Political Theology

I thought that this reading was pretty interesting from time to time although I had to sit and think about each point Schmitt was making.  In Schmitt's Political Theory he argues that in political values are based on sovereignty.  He describes it as an exception and to decide whether it exists or not.  I think his purpose for writing this had to do with how the government needs to maintain order and structure.

Rubin

I found this reading pretty interesting considering women's rights have been a problem in the past. We have made great progress through the years and there is no need for a "revolution" but I definitely think there are some men who don't consider women to be equal to them still. Men and women have different roles in society but that they should be treated equally.

Political Theology

This weeks reading was not as easy as others in the past, but was still readable and somewhat interesting. Schmitt had a great deal of influence on politics and sovereignty. Schmitt’s view of sovereignty would go to influence the Nazi party and the way Adolf Hitler ran his military. I do not think Schmitt was actually affiliated with the Nazis, but I do believe he influenced them. It was interesting to see how different governments defined and went about achieving sovereignty.   

Rubin

I agree with the writer I think that women have always been inferior to men because we have allowed ourselves to. I think that women should be treated the same way as men because we are all human beings. Although women getting equal rights has increased we have not seen it be totally equal. Women still get paid less in some Corporate America jobs, and I think this is ridiculous if women have the same schooling as men. I don't think that having a "revolution" is a good thing because I think that would make things worse. I think we should just keep fighting for women's rights the way we are because we are seeing more and more changes.

Political Theology

I didnt enjoy this reading as much as some of our other readings. It was somewhat difficult to understand what Schmitt was trying to say. Schmitt defines sovereignty as the decision over what is an exception. A soverign is he who decides on this exception.

"There exists no norm that is applicable to chaos. For a legal order to make sense, a normal situation must exist, and he is sovereign who definitely decides whether this normal situation actually exists."

That quote tells me that the sovereign can decide on what it wants to and can decide if a legal order makes sense. The exception is reflected in the doctrine of natural law tendency and the rationalist tendency.

Rubin

This reading was kind of interesting. Women's rights have always been a touchy subject. I agree that women have always been inferior to men. I don't think that a female revolution is necessary. In the recent past women have become almost completely equal with men. They can run for president and hold any job that a man could. I think that women should have every opportunity that men do.

Rubin

I agree completely with the writer, I feel as though women have always been inferior to men and although women and men may have different roles they should still be equal. We have definitely progressed a lot over the decades and I think things have become much better for women so I dont think there is a need for a "revolution" but I think men should be aware of the way they treat women and strive for equality.

Political Theology

After reading Political Theology, I do not think that Schmitt was affiliated in the Nazi party. Schmitt had a lot of interesting views on politics and I do think that his views were influenctial in some of the policies and regulations that the Nazi party used. It was a good read and was quite interesting.

Schmitt's Sovereignty

I'm going to be brutally honest and say I hated this reading. Full of flowery legal language, not only was it incredibly difficult to get a comprehensive understanding of most subjects he talked about, but it was also a lot longer than most of the the readings so far. This was almost as enjoyable as reading the bible for pleasure. Not fun.
   Among the few things I did get out of this book was his idea of the 'exception' and it's relation to the sovereign. (although his definition of sovereign wasn't so clear to me) The 'exception' being the point at which  severe economic of political disturbance require the application of extraordinary measures by the 'sovereign'. And then he explains the two tendencies there are when dealing with the exception. The natural law tendency and the rationalist tendency. This concept reminded me of the old saying about how if you drop a from into a pot of boiling water it will immediately jump out. But if you place him there before it's boiling and slowly being to boil it, it will stay until it is dead. 

rubin

This weeks reading wasnt to bad, but I am never intrested in reding about womens rights and what not. I do agree with her with some things, like how women have always been less infier to men. Also how she described marriage, the women being the gift and the man being the giver. I feel like everything she says is true about women and women oppression. However i feel like this is how it should be that might sound bad i feel like men are suposed to be infier women, so i dont agree with her when she thinks there should be a female revolution.

Political Theology

I liked the reading this week. It was pretty easy to understand and follow. I definitely see how people could think that Schmitt is affiliated with the Nazi party, but after really paying attention to the things that Schmitt says in Political Theology I don't think he was. I can understand how people would think that they are closely related. Some things seem very similar, but over all I think that there are differences.

The Traffic in Women

My favorite thing about the reading was how Rubin pointed out the places in other writer's (men) pieces where they discussed the roles of women without directly saying certian things. Intentional or not, this showed how women were just cast aside and separated into their own category as opposed to being included with the men. Even Marx had places where he spoke separately on women. One would think, "What does gender have to do with economic systems?" The point is that its just the way things were, not that it was anything special. She needed to point out the current system in order to have the possiblity to redifine it.

Political Theology

I don't know how many of you have seen the movie He's Just Not That Into You, but when I was reading the first section of Political Theology I just kept thinking of the part when Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin) was talking about being the exception to the rule. In the movie Gigi is talking to her co-workers about stories of friends, or friends of friends, falling in love and meeting "the one". Gigi and her co-workers figured those girls to be the exceptions. Every girl is is the rule until she is the exception. If you're confused, it makes more sense in the movie. I recommend it, it is very funny.

Anyway, where Schmitt brings up the term exception, he was defining sovereignty. Schmitt says that the "sovereign is he who decides on the exception." What Schmitt means by exception is something that directly threatens the State. The Sovereign is the person who decides what is considered an exception and what can be done to protect the State.

Something I noticed about Schmitt was how critical he was of States based on liberal constitutions. He definitely didn't like division of power. He thought that division of power meant that it was too difficult for the sovereign to have power over the exception. Overall, I thought Schmitts' ideas were interesting. I don;t really agree with him but I can see how the Nazi party would pick up and run with his ideas.

Political Theology

Carl Schmitt provides an interesting view on politics and the sovereign. I don't believe that Carl had any direct affiliation with the Nazi Party but, I do believe that he influenced their policies. Adolf Hitler and the rest of the party leadership warped Schmitt's ideas into their own.

The Traffic in Women

I enjoyed the reading even though it was a little much. It brings out a lot of points on how women are not treated as fairly or offered the same opportunities as men. Even though all the points Rubin brings out are negative towards women, they happen to be a reality. I also noticed that some of the points are from other people's opinions.

Political Theology

There is no doubt the Caral Schmitt is a very intelligent person. You told us to think about whether we thought he was part of the Nazi clam or not, and that's what I tried to do. After reading this I don't think he had direct affiliation with the Nazi Party. However, I do think that they may have influenced their beliefs from. The biggest one being idea they took being the definition of sovereignty.    

The Trafficing of Women

Rubin has a valid point in my opinion, women were definitely held back from their dreams for most of history. Rubin really digs into the struggle of women trying to reach the top, and uses some theories from big Psychology founders like Sigmund Freud. I thought this reading was more of a research paper than anything else, Rubin seemed to get all of her ideas from other people. I would much rather read what she thought about the struggles of women, and sex than what theories and systems people before her had came up with.

