treatment of patients has improved because of the knowledge, technological advancements, and social skills we have gained up to this day. Also the containing of sewage, trash, and disease containing rats and animals has gotten a lot more organized and clean. When people complain and cause chaos during a viral and rapidly spreading disease, their train of thought becomes distorted. Just like those victims of the holocaust have seen experienced such trauma, that their ability to make decisions and just the way they live their lives is much more different than that of an "ordinary citizen." Those individuals  become less able and less thoughtful, therefor it made the situation worse. Today we trust doctors more and we have so much technology that we are not as frantic and as worried when a disease breaks out.

blog 2 (11-2-11)

There are patterns in history. A constant factor that has appeared in history is the fact that one human can make a difference, big or small, negative or positive, still a difference. It is obvious that individual leaders have had an impact on their followers. One man's idea, invention, or push to a revolution changes history. Great men and women change the course of history and they will continue to do so no matter what society is like, because humans have an inclination to admire and envy other people and their ideas. In other words, you always want to push yourself because you know there are always those people who are better than you, and those people influence you and you want to follow them which is why that is one pattern in history. Another pattern is that history is completely random. Environmentally history is completely unpredictable because natural disasters and the way our ecosystem reacts is something we have never been able to fully predict in the past and will never be able to completely prepare for. It depends a lot on the situation of the land a disaster is about to hit, and the after-effects which come with that. Additionally, we do not know when someone will come up with the next epoch invention or cure to a disease, and history unfolds itself slowly, we just have to be patient. Another pattern in world history is the fact that things move from simple to more complex. We keep gaining knowledge and though this knowledge might distract us from other things, we will never loose all of this knowledge and technological advancements that we have gained. There is continuously a better and more efficient way of accomplishing a job, and it will only get more rapid and more complex as the world continues to evolve. Something else that is a pattern in history is that there have seemingly always been systems within cultures. What I mean by that is when a civilization or a group is developed, there is always further divisions and "sections within those sections." For example, a civilization was formed and then within that there was a religious group, and within that religious group there was a racial group, and within than racial group was a middle class (soceoeconimical class) group, and within that group was a family, and within that family were the gendered groups, etc. Not only are things constantly getting more specific and more detailed, but the competition between groups of different people, as well as the similarities and unity amongst our nations is becoming more apparent. Something that is visible in all of history is the idea of economics. Not only does the amount of money one family have affect that specific family, it affects the economy and statistics in the world as whole. Money means a lot whether we like it or not because our economic status determines how we maneuver throughout our lives, and make important decisions. There are clear patterns in history, and one major one is the idea of change in general.

blog 1 (11-1-11)

I agree with The Laws of Manu, and I think they should be enforced today just like they were in the past. It is interesting to think about what things from our past have lasted until today, and what has completely been abolished and forgotten. These laws were separated into three categories, one being ethical dictums, another was offensive dictums, and the last one was self restriction dictums. Ethical dictums referred to offenses against the environment, but it does not just mean that there is a law against destructing the environment, but it includes a consequence if you break this law. From reading these set of rules I get the impression that the consequences are more serious and people are more afraid to break the rules than some laws and consequences that are around today. This is efficient because this way  people know if they attempt to break the rules there will be a serious punishment. The motto that I took away from these set of rules was "never harm a living creature," whether that be plants (environment), animals (organisms), or human beings. Also, in these set of rules enforced how eating meat is a serious and inexcusable crime. I would actually agree with that statement because killing millions of animals for food, especially living and innocent animals, is horrific. How would humans feel if we killed each other for food and business? That is not morally fair or acceptable and people would view other humans very different if a human did this but humans do not view other humans different when they kill and destroy animals... Another "small" thing that does not get a lot of concern and attention is the obstruction of plants in our ecosystems and environments. Us humans, being the "virus" we are step on plants and pollute them, as well as pull them out in the middle of their growing and thriving process to use for food and for leisure. I agree with all these rules that are supplied in the Laws of Manu, yet I do not strictly follow all of them, and I feel very badly about that. For another example, I disagree with homophobes and I one hundred percent accept gays and transgenders, however sometimes I feel uncomfortable around transgenders because they are so different from me. The way we treat our environment affects our bodies which affects our government, therefore all of these rules are well organized and interconnected!

second 5 sources

SOURCE ONE

Secondary-article

Collie, Tim. 'Silent emergency': Population, poverty ravage Haitian ecology. McClathy-Tribune News Service, Washington; December 14, 2004. Date accessed: November 1, 2011.

