Ron Luellen’s Humanities 101 Blog 2 Re-write

 

Ron Luellen's Humanities 101 Blog 2 Re-write

2. Why are so many people uncomfortable with the idea that many problems don't have a single solution? Give an example of a current controversy in which there are different factions arguing that theirs is the one RIGHT answer and explain why there is in reality no one right answer to the issue.

I think so many people today are uncomfortable with the idea that problems don't have a single solution is because in our society we are groomed to believe there is only one opinion that is correct and that is the one that is popular with our group. Take a look at this from the popular American perspective. We believe the immigration issue in most of our minds is clear. Immigration is illegal and we should send all illegal immigrants back were they came from. The problem with that premise is that we would be taking for granted the perspective of the immigrant. Immigrants have reasons for wanting to come here. They may have families who are starving and struggling to survive were they live. They see the only way to support the survival of this family is to break the law of this foreign country were prosperity lives. I would like to discuss this issue that is near but maybe not so dear to all of us who live in Arizona or along our countries Southwest border: this issue of immigration. There are several sides to this debate. One side might agues the law: that it is illegal for someone to enter this country and take up residency without being processed through a set process of legal immigration. There is another side who argues that it is the right of all people to enter this country as the immigrants who arrived on boats from Europe to seek to obtain the Freedom and Prosperity of this country for themselves and their posterity. There is also the opinion that students who were brought here as illegal immigrants at an early age (under 16) should be allowed to apply for citizenship and be allowed to stay here and go to college, as a lot of the students are bright youngsters who are valedictorians of their high school class or gifted writers or even athletes, there is a bill currently before congress that would allow this to happen. This debate makes so many people uncomfortable that there is really no true right or wrong answer to this question. All sides have valid and invalid points. But none seem ready to compromise that the others also have strong arguments. The argument to me is like the argument of religion. No one truly knows the existence of God or a divine Entity, but they will argue to the death of the issue. I have tried to look at the immigration issue from all sides. Yes it is unlawful for people to enter this country and take up residency without documentation but most of these people are just seeking better lives for their families, but how are we to know that these are families and not cut throat criminals who are crossing our borders, and if they are coming here to live shouldn't they pay taxes and be subject to military service as the rest of us are. This debate will surely drag on for years because in my opinion there are valid points on all sides but no clear cut right or wrong answer to the questions posed by any side. This issue has so many varying degrees of opinions. There are so many individual aspects to consider when deciding whether to grant citizenship to these people who have entered this country illegally. Some people think we should possible annex Mexico so that the people who live there could become tax paying citizens in our country and then there would be no borders. There are also those that say legalization of the drug marijuana would curve the activity of the Mexican cartel drugs gangs that make this illegal activity along out borders so dangerous. I believe this is a question that has no right or wrong answer. My belief is we must strengthen our security on our borders for safeties sake. I believe people entering our country illegally must be retained and each situation be handled on a case by case bases. Criminals who are come here in support of crime should be dealt with harshly but hard working families should be allowed to apply for citizenship and become tax paying members of our society. I would also not be against the legalization of marijuana in order to curve drug activity along our borders. Just look at the new laws Arizona has passed legalizing medical pot, true legalization is coming and it should help with this issue.

In summation: There is no right answer because there are so many solutions that would be plausible, I believe in this issue we must as a people put this issue before the voters to decide on which course of action should be taken to resolve the vast number of problems and burdens associated with this issue.

 

http://www.allmediany.com/details_news_article.php?news_artid=230

 

 

Check out these videos supporting several sides to this debate. No side wants to recognize there are right answers to this question on all sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYjKxywzvU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HusudWrQoEw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koNLt55I2uA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZdBlzhc91c

 

 

Fahrenheit 451 Ron Luellen’s Response Humanities 101

While most people consider Fahrenheit 451 to be a book on the dangers of censorship and the destruction of knowledge, Bradbury himself identifies the ability of technology to replace reading and critical thinking as the dominant theme of the novel. http://www.laweekly.com/2007-05-31/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted/ Over fifty years after his book was published; do you think Bradbury was right? Has television and the Internet destroyed Americans' ability to read and think critically about ideas? Could we be heading toward a time when the authorities' burn books for our own good, and the population allows it to happen?