"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception"

"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception" This is a powerful yet simple thesis which precedes the rest of the chapter. I really like his logic in saying this because if you think about it, the people in powerful positions in society are the ones who make the close calls whatever they may be which raises the question, are we actually free? How many 3rd party candidates did you see at the 2nd and 3rd presidential debates in the last couple weeks?

political Theology

     Political Theology is a interesting read for me. The way Schmitt voices his opinions on  sovereignty is unique and in such a way i would have thought about sovereignty. It was intriguing to see how different governments viewed sovereignty through the reading and how they put to use what they believed. I see how Hitler took and used Schmitt's concepts and corrupted it or in a negative way which is sad but understandable.

Political theology

I think that this book is interesting so far. I think his ideas are believe able and that people would follow them. Especially the one where he says "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." This means that you can decide on an exception that breaks the law, but you're still doing what is right in your eyes. However, I also think that people could use an idea like this in the wrong way. It is based on your own opinion whether something is right or wrong so if you think you found an exception someone else might not.

The Traffic in Women

This was a very interesting reading. It gave many examples of men and women are compared to women and it pretty much states that women are inferior to men. In the reading it even goes to say that women "do not have full rights to themselves". And that in marriages, women are nothing more than a "gift". I do not think that those are actually the author's thoughts, but thoughout that writing she pretty much shows how the relationship between women and men have transformed.

Political Theology

So far I have enjoyed reading this book. It is really interesting the things that the author has to say when it comes to politics. I also like how the author incorperates governments and politics from the past as well as the future. All in all I like what I've read so far and am interested to see how the author ends this book.

Where do we go from here?

I really enjoyed this reading. MLK makes many good points throughout the reading about the racist terms black people have to hear everyday.I agree with MLK that violence is the the answer to solving racism. He believed the only way to overcome racism was peacefully. This is not 100% true because all though a lot of what MLK did was meant to be violence free, a lot of violence still broke out during this time.

The Traffic in Women

This reading gave an interesting perspective on the widely accepted idea that women are inferior to men. The author gave many different opinions on why people think women are inferior and some of them were fairly surprising. Rubin goes on further to examine the trade of women between men such as when a daughter is given away for marriage. This writing has some interesting concepts from different cultures about the roles of women.

Where Do We Go From Here

Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the most influential speakers and individuals in history. Luther’s speech “Where Do We Go From Here” is considered to be one of his best works. His thoughts regarding race, citizens, and the role and power of government are something I can agree with the majority of. If only the citizens and his followers would have taken his advice, rather than riot at the majority of his large speeches and continue on a high rate of violence. Regardless, MLK was an amazing thinker and person with great intentions. 

Where do we go from here

I really enjoyed the reading this week. I found that I really agree with the things MLK had to say. I really liked how he said that the start of a change starts with yourself. You have to actually believe that it is possible and envision it for it to be plausible. I also really loved that he thought the only way to overcome racism was peacefully. He said, "through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate." I think this quote is a perfect representation of what he stood for and was all about.

MLK- Where do we go from here

    When I read the title of this reading I immediately thought of a song written by a group in Blacksburg shortly after the shootings at VT. It had the same title, and more or less the same basic meaning: where do you go when things have gotten so bad that it seams nothing can fix it? MLK, in my opinion, was right on point. He says that for anything to change, you must change yourself first. You must believe that it can be done and envision it happening. For African Americans, he urged them to look inside themselves and see someone who is equal to a white man. I think MLK really believed this and did this himself, which is why he was so successful and influential. Just like the students and families of VT, African Americans had to stand up, believe that their horrific past did not define them, and move on.

where do we go from here

This week’s reading was very interesting. I really enjoyed reading about Martin Luther King because he is very clever speaker he was very convincing. His speeches are very meaningful. I agree with him that people try to solve problems to fast when they really need to take a step back and think it out before acting and harming the future.

where do we go from here

I liked reading DR. Martin Luther King Jr's speech Where do we go from here? In these times black people were not created equaly. He made me think of how terrible segregation was back in the day. This reading made me think of how our society is today and all of the things that have changed. It is inspirational how Martin Luther King Jr can be so brave and state his opinions knowing that there are many people that disagree.

Where do we go from here

I thought this was a really interesting reading. There were quite a few interesting points that were addressed by Dr. King about civil rights. I liked the way he explained the reasoning behind his thoughts and backed his statements up with facts.

On the duty of civil disobedience

I found that I really liked this reading. It was Relatively easy enough to digest. Thoreau starts of by making the quote which I very  much like, "The government is best which governs least." He then continues to explain his opinion of government and how it should relate to the people. A lot of quotes that I really liked were in this reading. One being, "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." Meaning, the reason and intentions of the law should always be respected more than actual government authority. Another, "The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority." Explaining that simply voting for the 'good' isn't always 'good enough'.   and more indirectly, just because the government says it's so, doesn't mean it is so, or should be so.

Where Do We Go From Here

I really liked the reading this week. I think that Martin Luther King is such a talented speaker anyway, and this only made me more convinced. I love how in all his speeches, he finds a way to send a message that goes further than the specific situation he is speaking on. I especially liked reading 'Where Do We Go From Here'. It was interesting and the message was so strong that I think it would stick with anyone long after they've read it.

Where do we go from here

I thought it was really smart the way he says we cant figure out where to go from here until we realize where we are now. I think a lot of times people will try to solve problems so quickly that they dont actually plan things out well and only solve things for the near future. King thought that more money should be given to the poor and less fortunate because we spend so much money on other causes that arent as important, which makes sense and I would agree. My favorite quote from this reading was "As long as the mind is enslaved, the body can never be free." I think this is very inspiring and true because in order to be able to do things and make changes you have to be able to believe that you can do it and you have to not only have confidence in your abilities but also be able to make a good plan to solving problems and be able to literally use your brain. I liked a lot of Kings ideas.

Civil Disobedience

I like this reading a lot, I like how he is basically saying that we govern ourselves. That is how it should be, as citizens we should be able to have just as much say in our government and allowing us as a whole to decided what should be allowed. There should always be a form of authority because not everyone is not going to automatically do whats right or on the same page. People/Citizens agree more and are willing to corporate if they had some part in what is trying to be accomplished. They feel important and want to do the right thing.

Where Do We Go From Here

My favorite part of this selection is when he talks about love and power. He talks about how most see love and power as opposites, "Love is identified with the resignation of power, and power with a denial of love." I found this sentiment interesting because although I've never thought of it this way before, that's entirely true. Throughout history, when one group has been wronged or oppressed, the general consensus has been to rise up and equally oppress the oppressor. MLK refutes this, highlighting the hypocrisy of some he considered extremists. Definitely an interesting read.

Where do we go from here

I enjoyed reading Martin Luther King's speech where do we go from here. While reading this I also asked myself that question.  It made me thought about how America all started and how we came today with the systems that we have and the society that we have developed.  During that time it was hard for the blacks.  King made points which he stated how they were seen to society.  For example he stated that "The rate of infant mortality among Negros is double that as whites and there are twice as many Negroes dying in Vietnam as whites in proportion to size in population."  I really liked reading his speech because he was a strong speaker and got the attention of the people. 