In this article is written how alarming the situation in Haiti was a few years ago, and how it is still that way today. It provides some statistics referring to the country as a whole, and the death toll, and the population. Lastly, the reason for some of Haiti’s disorganization and struggle is related to their relationship with the environment.

Quotes:

“A greater percentage of Haitians live in poverty than citizens of the war-ravaged Congo.”

“…The lack of trees and all. We're always at the mercy of the floods."

http://search.proquest.com/docview/457162915/132C4CD5AD03BBA5594/1?accountid=3360

SOURCE TWO

Secondary, article

The Guardian, page 22. After the quake Haiti population on the rebound, June 30, 2010. Date accessed: November 1, 2011.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/527996056?accountid=3360

The population is shifted, the economy is shifted, the government is shifted; who is there to blame? Around 230,000 casualties occurred in this 7.0 earthquake, and Haiti as well as other countries will work to rebuild the pride in Haiti.

SOURCE THREE

Deckelbaum, D. L., M.D. (2010). The Haiti earthquake: A personal perspective. Canadian Medical Association.Journal, 182(5), E241-E241-2. Date accessed: November 1, 2011.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/204842272?accountid=3360

The deaths and the sicknesses contributed to the poverty because of the money used to pay for surgery and hospitalization and for the deaths.

SOURCE FOUR

Helping the people of Haiti. 2010. Irish Times, Jan 18, 2010. Date accessed: November 1, 2011

Retrieved from:

http://search.proquest.com/docview/309228729?accountid=3360

“Madam - The terrible natural disaster that has befallen the people of Haiti should not blind us to the fact that many of the deaths were avoidable and many Haitians died simply from the effects of poverty.”

SOURCE FIVE

Primary- article and pictures

Costello, Emily. 2004. Fighting hunger in HAITI. Scholastic Action. May 10. Date accessed: November 1, 2011.

Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/211026495?accountid=3360

This connects hunger and poverty as one big, interconnected issue.

first 5 sources

SOURCE ONE

Primary-article

Boley, Albert. “Devastated Haiti needs our compassion.” Oscala Star- Banner, February 28, 2010. Date accessed: October 23, 2011.

Keywords: poverty, Haiti, earthquake, in

Retrieved from

:http://search.proquest.com/docview/390308842/132AB4363863FC8B17C/2?accountid=3360

--Reasons for poverty in Haiti

Quote: “But has this poverty been caused by overpopulation? No. Have their children caused this poverty? No. The poverty in Haiti has been caused by generations of greedy, dishonest and lawless leaders who have drained their nation. The leaders -- political, military and financial -- are responsible for Haiti's poverty.”

SOURCE TWO

Primary-article

Anonymous. “Haiti's self-inflicted poverty makes it helpless during a disaster.” (2010, Jan 20). Deseret News, pp. A.15. Date accessed: October 23, 2011.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/351812556?accountid=3360

Deseret News

Keywords: anonymous interview in magazine article

SOURCE THREE

Primary- article

Starnes, R. (2006, Jul 31). Poverty in focus: Haiti shown through the eyes of its teens. The Gazette, pp. A.8-A8. Date accessed: October 23, 2011.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/434352329?accountid=3360

Quote: “There is no better way to tell a story than through the eyes of the people living it.”

This article mostly says that through the youth and through expressing our feelings through art, problems can be solved.

SOURCE FOUR

https://plus.google.com/s/poverty%20in%20haiti

“Poverty In Haiti” Video

SOURCE FIVE

Primary- article

Walton, David. “Responding to Cholera in Post-Earthquake Haiti” 2011.

From the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School; the Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital; and Partners in Health (all in Boston.) Date accessed: October 23, 2011.

Retrieved from

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1012997

blog 3 (10-27-11)

The link for the reading connected with moodle would not work...