 

Reading the above link reveals that Bradbury truly wrote this book about the fear of television making the reading of novels obsolete. The true enemy in Fahrenheit 451 was not the government but the people. The mindless people who were so interested in instant gratification they believed books to be evil because they took too much time and focus to receive gratification. It seems that Bradbury may have been partially right. Novels are obviously less popular than condensed books like the Readers Digest have become more popular. Articles on the Web are obviously more read than novels so this lends to some truth in modern Media taking the place of a good book. In Fahrenheit 451 Montag's wife Mildred watches TV and interacts with her family on the TV walls which hang on three of the four walls of their living room, isn't this strangely close to the flat panel TV entertainment centers we have in our living rooms today. This lends its self to some truth in Bradbury's assumptions of what life would be like in our modern world. I think that Fahrenheit 451 is the exact polar opposite of the last book we read in this class "Everything Bad is good for you". In Steven Johnson's book he concludes that Modern pop culture, TV watching, games and the internet are making us smarter due to the increased reasoning skills involved in following these increasingly difficult story lines. In Fahrenheit 451 Montag is part of a society were instant gratification is a must and rational thinking is a bad thing. I think the truth actually lies some where in between these two extreme points of view. In response to Mr. Johnson book "Everything Bad is Good for You" I do believe that our world is becoming increasingly difficult due to our technology and being able to master this new technology must be improving certain aspects of our intelligence, on the flip side I don't believe we will discover some life saving cure for cancer by playing a realty based video game. In response to Mr. Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" we are as a society killing old practices like reading the daily newspaper. The large newspapers in cities around the country are in danger of going bankrupt. The internet news and information is killing the old practice of reading the morning news. On the flip side of that I don't believe that the reading of the classic novels is being killed by TV. As the article says movies and TV are promoting classic Novels as The Movie poster of Fahrenheit 451 reveals. I do not think we could ever be heading toward a time when books are being burned. Our society is ran be educated people. These people would never allow the burning of books. We as a society are more educated than we were in the 1950's when Fahrenheit 451 was written. With a society that sees a need for more education and a society that is more and more accepting of the differences in its people, I do not ever foresee our society burning books or accepting the practice of burning books. The world literacy society and organizations like this and the wealthy educated people who support societies like these will never allow public book burnings.
http://www.worldliteracyfoundation.org/

So my thought is society is changing with technology and we are increasing our intelligence with the evolution of this technology. We are however loosing some of the interest in classic literature works, but there will always be respect for these literary classics and there will never be a time when we burn books publicly.

Watch this video clip from Fahrenheit 451

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghTJCaq9bcI&feature=related

 

Watch this video clip which shows we need each other and books to become educated for a brighter future:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ii2qq34iB8

 

 

Ron Luellen, Humanities 101Blog Post 2

 

 

Ron Luellen, Humanities 101Blog Post 2

2. Why are so many people uncomfortable with the idea that many problems don't have a single solution? Give an example of a current controversy in which there are different factions arguing that theirs is the one RIGHT answer and explain why there is in reality no one right answer to the issue.

I would like to discuss an issue that is near but maybe not so dear to all of us who live in Arizona are along our countries Southwest border: the issue of immigration. There are two complete opposite sides to this debate. One side agues the law: that it is illegal for someone to enter this country and take up residency without being processed through a set process of legal immigration. There is another side who argues that it is the right of all people to enter this country as the immigrants who arrived on boats from Europe to seek to obtain the Freedom and Prosperity of this country for themselves and their posterity. This debate makes so many people uncomfortable that there is really no true right or wrong answer to this question. Each side has valid and invalid points. But neither side seems ready to compromise that the other side also has strong arguments. This argument to me is like the argument of religion. No one truly knows the existence of God or a divine Entity, but they will argue to the death of the issue. I have tried to look at the immigration issue from both sides. Yes it is unlawful for people to enter this country and take up residency without documentation but most of these people are just seeking better lives for their families, but how are we to know that these are families and not cut throat criminals who are crossing our borders, and if they are coming here to live shouldn't they pay taxes and be subject to military service as the rest of us are. This debate will surely drag on for years because in my opinion there are valid points on both sides but no clear cut right or wrong answer to the questions posed by each side. Check out these videos supporting each side of this debate. Neither side wants to recognize there are right answers to this question on both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYjKxywzvU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HusudWrQoEw

 

Ron Luellen Humanities 101 Peer Review

Peer Review of: How Technology has affected everyone

1. In one sentence, summarize the author's conclusion
   

The conclusion of this piece would be although the internet is comprised of good and evil, it's up to us individually to see it's used for good.

1. How many premises does the author provide to support his or her conclusion? Summarize each premise in one sentence.
   

   The other points to the evil of the internet being used for scams which steal identity, he backs this up with the creation of the billion dollars a year virus protection industry. The good is pointed out in the fact that information in e-mails and Google searches is at your finger tips.
   

2. What assumptions does the author make? Summarize each assumption in one sentence.
   

   He assumes that the internet is both good and evil.
   