Satyagrha

I truly wish that I could think like Gandhi. I wish that it were as simple as conversation that could settle every problem, but it's not. While that may work for some issues it does not work for all. That is just my personal point of view. I do like what he said though about it is the job to convert, not to coerce, the wrong-doer. I never really thought of it that way and it was kind of interesting.

MLK - "Where Do We Go From Here"

I thought it was interesting how MLK asked certain questions that sounded communist based but then points out that he has no affiliations with communist theorists. I like how these ideas/questions that MLK brings up in his speech tie in directly to the things we talk about each class period. MLK was a very religious person and like his other speeches, he uses the power of God and positivity as a foundation for the struggling people in the country. For example in this speech he uses the story of Nicodemus and Jesus to get his point across to the people who were present at the time.  

thoreau

  I enjoyed this reading. I love how it talks about how the government is corrupt and when you realize that you have to stand up, and decide when enough is enough. When you make a stand do it in civil disobedience. Because we as the people are suppose to have a voice in out government. Not just people  who were elected.

Where Do We Go From Here - MLK

I really enjoyed the reading Where Do We Go From Here by Martin Luther King. It was a very inspirational reading and the fact the Martin Luther King could still be that noble person after everything that he had experienced personally and had to bear witness to is unreal. I like at the beginning of the reading, how MLK had to determine where he was before he could determine where they could go. Negros were really treated unfairly back in his days, and it makes them all the more courageous for the ways they stood up for themselves. "I'm not talking about emotional bosh when I talk about love, I'm talking about a strong, demanding love" was my favorite line from the reading. MLK stated that he would progress through love because he had seen to much hate and that if people could live in hate then they do not know God.

Duty of Civil Disobedience

I really enjoyed this reading. It goes very well with my personal beliefs on the roles of citizens and the government. The government, while it holds power to legislate, etc., is not above the citizens of this nation. The government and the people in it are public servants to the electorate and sometimes it is this basic truth that gets forgotten sometimes. It is up to "We the People" to stand up at times and remind the government that they serve at our discretion.

Where Do We Go From Here

The 1950's and 60's of American history were dark times to be living in and were pitch black especially for African Americans. But in every dark time, heroes tend to be forged, and for many African Americans, Martin Luther King Jr was that hero. I personally love Martin Luther King Jr., he always was a peaceful man, with good intentions. In my opinion, he was one of the greatest public speakers ever, King was excellent with communicating his point, with love, to his audience. In this speech, King uses the phrase "Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate," really kind of stuck with me through the rest of his speech. I totally agreed with King on his belief that if anything was to be done about racism, the only way to do it was through peace.

A Time to Break the Silence

I really enjoyed this reading by Dr. King. The way he speaks is great for me because he is not only really insightful, but he makes things incredibly relatable and he appeals to our innate sense of good and humanity. Perhaps the most powerful things that he says is that "there comes a time when silence is betrayal." I find this to be incredibly true in almost every situation where something bad is going on. If your boyfriend was cheating on you and your best friend knew but didn't say anything- that's betrayal. If you know that somebody cheated on an exam but don't say anything, you are betraying your university and its honor code. That is why we have laws stating that if you know of a crime going on, you are required to report it, or you will be help partly responsible. When we do nothing or say nothing, we become part of that crime, and are partly ok with it happening, and letting others know that as well. This is another way that he is able to relate it to civil rights so well. Our passiveness about Vietnam would just translate to other internal aspects of our nation. If we allowed that to go by without questioning its correctness, we are even showing others that it is ok to not care about certain things and just let them keep happening. I also really liked the three points he made in respect to the relation between civil rights and the war. It is even just common sense that, although these black and white men can fight and die next to each other on a foreign land, they can not share a bathroom or live on the same street back at home. For the black man to have more equal rights while he is at war than when he is not, is just completely absurd. It is easy to see how Dr. King had such an influence on the country.

Civil Disobedience

Mr. Thoreau's Civil Disobedience was a reading that I found to be very interesting. This was my second time reading it. This time I feel like I got more out of it because I knew what I was looking for because of taking this class. I was comparing its ideas with other readings in this class. Like Leibnitz for instance Thoreau and Leibnitz are very different because Leibnitz think that everything is good and the government cannot be unjust. While Thoreau is saying that we have an unjust government and as a people we should protest it. He used slavery for example and how the government back then supported it and since it was unjust we should have went against it. I think this is true to some extent, people should learn to speak up and fight when something is wrong. It is not good to be a supporter of something that we know is morally wrong.

MLK - Where Do We Go From Here - 1967

The first thing I liked about the reading was how Martin Luther King Jr pointed out that we can't answer the question "where do we go from here?" until we answer the question "where are we now".  Its sad to think that back in the day Negros  had half the lifestyle that whites did. They were treated so unfairly in almost every way possible. I really respect MLK Jr for how he doesn't think that violence will help solve anything to make things more equal. My favorite tihng he says from this reading is, "Darkness can not put out darkness. Only light can do that."

Thoreau

I found this reading interesting because it is directly written to the little man. I thought the big picture in this reading was that government was overall bad and it has ultimately hindered out success. I do like that he states he does not like a big government but I still believe a government is required to over see our actions as citizens. I also found it very interesting that Thoreau stated that it is not only our right, but our duty to rebel against our government.

Where Do We Go From Here

I enjoyed reading Where Do we Go From Here by Martin Luther King Jr. I think Martin Luther is deffinately one of the better speakers of the 1900s. I found it interesting when king said that of the good things in life, the Negroes have half those of whites. Of the bad things of life, he has twice of those of whites. What King is saying is that the negative experiences of life, negroes have twice the share. King explains where the Negroes are and then states what they should do. I liked when he said as long as the mind is enslaved, the body can never be free. It is a very true statement because the body cannot go where the mind has not traveled. If you think you are enslaved then you are enslaved. A good point that King makes is that if our nation can spend billons of dollars in Vietnam and put a man on the moon, then it surely can help the poor of the United States. King Stresses non violence because he sees that violent riots gain nothing. Violence gets no where especially when there is extreme force to act upon this violence. King wants peace and wants people to be judged by who they are not by the color of their skin.

A time to break the silence

I thought this was an okay speech to read. It was mainly about the war in Vietnam. King starts by talking about the importance of Vietnam. He gives seven reasons as to why he is bringing up Vietnam in his "moral vision". The next section is called Strange Liberators. I agree with King when he said that America is influenced by western arrogance. We are trying to help France gain back Vietnam when they declared independence, even though we had done the same from England. He gives five steps on how to end the war to "atone for our sins and errors". I agree that the war should have ended a lot earlier than it did. We shouldn't have been involved to begin with. The next section is called protesting the war. He said that the people should continue to show that they are against the war. I think that people showing that they are against the decision of the government will influence the government highly, so they change their minds. The last section is called the people are important. He says that nations have to do what they need to in order to protect their own individual societies. I agree with this because I think you should do what is best for your own country. We shouldn't have to worry about what is going on in other places, and worry about ourselves.

Thoreau

The ideas that Thoreau had seem pretty logic in my opinion. I totally agree that when you leave justice for popular vote, the majority will act in their interest so at the end is that really justice? I really liked that he said that a person should not things at the expense of others which I think is true and you probably feel more accomplished if you did things on your own. Thoreau put out there really good points and really makes you think, if we should just conform to what the government say and not question anything.