In Ancient Mesopotamia before there was a currency system, they traded primarily with barley. It is surreal to think how much a thin piece of paper (money) can represent. A green rectangle that weighs way less than a pound can be worth a lot, even a deciding factor in a life or death situation. How did mathematics figure out math and numbers, let alone words? It is fascinating to ponder what subjects we learn in school are “most important.” History is important because it gives us an opportunity to view patters, figure out what did and did not work, and learn about our ancestors in order to ready ourselves for the future. Math is extremely essential because it correlates with science and art as well. Math is a skill that will be used a lot considering all of life’s “transactions” that are thrown at us. Math is integrated into art because of the measurements and the mathematic mind set that is needed for some steps of an art project as well as graphs, statistics, and numbers that we use for science. Language is both hard to learn, but is also considered a leisure activity. Language is vital to learn because of the business department, but also because we need to expand our cultural knowledge and we should ideally have the ability to communicate with people unlike us who have different native tongues. Science is key because the world we live in is almost like one giant science experiment. In other words, we should truly know why certain things happen in the environment which we are surrounded and enraptured in everyday. Humans interact with the environment on a daily basis and we help sustain each other, which is why science is a very pertinent and useful thing to study. One might argue that a student will study super hard and devote all of their time and effort for an algebra test, then ace it, and forget it a week later. This makes me wonder which subjects are really important and will benefit me in the long run. Humans are ever changing and the world in which we live in is ever changing. Who can control that?

blog 2 (10-25-11)

In any "civilization" there are ways in which you can sustain the civilization so it last for a long period of time. The given categories which pretty much determine the organization of the communities are growth of territories, daily life, interactions among citizens and outsiders, distribution of jobs, economics, and religion. In order to have an organized civilization, each of these categories needs to be organized as well. To me, growth of the territories means how populated the area is, and also physically how large the living environment is. There should be a continuing growth of people in the civilization because you cannot have a civilization without lots of people, and also the territory in which those citizens live needs to be healthy. Daily life means how the individuals go about their daily life from when they wake up to when they drop to sleep. If their daily lives are constantly hectic, than the environment displays disorganization. If the members of the civilization cannot work and benefit from one another in their daily lives in order to accomplish tasks, you can be sure the civilization will not last long. Interactions among citizens and outsiders is slightly similar to daily life, however interactions among citizens and outsiders also involves trading because that is interaction with people outside of the civilization, which is important and essential because if you never know life outside of your own, you would not have as much knowledge and experience. Distribution of jobs refers to how the people of the civilization work and how fairly work is distributed. If only the rich people were offered jobs, and none were available to the poor, than the rich would only get richer and the poor would only get poorer, therefor the civilization would crash eventually. Economics deals with the currency system of a civilization and how the leaders choose to deal with the economy. An organized economic system is the basis to a sustainable and well-run civilization. Religion is a major component to civilizations as well. Religion is super important because the individuals often rely on religion in order to create values and beliefs for themselves which helps them maneuver and make decisions during their every day lives. Religion is something people lean on, and it brings people together due to common interests, yet also defines the differences in one another.  Each one of these categories relate in some way, and they are all in the interest of benefitting and helping protect a civilization. One example of how the Mesopotamian civilization existed for longer than the Indus valley civilization is that in the Indus Valley there was a lot of controversy over politics and religion. This was apparent partially because Alexander the Great came into the valley and left a major impact, mostly a negative one, on all of the citizens. And when a ruler and an authority like that storms in on a civilization and makes some major decisions, the civilization is effected in the long run and because of him and his leadership, lots of things were unorganized. On the other hand, in Mesopotamia, political centralization started, city states were formed, and there were intelligent and structured leaders. This one aspect of the civilization affected many things, just like a food web in science. Once one animal is taken out of a food web some become over populated and some die out, in other words one slight change can make all the difference.

blog 1 (10-24-11)

