It’s as simple as this: you’re in a car, blindfolded. You can feel yourself moving because you know you have somewhere to go, but only the car’s in control. All you have to do is wait, wait for it to take you to your destination. But which way are you going, backward or forward? This analogy symbolizes in a lot of ways the meaning of life. Everyone starts somewhere, and ends up somewhere else. One never really knows why, they only know it’s necessary.
As everyone grows and matures, they change. It’s often said for the better, but at the same time, one seems to drift farther and farther away from the known, from themselves. Sure, it’s only natural, but why? We’re obviously exposed to the things we’re exposed to for a reason (to grow), but if one always seems to change, then are you in fact “you” anymore?
-Will Duffield
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Me, Myself, I and Us?
Is there ever such thing as purely impartial? The fundamentals of life are always there, but we always seem to pull them toward our persona. Can anyone ever truly see what life’s all about in their first-person perspective? Now, we can jump out of our suit and see things from the eye of another no doubt, but even then we’re stuck with how we interpret it. Now with this in mind, what can (if anything) be considered universally selfish?
I mean, it’s not our fault that we’re moles: stuck in this form of “tunnel vision”, but is there a line where one can refrain themselves to only his or her “tunnels”, and be considered selfish? Again, seems like a matter of opinion than fact, but at the same time, is it even worth acknowledging and pondering? Like I said before, the fundamentals of life are unanimous, and because of that alone, we grow by learning through ourselves. So at the same time, can the word “selfish” even exist, for no matter how much we take in from outside, we’re still ourselves.
-Will Duffield
I mean, it’s not our fault that we’re moles: stuck in this form of “tunnel vision”, but is there a line where one can refrain themselves to only his or her “tunnels”, and be considered selfish? Again, seems like a matter of opinion than fact, but at the same time, is it even worth acknowledging and pondering? Like I said before, the fundamentals of life are unanimous, and because of that alone, we grow by learning through ourselves. So at the same time, can the word “selfish” even exist, for no matter how much we take in from outside, we’re still ourselves.
-Will Duffield
'x' Vs. 'y'
Alright, now HERE’S one to ponder! Groves and Seaholm are just one example of the traditional rivalry concept that has also existed since the beginning of time. But as always, one has to wonder why. Can there be any one reason? Is it to have pride in a group? Is it to show superiority? Is it only natural?
Well, like many deep questions, there’s probably not an answer, but there’s definitely evidence. We’re still animals, therefore we still have instincts like animals. Could that be the reason for such behavior? Is it that we just can’t stand others’ opinions? Do we even have control over it? Freud and many others have said that there are two primary aspects of our mind: the instinctive and the conscious. As you guessed, the instinctive reacts sometimes as simply and irrationally as a reflex, and then there’s what makes us different from the animals: our consciousness where we can make decisions and judgment calls. So, what I’m wondering is could the whole competitive spirit exist as a natural function for us to deal with as we choose because we’re human beings? Interesting...
-Will Duffield
Well, like many deep questions, there’s probably not an answer, but there’s definitely evidence. We’re still animals, therefore we still have instincts like animals. Could that be the reason for such behavior? Is it that we just can’t stand others’ opinions? Do we even have control over it? Freud and many others have said that there are two primary aspects of our mind: the instinctive and the conscious. As you guessed, the instinctive reacts sometimes as simply and irrationally as a reflex, and then there’s what makes us different from the animals: our consciousness where we can make decisions and judgment calls. So, what I’m wondering is could the whole competitive spirit exist as a natural function for us to deal with as we choose because we’re human beings? Interesting...
-Will Duffield
One Life, Two Perspectives
In the recent weeks, we have watched two films, which involved two very similar characters. Both Cool Hand Luke and R.P. McMurphy started from "nothing" in their little microcosm, and eventually rose to iconic people who not only determined their own fate in the end, but also changed the people around them (their "followers") for the better. But from all of this, some very interesting questions come up, which primarily follow some of the very fundamental elements of humanity.
For one thing, there’s always been a pretty universal question in humanity: Just how right is this society I live in, and what do I do about it? Such people like McMurphy and Luke have adopted a similar view on the whole thing: Society is the enemy, no questions asked. And it’s true that people will live by that idea. But what I find even more interesting about humanity is how it has perceived such people throughout history, for in general, such people have been declared “insane”, “against God” and the like. At the same time, however, there’s something that crosses every such person’s mind: Who’s right, me or the rest of humanity? Even though things like this have been debated over countless millennia, there’s one simple solution that people tend to overlook: Certain people are meant for certain things, others for others. They’re simply varying philosophies, and with varying philosophies, there is no “right” or “wrong”.