Addams

I found this article kind of fun to read because of how it was set up. It includes different articles and pieces by Addams and other authors. I find it really interesting that Addams and all these other women went from one government to another talking about the war. This strikes me as odd, why would you go to other countries, not as a diplomat, to talk about the war and what's going on? However, I do like how she talks about the other countries and how it has effected them as well not just the effects of the war within America.

thoreau

I like this guys concepts and ideas and i think he dos a good job explaining and justifying his opinion, but i think that there should always be some form of governing body over people because people are corrupt and nobody is perfect. Now having said that, I think that a government should be small and people should be ble to do as they please on their own property, as long as it does not inflict damage on other people or other people's property. One of our core values as Americans is freedom, but are we really free if we can notmake our own decisions?

Let the Sin Begin

Leibniz was a really interesting read this week.  It didn't really make me stop and evaluate anything that I hadn't already considered, because lets face it, having been in a legal studies academy I've argued almost every controversial issue in the book and been a sufficient ass about it on the way.  This reading though centered on one of the topics that I really enjoy debating, whether I'm offering my true views or playing devil's advocate (no pun intended).  Leibniz talks about how god created sin and how everything is predetermined.  This of course presents the quarry of whether or not our actions matter, seeing as how we're already deemed worthy for heaven or discarded and sent to hell.  Without getting in to the subject of whether or not there is indeed an almighty power that watches over us and occasionally offers up some divine intervention, lets just all operate under the assumption that God exists.  Even if you don't agree with me, for the sake of argument, just roll with it.  So for the sake of this blog, there is a god. End of story.  Let's examine the first point about god having created sin.  I don't believe there is such a thing as sin.  Yes, I believe that God created everything, (not saying that there is no evolution, because I am a firm believer in science).  I think that there is nothing taking place on earth that God disapproves of.  I think that God wants us to live in such a way that makes us happy, and expresses our own free will.  It does not affect God in one way or the other if you gamble your paycheck away in Las Vegas and have sex with prostitutes.  I think that he wants us to be happy, and if that sounds like the perfect week to you, then God is content.  If fighting religious wars in the name of God makes you happy because you feel like you're doing something meaningful with your life, then I think he'd say go for it.  I don't believe that there is some ultimate meaning to life that we have to search for.  I believe that the only point of life is to live it, and how we do that has no effect on our afterlife.  Predestination is where my explanation of life begins to get a bit wordy and I talk myself in circles, so I'll try to keep it simple.  I do not believe in hell.  I think everyone goes to heaven because there is but one afterlife, at which point we become one with God.  I also however believe that before we become one with God, we relive life over and over until our souls have learned the needed lessons.  This is why I believe that everything happens for a reason, and everyone is brought into your life for a reason.  To quote the Beatles, 'there's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.'  These lyrics completely describe how I feel about fate and predestination.  I don't believe that God plans out our lives to a 't' before we live it, I think we make our own choices.  But at the same time, I  believe that nothing will happen that isn't supposed to.  This blog is already getting absurdly long, and I could continue on for hours about my religious views (don't even get me started on churches now a days), but  I thoroughly enjoyed reading Leibniz's thoughts on the matter.

Leibniz -

A decent read on religion, god, original sin and evils.  I believe God/Yahweh/Allah created the Universe and everything in it thus he created evil because evil is a by-product of the Universe in some forms.

I agree with the author on some points, disagree with him on other points and can not relate to some of his points because I do not hold such views or I am indifferent to such points.  One such point I agree with the author on is that evil/hardships make good all the more great.  Who could thrive if they never suffered?  Or how great would happiness really be if we never unhappy.  So how good would the universe really be if evil did not exist?  I like how the author put it though, shadows make colors birghter.

I also agree that sometimes, a lesser evil is a kind of good and a lesser good is a kind of evil and both situations are needed for the achievement of the greater good and for the prevention of the greatest evils within the universe.  I also credit evil/suffering in the world for the advancement of the human race.  Without such evil/suffering we would be content with our human condition and would never make great advance in our condition.  Evil is needed here and there in the doses they are so greater good can happen here and there and other parts of the universe we can not know at this time.  I believe God is perfect, His Universe is perfect and that is regarded in the state of being but, we are imperfect, the Universe is imperfect and God is beyond the world of becoming as he is perfection.

In conclusion, you must take the good with the bad and the evil that happens at any one point in the universe is validated through the greater good it will produce and in the end, good prevails over evil.

I would also say, humans are mostley responsible fore moral evil; physical evil is a toss up and metaphysical evil is needed for anything to be possible at all(if of course, we are using the statements of the author as factual occurences).

PS.  I do not think we are alone in the universe, haha, this reading got me on the subject talking about other creatures and other worlds and the universe.

Candied quote

"men are only born to assist one another"  this guy should be a philosophizer (dodgeball movie reference)  I found the quote on page 3 of Candide. I really like that quote and wish that everybody lived by it. No violence no war just brotherhood. I like the reading because the way it is written. So far this year we have read letters and papers (aside from animal farm). So it was a nice change.

Leibniz

     Leibniz was pretty interesting, and hard to read at the same time. But once I got past the wordiness, I could see his points more clearly. Leibniz attempts to explain the existence of evil and what role it plays in the world and within people, and how it justifies the existence of God. I disagree strongly with the idea that God created sin and evil, or is the source of these. Regardless of someones "religion" the reality of sin is the same. It is evident and present every day, in everyone's life. Now, as a christian, I believe that God created human beings as creatures of choice. We have the ability to choose, think, do, say, act however/ whatever we want. That is true for ALL human beings. That being said... without sin and the reality and consequences of it, why would any human need God? He wouldn't be necessary. We wouldn't have a void that need to be filled or wrong doings that needed to be forgiven. We would be good to go. So, I think that God allows sin so there is a need and a longing for something bigger and more powerful than just what this Earth has to offer- Him. He alone is freedom itself, true freedom, regardless of what horrific things we do and say on this Earth, because it is all forgiven. I know that this view probably isn't very popular in today's society, but I fully believe that it is true.

Leibnitz

I think this reading was really interesting because it talked about religion and predestination and those are topics that I can relate to. In my religion that God predestinated all of our lives and only he knows what is in store for us. Leibnitz thinks that the world is the best possible world because God created it. He thinks that God created good and evil for a reason and just because the person is "evil" that person can't be that evil because God created that person. Leibnitz believes that the world and people are all good because again God created them. In the book by Voltaire which is called "Candide", Voltaire mocks Leibnitz philosophy that everything is good because if bad things happen to people everything can't be good all the time.