There are several labels placed in our society, some in which I do not understand. It is true that we live in America, but does that make up a part of who we are? When I think of America I think of a map, but what if we did not have that a map to categorize the United States? What would I think of then? Americans and Chinese should not be viewed differently, because we are all part of the world, the earth that we live on, and the different countries should not mean anything. For example, two people were invited to a party and they did not let the American in but they let the Asian person. It is like Asians think they are superior to Americans and they are on two different levels, however we are on one level, or at least that is how it should be. I can categorize myself into countless different labels- American, Caucasian, Jewish, feminine, etc. If there was never all of these categorizations, society would be completely different. If we did not have religion, or money, or different countries, would life be easier or harder? It seems like everyone would be much more similar because we would not divide ourselves from others. Yet we derive many of our beliefs and we base some of our decisions based on how much money we have or what religion we are a part of. One would argue that being a part of America gives them a sense of belonging and a sense of pride. When we sing the national anthem at a sports event, it proves that there is a sense of pride to be an American. Just because we sing it, does not mean that it carries meaning for everyone there, and we might be doing it just because everyone around us is doing it. For others, it might be a time to reflect on the community and civilization that we are a part of. If I did not view myself as American, I would not become depressed and think, "Now I have no reason to live." If everyone was completely equal meaning there was no currency system, no religion, and no geographic divisions life would be different. It would be less complicated, but at the same time it could potentially create more problems. Are these divisions healthy and do we need to be separated from others in order to live civilly? The answer will not be deteremined becuase we will never be able to go back in time. Our past generations have pretty much determined how life and society would run today, and we are born into a country and born into the way of life in which we are almost forced to live in. For example, why is it that guys are supposed to be into action figures and love the color blue and girls are supposed to love dolls and adore the color pink? These stereotypes were created somehow... The decisions we make now are imporant for the generations to come and if simply a few people made slightly different decisions, our everyday lives would not be how they are today. This brings me to the point of arguning the past. Arguing the past actually wont help anything. Hence why I wonder why we learn histroy if it already happened, and we can't change anything about it, why study it? There is always a history class in curriculums at school, and hardly ever a current events/issues class. Initially I would presume that we should dicuss issues that we are facing in our lives now, and how we can make them better rather than debating the past. History is a complicated thing...

blog 3 (10-20-11)

           The pyramid we studied in class is a hierarchy that applies in all the societies I can think of. Without the Physiological part of the pyramid we would not have the necessities we need to survive, therefore it is first on the pyramid. Humans require food, water, oxygen, sleep, and shelter to survive. After this category comes safety, meaning self respect and respect towards and from others. Then there is the sense of belonging in communities whether that be a friend group, a family, a team, a religion, etc.  Being in a community can really make one feel a sense of belonging, and it helps them to find those who have things in common with them. In this category is love as well; intimacy and feelings towards another. After this section there is esteem which is similar to the last two categories because esteem basically means confidence and respect. After this is self-actualization which means finding your values and morals. 
             I slightly disagree with this pyramid because I think it is a bit repetitive. There should only be three categories in my opinion, one called necessities, one called self confidence and self respect, and another called values. Without the things you need to survive you would be able to have self confidence and respect because you would not be alive and able to think. Without self respect and confidence you would not be able to have individual values because you would not have your own true identity. In other words, each of these categories help sustain the next- they all connect. This pyramid relates a lot to my life because obviously I survive off the necessities needed in order to live, but I also build relationships and create my own values for my every day life. Without my own identity and personal confidence, my life would not be the same. I think that in order for a civilization to run, those three categories need to apply to the citizens. While every one has their differences, at the end of the day we can come together and create communities and civilizations.

blog 2 (10-19-11)

The idea of community is essential in order to sustain a living environment. After creating an "imaginary" environment I think it was more than simply a civilization, it was more of a community. To begin, the people that come before the current generation of people in a community are useful. They set the tone and supply things for future generations, which is one great aspect of community. Also, without working with one another, not nearly as much would be as organized and efficient. With bare necessities as all you have to live, you need to rely on one another for support. By definition, a community is a group of any size who share a similar belief, or rather have anything in common. An ecosystem by scientific definition is living and non living things interacting. These two definitions combined, I think, make up a community. Like the type of community that we invented in class. The biotic factors, those who are living, use the abiotic factors, non living, to sustain each other. The humans living in the community eat the animals, and use the soil, dirt, trees, leaves, water, etc. Without the knives and tools we have today, the citizens of the community needed each other to complete tasks and get things done. To prepare a meal required several people, therefor the idea of community came into play. Some people would create tools, then others would work to hunt the animals, and others would start preparing a fire and boiling water- each person added something different to the job. A community is more than a civilization because a civilization is a particulate type of society and/or it is a broad cultural pattern in a specific area (source of definitions, http://bit.ly/90QFJh)- this does not imply one another enhancing or benefiting each other. I think that in future generations the idea of community will play a role in every day life, just like it has in the past.