-Will Duffield
For one thing, there’s always been a pretty universal question in humanity: Just how right is this society I live in, and what do I do about it? Such people like McMurphy and Luke have adopted a similar view on the whole thing: Society is the enemy, no questions asked. And it’s true that people will live by that idea. But what I find even more interesting about humanity is how it has perceived such people throughout history, for in general, such people have been declared “insane”, “against God” and the like. At the same time, however, there’s something that crosses every such person’s mind: Who’s right, me or the rest of humanity? Even though things like this have been debated over countless millennia, there’s one simple solution that people tend to overlook: Certain people are meant for certain things, others for others. They’re simply varying philosophies, and with varying philosophies, there is no “right” or “wrong”.
-Will Duffield
Direct = Dignity
Many people agree that this new generation has its drawbacks. Now of course, which one doesn't? Yet people say that because of this new age of technology, we're becoming less and less 'human' every day.
First of all, what do they mean? Well I've heard a variety of theories, but I think that among all of the topics of interpretation, the biggest are the arrival of the internet and the ability to communicate with cell phones.
The internet: full of promise, prosperity, new means of expressing oneself, and also the biggest nightmare in some respects as well. The internet has a massive variety of benefits at you fingertips, no doubt, such as online encyclopedias or search engines. But, even search engines can ensure trouble. After all, there's a bad apple in every bunch.
Now more than ever can people exploit a unique kind of freedom that has never been available in previous history. People can be as mean as they want to others with chat rooms and online gaming, for example. New arrivals like Facebook and MySpace give people the choice to be as honest as they want about themselves, or completely lie. So as we continue to rely more and more heavily upon the internet to socialize, there really can't be any honesty; is your friend really telling you the truth? Is that other person in their class really a dweeb? Is that really your friend talking? Is there really any reason for him/her to tell you these things that he/she would otherwise never tell you, other than the obvious reason of making things up for attention? Is an online predator reading this same thing right now?
The internet is younger than all of us, yet it's already a veteran of promoting a strange kind of communication that leaves an ugly taste of suspicion always lurking in the background. Is there such thing as honesty? Parranoia? Humanity?
Part of being human is putting yourself out there and taking risks, especially in the social world. Do the words you read on the screen ever really reflect this person's true personality? Or did they have all the time they needed to word it "just right"? Are you thinking of me when you read this? For all you know, I could believe that the internet is the sole greatest thing in the world, but you don't.
In my opinion, the only way to truly know a person is to see them with your eyes and talk to them with you mouth. After all, that's why they're there right? Where's the fun in being social when you can't even guarantee it's even them you're talking to?! Imagine playing a game of Simon Says in a chat room. "Touch your toes!" And then, everyone says, "Nice try, but you didn't say 'Simon says'!" Simple words cannot be trusted. Speech is concrete.
Next, the cellular phone: another fabulous invention that's changed our culture forever. Now, cell phones have been around since the 1980s, but since then, there have been some dramatic changes to how our society works. It's no longer, "Hey! How are you? It's been so long! How've you been? What's new?" on every Christmas. Since the option of talking virtually nonstop has become exploitable, cellular companies have made a fortune, and it's not because of emergencies either (or at least real ones). Only a handfull of people actually use cell phones strictly for emergency calls, and the rest simply don't. Honestly, considering how many different people you call, would you really have time for all of them if you weren't calling, but talking in person?
The cell phone, much like it's computer counterpart, has also diminished what it truly means to be social. If it's not direct, it's not sincere. Simple as that. Have you ever seen a text message that uses complete sentences? Would you ever speak to someone in the same syntax?
The whole sense of vague and dishonest that these means of communicating have created is making communication between people all that much worse, believe it or not. There's no guarantee of honesty. There's no emotion in just words. There's no skill or intimidation involved in asking a cute girl out, or telling your friends how your day was. It's bland. It's colorless. It's the easy way out, which seems to be a common trend when people are given the appropriate choice. So if you want to really see someone for who they really are, don't trust their word, because for all you know...exactly, you don't.
-Will Duffield
First of all, what do they mean? Well I've heard a variety of theories, but I think that among all of the topics of interpretation, the biggest are the arrival of the internet and the ability to communicate with cell phones.