3. In general, do you find the argument valid? (Please note that this question does not ask if you agree with the author or not.) Explain, in four or five sentences, why or why not.
   

   I think the argument is valid. He points to all that is good as in students using the internet for valuable research. He also points out that that the internet has created thieves. These thieves's are the ones we all despise. The ones who ruin are lives by stealing our identity.
   

4. In general, do you find the structure of the argument clear? Explain, in four or five sentences, why or why not.
   

   Actually I found d the argument unclear at first. I agreed with each and every point about the internet as factual. I was unclear until the last sentence what the point was. This was good however it was written as a mystery till the end novel, which I did enjoy.
   

5. Do the non-textual elements of the blog contribute to the argument? Explain your answer, yes or no, in four or five sentences.
   

   I would say the non-textual aspects did not contribute to the argument. The piece had no pictures only text. I did appreciate the argument however. I also agree with this argument. This piece although good seems to be merely a matter of opinion with no visual aides or outside links to help validate the claims of the argument.
   

Peer Review of: I'm Just Trying to Make It

1. In one sentence, summarize the author's conclusion
   

   The point is that even though the internet is useful we must not let its overuse turn us into idle useless people, or allow us to become cyber bullies.
   

2. How many premises does the author provide to support his or her conclusion? Summarize each premise in one sentence.
   

   The use of the internet is helpful as when it helped him personally talk to family members in Europe while he had no cell phone service.
   

3. What assumptions does the author make? Summarize each assumption in one sentence.
   

   He assumes that if we are not careful the internet will turn us into a lazy society.
   

4. In general, do you find the argument valid? (Please note that this question does not ask if you agree with the author or not.) Explain, in four or five sentences, why or why not.
   

   I think the argument is valid. We are teaching less and less soft skills such as writing letters to our children. I think we are making a mistake if we don't continue to put a high value on this type education. I also think that we as a society must come to a solution to stop cyber bullies from wrecking so many young lives.
   

5. In general, do you find the structure of the argument clear? Explain, in four or five sentences, why or why not.
   

   The argument was unclear till the very last of the piece. I like this as it keeps your curiosity till the end. I did however think the structure was a little off. The points made were valid but seemed to be put out in no particular order. I do agree however with all points of the argument.
   

6. Do the non-textual elements of the blog contribute to the argument? Explain your answer, yes or no, in four or five sentences.
   

   I would say the pictures go well with the piece in visual aide to the part about social networking sites. The web page on internet social disorders was very informative and added to the part about us not being able to go very long without the internet. I loved the video link it adds to the point of us as a society becoming more and more docile and more and more hooked on this internet thing. I will agree in the argument of this piece, all the points are valid points, with sources to help validate the claims.
   

Ron Luellen, Humanities 101Blog Post 1

Given that the U.S. economy is based on consumer spending, is it patriotic to shop?

Given all the things that have happened to our country since Sept. 11, 2001, I would say being patriotic is an

important thing. The resent scandal involving our large banks, mortgages and the down turn of the housing

market would lead you believe in order to help turn our economic situation as a country we need to be

spending money in order to spark our economy. I would beg to differ. I wish repairing our economic situation

was as easy as simply spending more money this simply will not help. The problem with our economic situation

goes back in our countries history to when our countries banks created the monetary system that we have used

for almost the entire history of our society. What your government in the United States doesn't want you to know

is that the entire monetary system depends on our indebtedness to the banking system its self. As long as we

are indebt the system itself survives. The system would completely collapse if we were to pay off our debt to

the large banks. Our government actually controls the world economy by not only keeping our ordinary citizens

indebt to our banks, but also keeps the government of the world's third world countries indebt to our banks.

Some of you may have been told that less than 5% of the worlds population controls more than 90% of the

worlds wealth. You may not know that how are government working along with our large banks actually create

our countries money out of thin air. Something else you may not know is that in order to keep poor countries

poor and indebt to our large bank the CIA of our government will actually assassinate leaders who try to clash

with this monetary system. I am a supporter of our world's economy replacing our current monetary system with

a resource based economy. I know you may think I am crazy, people would work if they didn't need money to

buy things. The truth is with the technology and resources that our world currently posses we could eliminate

the need to work at manual meaningless jobs that or be replaced by technology even with the monetary system.

You might also be amazed that we could virtually eliminate crime. If there was no money no need to work for

money why would one steal our commit other crimes that have to do with wealth or lack of. I need you to now

check out the following web sites:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

 

Upcoming Essay

I am curious as to what the first essay we are to post here is to be about. What is the subject of this first essay? Help?

Blogging at 44!!!!

Look mom no hands!!!!!