blog one (10-18-11)

A blog unrelated to material in class today, but rather regarding a current event:

What is ones life worth? An Israeli man by the name of Gilad Shalit was released in exchange for letting nearly one thousand Palestinians free. Those Palestinians included hundreds who were accused of murder and charged for life sentences, yet are now free. Gilad, this young man, was unexpectedly captured nearly five years ago, and immediately restricted from talking to anyone. No one, as in not his parents, not his friends, no one. With these deprivations comes mental damage for good; Gilad was slightly less capable of making important and smart decisions because of all that he went through. He (the victim) did not have a say in the outcome of this ongoing dilemma, which was a good and bad thing. Through these five vague and harsh years, not only the people of Israel, (but especially them), were anxious. During a controversy like that, peoples initial feeling is most likely anxiety because they have their own opinions and hopes, yet they do not know how everything will turn out. Throughout history, how could people have a say in what they wanted? What can you do in the moment to share your ideas and get the result you want? Besides a democracy, it is hard to make a difference, but at the same time it is easy... The good thing is that he would not have to carry that guilt or burden on himself if he made the decision himself. In other words, since he did not have to decide, no one could blame him personally and he would not have to deal with regretting a final decision. On the other hand, the bad component to this is that if he had the opportunity to make the decision he could have sacrificed himself. He could have said "You know what, maybe my life is not worth thousands of dangerous people released and freed into the world." Maybe he would have taken his life in order to save his people and to save others; to show a sign of courage, bravery,  and loyalty. "1=1,027. "This is a meaningful "equation" that makes you stop and think... Additionally, Israel was extremely happy about the news of Gilad coming home, because it was almost like an accomplishment and a reward for Israel as a country. An accomplishment like this, especially for a country like Israel is strictly a time for happiness, unity, and celebration, (plus this occurred right near the holiday of Sukkot.) Either way, when they made a decision about this topic, it still would have been a big deal and there would still be people that disagree. After five years of being held captive by Hamas, Gilad finally returned to his family. Life will probably never be the same for Gilad Shalit. He is damaged in the brain because of the torture he went through and all the pressure, as well as physically because he did not eat as much and his life style rapidly shifted. History is complicated. Decisions are complicated. War is complicated. People are completed. Life is complicated.The fate of what lies ahead because of this decision is unsure. For now we know that Israel is celebrating, meanwhile some people out there are concered about the violent freed Palestinians...What is one life worth...

blog 3

Although many of the hospitals were overloaded, the government had a responsibility to help organize that problem, along with other as well. It was unrealistic to create more hospitals at the time because there were other dilemmas simultaneously occurring, but the government did the right thing by helping to organize the overflowing of hospitals. The Haitian government also exported homeless people on a fairy out of the capital, Port Au-Prince. It must have been difficult to select which issues to tend for and at which times with all the commotion going on. Another major problem was with the burials and the countless amount of deaths. There were thousands of people dead in the streets, in houses, missing, etc and who was responsible for all those people? The government assisted to take those people and either burn them or burry them, yet that was not all. The government handled situations where people reported missing as well as found bodies, which is a hard and intense job. The controversy of how people should morally and how people preferred to be buried was prevalent. Since there were such a large number of deaths, it was hard to care respectfully for each body; therefore the government was partly blamed. The government was accused of not providing enough medical services and water throughout the streets and wherever else people needed helped. Many say the after affects of the earthquake would have been less severe in the moment and long term if the government were more efficient and more organized. For example, streetlights were broken down which resulted in major backed up traffic. The security and police scene was not as strong as it needed to be, and it was almost like other countries governments helped more than the Haitian government itself. The United States was helping Haiti in various categories such as food, water, evacuation, security, airports, medically, and overall international coordination. How could the Haitian government been better? At the end of the day, the Haitian government had several responsibilities during the earthquake in Haiti.