The internet: full of promise, prosperity, new means of expressing oneself, and also the biggest nightmare in some respects as well. The internet has a massive variety of benefits at you fingertips, no doubt, such as online encyclopedias or search engines. But, even search engines can ensure trouble. After all, there's a bad apple in every bunch.
Now more than ever can people exploit a unique kind of freedom that has never been available in previous history. People can be as mean as they want to others with chat rooms and online gaming, for example. New arrivals like Facebook and MySpace give people the choice to be as honest as they want about themselves, or completely lie. So as we continue to rely more and more heavily upon the internet to socialize, there really can't be any honesty; is your friend really telling you the truth? Is that other person in their class really a dweeb? Is that really your friend talking? Is there really any reason for him/her to tell you these things that he/she would otherwise never tell you, other than the obvious reason of making things up for attention? Is an online predator reading this same thing right now?
The internet is younger than all of us, yet it's already a veteran of promoting a strange kind of communication that leaves an ugly taste of suspicion always lurking in the background. Is there such thing as honesty? Parranoia? Humanity?
Part of being human is putting yourself out there and taking risks, especially in the social world. Do the words you read on the screen ever really reflect this person's true personality? Or did they have all the time they needed to word it "just right"? Are you thinking of me when you read this? For all you know, I could believe that the internet is the sole greatest thing in the world, but you don't.
In my opinion, the only way to truly know a person is to see them with your eyes and talk to them with you mouth. After all, that's why they're there right? Where's the fun in being social when you can't even guarantee it's even them you're talking to?! Imagine playing a game of Simon Says in a chat room. "Touch your toes!" And then, everyone says, "Nice try, but you didn't say 'Simon says'!" Simple words cannot be trusted. Speech is concrete.
Next, the cellular phone: another fabulous invention that's changed our culture forever. Now, cell phones have been around since the 1980s, but since then, there have been some dramatic changes to how our society works. It's no longer, "Hey! How are you? It's been so long! How've you been? What's new?" on every Christmas. Since the option of talking virtually nonstop has become exploitable, cellular companies have made a fortune, and it's not because of emergencies either (or at least real ones). Only a handfull of people actually use cell phones strictly for emergency calls, and the rest simply don't. Honestly, considering how many different people you call, would you really have time for all of them if you weren't calling, but talking in person?
The cell phone, much like it's computer counterpart, has also diminished what it truly means to be social. If it's not direct, it's not sincere. Simple as that. Have you ever seen a text message that uses complete sentences? Would you ever speak to someone in the same syntax?
The whole sense of vague and dishonest that these means of communicating have created is making communication between people all that much worse, believe it or not. There's no guarantee of honesty. There's no emotion in just words. There's no skill or intimidation involved in asking a cute girl out, or telling your friends how your day was. It's bland. It's colorless. It's the easy way out, which seems to be a common trend when people are given the appropriate choice. So if you want to really see someone for who they really are, don't trust their word, because for all you know...exactly, you don't.
-Will Duffield
Is it Really the Difference Between Men and Women?
Dave Barry made us laugh with The Difference Between Men and Women. Was it the alternating sizes of the paragraphs? The dialogue? Was it the names of the characters? Or was it because it showed some reality?
Intriguing questions, no doubt. I think it's a safe assumption that everyone can at least in some way relate to this story. Maybe you have friends like that, or maybe you've been there too. But I think there's one thing we can all agree on: Barry did give a message, a message about how the typical man and woman acts.
But then, what is typical? Did you feel that in some ways this story was unrealistic? Can one be general enough to say that that is simply the difference between men and women?
Frankly, I think this falls nicely into the stereotype category. Only two qualifications are necessary for something to be a stereotype:
What this means is that there are all kinds of people out there in each gender: selfish people, friendly people, popular people, naïve people, outgoing people, aloof people, rebellious people, the list goes on. In some way, we're all human beings, so do we all sort of fit in to this stereotypical relationship dilemma? The variety of ways, or just how accurate this is can range from person to person, and to some, it may not even qualify (these are the exceptions). For all one knows, there really is a man out there who thinks things in a variety of ways, much like the woman in Barry's story, or there could be a woman who doesn't give her relationship a second thought.
So from all of this, we have to ask ourselves, what did Barry mean by his case? Is that truly the difference? Is it just the stereotypical difference, or does it reflect a human part of ourselves that we can't control? Can a man and a woman ever truly understand one another? How about just two people?