Leibniz

I enjoyed this reading and found it very interesting. What I got from this reading is that God has given us a choice to be good or evil. He gave us the freedom to decide. It was interesting when Leibniz said God created evil because if God is the creator of all he must of created evil for a reason. This reading really got me thinking about religion. I find it interesting that there are so many different religions in the world (Christianity, Judaism, hinduism etc) and we all think that the religion we believe in is the right religion. Is there a right religion to get to heaven or the desitnation we want to be? Or do all relgions lead to the same place we just take different paths? What makes my belief anymore right than my neighbors belief? I guess thats where faith comes into play. When a lot of questions come into play that cant be answered you have to rely on your faith.  I am interested for class because I know it will lead to good discussion.

leibniz

The readings keep on getting better in my opinion. The topic of predestination and sins are controversial for most people. There are so many different views on this reading but I think that god didn't create evil because if it were up to him there would be no evil. Im not very religious but I have some beliefs and I think that predestination is not what some believe it to be. In my opinion I don't think that god has everything planned out for everyone. I also feel like everyone makes bad decisions and is not always in the right. I believe that sins can be forgiven for everyone.

Leibniz

This weeks reading was extremely interesting in my opinion. It goes on to talk about morality, mans free will, and Gods predestination. It explains how, even though god may have predestined every thing to happen through cause and effect, man is still not vindicated of our sin. This got me thinking of another article I once read, speaking of whether man had true 'free will'. It explained that in the cause and effect universe that we live in free will in it's truest form can not be achieved by man because every single choice we have ever made, everything we've done, said, and thought are due to a virtually endless chain of events that have led to the cause, being your decisions. So even though you may thing you made this decision, you really had no control over what you chose because it had been caused by any number of things. So in actuality if someone is 'evil' or does something 'evil', they themselves are not exactly to blame. But it doesn't free them of the consequences of these wrong doings of course, because they could very well do it again given the opportunity.  Over all I really liked this reading. Really got you thinking.

Leibniz

This weeks reading was very interesting and I think it really made you think on your beliefs of free will and sin. In my opinion sin is created by men and that God only gave us guidelines that we are suppose to follow. This is were free will comes in, we have a choice to do what we believe is good and evil. I think at the end evil is created by man and everyone has their own belief on what evil really is and what sin is.

Lebniz



This weeks reading was an easy read that was well written. Some of the things it spoke about it i really disagree on. God does not create evil, he is the author of all things good. "4. But even granting that God should co-operate in actions only with a general co-operation , or even not at all, at least in this in that are bad , it sufficies , so it is said, yo to inculpate him and to render him the moral cause that nothing comes to pass without his permission." I can agree with this, because everything does by-pass God but evil does not come from him.

leibniz

This weeks reading was somewhat enjoyable. Readings that discuss religion or god normally grab my attention because I have a strong set of believes when it come to that subject. The question is did man create did god? Personally I believe that man created sin with the story of Adam and Eve. Questions like this really make a religious person think and ask questions, atleast for me this is true. This is going to go a topic that i am going to look forward discussing in class and seeing what people have to say.

Leibniz

This reading was definitely one of the better ones that I actually enjoyed reading. It presented some interesting and very debatable topics such as the idea that God created sin. I personally believe that it was the actions of man that created sin. This is the teaching that i grew up with and I whole-heartily agree with it.

Leibniz

Well, this was an interesting reading for sure. I always enjoy reading something discussing God and the creation of sin. Making you ask questions such as, Did God create sin?, or, did Man create sin? It makes you look at your personal beliefs from a different perspective and makes you questions your own faith. This I feel makes you stronger in your faith if you are able to not only debate on its behalf but also debate against it. What would life on Earth be like without sin? I'm not saying that sin is a good thing, but is sin not proof of free will? What would be our purpose if we did not have choices and the ability to choose? I look forward to discussing this topic.

Leibniz - Selections from Theodicy

It bothers me how Leibniz says God has a lot to do with evil and sin, because I was raised to think differently. In point 14 he says that "for it is Nature which cures us rather than medicine." I believe differently. My friend is a christian scientist and they don't believe in using medicine and I've had many discussions about her not being able to take medicine. She says doesn't mind it for the little things like colds but she's said with cancer nature won't be able to heal that, you'd need medicine.  I enjoyed this reading some of the points made sense to me and I disagreed with some, but no one ever has the same views on everything.

leibniz

i enjoyed this reading, although as most people have already said i disagree with him saying God created all evil or sins, simply because evil isn't really a "thing" you can create. people sin because its the opposite of what God created, and your always going to have the opposite choice of something.

Leibniz

I really enjoyed the reading this week. It caused me to really think about the things that were said in the piece. Even though I didn't agree with all of the points in the reading, they did cause me to really try to understand them and reevaluate my opinions based on what was said in the reading. One part in particular that I didn't agree with was the part about God creating sin in the world. I believe that God created a world free of sin, and due to the choices that man made, we now live in a world where we can't escape it. The temptation that we face in the world is a direct cause of our choices, not God's.

Leibniz

I enjoyed reading Leibniz. It was interesting and easy to understand. I specifically was interested in his idea that everything is somehow and someway connected. I find myself sometimes thinking in what ways are we connected with individuals we have never met. I really dislike discussing anything regarding religion or God.  I enjoy reading about it, but I don’t enjoy debating or talking about it. I can agree and disagree with his idea God creates all evil and sin, however, arguing either side is completely pointless in my opinion. Overall I liked the reading. 

Leibniz

This reading was pretty easy for me to understand.  From what I learned was that it said that God gave us a choice to do good or bad.  Basically it depends on the person, but he gave us our freedom to decide.  The one thing I did not agree was how he said that God created evil.  Once again it was our choice to create the sin because God let us make our own choices.  Even though sin is very wrong I believe that it should help make us a better person and we can learn from our mistakes to try and be that perfect person in which God wants us to be.

Leibniz

Personal opinion set aside, I really liked point twelve Leibniz made. Without evil in the world how would we be able to appreciate the good? If we only had good in the world we wouldn't be able to appreciate what that meant. We need the contrast of evil in order to know that good is, well, good.

I didn't understand how he used predestination as an explanation for God. It seems to me you have to believe in God in order to believe in predestination. That argument seemed a little backwards to me, but maybe I read it wrong.

Leibniz

 This was a very interesting reading. He said that god created all evil. I disagree with this completely, God put us on this planet sin free and let us make our own choices. God did not create evil, some of the people he made are creating evil. I couldn't imagine what it would be like living in a perfect world where there was no evil. What I did like about this reading is how he talked about everything being connected; every thought to action connects us to the whole universe. This was very eye opening to read about.

Leibniz

I felt that this weeks reading was incredibly thought provoking, and that is something that I really enjoy.  There is one thing in the reading that I am sure I disagree with, however. I do not think that God created sin for sin's sake and that God is the source for evil. Sin is simply the absence of God, just as darkness is the absence of light. Light did not create the dark, rather, when light is not present darkness is. We were created as people who have the ABILITY to sin, and who sin because we are imperfect. However, we also have free will, and the will to choose God, or choose sin. One thing that made me think was whether sin is necessary in the world. Without sin, would life be boring? Would there be any point to living? I don't think that sin is good and that we NEED it, but again, it gives us the ability to have a choice in the matter. And you know what- I am a Catholic who loves her faith, but I am just going to come right out and say it- sinning can be fun. That's what temptation is. But a life without sin isn't uninteresting. It's just a different kind of fun based on values and morals.

Leibniz

This reading was easy to read but I disagree with it totally. He said that god created all evil also. He created us with a guide on what is right and he gives us the choice to sin or not. There would be no point in creating a world of people where everybody is perfect. Every one is born with the choice to live how they wish, that makes the world more interesting.