-Will Duffield
Intriguing questions, no doubt. I think it's a safe assumption that everyone can at least in some way relate to this story. Maybe you have friends like that, or maybe you've been there too. But I think there's one thing we can all agree on: Barry did give a message, a message about how the typical man and woman acts.
But then, what is typical? Did you feel that in some ways this story was unrealistic? Can one be general enough to say that that is simply the difference between men and women?
Frankly, I think this falls nicely into the stereotype category. Only two qualifications are necessary for something to be a stereotype:
- It has to have some element of truth to it. For example, one can't say that certain people do certain things because of just one incident. It has to be evident that anyone who qualifies would live up to that drawn reputation.
- It emphasizes generality, a people on the whole, but like with all stereotypes, there's always an exception (and that's no stereotype!).
What this means is that there are all kinds of people out there in each gender: selfish people, friendly people, popular people, naïve people, outgoing people, aloof people, rebellious people, the list goes on. In some way, we're all human beings, so do we all sort of fit in to this stereotypical relationship dilemma? The variety of ways, or just how accurate this is can range from person to person, and to some, it may not even qualify (these are the exceptions). For all one knows, there really is a man out there who thinks things in a variety of ways, much like the woman in Barry's story, or there could be a woman who doesn't give her relationship a second thought.
So from all of this, we have to ask ourselves, what did Barry mean by his case? Is that truly the difference? Is it just the stereotypical difference, or does it reflect a human part of ourselves that we can't control? Can a man and a woman ever truly understand one another? How about just two people?
-Will Duffield
The Reality Behind 'Tough Guise'
The film Tough Guise suggests that as a whole, it's become a man's obligation to get respect through power and abuse. Now like everything we see and hear it's open to interpretation, but I'd like to give you my speculation on the whole dilemma based on my own experiences to give it a fresh perspective.
Back in the 1990s when I was in elementary school, I was subjected to a lot of what was considered "cool" things or the idea that I have to "fit in". There were kids who always followed what was in fashion, or listened to certain music, etc., but they only hung out with other kids like them. This put me in a difficult situation a lot of the time because there was always the pressure to either go with the flow, or to remain an individual with one's own tastes.
Around this time, there were a variety of school shootings (Denver the most distinctive one), and it quickly dawned on me that this social Darwinism was going on everywhere and that it had been since the beginning of time for humanity.
In many many ways, Tough Guise hits the nail on the head. It only makes sense that boys and young men feel that fitting in is imperative. Again, the whole 'survival of the fittest' applies here, and because of it our society has created a dangerous situation that demands narrow-mindedness and no respect to think by oneself, to live, to breathe, to truly be human. Benjamin Franklin once said that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," and not only has this had an application here for countless generations, but it's become even worse because of things like the right to possess firearms and the always-increasingly unrealistic body or tough person image that the media draws as a frame of judgment.
So from all of this, some vital questions come up: How did this whole thing begin? Why would one be so inclined to sacrifice themself for the good of what society depicts as "cool"? What are motives behind shootings? Are these kids really bad, or do they have a valid point? Needless to say, all of these are a matter of perspective, and like many problems society runs into, there probably isn't a sure-fire solution.
From my personal experience I have to stress a few things that I feel have been ignored by people in general...
Can you say 'respect'? Everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion, and if you don't like it, tough. Sure, it's hard at times, but keep this in mind the next time you want to be selfish: everyone has to compensate. Respect has been ignored for far too long, and it's been among the primary reasons for all of these things like the school shootings. Remember Virginia Tech? How many more innocent lives? How many more people need to be hurt before the world realizes that it's not just the sporadic "kids gone bad"? They're all protesting, and until you at least consider why they'd feel trapped enough to do something like kill people, you're in no position to call them wrong.
They say that everyone's got something to hide (no 'me and my monkey' here), but only the real people will be willing to share these things, look for help, admit wrongness and be willing to learn and better themselves. Those are the people you should really admire rather than those who think that containing everything and drawing the illusion that they're 'perfect', 'honest', (you fill in the blank) is a good, worthwhile thing.
Never be pressured to do anything you don't want to do. So they'll make fun of you if you don't, call you a loser, make up stories about you, but just ask yourself one thing: Would you really want to be friends with these narrow-minded jerks?
Okay, so I was a little harsh, but the problem is really there, and it'll only get worse. So instead of being aggravated about how sarcastic I may have been, open your eyes and realize that if people (YOU!) weren't ignoring the problem, it wouldn't have come to this. And believe me, it can get worse.
-Will Duffield
Back in the 1990s when I was in elementary school, I was subjected to a lot of what was considered "cool" things or the idea that I have to "fit in". There were kids who always followed what was in fashion, or listened to certain music, etc., but they only hung out with other kids like them. This put me in a difficult situation a lot of the time because there was always the pressure to either go with the flow, or to remain an individual with one's own tastes.
Around this time, there were a variety of school shootings (Denver the most distinctive one), and it quickly dawned on me that this social Darwinism was going on everywhere and that it had been since the beginning of time for humanity.
In many many ways, Tough Guise hits the nail on the head. It only makes sense that boys and young men feel that fitting in is imperative. Again, the whole 'survival of the fittest' applies here, and because of it our society has created a dangerous situation that demands narrow-mindedness and no respect to think by oneself, to live, to breathe, to truly be human. Benjamin Franklin once said that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," and not only has this had an application here for countless generations, but it's become even worse because of things like the right to possess firearms and the always-increasingly unrealistic body or tough person image that the media draws as a frame of judgment.
So from all of this, some vital questions come up: How did this whole thing begin? Why would one be so inclined to sacrifice themself for the good of what society depicts as "cool"? What are motives behind shootings? Are these kids really bad, or do they have a valid point? Needless to say, all of these are a matter of perspective, and like many problems society runs into, there probably isn't a sure-fire solution.
From my personal experience I have to stress a few things that I feel have been ignored by people in general...
Can you say 'respect'? Everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion, and if you don't like it, tough. Sure, it's hard at times, but keep this in mind the next time you want to be selfish: everyone has to compensate. Respect has been ignored for far too long, and it's been among the primary reasons for all of these things like the school shootings. Remember Virginia Tech? How many more innocent lives? How many more people need to be hurt before the world realizes that it's not just the sporadic "kids gone bad"? They're all protesting, and until you at least consider why they'd feel trapped enough to do something like kill people, you're in no position to call them wrong.
They say that everyone's got something to hide (no 'me and my monkey' here), but only the real people will be willing to share these things, look for help, admit wrongness and be willing to learn and better themselves. Those are the people you should really admire rather than those who think that containing everything and drawing the illusion that they're 'perfect', 'honest', (you fill in the blank) is a good, worthwhile thing.
Never be pressured to do anything you don't want to do. So they'll make fun of you if you don't, call you a loser, make up stories about you, but just ask yourself one thing: Would you really want to be friends with these narrow-minded jerks?
Okay, so I was a little harsh, but the problem is really there, and it'll only get worse. So instead of being aggravated about how sarcastic I may have been, open your eyes and realize that if people (YOU!) weren't ignoring the problem, it wouldn't have come to this. And believe me, it can get worse.
-Will Duffield
The Ideal Presidential Candidate
The upcoming election is a classic one of a Republican versus a Democrat. A conservative, well-known senator from Arizona who bravely served his country and was a prisoner of war and a lesser known Illinois Senator whose depth of experience and young age raise a question in the minds of many regarding his ability to lead our country at this time of multiple challenges facing us. The ideal presidential candidate must be able to deal effectively with multiple issues facing the country. The threat of terrorism, the declining economy, and the war in Iraq are all key issues that the next president will face on day one.
The decision facing the American people has never been more clear- an older senator with more experience, more established conservative views and one who is likely to maintain the status quo or a younger more liberal senator with less experience but more likely to change the current environment/direction of our country. In a perfect world, the next president would be able to achieve our desired goals with as little sacrifice to our basic way of life as possible. The choice is an important one but certainly not an easy one.
The decision facing the American people has never been more clear- an older senator with more experience, more established conservative views and one who is likely to maintain the status quo or a younger more liberal senator with less experience but more likely to change the current environment/direction of our country. In a perfect world, the next president would be able to achieve our desired goals with as little sacrifice to our basic way of life as possible. The choice is an important one but certainly not an easy one.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Fire Millen
The Lions finally fired Matt Millen. The only thing is that this probably should have been done 3 or 4 years ago. The Lions are without a doubt the most dysfunctional franchise in sports. Millen was hired by William Clay Ford to take an at best mediocre team to a playoff team. But the only time the lions were in the playoffs during his tenure was in the preseason predictions almost every year. Instead, the lions are now the laughing stock of the sports world and if Detroit didn’t have three other teams that have reached the championship of their sport recently Detroit as a whole would be the laughing stock of the sports world. Now all of a sudden William Clay Ford Jr. makes a comment about how he would have fired Millen already and Mr. Ford makes his move immediately. It’s as if he had been asleep all these years not knowing his football team and his automotive company were in the toilet. He is trying to fix one of them, maybe he should learn to multitask and fix both at the same time. Meanwhile, i hope my dream will be fulfilled and an NFL team, which will probably end up being the lions, will run the table in reverse.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Red Wings going Back to Back?