Leibniz

I really liked this reading this week. Although I did not agree with all the points he made. I disagree with the idea that god created everything evil. My belief is that god does not do us harm he is there to help and he helped create a world that was free of sins. But if we committed a bad sin he would forgive you for that bad sin. I really liked this reading it made me really think about how people are today.

Leibniz

I feel like Leibniz has a lot of the same theories/thoughts as Tillich. They both are under the impression that all evil is at the fault of God. I totally disagree with both of them in that matter. I think that God gave us the choice to sin, so that we aren't just breathing organisms, but so that we can be our own person and decide for ourselves and it is in our own faith that we should choose the right paths.

Leibniz

I really enjoyed this reading it made me think a lot. Although I would disagree with many parts of it  I found it to be very thoughtfully written and witty the way he is able to relate all things and that all actions are connected. I completely disagree with his idea that God has created all evil, I believe that God created the world for us free of sin and gave us the decision on how we would like to live. He gave us free will to make our own sins but he also forgives us for our sins. God did not create sin but rather imperfect people that are alowed to sin. I dont think that the world is better with sin but it would definitely be different without it because we really wouldnt even be able to think for ourselves, we would almost just be Gods little puppets that have no say but God wanted us to be able to live freely and gave us our own thoughts and opinions.

Leibniz

     I have to disagree with Leibniz when he says that God is responsible for evil and sin. God gave man freedom and because people are free they commit evil and sins, yes. I don't think God planned on people committing evil however. I think God is good and only good.

Leibniz

For the most part I liked this reading. I didn't like the whole God causes sin or is sin thing but that's just because of the way I was raised. However, I did like how he talked about that without sin there really isn't a life to be living. We all our destined to sin, from the time before we are even conceived we've already sinned because it's already known we will sin by God. I also really like how he said everything is connected; every thought to every action connects us into the whole picture that we call the universe. I really like this idea for some reason; it just opens your mind up to a whole new perspective. All in all I did enjoy this reading and I like most of the things it had to say, this article gives you a lot to think about and consider and that's what makes the best articles.

Candide

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what to take away from this reading. So far Candide has a rough life to say the least; getting banished for kissing the Baron's daughter, get sliced up by his own soldiers, losing his girl; Candide seems to be in a life sucking abyss. Every turn Candide takes, he is met with war, abuse, heart-break, and just random misfortunes. But through most these challenges Candide seems to always have a companion by his side, whether it was a mentor, lover, or close friend, someone was with him through most of his struggles. I think what is to be taken away from this is, even though Candide had terrible experiences he always seems optimistic about the world around him.

Candide

I found the first half of this book to be a good read. I enjoyed how it was a story unlike a lot of the other readings. I had a hard time believing what the tutor/philosopher Pangloss would say. Yes, I think it is good to be optimistic, but what he was saying was too much. Pangloss says everything happens for a reason and that evil is necessary in the world for balance. I also thought that the events that happened to the people in the story, Candide, Pangloss, Cunegonde, and the old woman were unlikely. I feel as though the events are over exaggerated to make for a better story and to exaggerate the philosophy of Pangloss. The book was a lot easier to understand with the footnotes given for each chapter. Some of them are for definitions but others refer to real historical figures or events. Overall, I found this reading enjoyable even though I do not agree with the philosophy in it.

Leibniz selections from theodicy

I felt like the main point of this reading was decisions. You have the decision to do good things and to do bad things. It is all correlated to the bible though and how people sin and unknowingly sin. I liked what it said in number eight, "For as a lesser evil is a kind of good, ever so a lesser good is a kind of evil..." It really started to make me think about that just because it was put into a new prospective.
He talks about how we'd be better off with sin than without it because without sin there would be nothing interesting. I can kind of see that on the smaller things that are considered to be sinful but I don't know I think that that statement can't really be true until it's proven, and that will never happen.
It also interested me when he said that nature curses us not medicine. It made me think that he thinks that were destined to be ill not just develope it.
I liked reading this, it made me think a lot.

The Clan

I really enjoyed this reading! I thought it told a great story of a woman and how nuclear bomb testing in Utah has affected her and her family. The thing I most enjoyed about this reading was the vivid imagery as she describes the 10 women walking in the dessert and as the officers arrest and search them to eventually leave them right in the middle of nowhere thinking the women would be upset and have no chance of returning home. But the clan describes that they are already home in the land of their ancestors. It sent chills throughout my entire body.

Clan

The Clan of One Breasted Women was a decent read.  The author clearly makes her protest clear and draws upon the feminine aspects of the planet (eg. mother nature) when she describes/relates her families experience in regards to the nuclear tests to that of the mother earths experiences in regards to the nuclear tests.  Very good feminist piece.

The author shows how she personally protested and struggled against an injustice that was enacted upon her womanhood and as an extension of that, how the injustice was also done to mother nature.

I also noted the correlation she draws between the nuclear testing and her cancer and she states that she can not prove it was from the nuclear testing.  More than likely, the cancer did come from the nuclear testings but, I also noted that her husband had a company that worked around natrual gas and natural gas can also cause cancers.  Just a note, nothing more.

Another note is that she said the men in her family summed up the cancers to "bad genes" in the family.  I am pretty sure she probably put that in the story because of how some men like to speak, often wrongly, for women about a woman's own body like they know better the causes and solutions for women and their bodys' better than a woman themself.  I found that to be kinda funny and purposefully comical put in the story by the author as an underhanded slant attack on mysoginist men that think they know women better than women. haha.  Or, maybe I am just reading a little too far in to the feminist aspect of this story?!?!

the clan

I thought that this was the easiest reading we have had so far. It was interesting to read about the testing of nuclear weapons. I think that it is necessary to test our weapons but we should do it in a place where no one would be affected. I also think that it is cool how we are free to say anything about the government, considering that back in the day it was not acceptable. I am thankful for the things that our government does to keep us protected and the freedoms that they provide us.

The Clan

I felt this reading was fairly easy to comprehend and very interesting. I wasn't aware that the United States had tested nuclear bombs so close to civilization and that so many people were effected by the radiation. It really surprised me that so many generations have been affected by the radiation still. The way the government used Communism to scare people into allowing them to test bombs so close to civilization was not necessary. This reading conveys how we accept almost whatever we are told by the government about past events to be true. Maybe we should start asking more questions about what is really going on and hold the officials more accountable.

The Clan

I liked this reading and find it a perfect time to have this reading assigned to us during breast cancer awareness month. I find it somewhat ridiculous that the circuit court overruled Judge Jenkins ruling. Also, how the supreme court wouldnt review the appeals court decision. I guess it shows the quote
"The King can do no wrong " to be valid. I found it shocking that it took 14 years for Williams mother to get cancer which is how long Howard L. Andrews says it takes for radioactive cancer to become evident. I wouldnt say that the testing of bombs necessarily caused the cancer but it sure didnt help prevent it. Interesting that the government was trying to protect the country by obtaining bombs and testing them but in this case it possibly could of hurt them.