Oh yes they are. They have the best line in the league in Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Holmstrom. One of the top 5 scorers in the league is on the second line. Osgood is a very solid goaltender and we have the best defensive crews in the league. Not to mention the 5 time Norris Trophy winner, Nick Lindstrom to lead the defense and the team. He was the only guy in the world that could have taken the C after Stevie left. Top all that off with the best front office in the league and that becomes a recipe for success.
Friday, September 19, 2008
---(Commenting on the Dress Code topic from another group)---
---(Commenting on the Dress Code topic from another group)---
I find this whole synopsis interesting, and even more so because Birmingham Public Schools doesn’t seem to have a solitary opinion on the whole issue. (For instance, Seaholm has a lot more leniency on the dress code than here at Groves.) But what I think that a lot of people don’t realize is that no matter what the rules were, even if they were completely bent in your favor, there would always be someone who’s unsatisfied. What it all seems to come down to is personal preference to the people in charge, which reminds me of when I was in elementary school…
Before I came to Birmingham Public Schools in sixth grade, I was in a private Catholic school which had mandatory uniforms. Sometimes, it even got as strict as the principal telling people to go to his office because of their reluctance to even tuck in their shirts. Now there were of course many students who hated the whole thing, but at the same time, the staff was able to boast having the best uniforms in the district. So as you can see, there’s always someone who likes the idea, and there’s always someone who’s opposed to it.
-Will Duffield
I find this whole synopsis interesting, and even more so because Birmingham Public Schools doesn’t seem to have a solitary opinion on the whole issue. (For instance, Seaholm has a lot more leniency on the dress code than here at Groves.) But what I think that a lot of people don’t realize is that no matter what the rules were, even if they were completely bent in your favor, there would always be someone who’s unsatisfied. What it all seems to come down to is personal preference to the people in charge, which reminds me of when I was in elementary school…
Before I came to Birmingham Public Schools in sixth grade, I was in a private Catholic school which had mandatory uniforms. Sometimes, it even got as strict as the principal telling people to go to his office because of their reluctance to even tuck in their shirts. Now there were of course many students who hated the whole thing, but at the same time, the staff was able to boast having the best uniforms in the district. So as you can see, there’s always someone who likes the idea, and there’s always someone who’s opposed to it.
-Will Duffield
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Fahrenheit 9/11
In his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore tries to portray President Bush as the guy to put all the blame for the events of 9/11. On one hand it seems as though his evidence is true and Bush should have used the clues Moore points out in the movie. On the other hand, it seems as though Moore has a case of the "Monday Morning Quaterback Syndrome." This means that when you look back on something it is easy to see how you could have prevented it. But before the attacks there was no way for anyone to put the facts together and predict an attack. The fact that should worry us is that we let our guard down. The security in the most powerful country in the world should always be on alert because even though there may not be evidence or people may not be able to connect the dots there is always a chance of an attack.
Tell Me What You Think...
"Truth only exists with justice." -Anonymous
"In an unjust society, the only place for an unjust man is in jail." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I picked these because I thought that they tie in somehow with what we've been discussing in class recently (particularly Fahrenheit 9/11), or because they would make for some interesting responses. So here's where I'd like your opinion. You can respond however you'd like, but consider these questions...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Do you agree with these quotes? Why/why not?
Do you think these have an application to Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore's depiction of the Bush Administration?
Do you think you can tie these into anything else? Anything about class? Society? Yourself?
Can you think of any other quotes along these lines?
Anything else about these quotes you'd like to say/ask?
-Will Duffield
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
9/11
The film On Native Soil has really showed me a different side of the 9/11 terrorists attacks. i did not know how badly the people who were involved in the airports and government reacted. i could not imaging how the people in the second tower reacted by telling their employees to go back to work. if i was there i would have ran away as fast as i could. they would not have been able to keep me there at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)