The Clan of the One Breasted Women

Like most of the readings, The Clan of the One Breasted Women, was interesting and easy to comprehend. Reading about the nuclear testing sites was somewhat shocking. I understand the government wants to test weapons before we rely on them, however, a more remote locating to drop the bombs could have saved many lives. The actions made during and after World War II were critical for the United States. Individuals could not speak out at the government as freely as they can now. Regarding the reading about women’s rights, I believe women are just as equal as men. I do not believe all women should be stereotyped to be financially dependent or have any other stigma attached due to the portion that does. 

The Second Sex

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this reading. I feel like she was trying to defend women but at the same time she belittled them.
Being a woman now and having to read things like this make me happy to know I don't have to deal with things like this. If someone came up to me today and said that I wasn't considered high enough to be a human being, just the "other", I'd be pretty pissed.
Simone DeBeauvoir talks about how women are going to be considered "other" until they are able to unite and become "we." I saw where she was coming from when she said that. Unlike everyone else who had other revolutions or similar things, women had always been looked to as the other.
She also talked about how women will be slaves if they are married because all that they've always done. I think that might have applied back then but not now. Women have evolved so much within the last hundred years.

The Clan of One-Breasted Women

This weeks reading was very interesting and a good read. It was a story about a woman who after several deaths in her family speaks out about the government and how she doesn't approve of their practices. This reading was entertaining, informal, and encouraging. It showed how it is okay for you to not always agree with the government and if you feel strongly about something speak on it. Questioning the government is not bad or unjust, to me it is a great way of expressing your concern for your country.

The clan of the one-breasted women.

This reading, much to my , was very easy to digest compared to previous ones. It follows the story of a Mormon family and it's women who have suffered unusually prevalent cases of breast cancer. Hence the name "One-breasted". At first the cause is unknown and is assumed to be hereditary. However, the narration later learns of government nuclear tests very close to her home, where the radiation would've been well within rage to have negative effects. Eventually, the community takes action and takes the United States of America to court for compensation of the damages done from secret nuclear tests during the 50's. 14 of the 27 cases get awarded compensation, however, the case is later dropped and no compensation is paid because the causes of the cancers cannot be proven as fact they were caused by radiation from the tests. Because it is in the Mormon culture, especially for women, to not cause strife or 'make waves' no more legal action is taken against the government. But these women know they were. According to studies, it takes around 14 years for long term results of radiation poisoning to be safely determined as so. That is exactly when the narration notices the damages.  Eventually these women cannot take silence any longer and decide to express their disapproval by visiting a town where they shouldn't have been, at the strangest of hours creating a ruckus. They were arrested and, as a cruel joke, left out in the desert to return home on foot. However the women embraced the punishment and were proud of their actions, speaking out at injustice.

The Clan of One-Breasted Women

Without a doubt, this was an interesting reading. The period after World War 2 was a very critical time in our nation. With the government trying people who spoke out against the government or some of its activities was completely unacceptable and continues to be. Our freedom of speech was infringed upon during this time and should never be forgotten in order to not repeat it.

The Clan of One-Breasted Women

I enjoyed reading this because it wasn't as long and hard to comprehend like some of the other previous readings. It is also interesting and sad to read the things that their family/friends had to deal with. While I was reading about the Nuclear testing site, I was just thinking to myself what if something like that was created near where we lived? Another thing that I liked about reading this was the way that it was laid out, which made it really easy to follow. So far, this is one of my favorite readings in the class.

The Clan of the One-Breasted Woman

I enjoyed this reading a lot more than the other ones so far. I thought that it was one of the better ones because it was modern and easy to understand. I have heard about the bomb testings before and that they have caused cancer. I liked how this was a first hand experience of what happened to a particular family in that time. The part I didn't quite follow was the last dream about the women walking through the town and the desert. I thought that part was a little strange. I did however enjoy the beginning of this reading. I think that the bomb testing was wrong to do in the first place. They should have tested somewhere they knew no one would be. It was wrong of the government to test there when they knew that there would be harmful side effects. Their actions cost the lives of many people and many generations. If I lived there I would want to take action against the government because they had basically sentenced some of the people living there a death wish.

The Clan of One-Breasted Women

I was so excited to have a reading that I didn't lose focus on. I actually stayed with the reading the whole time and it was really interesting. I think that it helped a lot due to it being in third person. It helped me feel connected to the reading. I thought it was awesome the way that they chose to stand up for the government! I thought it was really crappy that government thought that some people's lives weren't as important as others and they chose to do with them as they pleased because they thought that they were helping out more people than they were hurting. Not cool!

The Clan of One-Breasted Women

I really enjoyed this reading in many ways.  First it was a real easy read and second I enjoyed reading a part of history that was from Utah.  I am not Mormon, but I have lived there for two years and have a Mormon background understanding of some of the culture so reading this was adding to my knowledge.  I liked how the reading was in first person because it helped me understand the emotions she was going through and was interesting enough I wanted to keep reading.  What fascinated me throughout the reading was the nuclear testing that they did and how it effected the health of the people living in Utah.  Its one thing I never knew about living there.  I thought that this reading was really great well written out.  

Vindication of the RIghts of Women

Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women was a good read I believe that some of what she had to say was true about women being financially dependent on men. I personally would not go as far as saying that it is legal prostitution, but I do believe that women should be independent. I think that women can be just as successful as men. Some stop there self's from being brilliant because sometimes we are afraid to do more because society puts a cap on what women are "supposed" to do. Wollstonecraft was right on point when she talked about the differences between sexes should be dropped. I think we still have that today like in some jobs women get paid less than men, and that sickens me because if a women is doing the same job as the man then they should get the same amount of money. Even though it is still a battle for women, the rights of women have gotten better as in our right to vote and our roles in society. Now women are in the working force and not at home as much. We see more and more men being stay-at-home dads. Overall I like this reading and I do agree that the differences between men and women should be abolished.

Clan of the One-Breasted Women

I really liked this week's reading. It was easy for me to follow, and for once, I was never lost once throughout the entire story. I liked the message that the reading had that we should not just blindly trust our government and follow what they say with no objections. If we are not aware of what is happening within our country's government we are making ourselves completely vulnerable to the negative affects of the choices they make. This story underlines how questioning your government doesn't mean that there is unrest, it simply means that the people the government is controlling are being aware of what is happening within their own country.

The Clan of the One-Breasted Women

I enjoyed the reading this week. It was one of the easier readings. I found the readings very interesting. It was neat to read about other countries government and how things are done and how it differs from we were now. I thought it was bold of them to question their government. The government didn’t seem to mind that they questioned their actions.

The Clan of the One-Breasted Women

I definitely think this was my favorite reading we've done so far. It got the point across very quickly that you can't always trust your government and might question their choices. Its sad to think that our government didn't really care about the lives of the people living in Utah closest to the testing site for the atomic bomb. A majority of my dads side of the family is Mormon and they lived in Utah for awhile, so its sad to think that some of my own family could have been affected then. If I were there at the time I would be devastated losing so many family members to cancer when it was the governments fault. I like how in the end of the reading Terry ends up standing up for what she believes in by protesting.

Clan of the One-Breasted Women

I would have to say that this was probably my favorite reading that we have done so far. Not only was it fairly easy to read, but it was something that I had some interest in. I felt that it was smart for it to be written in first person because it gave me a sense of what was going on, as well as the social and family implications. It has a lot of relation to what we do in this class because we are being taught to not blindly follow authority, but to question our government constantly to make sure that what is going on is what is best for everybody in the country. When they said that the area around the testing sites was "virtually uninhabited", they were basically diminishing the lives of those few people that lived there. To the government at the time, the live of those people were less important than keeping our country safe and the potential safety that those bombs provided for the rest of our country. This is where we have to evaluate the value of individuals lives. Is it ok to sacrifice the safety of a few to provide safety for many? Who has the right to choose whose life has more value than another? I think the right thing to do would be to relocate these people or provide some sort of protection, rather than arrogantly say that there was no health risks involved.

“In the first place, the opinion in favour of the present system, which entirely subordinates the weaker sex to the stronger, rests upon theory only; for there never has been trial made of any other” this quote was one of the main things that stuck out early in the “on the subjugation of women” because it is a straight forward statement which almost sums up the entire paragraph that it is in. I think somebody could write an essay on just this quote alone because even in todays society we still struggle with sexism. I recently had to read an article for my sociology class that not only talks about sexism, but racism in modern day jobs such as target or wal-mart, and I believe that sexism and racism are still present in modern day culture.

The Clan of the One-Breasted Women

      I liked this reading because is is very easy to follow. It is interesting to me learning about a time period in my own country where questioning the government was such a bad thing. It would have been hard for me to accept an absolute authority and to follow it blindly. It's unbelievable that there were bomb testings being held so close to the those who inhabited Utah. It sounds like it would have been extremely dangerous living conditions.

Clan of the One-Breasted Women

I'd heard of this reading before, but I'd never gotten around to reading it, and I'm glad this class finally made me. Even though I'm not Mormon and haven't had the experiences the author did, I can relate with being told not to question something. My parents are military and very old fashioned, and so questioning the government has been such a huge taboo for so long I feel odd even suggesting one could. I know this sentiment doesn't end with me; most of my friends feel the same way, and whether or not that's good, I'm sure it extends past all of us as well. That said, I greatly value my independence, and can understand the value of questioning authority. Very interesting read

Animal Farm

 I read Animal Farm back in 10th grade. I really enjoyed reading it again because I love how George Orwell used talking animals on a farm and related them to Napoleon, Stalin, Snowball, and Leon Trotsky. In the end, the moral is that if you give power and responsibility to only a few, it will only hold up for so long before "absolute power, corrupts absolutely". When someone has too much power they will begin to abuse the privilege to gain more power.  Reading about the different animals and there characters throughout the story made my understanding of what is was like during the Russian Revolution a lot better. I look forward to talking more about Animal Farm in class on Tuesday.

                                                        The Clan of One-Breasted women
    This by far was one of my favorite reading so far! Through out the reading i didn't not find myself bored, or extremely confused which is always nice. One of my favorite parts in the reading was that it is okay to question what society says, it's okay to question what is wrong and right. Why it is right or wrong. When i was reading this it reminded me of The Appeal to the young,  because if we as young people are not carefully we will not have our own opinion we won't have a voice about what matters to us.

Clan of the One-Breasted Women

This is, by far, my favorite of our readings so far. I love history honestly, and anything to do with the 20th century; the 1950s was definitely a scary time for all modern cultures. The two super powers of the world, the United States Russia were on the brink of war and threatened to level all of Europe with nuclear war. With this threat of war, came fear and not just any fear, the type that makes people question themselves. One part of this reading really resonated with me, " McCarthyism was rampant. Ike was it and the Cold
War was hot. If you were against nuclear testing, you were for a Communist regime." If you even questioned the nuclear testing going on in the contiguous United States your neighbor could say you were making remarks downing the nuclear testing and that person could be arrested for suspected Communism. Crazy right? A person could be concerned for their health, question the governments actions, and be arrested for it. I think these people were way to quiet about what was happening to them, the government was literally killing it's own people. I don't think we really understood the full effects of nuclear testing then, but as soon as people starting getting cancer in the areas it seems the government would have stopped it, right? Fear drove the government to kill it's own people, and arrest anyone who spoke out against it, but I am always told the ends justify the means. But is that end worth the means? Is having nuclear deterrents worth killing citizens, I think not.

the clan of the one breasted women

I really enjoyed reading this, I think it is my favorite reading we've done so far. I thought it was a pretty easy read to understand and also very relatable. I found one of the main points of the reading to be to question society and don't just go along with things and accept things that you don't believe in just because its the easiest thing to do. Standing up for yourself and your beliefs is a huge aspect of being part of a community because if everyone just followed the rule of one person and did whatever they said things would be far too chaotic. Everyone should be able to voice what they think is "right" and be able to live in that way, as long it is legal and doesn't hurt anyone else. It is impossible to imagine where we would be today if someone had not of stood up for something and taken a risk because that is the only way that we can further evolve and develop.

The Clan of One-Breasted Women

I found this article very interesting to read. It was an easy read, but what it had to say made it a sad reading. From what I got out of the text is how unfair and cruel are government can be. Our government doesn't always like to take responsibility for their actions, especially when those actions are killing people. They seem to believe that their actions do not have any direct result on the people of America and well if it's to help us win a war then the loss is worth it isn't it? I don't agree with how our government thinks at all times, but then again who does. I just think after reading this article that maybe the least they could do would be to apologize to the people for ruining their homes, destroying their lives and families, and killing all the animals within a certain radius. Cancer is a serious thing and the fact that the Supreme Court rejected their appeal made it even worse. While I found this article interesting to read, it made me like our government less and less.

Communist Manifesto

I didn't like Communist Manifesto at all. I don't agree with the statement that a capitalistic society would ultimately end in destruction. Marx seems to be a little arrogant to me. I also found it interesting the whole description of the caste system of society. kinda like if you were born into a poor family theres no possibilities to get out of that part of society your grouped into. I honestly don't believe in that system because i mean proof is there in that some of our representatives came from nothing and they are not represent us as a whole in our country.

Communist Manifesto

Basically what I got out of this reading is that Marx is frustrated that people see communism as malicious and is trying to make public their true beliefs and intentions in order to change their opinion. All other European powers have decided against communism and are working to fight it together, while these communists have gathered to write this Manifesto explaining everything. He then goes into it explaining some complicated class structures and how they were affected or ruined when a revolution would happen. I was pretty confused by all of this. Then he discussed the effect this had on the proletariat. He says that this was the majority and they fit the needs of the majority. I suppose all of this makes sense. The lower middle class were the majority and can survive as long as there is work to be done. They end up overthrowing the bourgeoisie because they became poorer and weaker to the point where their status deteriorated. The next few sections go into how they have affected each other and how communism is tied into the past. I think it’s interesting he suggests some opposition to communism even though he is trying to persuade people that communism is the way to go. Although I am against communism, I like what Marx said about not being able to take away something that doesn’t exist. Marx is certainly good at responding to criticism. Overall, this reading was pretty confusing, especially the ending sections. The length made me disinterested and I found my mind drifting as I read it.